Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Crushed Silicon Triples Life of Li-Ion Batteries In the Lab

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the get-me-a-hammer dept.

Power 123

derekmead writes "Batteries rule everything around us, which makes breakthroughs a big deal. A research team at Rice says they have produced a nice jump: by using a crushed silicon anode in a lithium-ion battery, they claim to have nearly tripled the energy density of current li-ion designs. Engineer Sibani Lisa Biswal and research scientist Madhuri Thakur reported in Nature's Scientific Reports (it has yet to be published online) that by taking porous silicon and crushing it, they were able to dramatically decrease the volume required for anode material. Silicon has long been looked at as an anode material because it holds up to ten times more lithium ions than graphite, which is most commonly used commercially. But it's previously been difficult to create a silicon anode with enough surface area to cycle reliably. Silicon also expands when it's lithiated, making it harder to produce a dense anode material. After previously testing a porous silicon 'sponge,' the duo decided to try crushing the sponges to make them more compact. The result is a new battery design that holds a charge of 1,000 milliamp hours per gram through 600 tested charge cycles of two hours charging, two hours discharging. According to the team, current graphite anodes can only handle 350 mAh/g."

cancel ×

123 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Jesus Christ, it's a Li-ion... (5, Funny)

InvisibleClergy (1430277) | about 2 years ago | (#41855965)

get back in the car, this Safari is over!

Re:Jesus Christ, it's a Li-ion... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41856105)

Wake me when you see Lion-O.

Re:Jesus Christ, it's a Li-ion... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41856111)

The car is a Tesla! They're already inside!!!

Re:Jesus Christ, it's a Li-ion... (1, Troll)

ajlitt (19055) | about 2 years ago | (#41857175)

If it's a Fisker Karma there's fire inside too.

Re:Jesus Christ, it's a Li-ion... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41857981)

The next version of OSX is going to be Fire Lion.

Re:Jesus Christ, it's a Li-ion... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41856153)

But what if I drive a GMC Safari?

First Post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41855979)

Slashdot anniversary "parties" were a contrived viral marketing scam.
 
  -- Ethanol-fueled

I went to one (1)

frovingslosh (582462) | about 2 years ago | (#41856149)

You're rather off-topic. But I just wanted to say I went to one. However, I was the only one who came!

Re:I went to one (2, Funny)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | about 2 years ago | (#41856181)

Jacking it in the bathroom is nothing to be proud of.

Re:I went to one (2, Funny)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#41856261)

However, I was the only one who came!

I'm happy for you that you had a good time, but how many people were there?

Re:I went to one (2, Funny)

Nadaka (224565) | about 2 years ago | (#41856343)

If you are the only one who came, you need to be a more attentive and generous lover.

Re:First Post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41857319)

Now that Dice has taken over, perhaps they'd consider unbanning you?

Re:First Post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41858045)

http://slashdot.org/faq [slashdot.org]

Do you ban people from Slashdot?

Occasionally we ban IPs from which we see abuse, or disallow accounts from specific actions (such as posting or submitting stories) in response to spam, persistent flamebait, etc. If this happens unfairly to you, please read How do I get an IP Unbanned. These bans are relatively rare, but necessary when specific users or IPs disrupt service for others.
Why is my IP banned?

If your IP is banned, it's probably because one of these is true:

        Your IP has been used to perform a denial of service attack (or the accidental equivalent) against Slashdot.
        Your IP was used to post comments that break Slashdot's rendering.
        You're using a proxy server used by someone who did one of those things.

How do I get an IP unbanned?

Email banned@slashdot.org. Be sure to specify the IP itself, your user ID, and any other pertinent information. (If you're connecting through a proxy server, you might need to have the admin contact us instead.)

I'll believe it when I see it for sale (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41856075)

Lithium battery developments come almost as fast as "new cure for cancer"...and few of them get out of the lab.

Re:I'll believe it when I see it for sale (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41857007)

Yeah! That's the slashdot spirit I'm looking for!!!! Gee whiz I can't buy one at 7/11 today so it's all a pile of bullshit!!!

Thanks for confirming for me, once again, the incredible lack of vision that makes up the slashdot audience!

GO TEAM GLASS HALF EMPTY!!!!!

America!!!!!

But...it can never replace gasoline. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41856093)

As we know from recent experience, Lithium is flammable, and something flammable, even explosive, can NEVER replace Gasoline, which is safe and has never burned anybody.

Surely they realize the futility of their methods, and we can go back to our safe and harmless internal combustion engines?

Re:But...it can never replace gasoline. (1)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | about 2 years ago | (#41856205)

As we know from recent experience, Hydrogen is flammable, and something flammable, even explosive, can NEVER replace Gasoline, which is safe and has never burned anybody. Surely they realize the futility of their methods, and we can go back to our safe and harmless internal combustion engines?

FTFY

Re:But...it can never replace gasoline. (2)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 2 years ago | (#41856475)

As we know from recent experience, Hydrogen is flammable, and something flammable, even explosive, can NEVER replace Gasoline, which is safe and has never burned anybody. Surely they realize the futility of their methods, and we can go back to our safe and harmless internal combustion engines?

FTFY

Give it some time... The Universal Ingredient Label [xkcd.com]

Re:But...it can never replace gasoline. (1)

Tough Love (215404) | about 2 years ago | (#41858907)

Letting your sarcasm go whoosh for a moment...

The energy density [wikipedia.org] of a lithium-ion battery is currently about 1/6th that of gasoline and this improvement will take it up to nearly 1/3rd. But of course, gasoline isn't recharable. And the energy density of gasoline is highly unlikely to improve further, while batteries certainly will. So it is no exaggeration to say that this development basically seals the deal for electricity vs gasoline. My next car will most certainly be all electric, and it will be a beast.

Re:But...it can never replace gasoline. (1)

Tough Love (215404) | about 2 years ago | (#41858923)

Excuse me... "will take it up to nearly one half".

Re:But...it can never replace gasoline. (1)

sodul (833177) | about 2 years ago | (#41862007)

We should keep the overall efficiency of the fuel and the engine in mind. The traditional gazoline engines only have a 30%to 40% efficiency in the best case (40% to 50% for diesel), while electrical engines are usually over 90%. Add to that the electrical car can get energy back when breaking while it is pure loss for gasoline, and you have now an electrical car that has a longer range than a gasoline car.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premium_efficiency [wikipedia.org]

Re:But...it can never replace gasoline. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41860895)

Letting your sarcasm go whoosh for a moment...

The energy density [wikipedia.org] of a lithium-ion battery is currently about 1/6th that of gasoline and this improvement will take it up to nearly 1/3rd. But of course, gasoline isn't recharable. And the energy density of gasoline is highly unlikely to improve further, while batteries certainly will. So it is no exaggeration to say that this development basically seals the deal for electricity vs gasoline. My next car will most certainly be all electric, and it will be a beast.

It's a nice development, but keep in mind that they haven't proven the reliability of this design yet. Can it match the current charge and discharge rates, and number of recharge cycles of standard anode technology?

Not online?!?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41856107)

'It has yet to be published online.' what is this the stone age?

Re:Not online?!?!? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41856197)

No, it's just the Obama administration, you know, the one that promised to publish bills on the WH website for 3 days before he signed them.

Re:Not online?!?!? (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 2 years ago | (#41857145)

I love every fourth fall.

this is getting old (4, Insightful)

frovingslosh (582462) | about 2 years ago | (#41856119)

In recent years I've read, right here on Slashdot, about a couple of new li-on breakthroughs that we were told would be giving us 10x improvements, And at least one was claimed to be easily applied to current manufacturing techniques. So why should I believe this? And why should I get excited about a 3X "improvement" when we;ve already been told about 10X improvements?

Re:this is getting old (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#41856203)

If you want to only hear about consumer products go somewhere else.

This is slashdot.

Re:this is getting old (2)

SomePgmr (2021234) | about 2 years ago | (#41857545)

To the credit of whoever submitted the summary, this one was explicit about, "Something worked well in a lab", instead of the usual, "Your Batteries Will Soon Be 3x's Better!"

Re:this is getting old (1)

Tough Love (215404) | about 2 years ago | (#41858943)

This one gives me the sense it will be rapidly commercialized.

Re:this is getting old (1)

LodCrappo (705968) | about 2 years ago | (#41856401)

10 x 3 = 30

Re:this is getting old (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41856837)

Actually (10 * underpants) * 3 == profit. Duh.

Re:this is getting old (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41856665)

There's several areas which are ripe for improvement in batteries.

1) Power density.
2) Recharge cycles.
3) Charge time.
4) Charge efficiency.
5) Shelf drain.

Even if a certain technology gives a 10x improvement on one of those, it may turn out to have a negative impact on one (or more) of the others, and therefore not be worth marketing.

Example:
My new battery technology improves cuts charge time in half! It also cuts power density by a factor of 3. In certain, specific scenarios it might still be worth using one of these new batteries, but in general, it's won't be.

Re:this is getting old (2)

Tough Love (215404) | about 2 years ago | (#41859055)

6) Resisting catching fire and exploding [dailycaller.com]

Re:this is getting old (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 2 years ago | (#41856849)

Because this is how we improved Carbon-Zinc and Alkaline dramatically.

Re:this is getting old (2)

PRMan (959735) | about 2 years ago | (#41857017)

Laptops today have around 5-6 hours of battery life. Even 5 years ago, 2 1/2 hours was a long time. So, I'm seeing that several of these technologies have helped a great deal.

Re:this is getting old (3, Insightful)

Guspaz (556486) | about 2 years ago | (#41857179)

Part of it is advancements in batteries, but the other part is improvements in power consumption. Five years ago, LED backlights were rare, and CFL backlights were common. Today, I'm not sure if you could even find a CFL backlight in a notebook. LEDs are a bunch more power efficient than CFLs, and the backlight has always been one of if not the largest consumer of power on average in a notebook. Even when the notebook isn't doing any other work, it needs to keep the screen lit up for the user to see what's on it.

Re:this is getting old (1)

jkflying (2190798) | about 2 years ago | (#41857851)

What we actually need to do is compare old battery packs to new ones, that's the only thing which will give us reliable density improvements. Looking at all of the other improvements doesn't actually affect the physical density of the battery, which is what this technology (and the previous "breakthroughs") claim to achieve. Most laptops still come with in-a-metal-tube battery cells, which are much heavier and have big air gaps that don't need to be there. Compare this to your cellphone battery and you'll see what I mean. Getting rid of those "can" batteries is going to be the first step to making battery packs smaller, lighter and higher density.

Re:this is getting old (1)

Guspaz (556486) | about 2 years ago | (#41858673)

That's not really the case for a lot of laptops though. Any tablet convertible, any ultrabook, any macbook, any Chromebook, anything with an integrated battery, they're all lithium polymer. I suspect that if you add up all lithium polymer laptops, they'd be a rather large part of the notebook market.

Re:this is getting old (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41861487)

Yeah, Li-poly is pretty much everywhere now. Maybe really cheap laptops still use the cylindrical cells.

Re:this is getting old (4, Insightful)

Guspaz (556486) | about 2 years ago | (#41857139)

Lithium ion batteries improve at a rate of 8-10% per year. So, if we take into account that a lot of the lab claims are exaggerated, a "10X" breakthrough that actually provides a 2X improvement and takes 7-8 years to hit the consumer market is pretty much in line with the expected curve.

Re:this is getting old (1)

Twinbee (767046) | about 2 years ago | (#41857227)

I think you may be talking about Lithium Air with the 10x thing. Those are more meant for cars than general purpose I think as they need a constant influx of air. I'm only 65% sure of that that though, so maybe someone can confirm.

no, I'm talking about this (1)

frovingslosh (582462) | about 2 years ago | (#41859125)

Back in January 2008 /. ran this article:

http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/08/01/16/027236/nanotech-anode-promises-10x-battery-life [slashdot.org]

Pretty much the same battery and the same concept as here, but with the promise of 10X improvement. There have been other articles just as promising, but we never really get the promised stuff. And don't get me started on the story about the new 200 mpg motor for electric car that was posted many years ago and "only two years before we will see it in cars". /. just posts too many of these stories as if they were real.

Re:no, I'm talking about this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41859905)

Maybe we'll get this stuff at the same time they finally allow that really spiffy superhydrophobic coating we saw a year or two ago into the public market. Then we can have that electric car that almost needs no maintenance and rarely ever needs to be washed either.

Also anyone considering placing bets on which tech we'll see first as consumers?

Re:this is getting old (1)

justthinkit (954982) | about 2 years ago | (#41860035)

Something that would be new is using Li instead of Pb in the original 12V car battery. What is the hold up on that?

Re:this is getting old (1)

MrBeau (1009661) | about 2 years ago | (#41860933)

Pb is cheap, reliable, safe, doesn't need a complex battery management system and weight is not a big concern.

Re:this is getting old (1)

justthinkit (954982) | about 2 years ago | (#41861959)

weight is not a big concern
.

So how would you explain the use of "space-saver" spares? They are chosen for their aesthetics?

I need this NOW! (1)

wannabegeek2 (1137333) | about 2 years ago | (#41861251)

Droid 4 owner here... I need a battery made with this technology NOW. Maybe then a charge would last a whole work day.

Re:this is getting old (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41862607)

If it really is just crushed silicon, you can go scoop up a bunch from your local beach, process it a bit, crush it a bit, then use it as an anode. Since our entire technological civilization is built around silicon, it's pretty darn cheap to process.

Turnabout or retirement program? (1)

overshoot (39700) | about 2 years ago | (#41856147)

Well, it's nice to see silicon winning back some ground from the Carbon Assault. The question is whether its new future in power systems makes up for losing its long-time prominence in microelectronics or whether batteries are just a consolation prize.

Re:Turnabout or retirement program? (1)

jkflying (2190798) | about 2 years ago | (#41857891)

We can recycle our batteries to be turned into electronics and our electronics to be turned into batteries. What a beautiful coincidence.

Re:Turnabout or retirement program? (1)

Tough Love (215404) | about 2 years ago | (#41859073)

And last time I checked, silicon doesn't burn merrily like graphite does.

Sand Cars (1)

brouiller (1934318) | about 2 years ago | (#41856161)

I never would have thought my first electric car would be powered by sand!

Re:Sand Cars (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 2 years ago | (#41858279)

I never would have thought my first electric car would be powered by sand!

Who needs a sand car when you've got ornithopters?

Re:Sand Cars (1)

SeaFox (739806) | about 2 years ago | (#41860581)

I never would have thought my first electric car would be powered by sand!

There have been other modes of transportation [youtube.com] that have been powered by sand.

Re:Sand Cars (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41861271)

On Arrakis, its desert power!

Yay, another amazing new advance for batteries! (1)

jandrese (485) | about 2 years ago | (#41856163)

Hopefully outside of the lab this translates into more than just "5% better life in real world conditions", or isn't totally unusable because the anodes crumble after 10 discharges or something. There is a LOT of work going into batteries these days, and it seems like some of it has to eventually pan out.

Re:Yay, another amazing new advance for batteries! (3, Insightful)

mlts (1038732) | about 2 years ago | (#41856615)

First question that comes to mind. What voltage are these batteries at? 1000 amp-hours at 12 volts is a lot different than 1000 amp-hours at 120.

Gasoline gets 12,000 watt-hours as a reference.

As for these batteries, I am hoping for use in larger applications than just a skinner smartphone.

One amp-hour per gram is pretty good, assuming this is a twelve volt battery. Compare that to a deep cycle lead-acid battery that weighs about 18 kilograms and gives 150 AH or so. For the same amount of energy as that flooded wet cell, I'd just need a battery that weighed less than an ounce.

However, the big issue is energy stored per volume. Weight is one thing, but if we can get energy stored per volume even within an order of magnitude of gasoline, the game changes completely:

We can get rid of internal combustion engines completely for electric motors which do not have major energy losses due to exhaust and heat. Electric motors also have peak torque at 0 RPM.

Areas where fuel is wasted due to idling will be eliminated. A stopped electric vehicle only needs juice to keep the occupants comfortable and the computer systems going. The drivetrain needs no power unlike a gas or diesel engine which has to keep at a certain RPM level (unless stopped and started.)

Solar would become a lot more useful because there would be the ability to store that energy for use at night.

Re:Yay, another amazing new advance for batteries! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41859157)

First question that comes to mind. What voltage are these batteries at? 1000 amp-hours at 12 volts is a lot different than 1000 amp-hours at 120.

Gasoline gets 12,000 watt-hours as a reference.

Intensive vs. extensive properties, dude. If you insist on using extensive properties for no good reason, you can damn well tell us HOW MUCH gasoline/battery you're talking about. (Hint to others: it's 1kg) But better, just divide by fucking mass and give us the intensive property of specific energy.

As for voltage. These are research batteries, so of course they're single cell (you make 4 cells -- do you put them in series and get a single data set? or test them each individually and get 4 data sets? Or if you really only want one data set, why not make only one...). And of course there are no 12V cells [wikipedia.org] . So... I'm not sure which of these facts you missed, but remember it for next time, ok?

They're some flavor of Li-ion, so they operate somewhere around 3-4V.

Note that Li-ion can cells currently on the market max out around 300Wh/kg -- you can get somewhat higher with Li-ion polymer pouch cells, but I'm pretty sure the 350mAh/g figure cited as SOTA (~ 1kWh/kg) refers to research batteries, not current production.

One amp-hour per gram is pretty good, assuming this is a twelve volt battery.

As I said, that's a plain silly assumption. But yes, >3kWh/kg is amazingly good.

Re:Yay, another amazing new advance for batteries! (1)

fluffy99 (870997) | about 2 years ago | (#41861085)

Nominal li-Ion cell voltage is 3.7 volts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery [wikipedia.org] . Which makes you wonder about the 1,000 mAh/g versus 350 mAh/g figures they quote, since they aren't the normal units for specific energy, specific power, or energy density. They also don't work out right if you assume the nominal cell voltage either.

Re:Yay, another amazing new advance for batteries! (1)

grqb (410789) | about 2 years ago | (#41862049)

Battery materials are reported in mAh/g because this way they are independent of the battery size. You could stuff say 50g of this material into a battery meant for a car or 1/2g of this material into a battery meant for testing in a lab and you can roughly estimate the energy storage abitlity of the material. Both of these cells will have a voltage of about 3.7V on average. The units of mAh/g tells you about the amount of lithium that can be stored by this particular material so that it can be compared against other materials on an equal basis.

Won't notice any change (1)

Krojack (575051) | about 2 years ago | (#41856189)

Companies will reduce the size of the battery two thirds and still charge the same amount of money for it. Battery life will appear to remain the same to the end users.

Re:Won't notice any change (0)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#41856237)

You fail econ 101.
Worst case the devices using this will get lighter and battery life will stay the same.

Re:Won't notice any change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41856333)

And still charge what they were before for the battery as the market will bare the price...

You are not paying for a battery because it is 'x pounds and y size'. You are paying to 'last 3 hours'.

Re:Won't notice any change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41856495)

If you take more senior level econ courses, you will learn that nearly everything in econ 101&102 is horse shit.

Re:Won't notice any change (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41856945)

And if you get to the highest levels of econ you learn that the economy is actually governed by the spirits of millions of aliens killed in a volcano many years ago by Lord Zenu.

Re:Won't notice any change (1)

cyberchondriac (456626) | about 2 years ago | (#41858073)

That's Scientology

Re:Won't notice any change (1)

Firethorn (177587) | about 2 years ago | (#41858441)

Still has about the same accuracy at predicting stuff as high level economics.

Still, Life would be so much easier if most people at least understood the concepts taught in economics 101&102.

Re:Won't notice any change (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#41856385)

No way they would do that for cars and phones that desperately need more power. Well, Apple might because thinness is their #1 priority.

Re:Won't notice any change (3, Interesting)

alexander_686 (957440) | about 2 years ago | (#41856689)

Your making the assumption that the cost reduction in using fewer materials offsets the new manufacturing process – which we don’t know (could be high, lower, or the same).

For years we have been able to manufacture cars that get better gas mileage by switching from steel to aluminum, carbon fibers, etc – but we have never done it because the cost of the lighter materials (both in manufacturing and maintenance) are higher.

Re:Won't notice any change (1)

Tough Love (215404) | about 2 years ago | (#41859091)

Companies will reduce the size of the battery two thirds and still charge the same amount of money for it.

You mean, Apple will. The real world will obey the laws of economics.

Let me guess (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41856191)

practical applications are 5 years (and a fat grant) away?

My cellphone battery is almost dead... (5, Funny)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 2 years ago | (#41856251)

My cellphone battery is nearly dead, so please may I squeeze it up between your lovely knockers, my dear? Oh, they're natural? Nevermind...

Re:My cellphone battery is almost dead... (2)

N!k0N (883435) | about 2 years ago | (#41856341)

crushed silicon ... not _silicone_... easy mistake to make though.

Re:My cellphone battery is almost dead... (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#41856417)

That's not the right material anyways. If you want to see what silicon boobs would be like, watch Sacha Baron Cohen's "The Dictator."

Re:My cellphone battery is almost dead... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41860923)

Sexism isn't a problem in IT or on Slashdot.

Batteries rule? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41856339)

"Batteries rule everything around us"

Man, this submission is the worst rap song ever.

More power, More space, lighter weight (1)

imurd3r3r (1060246) | about 2 years ago | (#41856351)

A lithium battery holding three times the capacity is significant. This could mean that the range of a EV could be three times, all else equal, or the battery could provide three times the voltage with the same capacity all else equal, or simply the size and weight of the battery could be 1/3rd the size leaving room for other components. Considering I race RC cars with lithium batteries in a six minute heat, I'd choose 1/3rd the size and weight.

Re:More power, More space, lighter weight (5, Funny)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 2 years ago | (#41856559)

A lithium battery holding three times the capacity is significant. This could mean that the range of a EV could be three times, all else equal, or the battery could provide three times the voltage with the same capacity all else equal, or simply the size and weight of the battery could be 1/3rd the size leaving room for other components.

Thanks, Captain Obvious, for clearly explaining the ramifications of "3x" ... :-)

Re:More power, More space, lighter weight (1)

Metabolife (961249) | about 2 years ago | (#41858019)

Wake me up when it lets me drive 3x faster.

Re:More power, More space, lighter weight (5, Insightful)

Githaron (2462596) | about 2 years ago | (#41856635)

I'd choose 1/3rd the size and weight.

Forget that, I want a smartphone with battery life that is measured in days instead of hours.

Re:More power, More space, lighter weight (1)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | about 2 years ago | (#41856853)

I'd choose 1/3rd the size and weight.

Forget that, I want a smartphone with battery life that is measured in days instead of hours.

We have that already. It's called the RAZR MAXX.

Re:More power, More space, lighter weight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41857531)

Sitting there, turned off does not count.

Re:More power, More space, lighter weight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41857389)

we have that; my phone usually lasts me .5 days

Re:More power, More space, lighter weight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41858959)

My Nexus S runs for 2->2.5 days on a single charge. What's my secret? Don't go places where the cell signal blows goats.

Re:More power, More space, lighter weight (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 2 years ago | (#41856883)

It'd also be a bomb. Hit it with a hammer, run. Energy dump.

Also 'crushed' is not a nano-material. Could you imagine nano-granularized silicon?

Re:More power, More space, lighter weight (1)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#41858085)

I wonder if the TSA will start to not allow batteries that have a really high energy density?

Mandatory XKCD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41858699)

Mandatory XKCD
http://xkcd.com/651/

Re:More power, More space, lighter weight (1)

jbengt (874751) | about 2 years ago | (#41860271)

Also 'crushed' is not a nano-material. Could you imagine nano-granularized silicon?

They crushed nano-porous silicon. So TFA is about a nano-material.

Re:More power, More space, lighter weight (1)

fluffy99 (870997) | about 2 years ago | (#41861117)

Keep in mind they are saying triple the density of the anode, which is only half of the battery, so this is more like a potential for 1.5x improvement in overall battery size. SIlicon is also heavier by weight than the carbon, so this might mean minimal improvment in energy per weight.

New Miracle batteries since 1901 (4, Interesting)

tp1024 (2409684) | about 2 years ago | (#41856391)

Breakthrough paradigm shifting innovative batteries have been around at least since 1901 and none of them worked.

http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2010/05/the-status-quo-of-electric-cars-better-batteries-same-range.html [lowtechmagazine.com]

(ctrl+f -> miracle batteries)

Technology changes incrementally and not on public demand.

Re:New Miracle batteries since 1901 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41857135)

What a fucking stupid article. They inappropriately compare the "range" of a 1901 car with a top speed of 25 MPH and a Nissan Leaf with a far greater top speed.

Nowhere in the article do they attempt to do the incredibly easy task of getting into a Nissan Leaf and driving it at a constant 25 MPH to determine its range at the same top speed of the 1901 car. As their own article states "driving faster uses more 'fuel'

Re:New Miracle batteries since 1901 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41858695)

I think the hoopla is because it is published in one of Nature's open access journal. Nature is slightly more respected than other sources of info.

Re:New Miracle batteries since 1901 (1)

tp1024 (2409684) | about 2 years ago | (#41859205)

The point is, it isn't even published as of right now.

All they had to show for their super duper battery were two vials of approximately 0.1g of the stuff, but already claim it's cheap, easy to produce by the tons, durable etc.

The whole thing is as fake as it gets and I wonder what gullible fool fell for it.

B.R.E.A.M. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41856483)

get the 'lectrons

For big surface area (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41856641)

For a big surface area, study the structure of a Mentos(tm) in a bottle of Coke(tm). You can get a first hand account here [youtube.com] . The uncoated Mentos has pits that allow a carbon monoxide bubble to form (actually more than one since there is more than one pit). Probably that structure would make a good anode for generating electricity too!

so...... (1)

Budgreen (561093) | about 2 years ago | (#41858001)

my phone battery might last me past lunch some day?

And the cathode...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41858893)

So to this point, the limiter has been the anode, but just barely. In order to make this "discovery" meaningful (and it's not really a discovery, they've been working on silicon anodes for at least a decade now), you need a cathode that can keep up.

Which is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41859739)

Title says 3x life, summary seems to indicate 3x power density.

Model Aeroplanes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41862413)

pssh. model aeorplane batteries that put out 2200mAh weigh around 75g each. x3 for the required voltage and that's around 200g of weight. to reduce that to 2g x3 = 6g would be immensely awesome.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>