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!

Nanobatteries — Safer By Design

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the no-more-go-boom dept.

Power 83

Iddo Genuth writes "Conventional Li-Ion batteries have been known to catch fire and explode. A new, safer type of Li-Ion nanobattery that might help prevent such mishaps has been developed by researchers at Tel Aviv University. These nanobatteries should prove useful for various micro devices used for medical, military, and a range of other applications. They are 2-4 years from commercial availability."

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

So... (4, Funny)

make dev (1004307) | more than 7 years ago | (#17639882)

We'll have 2-4 more years of exploding laptops?

Re:So... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17639974)

Actually, I have a proposed reason for that problem. I get a lot of sperm in my keyboard, and it makes my machine hot. What do you think ?

Re:So... (0, Offtopic)

make dev (1004307) | more than 7 years ago | (#17640024)

That this new batteries won't help.. and Optimus keyboards will make it worse, imagine having a boobie in each key!! Damn I'd tipe a lot!

Is modding him "flamebait" good or bad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17640792)

Considering that all of us who us laptops seem to be playing with, er, ahh, fire just a layer of clothing or two away from our genitals, is modding the parent post "flamebait" a positive or negative action?

Re:Is modding him "flamebait" good or bad? (1)

CheechWizz (886957) | more than 7 years ago | (#17641126)

In what possible scenario is fire near you genitals a positive action?

I mean the flaimbait mod to the post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17641842)

Not the laptops themselves.

Ohnevermind.

Re:Is modding him "flamebait" good or bad? (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644142)

How about after you've been sitting on some dry ice for a while?

Re:So... (1)

Toba82 (871257) | more than 7 years ago | (#17641420)

Stay the course, soldier.

Asking for investment -- be careful. (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 7 years ago | (#17656186)

This is one of numerous "investment opportunities" carried by Slashdot recently. Be very careful. Several of these seem like they are only ways of collecting investor money, and will never make a profit. I didn't investigate this one.

In any case, Slashdot has become a venue for Israeli companies wanting investments.

Micro devices and Explosions (2, Insightful)

Salvance (1014001) | more than 7 years ago | (#17639918)

Is there really that much of an explosion/fire risk for very small and microbatteries? Sure, these nanobatteries would be fantastic for small robots, but I'd guess we're well over 4 years away from being able to make large batteries (e.g. laptop batteries) utilizing nanofabrication techniques that could also reduce fire/explosion risks.

Re:Micro devices and Explosions (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 7 years ago | (#17640868)

Is there really that much risk from any battery? How many fatalities have there been from the notorious laptop batteries? How many injuries? Maybe we should turn our attention to more menacing and sinister threats, like piping hot coffee at McDonalds.

Re:Micro devices and Explosions (1)

Timbotronic (717458) | more than 7 years ago | (#17642468)

Is there really that much of an explosion/fire risk for very small and microbatteries?

Sure is [smh.com.au]

Re:Micro devices and Explosions (1)

bunions (970377) | more than 7 years ago | (#17642884)

ok, that's one guy.

One guy out of ... what? 3 billion? 6? I can't remember.

I'm gonna need a number greater than ... oh, let's say 1000 before I even start considering that li-ion batteries may actually pose some kind of legitimate safety concern.

Re:Micro devices and Explosions (1)

bcattwoo (737354) | more than 7 years ago | (#17645158)

Is there really that much of an explosion/fire risk for very small and microbatteries?


Maybe not to the user, but even if you aren't harmed, having your shiny, new gadget destroyed by an exploding battery is a bummer.

Re:Micro devices and Explosions (1)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 7 years ago | (#17645244)

What do you care, if a nanobattery explodes you won't even notice it.

Re:Micro devices and Explosions (1)

bcattwoo (737354) | more than 7 years ago | (#17647068)

What do you care, if a nanobattery explodes you won't even notice it.

I care because the device it was powering is now broken and needs to be replaced. If you prefer gadgets, devices, etc, that randomly break and need replacement, more power to ya!

Yawn . . . . (2, Insightful)

dmadzak (997352) | more than 7 years ago | (#17639950)

Another story about a breakthrough battery technology 2-4 years away. Wake me up when one of these breakthroughs becomes a reality the readers of Slashdot can afford and use.

Wakie, wakie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17640626)

read the post in front of you

Re:Yawn . . . . (1)

Original Replica (908688) | more than 7 years ago | (#17640890)

really. I'm more looking forward to nanotube capacitors that replace rechargables entirely.

Re:Yawn . . . . (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#17642220)

Yeah then you'll be complaining about it being a dupe :)

Hardly a nanobattery (4, Interesting)

Xeth (614132) | more than 7 years ago | (#17639960)

FTFA:
Using a silicon or glass substrate, the team from TAU created a matrix of tiny holes each 50 microns in diameter and 500 micron deep.
Atoms are on the order of a nanometer in diameter. These batteries are hundreds of thousands of times larger. Hell, you could probably hook these up with current chip lithography techniques (they're doing tens of microns now). Interesting microbattery, but let's keep the nanotech hype out of it.

Re:Hardly a nanobattery (4, Informative)

evanbd (210358) | more than 7 years ago | (#17640080)

You're off by a bit there :) Atoms have diameters measured in picometers; bond lengths tend to be tends to a hundred or so picometers. Current high end chips are made on 65nm processes these days, with 45 and 30 (iirc) not too far off -- but the point is silicon litho techniques do tens of nanometers, not microns. You can get micron level precision with machine tools, even -- very expensive ones, granted, but still :)

I agree completely though, calling this nanotech is a little iffy when you can see the things with merely a strong magnifying glass and resolve details with a decent optical microscope.

Re:Hardly a nanobattery (1)

Xeth (614132) | more than 7 years ago | (#17641204)

Argh, damnit. Quick Google searches for the lose :( Oh well, what's three orders of magnitude here and there?

Re:Hardly a nanobattery (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17649158)

Argh, damnit. Quick Google searches for the lose

Nope, try again...

Argh, damnit. Quick Google searches for the loss

'Nano' is routinely abused here (5, Insightful)

caitsith01 (606117) | more than 7 years ago | (#17640216)

I would have thought that a correct use of the prefix 'nano' would involve an object, device or effect, the WHOLE of which is on a nanometre scale. So for example, a 'nanobattery' would be a battery the WHOLE of which is on a nanometre scale.

I'm obviously not alone is being heartily sick of anything involving components parts which are on an atomic scale (e.g.... uh, CHEMICALS) being referred to as 'nano'-whatever. For instance a while back we had this [slashdot.org] idiotic story about 'lead compounds' producing 'nanocrystals' and being used by the ancient Egyptians.

Next on slashdot: scientists develop nanobreathing technology using a nanogas mixture containing nanoparticles only an few atoms wide! Revolutionary nanopower technique delivers charged nanoparticles to electrical devices through ordinary wire! Nanolightbulbs emitting nanophotons found to have been in use since the 18th century! Nanocar constructed entirely from nanoparticles of metal, plastic and glass runs entirely on nano-fuel only a few carbon atoms long!

Re:'Nano' is routinely abused here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17640470)

But nano sounds cool.

Re:'Nano' is routinely abused here (1)

cyfer2000 (548592) | more than 7 years ago | (#17640812)

There should be at least one dimension in nanometer scale for the ting to be called "nano" something. Things in hundreds of of nanometer can be called "mesoscale". And things in microns are called microscale. TFA is shameless.

Re:'Nano' is routinely abused here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17641170)

Oh well, at least the nanobattery lasts longer than a nanosecond.

yeah! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17641392)

Yeah! Same goes for words that start with 'micro'. Words like microscope are so lame.

Re:'Nano' is routinely abused here (1)

freeze128 (544774) | more than 7 years ago | (#17642476)

I would have thought that a correct use of the prefix 'nano' would involve an object, device or effect, the WHOLE of which is on a nanometre scale. So for example, a 'nanobattery' would be a battery the WHOLE of which is on a nanometre scale.
That's probably why the new iPod nano has a clip on it... so you don't lose it.

Re:'Nano' is routinely abused here (1)

freeze128 (544774) | more than 7 years ago | (#17642496)

BAH! That's the SHUFFLE, not the Nano!
I could have sworn that I hit the Preview button instead of the Submit button. It's not my fault, they were only four nanopixels apart!

Re:'Nano' is routinely abused here (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 7 years ago | (#17642502)

Did Apple slip one by me, or are you talking about the Shuffle?

Re:Hardly a nanobattery (1)

Gunnery Sgt. Hartman (221748) | more than 7 years ago | (#17641636)

I agree, microns are hardly nano scale. My master's thesis topic involves trying to develop a nanoporous membrane to be used in lithium ion batteries. If I ever make pores, they will be 10-20 nm in diameter (trust me, I've seen pictures). Which reminds me, I need to go check on something in the lab.

Re:Hardly a nanobattery (1)

IHC Navistar (967161) | more than 7 years ago | (#17643656)

Excellent point regarding the nanotech brouhaha. Nano means just that: Nano. Just because the battery has nano-sized components doesn't mean that the battery is a nanobattery. If the *entire* battery is only a few nanometers in dimensional specifications (yes, only a few nanometers, since everything can be measured in terms of nanometers) then there would be true technical grounds to call it a nanobattery. BUT, since there are nano-sized components that comprise a definitely NOT nano-sized device, it is technically NOT a nanobattery, but a bettery that uses nano-sized components.

Technology and it's terminology has been thoroughly bastardized by advertising and marketing departments to the point where you have to actually have a brain to keep from being decieved by it. Every morning I check the back page of the newspaper for the specials at my local Fry's Electronics store. Every issue has the traditional full-page advertisement so there are alot of products offered for sale. There are AT LEAST 4 or 5 that claim to have this 'technology' or that 'technology'. There are so many products that marketers claim has some sort of 'technology', that you wonder what technology actually was, is, and has now become.

Also, I'm pretty sure they are now using 45nm lithography processes. AMD and Intel are both currently working on 32nm processes at the moment. I wonder of we should now be calling them Nanochips instead of Microchips..... ..........Mmmmm..........chips..........

Yeah? Cos altairnano have lion-titanate batteries (2, Interesting)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#17639994)

And it's on the market now. 10,000-15,000 cycles with little or no degradation, double the energy density of current li-ions. Ideal for automotive stuff, they're already shipping to customers.

http://www.altairnano.com/ [altairnano.com]
 

Re:Yeah? Cos altairnano have lion-titanate batteri (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 7 years ago | (#17640238)

And it's on the market now. 10,000-15,000 cycles with little or no degradation, double the energy density of current li-ions. Ideal for automotive stuff, they're already shipping to customers.

Do the same charging circuits work? I'm already in the 'red zone' on my MacBook Pro and I've only be using it for an hour and a half... must have more power!

Re:Yeah? Cos altairnano have lion-titanate batteri (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#17641902)

Do the same charging circuits work? I'm already in the 'red zone' on my MacBook Pro and I've only be using it for an hour and a half... must have more power!
Don't see why not, they'll probably even be on the conservative side for the battery, they talk about charging in 3 mins. However the product only just launched in September and the first shipment of cells has gone to an EV manufacturer. I doubt you'll get your hands on any cells for a while. I don't think they can do the volume required for phones/laptops yet.
 

Re:Yeah? Cos altairnano have lion-titanate batteri (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 7 years ago | (#17642122)

they talk about charging in 3 mins

Ah, that sounds familiar. I think I worked out something on these or similar units in cars (though Toshiba comes to mind) and figured you'd need a 240A outlet to plug your car into to get a 3 minute charge. That's impressive.

Re:Yeah? Cos altairnano have lion-titanate batteri (1)

Wilson_6500 (896824) | more than 7 years ago | (#17640990)

Since the article--or at least the summary--seems mostly concerned with safety: what safety measures do these new batteries with _double_ the energy density of standard Li-ion batteries feature? If the energy density increases, doesn't that make the batteries more dangerous to use without additional considerations to prevent damage/overcharge/whatever?

Re:Yeah? Cos altairnano have lion-titanate batteri (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#17641600)

No carbon electrode. It's titanium dioxide, already inert, nothing to burn.

 

Re:Yeah? Cos altairnano have lion-titanate batteri (1)

Halvy (748070) | more than 7 years ago | (#17642294)

..And it's on the market now..

I was NOT able to find where it was currently available...infact I couldn't find any general info on batteries on their site other than what is still in *development*.. could you elaborate (links etc.).

-- Firmly entrenched at the very bottom of: 'Terrible Karma'.. now I can FINALLY speak my mind..

Re:Yeah? Cos altairnano have lion-titanate batteri (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#17645550)

Altairnano batteries half, not double energy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17642542)

If you look at the battery specs in the link, they are equivalent to NiMH in specific energy. This is thoroughly unexciting, especially for EVs/plugins.

Safer? (2, Insightful)

rowama (907743) | more than 7 years ago | (#17640038)

So they won't explode or catch fire. How long will it be before some dreaded danger arises that we haven't imagined? It is nanotechnology, after all.

mood/pessimistic (yeah, I read the myspace post.)

Re:Safer? (1)

bendodge (998616) | more than 7 years ago | (#17642110)

From what I've been taught by my nano-crazy professor, the biggest foreseeable problem with nanotechnology is that unnatural particles on the nano scale can pass easily through the skin and enter the bloodstream. (Imagine having battery compounds you can directly absorb from the air.)

Re:Safer? (2, Informative)

Hittite Creosote (535397) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644110)

There have always been nanoscale particles in the atmosphere, even more so since the Industrial Revolution started. We've been living with nanoparticles ever since we learnt to make fire. Some materials get *safer* as they get smaller - one reason asbestos fibres are dangerous is not because they are so narrow but because they are (relatively) so long - nano width, but micro length. The body can't get rid of them, so forms scarring in the lungs instead. Something that is nano in all directions is more easily got rid of by the body's immune system (I'm more concerned by nanotubes, some of which can be very long, than by nanoparticles smaller in all dimensions than a human white blood cell). Asbestos is also dangerous because of the ease with which it gets into the air when in a friable form. Nanoparticles firmly bonded into a matrix aren't that much of a danger. So the reality is that they're not harmless, they're not incredibly deadly, they're somewhere in between. Where exactly we don't know yet.

Re:Safer? (1)

bendodge (998616) | more than 7 years ago | (#17655844)

Please note the word unnatural. Of course there have been nanoparticles for all time, but artificial ones could be a very different story, esp in biological and chemical weapons and pollution.

Natural isn't necessarily safer (1)

Hittite Creosote (535397) | more than 7 years ago | (#17661656)

I noticed the word "unnatural" and ignored it. After all, a lot of biological natural things have evolved to do very nasty things to us, whether it's Deadly Nightshade or the 1918 Flu virus (nowadays only killing monkeys in Canadian labs). A lot of other things we think of as artificial occur without human intervention as well, from radioactive elements to carbon nanotubes.

Something isn't nice or nasty because we made it or it occurs in nature. It's nice or nasty because of its intrinsic physical properties. What may be "unnatural" is our producing concentrations of these materials far in excess of what would be likely to occur without human intervention on this planet's surface - which again isn't fundamentally that much different from an early medieval European exposing themselves to nanoparticles by spending their winters in a smoky hut.

Well....yay (1)

digitalgoddess (1051762) | more than 7 years ago | (#17640044)

That's all terrific and such, but I'm still more interested in nano- hard drive technology. Like that Wired thing about them using extremophile viruses from Yellowstone geisers by harvesting their superprotein shells and using that for data storage - 50 gigs? meh, 500 terrabytes. I have to give the creators of these batteries credit for the attempt though. My laptop still has yet to explode, thankfully.

wow! (4, Funny)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 7 years ago | (#17640072)

Nano batteries for micro devices? I'm pico excited about this!

Re:wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17644060)

Did you mean TERA excited?

Re:wow! (1)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644810)

Did you mean TERA excited?

No, I got it right the first time.

NOTICE: Tel Aviv University... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17645702)

Thank you Israel. And Thank you for the sweet Intel Core 2 Duo powering my laptop and desktop computers. No wonder the Muslims have such fucking outrageous penis envy towards you guys.

Non-commital language (2, Interesting)

noidentity (188756) | more than 7 years ago | (#17640082)

"...that might help prevent such mishaps..."

I might possibly be pushed more towards apparent annoyance by this non-commital language. Let's start with the unqualified version, then add the qualifiers one by one:

...that prevents such mishaps... (good, a solution!)

...that helps prevent such mishaps... (so they will still happen, they'll just be reduced)

...that might help prevent such mishaps... (so it might not even do anything?)

Yeah... Li-Ion batteries explode... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17640156)

Conventional SONY Li-ion batteries that is...

Don't use products (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17640420)

that support Zionism and apartheid.

Little late to the game... (1)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 7 years ago | (#17640514)

...as there's a Boston firm that made the packs that are in one of the brands of power tools (Milkwalkee I think?); they can take a recharge rate much, much higher than most battery packs, and the chargers are using a fraction of the maximum rate. The packs don't have to cool down after being drained before getting charged, etc. Google says the technology is lithium-manganese based.

There's also a Japanese firm that is making safer lithium ion packs (so they're cheaper from a materials standpoint.) They have a video showing a large pack of cell getting dropped (by a forklift- yes, a big pack) onto a steel spike and nothing happening (a traditional lithium ion or lithium poly pack would burst into flame.)

Re:Little late to the game... (1)

IHC Navistar (967161) | more than 7 years ago | (#17643518)

Do you have the link for the video for that clip? I'd love to see it!

Re:Little late to the game... (1)

Radon360 (951529) | more than 7 years ago | (#17647512)

I think the brand that you are thinking of is Milwaukee power tools...named just like the city in Wisconsin where the company was founded.

Re:Little late to the game... (1)

Pontiac (135778) | more than 7 years ago | (#17648006)

The Milwaukee tools use a Molicel
http://www.molienergy.com/ [molienergy.com]
It's a Lithium manganese oxide Li-Ion Cell.

Pros are higher discharge rates and faster re-charge then a Li-poly cell

Cons are the watts/Kg is lower. (li-poly of the same capacity is lighter)

Some people are using them as a cheep alternative to Li-Poly cells in Electric R/C Aircraft.
The Weight is the big trade off though.

No vaporware tag? (2, Interesting)

Ninjaesque One (902204) | more than 7 years ago | (#17640644)

Come on, you all know that in tech, 2-4 years has a 50% chance of equalling never.

Fundamental flaw in logic. (5, Insightful)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 7 years ago | (#17640838)

From TFA:

Since each nanobattery is comprised of thousands of small batteries, even if one of these small batteries has a short circuit and fails, the entire battery can keep functioning, lossing only a very small amount of power. Similar damage to a conventional Li-Ion battery could result in substantial loss of power or a complete malfunction and in extreme cases even fire or explosion.
So they're putting microcells in a series/parallel network, and claiming that, since each microcell contains minute quantities of energy, a short circuit would result in only minute consequences.

But, again, they've put the batteries in a series/parallel network. They don't mention that a short could take place in places in the network other than exactly across one cell. Let's say an impurity spec lands across a couple wires. Depending on which couple wires, you might have shorted just a few microcells, or you could be shorting out the whole battery.

The reason Li-Ion batteries are dangerous is the sheer energy density. Rearranging that energy with a different battery structure isn't going to negate the fact that, simplistically, you somewhere have two conductors across which is the entire potential of the battery. (Unless you divide the battery into segments and give each segment a unique load. However, that would require a fundamental re-thinking of how electronic devices are powered.)

Re:Fundamental flaw in logic. (1)

shlashdot (689477) | more than 7 years ago | (#17641728)

"Unless you divide the battery into segments and give each segment a unique load. However, that would require a fundamental re-thinking of how electronic devices are powered."

Right. They could never combine any logic circuits or protections with this.

"The reason Li-Ion batteries are dangerous is the sheer energy density."

I think the reason is because they haven't figured out how to segment it yet. Using small quanta is a step towards figuring out how to regulate it. If you can segment it, it seems to me you could theoretically make a battery more energy dense, but limit potential peak current very precisely, and limit peak currents anywhere within the battery. It may be the case that there is a density penalty for this sort of safety, compared to an ideal single sheet.

Re:Fundamental flaw in logic. (1)

aXis100 (690904) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644776)

Many lithium batteries are already segmented into regular cells - the problem is that one cell dieing can generate the heat to put others over the edge.

Re:Fundamental flaw in logic. (1)

Radon360 (951529) | more than 7 years ago | (#17647678)

So what they really need to do is find a way to stop a chain reaction from occurring. This technology might be good step in that direction. What needs to be determined is whether the separation between the cells provides sufficient thermal isolation/disipation to prevent one grouping of short-circuited cells from overheating adjacent ones.

Re:Fundamental flaw in logic. (1)

shlashdot (689477) | more than 7 years ago | (#17659174)

Regular cells obviously don't work. Perhaps one could make them small enough to put on a circuit board and small enough that millions of overcurrent protection devices or managed switches could practically be put on the same board.

Using a flamable cathode doesn't help. (0)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#17642034)

The reason Li-Ion batteries are dangerous is the sheer energy density.
Most're graphite cathode.

 

Re:Fundamental flaw in logic. (1)

villageidiot357 (808966) | more than 7 years ago | (#17645824)

"The reason Li-Ion batteries are dangerous is the sheer energy density." A lump of coal has a pretty high energy density too, its not something I would think of as dangerous. The problem with these Li-ion cells have occured b/c of the low onset temperatures of many of the components. The SEI layer decomposes at about 70C. From the models and differnial scanning calriometry data I have seen, this reaction does not release enough energy to cause other runaway reactions to occur. Overheating or a short circuit is need to initiate the other decompostion reactions that occur when the solvent, cathode and anode materials decompose. As I recall the onset temperature of these reactions are about 170C.

Re:Fundamental flaw in logic. (1)

Steve001 (955086) | more than 7 years ago | (#17648178)

Short Circuit wrote as part of a post:

The reason Li-Ion batteries are dangerous is the sheer energy density. Rearranging that energy with a different battery structure isn't going to negate the fact that, simplistically, you somewhere have two conductors across which is the entire potential of the battery. (Unless you divide the battery into segments and give each segment a unique load. However, that would require a fundamental re-thinking of how electronic devices are powered.)

I don't think its just the energy density of lithum-ion (Li-Ion) batteries that makes them dangerous. What makes them more dangerous is that it is natural for the batteries to go out of control. Much of the technology involved with Li-Ion batteries is to prevent the battery from going out of control, basically to make them go against their nature.

A few years ago Popular Mechanics had an article on this issue, and Wired Magazine recently had an article on this issue. One of the points the articles made was that we are basically at the end of the line as far as conventional battery technology (electric power being generated from the difference between two materials) goes.

The Popular Mechanics article did mention what was mentioned above (many small batteries each taking a part of the total load, with each battery controlled by a microchip) as a way of increasing battery life, and it also mentioned fuel cells as a possiblity.

I think one of the things that has made the whole battery problem more acute is the recent increase number of devices that use a rechargeable but not-replaceable battery. One of the biggest complaints about the iPod is the relatively short battery life. This issue could be nullified by an easily-user-replacable battery: the battery wears out, quickly replace it with a new one, the music continues.

Re:Fundamental flaw in logic. (1)

slew (2918) | more than 7 years ago | (#17651302)

I think one of the things that has made the whole battery problem more acute is the recent increase number of devices that use a rechargeable but not-replaceable battery. One of the biggest complaints about the iPod is the relatively short battery life. This issue could be nullified by an easily-user-replacable battery: the battery wears out, quickly replace it with a new one, the music continues.

One of the reasons that many high-energy density lithium-ion batteries are not easily-user-replacable is because they are toxic (although not nearly as bad as heavy metal batteries) and can explode if short circuited (as witnessed by many people). Also lithium-ion batteries age and are unlikley to be stocked by convenience retailers (unlike alkaline batteries at the store that are good until 2010, lithium-ion batteries age and are long dead by then even if they are unused). Any environmentaly concious and lawsuit fearing company will make such batteries difficult to replace by joe-six-pack...



2-4 years out? Wow. (1)

ajohn505 (1007097) | more than 7 years ago | (#17641320)

A Tel Aviv press release about an astounding new product that's only 2-4 years out? Amazing.

scaling laws are unfavorable for nano batteries! (2, Interesting)

caffeineboy (44704) | more than 7 years ago | (#17641664)

Since power is proportional to volume (length^3), scaling laws for a nano-scale battery are VERY unfavorable. I'm not sure how they will get over this hurdle.

Just like nano-sized heat engines, nano sized batteries have a big problem in this department. There may be advantages in internal resistance or peak current, but the power density of such a battery, not to mention the cost, seem unfavorable.

Re:scaling laws are unfavorable for nano batteries (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17644228)

But the size of the thing is proportion to volume as well, so while the power goes down, the size goes down as well. So why is the power density of a million nanobatteries going to be lower than that of one battery a million times the volume?

Re:scaling laws are unfavorable for nano batteries (1)

caffeineboy (44704) | more than 7 years ago | (#17650044)

If your actual battery volume is low, then you have a lot of surface area of the container and vs. a conventional battery all of the volume of container, interconnect, and everything else will take up (proportionally) a lot more of the space. Think about it.

Screw nano... (2, Funny)

painQuin (626852) | more than 7 years ago | (#17642342)

I <3 Vim

At Least The'll Own The U.S. Patents :( (0, Flamebait)

Halvy (748070) | more than 7 years ago | (#17642392)

Yup, which means they'll do absolutely NOTHING to advance this (or create it.. or ANYTHING).

Buhhht, they will make money because NOONE will be able to advance it EITHER, until they make that all important 'pay off' to the Jewish Mafia.

-- Man.. ANOTHER slow news day at /.

You F4il It (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17643078)

Natural progression (1)

batteries.like.no.ot (1039276) | more than 7 years ago | (#17643178)

First laptops, then cellphones (http://www.turbogadgets.com/2007/01/16/burning-ce llphone-sets-owner-on-fire/), now nanokit.

omg (3, Funny)

Fist! Of! Death! (1038822) | more than 7 years ago | (#17643944)

I think I got Voltaic Piles while reading this article

Micro devices, like a.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17644422)

robotic flying killer spy wasp!

LOL jews did wtc (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17644898)

LOL jews did wtc
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?