 |
| http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ncomms2747-f3.jpg |
It all sounds just a bit too good to be true, but I am sure this was no April Fool's joke.
Simple QRP projects, 10m, 8m, 6m, 4m, FT8, 160m, WSPR, LF/MF, sub-9kHz, nanowaves and other random stuff, some not related to amateur radio.
22 Apr 2013
Huge leap in rechargeable battery technology?
The ExtremeTech website has reported a possible major major (i.e. game changing) breakthrough in Li-Ion battery technology with the headlines: New lithium-ion battery design that’s 2,000 times more powerful, recharges 1,000 times faster
If this turns out to be technology that can indeed be commercialised, then just imagine the possibilities: (1) electric cars with far lighter batteries, or electric car batteries with much greater range, (2) mobile phones with tiny batteries that can be charged in a minute or so, (3) portable HF transceivers that are half the weight of the FT817 but with batteries that last for days between charges.
It all sounds just a bit too good to be true, but I am sure this was no April Fool's joke.
It all sounds just a bit too good to be true, but I am sure this was no April Fool's joke.
The new batteries are the colored dots on the graph. Without knowning that, the graphic is meaningless. None of the new batteries have energy densities larger than current Li-ion technology. What this "advancement" looks like to me is a gap=filling battery technology that provides higher power density for a given energy density. But that's all it is; a gap-filler. The technology will benefit certain niche applications like batteries to power the electronics systems on airplanes or rockets; but it is no panacea. "The thousands of times better" claim seems dubious and may be rooted in the fact that power is proportional to the square of delivered current.
ReplyDeleteExperimental physical surface area multiplication technologies in battery design have appeared before - even at the nano-scale. However all have suffered from longevity problems as the build up of reaction by-products clogs the "pores". There's no mention of what will be done to mitigate this issue in this "new" technology. Couple the porosity vs. longevity problem with higher manufacturing costs, and you end up with a very specialized product. Again, no panacea.