• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Question about Batteries

J

Jassi

Diamond Member
I am writing a paper on an unrelated topic but the design of circuits relating to my project are limited by batteries. So my question is, are they getting better and what is their rate of increase in performance? It seems every bit of research I get my hands on refers to the lack of improvement in batteries.

BTW, my paper is on wireless sensor networks and the main concern everywhere is energy efficiency.
 
I am not entirely sure, but I have heard this problem come up, such as cell phones for example. It is a cause of concern actually, and some government official pointed it out (sorry can't remember who and when). He said that there should also be a Moore's Law type of rule in the progression of batteries. He stated that although our technology is advancing, battery technology is going at a sluggish pace. This may result in slowing down technological progress. I think it's safe to say that battery technology isn't at a stand still, but rather going very slowly in its advancement. So yes, batteries are getting better, but not by much compared to other technological advancements.
 
the problem with batteries is from wat i've read we've pretty much maxed out what we can do in a chemical battery. the next step will be the use of fuel cells, the upside of them is when your low on juice you just poore in more fuel
 
My EGR prof's solution: gas-turbine generators that burn hydrogen. Only output is hot steam, could be recharged by electrolysis and water - only problems are size, safety, and.....
 
Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
My EGR prof's solution: gas-turbine generators that burn hydrogen. Only output is hot steam, could be recharged by electrolysis and water - only problems are size, safety, and.....
Click to expand...


Well, electrolysis needs electricity and the laws of physics say that the energy generated from that process will be less than the energy consumed to fuel it. Where will that excess come from? Its like the chicken and the egg IMHO.

Now, back to my original question, anyone know the answer?
 
no they way it would work is when the battery was dead you would refill the water tank and hook it up to the wall. actaully the best way to do it would be a closed loop system where it just captures the water that the fuelcell would produce and when you plug it back in to power it converts in back to hydrogen
 
Right, that's the point of batteries - storing electricity.

The excess comes from a nuclear or coal power plant somewhere, and there's no immediate way around that.
 
Originally posted by: Jassi
Well, electrolysis needs electricity and the laws of physics say that the energy generated from that process will be less than the energy consumed to fuel it. Where will that excess come from? Its like the chicken and the egg IMHO.

Now, back to my original question, anyone know the answer?
Click to expand...
Falloutboy has it.
Originally posted by: Falloutboy
the problem with batteries is from wat i've read we've pretty much maxed out what we can do in a chemical battery. the next step will be the use of fuel cells, the upside of them is when your low on juice you just poore in more fuel
Click to expand...
Basically, the electrochemistry in your standard battery has been pushed to (or very near) the thermodynamic limit.
 
no they way it would work is when the battery was dead you would refill the water tank and hook it up to the wall. actaully the best way to do it would be a closed loop system where it just captures the water that the fuelcell would produce and when you plug it back in to power it converts in back to hydrogen
Click to expand...

recapturing the steam would cost in size and/or efficiency though.

edit: here's a timeline showing when various battery technologies were invented.
 
My Ericsson T10s had a battery twice the size of the battery on my new T230, and talk time is at 4 hours on both. I think it is safe to say that rechargable batteries are getting better and better.
I'm not sure about non-rechargable batteries
 
I think you can go to any battery website and get a listing of all their batteries in terms of energy density per volume or per weight. So, starting from coal to dynamite, and go until you hit Lithium Ion or Fuel Cells to get a good idea of trends.
 
Batteries in terms of like Energizer and Duracell - they dont really make any money. Both companies break even with their battery business. Its the shaving part of their business that rakes in the real bucks.

As far as "AA, AAA, 9V" getting better. That ain't happening. Whats happening is a move to more rechargeables and other souces like compact hydrogen cells.

If you didnt know, Energizer owns Schick and Gillette owns Duracell.
 
The ultimate battery would be an ultra efficient capacitor. Without the needs of a chemical or organic storage medium, you could charge this thing within minutes. There was a recent slashdot article about a new molecule thin fabric that could hold current, and one of the ideas was to roll this up into a capacitor, or basically a battery.
 
Originally posted by: Tiamat
Batteries in terms of like Energizer and Duracell - they dont really make any money. Both companies break even with their battery business. Its the shaving part of their business that rakes in the real bucks.

As far as "AA, AAA, 9V" getting better. That ain't happening. Whats happening is a move to more rechargeables and other souces like compact hydrogen cells.

If you didnt know, Energizer owns Schick and Gillette owns Duracell.
Click to expand...

Holy crap, didn't know that.
 
Actually the ultimate battery will not come in the form of electron, organic, or chemical storage. It will come in the form of light. Think about it - construct a perfectly reflective container with a single electrical sensistive lens. This thing would be charged up with a laser, and hold light indefinitely - until a current charged the lens to allow small amounts of it out. The "small" amounts would actually be intensive enough to power a photosensitive lens that generated large amounts of current. This light-capacitor could hold an incredible amount of energy since light never actually hits itself.

Another idea I have is miniature nuclear power plants. Something the size of an AA battery would contain minute quantities of uranium, which power a coil from it's decay. With very light shielding it would be perfectly safe and the battery would last our lifetime.
 
I believe this months newsweek had an article on batteries and the improvements we can expect in the next few years. Unfortunately I don't know where my copy is right now.
 
Problems with light storage: first, you can't construct a perfectly reflective container....
Second, light does hit itself - it doesn't hit itself, but causes interference, but I'm not sure what that means for a light storage cube.
 
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Another idea I have is miniature nuclear power plants. Something the size of an AA battery would contain minute quantities of uranium, which power a coil from it's decay. With very light shielding it would be perfectly safe and the battery would last our lifetime.
Click to expand...

"power a coil"? The only thing minute quantities of uranium are good at is staying above ambient temperature, and that simply isn't enough energy to be called a battery.
 
Originally posted by: jagec
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Another idea I have is miniature nuclear power plants. Something the size of an AA battery would contain minute quantities of uranium, which power a coil from it's decay. With very light shielding it would be perfectly safe and the battery would last our lifetime.
Click to expand...

"power a coil"? The only thing minute quantities of uranium are good at is staying above ambient temperature, and that simply isn't enough energy to be called a battery.
Click to expand...

Uranium emits alpha particles which are highly ionizing. That can be converted into an electrical current. Gamma radiation is also emitted, and has one of the highest energy of the em spectrum. Are there any materials that will convert gamma into an electrical current?
 
Originally posted by: Tiamat
Batteries in terms of like Energizer and Duracell - they dont really make any money. Both companies break even with their battery business. Its the shaving part of their business that rakes in the real bucks.

As far as "AA, AAA, 9V" getting better. That ain't happening. Whats happening is a move to more rechargeables and other souces like compact hydrogen cells.

If you didnt know, Energizer owns Schick and Gillette owns Duracell.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? That wouldn't seem normal for a corporation - it's a product that will have people constantly coming back for more. Suck what profit you can out of it.


Batteries - Discover magazine, or maybe Scientific American had an article recently about this very problem. Electrical devices are using more and more power, but battery technology is lagging.

Some company came up with some really nifty phone/PDA thing, but after the spent lots of money designing it, they found that it would last for about 15 minutes if you actually cared to use any of the advanced features. So that was scrapped.
 
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Uranium emits alpha particles which are highly ionizing. That can be converted into an electrical current. Gamma radiation is also emitted, and has one of the highest energy of the em spectrum. Are there any materials that will convert gamma into an electrical current?
Click to expand...

Ionizing != electrical current. Once you can create positive ions on one side, and negative ions on the other, come back to me.
 
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Originally posted by: Tiamat
Batteries in terms of like Energizer and Duracell - they dont really make any money. Both companies break even with their battery business. Its the shaving part of their business that rakes in the real bucks.

As far as "AA, AAA, 9V" getting better. That ain't happening. Whats happening is a move to more rechargeables and other souces like compact hydrogen cells.

If you didnt know, Energizer owns Schick and Gillette owns Duracell.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? That wouldn't seem normal for a corporation - it's a product that will have people constantly coming back for more. Suck what profit you can out of it.


Batteries - Discover magazine, or maybe Scientific American had an article recently about this very problem. Electrical devices are using more and more power, but battery technology is lagging.

Some company came up with some really nifty phone/PDA thing, but after the spent lots of money designing it, they found that it would last for about 15 minutes if you actually cared to use any of the advanced features. So that was scrapped.
Click to expand...

Yes, batteries break even. With exception to when florida got screwed over by the hurricans. Duracell brought in lots of dough. The shaving industry brings in much more money than you probably believe. You have to realize that money goes to where there is innovation. Batteries, nothing much newer than Duracell Ultras and Energizer Titanium (?). Where as Schick and Gillette have been feriously pumping out new products (and lawsuits).

Its normal for these corporations because there are several benefits to owning or having a battery company than just making profit off of batteries. For instance, you would not have Oral-b electronic toothbrushes without Braun. And Gillette owns both. So, the advantage to owning all of these is that technologies can be combined. Another example, the m3power from gillette ships with duracell batteries. This is probably a very inexpensive thing to the company since they own duracell.
 
There is a certainly some interest in miniature nuclear batteries. These would have the advantage of being very small, and produce a reliable source of power for months, perhaps years. Potentially they could be incorporated into chips to provide a source of power for mobile phone or PDA components - reducing, or obviating, the need for a bulky rechargeable battery.

Such nuclear batteries do not utilise conventional nuclear reactions, but instead rely on heat generated by an alpha emitting (or weak beta) isotope where the radiation is trapped within a shield. Putting a heatsource and a heatsink on opposite sides of a peltier, will cause the peltier to generate an electric current. This setup is called a radio-thermal generator (RTG), and these have been used for decades for military, space and utility use.

Traditionally RTGs have used Strontium-90 as the source - this has a long half life (about 30 years) and emits significant gamma rays, so needs heavy shielding. There was a serious incident in Georgia (part of the old Soviet Union) where several Sr90 RTGs were discarded in the woods with their shield removed. A pair of hunters found the RTGs and setup camp next to them because of their warmth. The next day, they were found horrifically burned and suffering from serious radiation sickness.

More modern devices would be of much smaller size, and use isotopes with much shorter half -lives. One of the potentially most useful is Polonium-210. A piece the size of a grain of table salt, could produce nearly 1W of heat, which could produce plenty of energy for a small CPU or similar. As Po210 is virtually a pure alpha emitter - shielding is trivial. The short half life (about 3 months) reduces the potential pollution problem - simply store the device for 4 or 5 years after it's power runs down, and there will be no significant radioactivity left - at which point the device could safely be recycled or consigned to landfill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top