Accidental breakthrough - Scientists invent battery that could last forever

[Jamie McKane]

Accidental breakthrough - Scientists invent battery that could last forever

Researchers have developed a battery technology that greatly increases lifespan and could mean never having to replace a battery again.

[AstroTurf]

I wish I could get excited but there have been so many battery breakthroughs in recent years and none have reached the public.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Avatar]

I wish I could get excited but there have been so many battery breakthroughs in recent years and none have reached the public.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

He says, posting from a 157g phone with a 3600 mAh battery, which can be charged up to 60% in 30 minutes.. These breakthroughs do trickle down, but when the whoo-ha is made at the breakthrough level, it's given as a "gold-strand infused poly-knockon infused flux capacitor infusion tech", but when it gets put in your phone or laptop, it's marketed as "lasts twice as long!", or in the case of phones with ever increasing power draw, "doesn't last half as long as your last phone!"

[AstroTurf]

He says, posting from a 157g phone with a 3600 mAh battery, which can be charged up to 60% in 30 minutes.. These breakthroughs do trickle down, but when the whoo-ha is made at the breakthrough level, it's given as a "gold-strand infused poly-knockon infused flux capacitor infusion tech", but when it gets put in your phone or laptop, it's marketed as "lasts twice as long!", or in the case of phones with ever increasing power draw, "doesn't last half as long as your last phone!"

My S7 Lasts about as long as my S5 did and takes longer to charge than my s5 did so I see no breakthrough as the s5 had 3000mAh and S7 has 3600mAh, even with fast charging.

I'm talking about every single super battery that has been spoken of in the last few years and hybrid power sources as well.

Gas powered.
http://www.geek.com/mobile/motorola-...phones-546797/

Fully charged in 30 seconds.
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/...nge-technology

Charge via photosynthesis, Solid state batteries that charge in 7 minutes, powers your device for months, liquid in the battery can be drained and replaced with fully charged liquid (cars) etcetcetc

All these "breakthroughs" have not seen the light of day, I'm not holding my breath.


Here is a comprehensive list.

http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/1303...r-over-the-air

[Avatar]

My S7 Lasts about as long as my S5 did and takes longer to charge than my s5 did so I see no breakthrough as the s5 had 3000mAh and S7 has 3600mAh, even with fast charging.

So you're saying that between two models, you don't notice a difference, and so no breakthrough had been made? The S7 has double the cores, a 20% capacity increase, and (by your own admission) "lasts about as long". That is excellent development, considering the two year turn around cycle.

Gas powered.
http://www.geek.com/mobile/motorola-...phones-546797/

Fuel cells had long since fallen out of fashion; consumer studies have shown that people don't like being immolated by their cellphones. Fuel cells were touted as the "next best thing, once we've sorted out these problems", and were never really considered a breakthrough.\, since the problems were never really overcome; expensive to manufacture, uses rare, expensive, non-green materials, doesn't produce a high voltage, so you're charging an intermediate battery, and produces a shitload of heat, which leads to aforementioned immolation. If these problems ever gets sorted, this will be a big breakthrough; until then, though, Motorola were speaking too soon.

Fully charged in 30 seconds.
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/...nge-technology

This is an article from 7 months ago (to the day) which is hardly enough time for a "breakthrough" to be packaged for consumer consumption. They also don't speak about the energy capacity at all. Were they charging a 3600mAh battery in 40 seconds? I doubt it, because then they would've said so. This is a very early proof of concept, and, like fuel cells, are actually a different technology altogether, rather than an improvement on the typical batteries we use right now.

Charge via photosynthesis, Solid state batteries that charge in 7 minutes, powers your device for months, liquid in the battery can be drained and replaced with fully charged liquid (cars) etcetcetc

Photosynthesis is an energy generation technique, not an energy storage device. Also, low voltages and power, since it's orders lower powered than solar cells.

"Solid state batteries that charge in 7 minutes, powers your device for months" - Citation needed. Solid state batteries have higher energy densities, sure, but not to power you device for months. Also, poor conductivity is still a massive hurdle in the development of these batteries. The real advantage of these will be a much free-er form factor.

Liquid can be drained and replaced with charged liquids? You'll have to be a bit more descriptive, I'm afraid, this sound kinda like fuel cells, but also not, so I'm not sure what you mean here.

These last ones and the link you provided are all so far from being ready to manufacture.. I think a larger issue here is journalistic responsibility being ignored for the sake of a headline. Early life proof of concepts should not be reported on as "the next best thing" or "the technology that will save a generation", as the development of these kinds of tech very often run into hurdles and dead ends. True breakthroughs that we reap the benefit from happens quietly and wrapped in marketing term, rather than scientific ones, but it should not be ignored.

[AstroTurf]

So you're saying that between two models, you don't notice a difference, and so no breakthrough had been made? The S7 has double the cores, a 20% capacity increase, and (by your own admission) "lasts about as long". That is excellent development, considering the two year turn around cycle.



Fuel cells had long since fallen out of fashion; consumer studies have shown that people don't like being immolated by their cellphones. Fuel cells were touted as the "next best thing, once we've sorted out these problems", and were never really considered a breakthrough.\, since the problems were never really overcome; expensive to manufacture, uses rare, expensive, non-green materials, doesn't produce a high voltage, so you're charging an intermediate battery, and produces a shitload of heat, which leads to aforementioned immolation. If these problems ever gets sorted, this will be a big breakthrough; until then, though, Motorola were speaking too soon.



This is an article from 7 months ago (to the day) which is hardly enough time for a "breakthrough" to be packaged for consumer consumption. They also don't speak about the energy capacity at all. Were they charging a 3600mAh battery in 40 seconds? I doubt it, because then they would've said so. This is a very early proof of concept, and, like fuel cells, are actually a different technology altogether, rather than an improvement on the typical batteries we use right now.



Photosynthesis is an energy generation technique, not an energy storage device. Also, low voltages and power, since it's orders lower powered than solar cells.

"Solid state batteries that charge in 7 minutes, powers your device for months" - Citation needed. Solid state batteries have higher energy densities, sure, but not to power you device for months. Also, poor conductivity is still a massive hurdle in the development of these batteries. The real advantage of these will be a much free-er form factor.

Liquid can be drained and replaced with charged liquids? You'll have to be a bit more descriptive, I'm afraid, this sound kinda like fuel cells, but also not, so I'm not sure what you mean here.

These last ones and the link you provided are all so far from being ready to manufacture.. I think a larger issue here is journalistic responsibility being ignored for the sake of a headline. Early life proof of concepts should not be reported on as "the next best thing" or "the technology that will save a generation", as the development of these kinds of tech very often run into hurdles and dead ends. True breakthroughs that we reap the benefit from happens quietly and wrapped in marketing term, rather than scientific ones, but it should not be ignored.

Nothing new has happened.

I stand corrected, my S5 had a 2800mAh battery. My S7Edge has a 3600mAh battery so the s7 edge has around 25% more battery power.
The Quick charge ability keeps the charging speed about the same as the s5. That has nothing to do with the battery though, pop that s5 battery onto a quick charging dock and it would also charge about 25% faster than it does at the moment.
Lasts about the same but that is because of the S7 Screen and many other non battery related improvements on the s7 (that happen to make it less power hungry).

The same old stuff may be getting improved slightly but there is no new battery technology available even though there are plenty proven concepts.

[Hagan]

Faster recharge; never to be replaced?

How's your brother's battery business meant to grow if there are no returning customer?

[czc]

Title doesn't seem very accurate.