Exactly , the thing is the Nokia 8210 and other bricks weren't power hungry so the battery would last more than a day. Nowadays you have to charge everyday but hey you can't get everything right.
Battery Technology - where is it ?!?!
- Thread starter SDK^
- Start date
Exactly , the thing is the Nokia 8210 and other bricks weren't power hungry so the battery would last more than a day. Nowadays you have to charge everyday but hey you can't get everything right.
I had a Tamiya Hi-Lux which ran off a 7.2v NiCd battery. If I was lucky I got 15 minutes of playing a reasonable speeds. I then waited a minimum of 2 hours for that to recharge.
I now have an equivalent car using a LiPo battery and brushless motor. I now have 45-50 minutes of runtime at massively increased speed. I can then fast charge those in 30 minutes.
Things haven't improved?!?
I now have an equivalent car using a LiPo battery and brushless motor. I now have 45-50 minutes of runtime at massively increased speed. I can then fast charge those in 30 minutes.
Things haven't improved?!?
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
I never mentioned Lipo.
Energizer lithium AA's are 1.7v so only .2v above normal alkalines.
My calcs stand.
Last edited by a moderator:
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 May 2004
- Posts
- 13,058
- Location
- Sunny Stafford
<< hard of hearing here. Hearing aid (button) batteries would last 2 days back in 1990 based on 16 hours a day's usage. Now I get a fortnight off them. It's probably a combination of same-sized batteries having more capacity and the hearing aids being more efficient. Probably not what the OP is asking for, but just throwing in a battery example.
Lead-Acid still going strong in 2015
You're not going to get anything more powerful for the cost than some slabs of lead in a bucket of sulphuric acid.
It's terrible for energy/weight but it's so simple and cheap that as long as the weight is manageable or even useful it's got a really solid giant chunk of the battery market that can't be easily dislodged.
You're not going to get anything more powerful for the cost than some slabs of lead in a bucket of sulphuric acid.
It's terrible for energy/weight but it's so simple and cheap that as long as the weight is manageable or even useful it's got a really solid giant chunk of the battery market that can't be easily dislodged.
I never mentioned lipo either, the most common chemistries for lithium cells including those in the AA and near size standards produce a nominal pd in the range of 3.6v. While some particular brands and products may be using chemistries producing only 1.5v, that shouldn't be assumed.
Last edited:
they're being suppressed by the Illuminati and the free masons, they make too much money from us repeatedly buying ordinary cells
exactly - normally people would think only an utter retard could believe something like that, I mean there is no real link between oil extraction and the manufacture of cells so the argument doesn't really work... but then people forget all about the Illuminati
You can't complain that battery technology hasn't moved on since the 70s when you're still buying 70s technology.
The battery technology hasn't been developed as much due to petrol. If you think about how much money there is in petrol and you were getting a slice of that money, you wouldn't want this to end, would you? People were most likely delaying the development as it was in favour of those who make money out of petrol.
I'm more interested in H2 (Hydrogen) used as petrol and a big plus unlike the batteries its not harmful to our environment.
tbh that sounds like utter rubbish all the technology companies couldn't give a crap about petrol.
There will be companies pumping billions into battery tech for mobile phones , laptops and other electrical devices
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
3.6v batteries in AA size are 14500's, not AA's as 1.5v or nearabouts is an AA specificification so 3.6v by definition means they aren't an AA cell.
Sure, you can get rechargeable LiCo 14500 batteries that physically fit AA based devices but thier voltage means they are incompatible (put two 14500 cells in your walkman and see what happens). They are also non rechargeable LiCo based cells (Saft LS-14500 AA 3.6V) which is suitable for only very low drain applications (tens of ma) - usually for burglar alarms etc. Consumer grade AA lithium battries are 1.7v - and only Energizer produces then.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 3,833
- Location
- London
The biggest thing holding back battery technology are anode materials and their integration. The most common one today is graphite. Lithium Ion batteries have a limited number of recharges and decreasing battery life with each charge, this is to do with the decay of the anode inside the battery as electrons move through it (Methods of decay vary depending on the type of battery). Having more robust anodes does two things: 1) Allows for faster charging time and 2) Allows the cell to be recharged more frequently before failure. Billions are spent every year developing new processes and materials to improve battery anodes, progress is slow but things are consistently improving. Compare laptops in the mid / early 90s to laptops today with a similar power consumption envelope and you'll see there's a massive difference in weight and longevity.
Last edited:
AA specifies size, it is a common designation only, not an IEC or ANSI specification including chemistry and voltage performance details, but it's moot. At the end of the you day commonly get lithium batteries of that size using 3.6v, so generalising voltages or chemistries based on size specification is hazardous and leads to erroneous energy density calculations.
Last edited:
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Ok, so back to your "3x energy" comment - how many more watt hours (watt hours is the correct term if we're talking about "total energy) does a rechargeable LiCo AA (14500) 3.6v cell have vs an Energizer Lithium 1.7v AA?
Tip: Wh = Ah of battery * nominal voltage
Next Tip: It's not 3x as much. In fact, I think you'll find it isn't even higher at all.
Not trying to be a ****, but decades of flashlight collecting and RC car hobbies has me pretty clued up on battery chemistry.
Last edited by a moderator:
Just multiply the voltage by the Ah rating and work it out. If you're that interested, I don't think I have any devices that use AA batteries anymore, decent torches are using 18650's as they tend to have better energy density than smaller batteries.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,344
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
The really good 18650 batteries are expensive but carry more charge. We havent yet seen proper mass production bring down prices where your common AA is clearly better now, I agree with the OP but also there is fair advancement. I think this is part of what makes drones possible, power to weight is advancing
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
OK.
So a 14500 LiCo is typically 900mah and are 3.7v. So that's 3.33 w/h.
An Energizer Lithium AA is 3100mah and are 1.7v. So that's 5.27 w/h.
A Sanyo Eneloop XX is 2500mah and are 1.2v. So that's 3.3 w/h.
The LiCo has barely anymore energy than the Eneloop.
So your "It's actually about 3x that because lithium batteries operate at a higher voltage." statement is false, as the increase in voltage is often coupled with a reduction in mah.
Last edited by a moderator:
I was under the assumption they operated at the standard voltage of 3.6v. Saying that though, the energizer batteries are not 5.27 Wh, their nominal voltage is actually 1.5v and when tested you're looking at an actual capacity of 2.8-4.1 Wh depending on discharge rate, at high rates of discharge such as in RC applications they actually perform no better than NiMh.
Last edited:
In the same place they've been for years: science fiction.
Hydrogen fusion batteries aren't in development. The smallest hydrogen fusion unit that's even being considered at the moment is the size of a lorry and it's not a battery at all. A hydrogen fusion battery isn't even an idea.
There are some different battery technologies in development and some of them have potential for huge improvements over existing technology. Not on the level of sci-fi power generators made up from nothing for the sake of the story, but as much as a tenfold increase over current batteries in some ways. The problem is media reporting, as usual. Some scientists come up with a proof of concept that's expensive and hard to build even as a one-off and works under carefully controlled lab conditions and that's reported as "magic batteries will be for sale by Christmas!!!!!!!!"