Hello Jpub
Been busy farming it rained today so my work has slowed considerably.
By the way may the next 360 days be as happy as your birthday. Hope your enjoying the game.
Just to make sure the next 360 days are happy "DON"T FORGET YOUR WIFES BIRTHDAY!".
/QUOTE/
1) Efficiency (energy released compared to cost to charge). Most batteries of 20+ years ago had efficiencies lower than 80%. Today's Lithiums and variants have as much as 99%. That's incredible.
/ENDQUOTE/
Yes I have to agree that is increadible, but wasn't that a given from the Lithium battery's type of chemistry?
Seems I remember reading that the Lithium chemistry would lead to a very efficent recharge capability when compared to the other battery chemistries like Nickel-cadmium or lead acid.
(Please Correct me if I'm wrong it has been several years.)
/QUOTE/
2) Shelf-life. The ability for a non-rechargable (ie Alkaline) has improved immensely. On average, an alkaline of 20 years ago had a 3-year shelf-life, today's batteries routinely have 7+.
Additionally, rechargables traditionally had poor shelf-life, but some modern products have a self-discharge factor low enough that they can actually be stored and last for years.
/END QUOTE/
Yes I know, anybody else know people who keep thier batteries in the fridge?
If I'm not mistaken wasn't improved self life used as part of a advertisement campaign by a battery company starting about 20 years ago?
Up until about then Alkalyne batteries were a desposable item that the average consumer didn't hold to a very high standard and there was little incentive for the battery companies to make any improvements.
When large numbers of battery powered devices appeared they suddenly increased in importance in consumer's minds and the battery companies eventually caught on.
Thinking about it doesn't that under 3 to over 7 year improvement in self life in 20 years prove my point that chemical batteries are a very mature power storage technology?
It has taken them over 20 years to double what has become a very significant statistic.
/Quote/
3) Your car battery is a lot tougher, and can work better over a wider range of temperatures and conditions than it used to.
Look, do you really think your CELL PHONE would be possible 20 years ago? That you wouldn't be swapping out that battery every month or so?
/End Quote/
No I do not think a battery of 20 years ago would have worked, but the CELL PHONE was the "Killer Application" that suddenly made the consumer market willing to pay for a large number of improvements that had been waiting in the wings.
I know my car battery is tougher and can work better over a wide range of temperatures, but the improvement is a relatively low sloped linear improvement that took a significant investment to achieve.
/QUOTE/
Claiming that 'everything was predicted in a 1950's chem book' is a bit silly, and you know it. Yes, batteries are based on a chemical reaction, and the fundamentals of that reaction were known a long time ago. That hasn't changed.
By the same token, the IC hasn't changed in the past 50 years either - it's still nothing more than a bunch of transistors. The gun is still just using the explosive reaction of gunpower (or some variant) to throw a projectile, but they've changed quite a bit in the last 50 years.
/END QUOTE/
Nope I don't know that it is silly.
Chemical Batteries have the improvement curve of a very mature technology with doublings of significant values like shelf life, power density and recharge efficency every 20 to 30 years.
The Integrated Circuit has the the exponential expansion curve of a immature technology ICs are doubling in significant values such as speed and density every 2 or 3 years.
I can see the justification for spending large amounts of money in researching improvements in IC Chips, but chemical battery technology improvement has been far more linear in it's improvements. That chemistry book predicted the power densities very closly for technologies like lithium and yet it took a significant amount of research and retooling to build them.
I can't personally see the spending of the same sums of money on battery chemistry research when it take 20 to 30 years to gain a doubling.
There are alternative power storage systems especially when it comes to vehicles.
I personally think 30% to possibly 50% of the research into chemical batteries would have been better spent in looking at alternative power storage systems.
GUNS! want to start a thread on guns?
Assuming I can find time to reply regularly we could discuss everything from ancient fireworks to modern near science fiction systems like coil guns and railguns.
/QUOTE/
The material sciences used in the design and manufacture of batteries has changed immensely, and THAT is where the improvement lies. Hey, the Lithium battery, as used today, wasn't even possible commerically until the mid 90's. The Li-poly battery, probably the pinnacle of battery design, wasn't available until sometime in the last 5 years.
/End Quote/
True, but how much of an improvement over the Earlier batteries is it?
/QUOTE/
BTW, the mAh rating of a battery is meaningless. An Alkaline has a rating of 2300-2500, while a NiCd has 1200-2000. Yet the latter is better in electronics. The big advancements have come not in how much energy they store (although there has been some - Lithium batteries have vastly higher energy density than Alkalines), but how they release the energy.
/END QUOTE/
NO! your wrong when your comparing batteries with the same battery chemistry it is a very helpful measurement.
YES your right when it comes to different battery chemistry it's nearly useless.
You brought up a point we have both been ignoring with chemical batteries you very much need to choose your battery's chemistry based on the power curves and demands of the application.
This thread started over a vehicle using compressed air instead of chemical batteries.
Lithium batteries are economically and chemically needed for applications like cell phones and other hand held devices, but I doubt we will ever see them used extensively in the car industry as a power storage system.
howard melton
God bless
Been busy farming it rained today so my work has slowed considerably.
By the way may the next 360 days be as happy as your birthday. Hope your enjoying the game.
Just to make sure the next 360 days are happy "DON"T FORGET YOUR WIFES BIRTHDAY!".
/QUOTE/
1) Efficiency (energy released compared to cost to charge). Most batteries of 20+ years ago had efficiencies lower than 80%. Today's Lithiums and variants have as much as 99%. That's incredible.
/ENDQUOTE/
Yes I have to agree that is increadible, but wasn't that a given from the Lithium battery's type of chemistry?
Seems I remember reading that the Lithium chemistry would lead to a very efficent recharge capability when compared to the other battery chemistries like Nickel-cadmium or lead acid.
(Please Correct me if I'm wrong it has been several years.)
/QUOTE/
2) Shelf-life. The ability for a non-rechargable (ie Alkaline) has improved immensely. On average, an alkaline of 20 years ago had a 3-year shelf-life, today's batteries routinely have 7+.
Additionally, rechargables traditionally had poor shelf-life, but some modern products have a self-discharge factor low enough that they can actually be stored and last for years.
/END QUOTE/
Yes I know, anybody else know people who keep thier batteries in the fridge?
If I'm not mistaken wasn't improved self life used as part of a advertisement campaign by a battery company starting about 20 years ago?
Up until about then Alkalyne batteries were a desposable item that the average consumer didn't hold to a very high standard and there was little incentive for the battery companies to make any improvements.
When large numbers of battery powered devices appeared they suddenly increased in importance in consumer's minds and the battery companies eventually caught on.
Thinking about it doesn't that under 3 to over 7 year improvement in self life in 20 years prove my point that chemical batteries are a very mature power storage technology?
It has taken them over 20 years to double what has become a very significant statistic.
/Quote/
3) Your car battery is a lot tougher, and can work better over a wider range of temperatures and conditions than it used to.
Look, do you really think your CELL PHONE would be possible 20 years ago? That you wouldn't be swapping out that battery every month or so?
/End Quote/
No I do not think a battery of 20 years ago would have worked, but the CELL PHONE was the "Killer Application" that suddenly made the consumer market willing to pay for a large number of improvements that had been waiting in the wings.
I know my car battery is tougher and can work better over a wide range of temperatures, but the improvement is a relatively low sloped linear improvement that took a significant investment to achieve.
/QUOTE/
Claiming that 'everything was predicted in a 1950's chem book' is a bit silly, and you know it. Yes, batteries are based on a chemical reaction, and the fundamentals of that reaction were known a long time ago. That hasn't changed.
By the same token, the IC hasn't changed in the past 50 years either - it's still nothing more than a bunch of transistors. The gun is still just using the explosive reaction of gunpower (or some variant) to throw a projectile, but they've changed quite a bit in the last 50 years.
/END QUOTE/
Nope I don't know that it is silly.
Chemical Batteries have the improvement curve of a very mature technology with doublings of significant values like shelf life, power density and recharge efficency every 20 to 30 years.
The Integrated Circuit has the the exponential expansion curve of a immature technology ICs are doubling in significant values such as speed and density every 2 or 3 years.
I can see the justification for spending large amounts of money in researching improvements in IC Chips, but chemical battery technology improvement has been far more linear in it's improvements. That chemistry book predicted the power densities very closly for technologies like lithium and yet it took a significant amount of research and retooling to build them.
I can't personally see the spending of the same sums of money on battery chemistry research when it take 20 to 30 years to gain a doubling.
There are alternative power storage systems especially when it comes to vehicles.
I personally think 30% to possibly 50% of the research into chemical batteries would have been better spent in looking at alternative power storage systems.
GUNS! want to start a thread on guns?
Assuming I can find time to reply regularly we could discuss everything from ancient fireworks to modern near science fiction systems like coil guns and railguns.
/QUOTE/
The material sciences used in the design and manufacture of batteries has changed immensely, and THAT is where the improvement lies. Hey, the Lithium battery, as used today, wasn't even possible commerically until the mid 90's. The Li-poly battery, probably the pinnacle of battery design, wasn't available until sometime in the last 5 years.
/End Quote/
True, but how much of an improvement over the Earlier batteries is it?
/QUOTE/
BTW, the mAh rating of a battery is meaningless. An Alkaline has a rating of 2300-2500, while a NiCd has 1200-2000. Yet the latter is better in electronics. The big advancements have come not in how much energy they store (although there has been some - Lithium batteries have vastly higher energy density than Alkalines), but how they release the energy.
/END QUOTE/
NO! your wrong when your comparing batteries with the same battery chemistry it is a very helpful measurement.
YES your right when it comes to different battery chemistry it's nearly useless.
You brought up a point we have both been ignoring with chemical batteries you very much need to choose your battery's chemistry based on the power curves and demands of the application.
This thread started over a vehicle using compressed air instead of chemical batteries.
Lithium batteries are economically and chemically needed for applications like cell phones and other hand held devices, but I doubt we will ever see them used extensively in the car industry as a power storage system.
howard melton
God bless