this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024
3 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59587 readers
3220 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/42738519

top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] calabast@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I really like the safety aspect of this, but 72% capacity after 300 cycles seems low. What's a use case scenario where this is preferable over lipo batteries?

[–] TerkErJerbs@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Boats, planes, drones, phones, bikes... Anywhere that you can maximize storage cell capacity in odd shaped volumes and spaces/designs. It's great.

[–] ThePantser@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)
[–] TerkErJerbs@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago
[–] veeesix@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Why do you think they’re called D batteries? 😏

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago

Much more stable chemistry. In stationary applications, like UPS systems and off grid electrical systems, lead acid is still the standard, due to having stable chemistry, very unlikely to catch fire, and a cost to capacity ratio that is still very good.

The degradation seems pretty bad, but if it's stable from 300 cycles onwards, you could take 75% as the actual capacity of the battery.

[–] orrk@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

Having looked at comparative data, it's not really out of the norm...

[–] apt8@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago

Big if true

[–] graycube@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

I bet if you cut it vertically the lights will go out.

[–] orrk@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

it is so interesting to learn just how far behind articles like this are

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

But, do they cause a runaway thermal reaction if pierced?

I demand spicy pillows, not mild ones

[–] nous@programming.dev 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

One of the fabricated battery pouch cells was even able to work after being folded and cut off. “That proves its high safety for practical application,” the researchers emphasized.

If you can cut it in half and it still works I doubt piercing it will do much.

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

Oh, oh god. I know exactly how I reasoned that.

Slashing damage is different than piercing damage in the games I play. For whatever reason I ignored the context.

[–] 0x0@programming.dev 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

After 300 cycles, a lithium carbide iron disulfide pouch cell retained 72.0% capacity

Put that on a phone and the battery will degrade almost 30% in one year... seems a lot tbh.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

As a point of reference, Google says that somewhere between 500-2000 cycles you can expect a regular lithium battery to degrade to 80%. So this is worse, but in the ballpark. Seems reasonable for a research prototype to be a little worse than a commercial product that’s had years to become highly optimized.

[–] OmgItBurns@discuss.online 0 points 2 months ago

But depending on cost, in my hopeful optimistic universe, that could mean bringing back replaceable batteries.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

But does it make a boom when Mossad needs it?