ITT: We discuss battery tech Lithium Ion > is it time to move on?

>>56577168
Nope

>>56577168
to what?

>>56577178
Why

>>56577203
Other types, Alu air for example. Graphene. Foam

>>56577203
lithium polimer?

>>56577341
Why?

>>56577341
>move on from current battery tech to older battery tech with worse energy density and higher cost
Are you retarded?

>>56577353
>and more stable

What about fuel cells instead?

>>56577454
>stability

Considering there was a recent breakthrough that is supposed to double their capacity, I don't think it'll change any time soon.
Hell, the only reason you're complaining is because the quality control is currently terrible, and that's fixable.

>>56577505
>there was a recent breakthrough that is supposed to double their capacity
These "breakthroughs" happen every few months. They are always nonviable methods that were picked up by some pop-sci publisher and pushed as the next leap in battery technology, conveniently without their shortcomings mentioned.

Whatever breakthrough you're talking about will never actually make it to market

>>56577505
Battery tech changes over time. my first mobile phone had a NiMH battery for example.

Eventually, the battery choice will change. The current poor quality control is irrelevant

>>56577454

Oh yeah, because cartridges of Hydrogen in your pocket are a way better idea than relatively stable Lithium.

>>56577168
Why? I like my phone to double as a makeshift incendiary device

>>56577203
Extended range electric

>>56577685
Lithium > Group 1 > stable > does not compute

Also, fuel cells aren't bombs

>>56577932
>fuel cells aren't bombs
physics says otherwise...

>>56577168
LiFePO4 needs to come sooner to consumer devices. Already used in hobbyist RC shit and personal transport.
>Greater durability, (Sony's prototype did 7000 cycles and it still had 74% remaining hold capacity)
>Safety, it doesn't explode and tolerates high temperatures just fine.
>Power, it provides a ridiculously high current, 20-30C isn't uncommon
Downside is that it's less energy dense about 66-80% of regular Li-Ion cells, but I would have rather this because it provides non-destructive fast charging and the battery will last decades even with daily recharges.

>>56578045
too expensiv to research and dev

>>56577256

>Graphene

Only if you want cancer

>>56577685
Yeah, because a tiny alkaline metal is incredibly stable, much more than an explosive gas

>>56578052
It's not too bad, $12 per 18650 cell.
Density isn't too good though at 1500mAh 3.2V per 18650 cell. But it can do 30A without breaking a sweat.

>>56578055
Everything can give you cancer

>>56577989
Concentration of hydrogen would cause, at worst, a minor flame, not an explosion. Certainly less than a Li-ion battery going up

>>56578087
Rechageable Li-Ion batteries don't contain any elemental Lithium, only in Ion form.

>>56577685
Did you do high school physics? Did you ever burn lithium? It goes quite spectacularly. Na, K and Rb even more so.

Compared to how H burns - this is why it's in period 1, above Li. Thus less reactive. So yes, Li is less stable then H. Mendeleev would like a word with you

>>56578158
Safe Li-ion tech

>>56578158
...so don't stab your battery?

File: Hydrogen.jpg (137KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1920x1080px

>>56578179
Safe Hydrogen Tech

>>56577932
he was referring to hydrogen exploding when ignited

>>56578158
Pretty accurate portrayal of how my anus felt after the first time I got fisted.

>>56577353
Nigger what.
LiPo has higher energy density than LiIon.
The downside is the housefire, obviously.

>>56578091
>>56578045
Lithium iron is unfortunately still way too inferior to LiPo cells in energy density to be used where weight is relevant.
Also, any decent LiPo can handle 30-50C continuous just fine.
There are even 150C continuous LiPos from Maxamps but I doubt that they can really manage that much.

>>56578128
But aren't ions supposed to be stable?

>>56578128
>tfw no francium battery near by balls

>>56578158
>>56578158
The higher the energy storage the more explosive the reaction. The fact that we like making everything super thin also makes them more fragile.

>>56578413
b-but i need my phone to be impossible to hold and use at the same time

File: image.jpg (38KB, 740x415px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 740x415px

>>56578426
>Not having a phone that folds into a tablet or is it the other way around?

>>56578045
>LiFePO4 needs to come sooner to consumer devices. Already used in hobbyist RC shit and personal transport.
Super capacitors have already caught LiFePO4.
You can buy these already, 30-60A charge and discharge, 20,000 cycles, no fires as it's not a chemical reaction. Downside is they're about $70 for the big 9000F cell. Cost would likely come down with mass production but I suppose they have to find someone to order enough of them to get the cost down.
http://www.paperbatteryco.com/products/powerresponder/