The downside of batteries using the new material is that they have less energy capacity than those typically used in laptops today. A123's batteries, for instance, have been engineered for applications in which safety and quick bursts of power are more important, such as for power tools. This power comes partly from the nature of the material; however, making the electrodes thin also helps. So engineering batteries with thicker electrodes can increase capacity.
Although safer lithium-ion batteries could be adapted for mobile devices, a re-engineered battery would still have less runtime than users now expect in their laptops and cell phones. The lower capacity, however, can be offset, to some extent, especially in cell phones, by faster charging times made possible by the new chemistry, says A123 founder and VP of business development Ric Fulop. Although the battery would be exhausted faster, it could be recharged during a break in a meeting or at a layover in an airport. Fulop says their batteries also maintain capacity over more charge/discharge cycles, extending their useful life.
Currently, A123 is focused on power tool and hybrid vehicle markets, where high power is essential. But Valence, whose batteries run the Segway personal transport vehicle, has been talking to laptop manufacturers about adapting laptops to use their batteries, says vice president of marketing Dean Bogues. So far, however, computer makers haven't taken the bait. "The hurdle they've had is, who's going to be the first to give up energy capacity to go with a safer technology?"
With the recent headline news of massive recalls and continuing worries over the safety of more traditional lithium-ion batteries, though, some may begin to change their thinking.
Comments
joseparc on 08/25/2006 at 3:16 PM
3
briang1621 on 08/25/2006 at 8:15 PM
45
Together they have lowered the brand value of this still emerging product component, and likely hurt the other products brand value which dependent upon this component, like cell phones and other laptops. This can be seen in Qantas airline’s band of ALL Dell and Mac batteries in-flight use along with the massive recall of Apple’s Laptop batteries.
But since neither of them exclusively owns the name “Lithium-Ion” why should they care?
Collusion for safety standard is almost necessary for possibly dangerous emerging component or product categories, because as I put it “any one player in the game can kick the ball out of the field for everyone, and end the game.”
The brand name of “Lithium-Ion” is tarnished and it will take several months for the publics confident in this new component to come back. The lesson here is that for possibly dangerous emerging high tech components, safety infractions can hurt every company using that component, and that safety collusion for standard is the better than having someone else’s mistake affect your product.
Ideally this can be done by enforcing safety testing to place a safety standard trademark on your component. Also, I see this as being a necessity in emerging markets like Robotics.
Then again, “When the going gets hot, the hot ones logoff!”
Brian Glassman
http://www.smh.com.au/news/biztech/safety-first-for-carryon-dells/2006/08/23/1156012601607.html
wizardB on 08/27/2006 at 9:13 PM
14
roba on 08/27/2006 at 10:35 PM
1
just to set the record straight.
GreenApple123 on 08/31/2006 at 3:02 PM
3
batterygirl on 12/05/2006 at 1:19 AM
1
AlenJane on 05/09/2008 at 12:31 AM
1
toshiba on 07/13/2008 at 10:42 PM
1
No voltage.
External shot circuit or overcharge, anti-charge
Cells expansion and short circuit caused by direct anode contact and continuous high efficiency electric current overcharging.
It can be avoided by:
Checking if the battery is without voltage or electric current
Avoiding short circuit
Avoiding collision and pressure among batteries
Charging the battery after it automatically powers off, then full charge the battery.