Welp as always extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Sadly were in the age now where I expect ANY company to say ANYTHING no matter how "in the lab only"/"not ready for...
Welp as always extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Sadly were in the age now where I expect ANY company to say ANYTHING no matter how "in the lab only"/"not ready for production"/"literally made up bullshit" it is. I hope this is not another case of that, because if true that's going to be seriously impressive for the next 5-10 years of development for everyone, but until I see it in a product it doesn't exist.
A high-density battery isn't necessarily an extraordinary claim. The problem is that effective batteries need to have a whole bunch of positive traits: Safe to use. Low risk of combusting. Fast...
A high-density battery isn't necessarily an extraordinary claim. The problem is that effective batteries need to have a whole bunch of positive traits:
Safe to use. Low risk of combusting.
Fast charging, so devices can be used in day-to-day tasks
Fast discharging, so it can actually power modern electronics
Reusable. A battery that breaks down after 30 cycles won't cut it.
Stable across different temperature ranges
High density/energy storage
Low-cost (eg. not reliant on rare-Earth elements)
Able to be mass-produced with current manufacturing methods
Non-toxic and recyclable are also big pluses
So far, lithium-ion does the best job at meeting all of these traits. There's a large number of interesting battery research projects that excel at one of these traits, but fail at others. It's rare though that battery technology has a revolution. Most progress has been iterative, though it has been steady.
Even if it doesn't make its way into consumer electronics, this kind of research is occasionally still useful to more esoteric applications like space travel, where the needs are different from that of regular consumers.
Other than safe to use. Not to say its not safe-for-production, which plenty of other battery tech is not yet. But that of those factors, Li-ion is one where we sacrifice safety the most. Any old...
So far, lithium-ion does the best job at meeting all of these traits.
Other than safe to use. Not to say its not safe-for-production, which plenty of other battery tech is not yet. But that of those factors, Li-ion is one where we sacrifice safety the most.
Any old idiot can use a lead acid battery or nicad in an amateur project, and chances of exploding are nill. A lithium-ion battery requires very sophisticated charging circuits and is dangerous to work with, especially if the cells start bloating. And if it catches fire, it's one of the worst types.
We would probably do better to sacrifice fast charging and discharge in favor of higher capacity and safety for many applications. I don't care if my phone takes 13 hours to charge if it'll last for 3 days (lol remember when our cellphones would last for weeks).
No clear details on release, but seems like it might be promising Something interesting I noticed though was this It seemed interesting that a spin off company would make a statement so contrary...
No clear details on release, but seems like it might be promising
Something interesting I noticed though was this
Robin Zeng, founder and chief executive of CATL, the world’s biggest electric vehicle battery manufacturer, told the Financial Times in March that solid-state batteries did not work well enough, lacked durability and still had safety problems. Zeng’s CATL originated as a spin-off from Amperex Technology, or ATL, which is a subsidiary of TDK and is the world’s leading producer of lithium-ion batteries.
It seemed interesting that a spin off company would make a statement so contrary to the parent, unless TDK is simply trying to boost their stock value
That comment is in reference to using solid state batteries at automotive scale. For small devices that currently use coin cell batteries, the TDK technology may well be mature enough to have a...
That comment is in reference to using solid state batteries at automotive scale.
For small devices that currently use coin cell batteries, the TDK technology may well be mature enough to have a significant impact. I work with an IoT hardware suite where this technology could potentially eliminate battery waste, cut end user cost of ownership by 50% or more over the product lifetime, and drastically improve the device capabilities by allowing more onboard processing. Fingers-crossed that it pans out at a reasonable cost.
The non solid state Batteries in current EVs are around 600-700 Wh/L. So 1000 Wh/L is impressive, but I wouldn't call it "insane". I guess it's insane for solid state batteries, which have some...
The non solid state Batteries in current EVs are around 600-700 Wh/L.
So 1000 Wh/L is impressive, but I wouldn't call it "insane".
I guess it's insane for solid state batteries, which have some advantages, like a longer life.
It's an odd headline for an odd article, probably based on a press release. The company has improved their own batteries hundredfold, which is great. It's also claiming about 20 times higher...
The new material provides an energy density—the amount that can be squeezed into a given space—of 1,000 watt-hours per liter, which is about 100 times greater than TDK’s current battery in mass production. Since TDK introduced it in 2020, competitors have moved forward, developing small solid-state batteries that offer 50 Wh/l, while rechargeable coin batteries using traditional liquid electrolytes offer about 400 Wh/l, according to the group.
It's an odd headline for an odd article, probably based on a press release. The company has improved their own batteries hundredfold, which is great. It's also claiming about 20 times higher energy density than the solid state batteries of its competitors, which is highly impressive. And more than twice the energy density of competing technologies in the same size category, which I guess is the "insane energy density" the headline refers to. Does double qualify as insane? Battery enthusiasts may have an opinion on that.
Have you opened the link to see the original title? Edit: lmao wow, I posted a different link. Can an admin update the title? I had originally copied something from Financial Times...
Have you opened the link to see the original title?
Edit: lmao wow, I posted a different link. Can an admin update the title?
Sorry for the confusion, I changed the link - ArsTechnica re-posts some FT articles, but without the paywall. So when an Ars version is available, it's usually accessible for more people. The Ars...
Sorry for the confusion, I changed the link - ArsTechnica re-posts some FT articles, but without the paywall. So when an Ars version is available, it's usually accessible for more people.
The Ars version does still refer to them as "Apple supplier" in the sub-title too though.
Thanks Deimos! I had just seen the article from my daily news minimalist email, and posted accordingly. I do prefer the Ars version though. In the future I’ll have to double check there when I see...
Thanks Deimos!
I had just seen the article from my daily news minimalist email, and posted accordingly. I do prefer the Ars version though. In the future I’ll have to double check there when I see a FT article
Welp as always extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Sadly were in the age now where I expect ANY company to say ANYTHING no matter how "in the lab only"/"not ready for production"/"literally made up bullshit" it is. I hope this is not another case of that, because if true that's going to be seriously impressive for the next 5-10 years of development for everyone, but until I see it in a product it doesn't exist.
A high-density battery isn't necessarily an extraordinary claim. The problem is that effective batteries need to have a whole bunch of positive traits:
So far, lithium-ion does the best job at meeting all of these traits. There's a large number of interesting battery research projects that excel at one of these traits, but fail at others. It's rare though that battery technology has a revolution. Most progress has been iterative, though it has been steady.
Even if it doesn't make its way into consumer electronics, this kind of research is occasionally still useful to more esoteric applications like space travel, where the needs are different from that of regular consumers.
edit: Typo
Other than safe to use. Not to say its not safe-for-production, which plenty of other battery tech is not yet. But that of those factors, Li-ion is one where we sacrifice safety the most.
Any old idiot can use a lead acid battery or nicad in an amateur project, and chances of exploding are nill. A lithium-ion battery requires very sophisticated charging circuits and is dangerous to work with, especially if the cells start bloating. And if it catches fire, it's one of the worst types.
We would probably do better to sacrifice fast charging and discharge in favor of higher capacity and safety for many applications. I don't care if my phone takes 13 hours to charge if it'll last for 3 days (lol remember when our cellphones would last for weeks).
No clear details on release, but seems like it might be promising
Something interesting I noticed though was this
It seemed interesting that a spin off company would make a statement so contrary to the parent, unless TDK is simply trying to boost their stock value
That comment is in reference to using solid state batteries at automotive scale.
For small devices that currently use coin cell batteries, the TDK technology may well be mature enough to have a significant impact. I work with an IoT hardware suite where this technology could potentially eliminate battery waste, cut end user cost of ownership by 50% or more over the product lifetime, and drastically improve the device capabilities by allowing more onboard processing. Fingers-crossed that it pans out at a reasonable cost.
The non solid state Batteries in current EVs are around 600-700 Wh/L.
So 1000 Wh/L is impressive, but I wouldn't call it "insane".
I guess it's insane for solid state batteries, which have some advantages, like a longer life.
It's an odd headline for an odd article, probably based on a press release. The company has improved their own batteries hundredfold, which is great. It's also claiming about 20 times higher energy density than the solid state batteries of its competitors, which is highly impressive. And more than twice the energy density of competing technologies in the same size category, which I guess is the "insane energy density" the headline refers to. Does double qualify as insane? Battery enthusiasts may have an opinion on that.
Why did you editorialize the title to include apple. The article and news is about TDK.
Have you opened the link to see the original title?
Edit: lmao wow, I posted a different link. Can an admin update the title?
I had originally copied something from Financial Times https://archive.ph/TuOI0
Sorry for the confusion, I changed the link - ArsTechnica re-posts some FT articles, but without the paywall. So when an Ars version is available, it's usually accessible for more people.
The Ars version does still refer to them as "Apple supplier" in the sub-title too though.
Thanks Deimos!
I had just seen the article from my daily news minimalist email, and posted accordingly. I do prefer the Ars version though. In the future I’ll have to double check there when I see a FT article
Fixed.