When asked to explain, the spokesman says things like "we use new physics". That alone peaked my bullshit detector.
Every battery tech I'm also aware of cannot handle high amperage charging without things like outgassing, battery seperation, heating effects, and explosions. Even the venerable NiFe battery has problems with high current charging.
It isn't a charging technology for existing batteries, the BBC are doing very crappy reporting. It is an ultra-capacitor made of peptides instead of a battery.
Lithium Iron Phosphate cells can charge at a rate of up to 5C with no side effects - they're used in more expensive hand-tools and as primary power cells for electric radio control aircraft and helicopters.
That said, smartphones don't use these batteries, and anyone who tried to put a couple of amperes into a standard lithium polymer battery is going to have an amusing experience.
There are specialist lipos used for RC planes/cars/boats that can handle 100C burst discharges but even those can't be charged at more than ~10-20C - and these cells have very high self-discharge and short cycle life, so they're quite unsuitable for mobile phones.
I have the same doubts. For entertainment reasons, I would be interested in the explosions you mentioned, but other than that I would prefer my battery to survive its first recharge, and many more after that.
From what i can understand the biological process is used to construct non-biological parts in this case very small semi-conducting crystals. The "battery" it self i would assume is some sort of a high density bank of MIS capacitors or any other semi-conductive capacitor.
According to some of the more business oriented reporting about the product their current end goal for 2017 is a 100-150$ batter capable of 1500-2000 discharge cycles this means that if it will be put in a phone it will give you a life time of 3-4 years depending on your discharge rate.
Their goals at least seem to be very realistic, even if the price will be a blocker even for most high end phone users. I do see this technology having many applications tho especially for military and emergency services. Considering that the US Army has trialed multiple Samsung phones so far with specialized software an "ultra battery" like this would be very appealing to them even if it will have a horrible life time and a very high price compared to commercial batteries. The Army can and will pay very high amounts if it means that the turn around for a soldier's computing package will be minutes instead of hours.
The company so far raised 40-50 million $ and not via "kickstarter" some of the investors are rumored to be phone giants including Samsung, and in any case venture capitalist firms don't ten to put 50M on the table for snake oil.
> in any case venture capitalist firms don't ten to put 50M on the table for snake oil.
You have a much higher view of VCs then I do then. I'm personally aware of a few tech companies that exist solely to siphon money from the investors to the founder. Rich people aren't always careful with their money, particularly when they are putting it into something hot, like tech, that they know nothing about.
Maybe a nanopore/nanostructure battery[1,2]? They are touted to bring near-capacitor charge/discharge rates from fairly traditional chemistry. This specific application leaves a few questions, though:
1: What is the actual capacity of the battery demonstrated? If it has a high C but low capacity, this isn't really notable. The paper [1] indicates that total charge capacity is a function of how fast the battery is charged; what tradeoff are they making?
2: How many charge cycles is this battery capable of at those rates?
3: What thresholds are they putting in place for temperature, and are all the components of the phone rated for repeated thermal cycles to those levels and back to ambient?
4: What is the failure mode for this battery? Outgassing? What compounds are released in overcharge?
And then battery technology improved to the point where it became better for most people to have a slimmer, sturdier device without the user-swappable part and all the doors and connectors such a thing entails.
"The BBC has been given an exclusive look at a new kind of battery charger that can recharge a modern smartphone in less time than it takes to boil a kettle."
Unless I am missing something on Storedot's website, the BBC were actually shown a phone with an ultra-capacitor instead of a battery.
It's 100% believable, technology-wise. It's a 2600 mAh LiPo (or LiFePO4 or other similar lithium battery), and the charger charges it at about 4C == 10A. The tradeoff is that such high charge rate tends to damage the battery quicker (resulting in sagging voltages/lower capacity).
I don't believe their claims that it will last 3 years of regular use, that it will have 1500 charge cycles, or that it has "novel battery chemistry". I'd give it up to a year, and even then you'd probably be experiencing much lower capacity by the end of the year, but that's my rough guess. I'm also a bit surprised that it's deemed safe for consumers and will be certified.
It is very common (almost required) when reporting on companies/startups (and even people) to mention their location. Doubly so if the location isn't where the reporter is located or where you may assume a different location not given that information. Sometimes in the title. Almost always in the body. Including a location is part of journalism.
"US based startup brings families together. "
"Silicon Valley startup revolutionizes washing clothes."
"Researchers in Germany find life on Mars."
"DC defense contractor wastes millions of dollars in government money."
I just Googled for a second and found "Wipro sells 8% stake in US-based startup Axeda, bought after Rishad Premji took over as strategy head"
This was on Slashdot the other day - "European Researchers Develop More Accurate Full Body Polygraph"
None of those sound odd or are nationalistic labels. Why do you assume that simply mentioning Isreal is being nationalistic?
Because it's an interesting fact. Lots of articles talk about SV startups, Berlin startups, London startups etc. I find it interesting to know where the company is from. If the BBC was reporting on a 'British startup' you could consider that nationalistic (although I wouldn't). But a British news company mentioning the country of a foreign startup is hardly nationalistic in any way.
I've noticed from years of reading Wikipedia that on articles on people, if the side section or first paragraph contains anything related to their background (religion or race) it almost always is there to state that they are Jewish. I don't know why, this isn't a conspiracy theory, but perhaps somebody thinks it's important that if somebody is Jewish in heritage everybody should know.
Probably because it's not from the U.S.
I encountered a lot of startup descriptions like european based startup, german/berlin startup, etc.
The place isn't that important, but some think that it's mention worthy if it's not from a startup cluster.
I guess it was done to boost the “novelty factor”. Beware, however, that the startup itself is probably not responsible for the crappiness of reporting. I don't presume they control the publishers.
I guess any disruptiv startup not born in california or the US is unusual.
That, plus the fact that israel, as a country, has made the choice of focusing 100% on high tech, so it's always interesting to know if/when that choice pays off.
[+] [-] kefka|11 years ago|reply
When asked to explain, the spokesman says things like "we use new physics". That alone peaked my bullshit detector.
Every battery tech I'm also aware of cannot handle high amperage charging without things like outgassing, battery seperation, heating effects, and explosions. Even the venerable NiFe battery has problems with high current charging.
But this startup has beat it? [Citation needed]
[+] [-] lotsofmangos|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dogma1138|11 years ago|reply
Techcrhuch had some articles about them this year http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/07/storedots-bio-organic-batte...
[+] [-] codeduck|11 years ago|reply
That said, smartphones don't use these batteries, and anyone who tried to put a couple of amperes into a standard lithium polymer battery is going to have an amusing experience.
[+] [-] userbinator|11 years ago|reply
There are specialist lipos used for RC planes/cars/boats that can handle 100C burst discharges but even those can't be charged at more than ~10-20C - and these cells have very high self-discharge and short cycle life, so they're quite unsuitable for mobile phones.
[+] [-] tempodox|11 years ago|reply
(Edit: Clarification)
[+] [-] TeMPOraL|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dogma1138|11 years ago|reply
According to some of the more business oriented reporting about the product their current end goal for 2017 is a 100-150$ batter capable of 1500-2000 discharge cycles this means that if it will be put in a phone it will give you a life time of 3-4 years depending on your discharge rate.
Their goals at least seem to be very realistic, even if the price will be a blocker even for most high end phone users. I do see this technology having many applications tho especially for military and emergency services. Considering that the US Army has trialed multiple Samsung phones so far with specialized software an "ultra battery" like this would be very appealing to them even if it will have a horrible life time and a very high price compared to commercial batteries. The Army can and will pay very high amounts if it means that the turn around for a soldier's computing package will be minutes instead of hours.
The company so far raised 40-50 million $ and not via "kickstarter" some of the investors are rumored to be phone giants including Samsung, and in any case venture capitalist firms don't ten to put 50M on the table for snake oil.
[+] [-] jeffreyrogers|11 years ago|reply
You have a much higher view of VCs then I do then. I'm personally aware of a few tech companies that exist solely to siphon money from the investors to the founder. Rich people aren't always careful with their money, particularly when they are putting it into something hot, like tech, that they know nothing about.
[+] [-] stewartbutler|11 years ago|reply
1: What is the actual capacity of the battery demonstrated? If it has a high C but low capacity, this isn't really notable. The paper [1] indicates that total charge capacity is a function of how fast the battery is charged; what tradeoff are they making?
2: How many charge cycles is this battery capable of at those rates?
3: What thresholds are they putting in place for temperature, and are all the components of the phone rated for repeated thermal cycles to those levels and back to ambient?
4: What is the failure mode for this battery? Outgassing? What compounds are released in overcharge?
[1] - http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/v9/n12/abs/nnano.2014.24...
[2] - http://www.google.com/patents/US20060216603
[+] [-] newuser88273|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tempodox|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ceejayoz|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 4ndr3vv|11 years ago|reply
ftfy
[+] [-] lotsofmangos|11 years ago|reply
Unless I am missing something on Storedot's website, the BBC were actually shown a phone with an ultra-capacitor instead of a battery.
[+] [-] agildehaus|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AndrewDucker|11 years ago|reply
Which sounds rather more believable, and like it might be useful this year. I can live with 15-minute charging, and it being an external battery.
[+] [-] ricket|11 years ago|reply
I don't believe their claims that it will last 3 years of regular use, that it will have 1500 charge cycles, or that it has "novel battery chemistry". I'd give it up to a year, and even then you'd probably be experiencing much lower capacity by the end of the year, but that's my rough guess. I'm also a bit surprised that it's deemed safe for consumers and will be certified.
[+] [-] sajal83|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] UrMomReadsHN|11 years ago|reply
"US based startup brings families together. "
"Silicon Valley startup revolutionizes washing clothes."
"Researchers in Germany find life on Mars."
"DC defense contractor wastes millions of dollars in government money."
I just Googled for a second and found "Wipro sells 8% stake in US-based startup Axeda, bought after Rishad Premji took over as strategy head"
This was on Slashdot the other day - "European Researchers Develop More Accurate Full Body Polygraph"
None of those sound odd or are nationalistic labels. Why do you assume that simply mentioning Isreal is being nationalistic?
[+] [-] k-mcgrady|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hellodevnull|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] erhardm|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tempodox|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bsaul|11 years ago|reply
That, plus the fact that israel, as a country, has made the choice of focusing 100% on high tech, so it's always interesting to know if/when that choice pays off.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]