Michal Marek The eyes of the technology world are now on the University of Michigan, where a team of experts has developed a new type of rechargeable battery that can hold up to twice as much energy as current ones. In the near future, we could expect smartphones with double the endurance, but also electric cars with a range of over 900 kilometers on a single charge.
The new battery concept is called Sakti3 and it looks like it's really a technology with a lot of potential. This is evidenced by the fact that the British company Dyson, which mainly produces vacuum cleaners, invested 15 million dollars in the project. Companies such as General Motors, Khosla Ventures and others also donated smaller amounts to Sakti3. As part of the investment agreement, Dyson also began to participate directly in the development.
Battery technology is one of the biggest barriers to the maturity of today's portable devices. While the hardware that goes into computers, tablets and mobile phones is evolving at a breakneck pace, lithium batteries haven't changed much since they were introduced by the Japanese company Sony in 1991. Although their service life has improved and their charging time has shortened, the amount of energy that can be stored in them has not increased much.
The trick by which scientists from the University of Michigan achieved the sudden innovation lies in the construction of the electrodes. Instead of a mixture of liquid chemicals, the Sakti3 battery uses lithium electrodes in a solid state, which are said to be able to store over 1 kWh of energy in one liter. At the same time, common lithium-ion batteries reach a maximum of 0,6 kWh per liter when storing energy.
Thus, devices using such a battery could offer thinness, light weight and long endurance at the same time. They could store almost twice as much energy in the same size battery. This way, there would be no difficult dilemma of whether to make a device like the iPhone thinner, or to put the design on the back burner and give preference to durability.
According to scientists, batteries produced according to the new technology should also be cheaper to produce, with a longer shelf life and, last but not least, also less dangerous. Batteries with fixed electrodes do not, for example, carry the risk of explosion, as is the case with liquid batteries. At the same time, safety risks are one of the biggest obstacles in the development of new battery technologies. We carry the batteries in question as close to the body as possible.
The investment agreement between the scientists and the Dyson company guarantees that the new batteries will first get into the products of the British company. The pilot carriers of the new technology will therefore be robotic vacuum cleaners and cleaners. However, the use of technology should go far beyond hi-tech cleaning.
Source: The Guardian
Photos: iFixit
I think we will see 2x thinner iPhones, iPads and MacBooks
I thought so too :D
Not for God's sake :-/
The iP6 is already too thin.
Finally, could the mobile phone work for a week on one charge?
I don't know what kind of phone you have, but mine lasts 1 day, and the article says "almost twice as long" so 2 days is really stupid.
I have an i6
it depends on how big the processor and resolution will be, if the smartphone has 4K, it will probably be difficult because it will be more loaded on the computer graphics, the display will consume the most battery. I don't understand why they put QH HD in smartphones up to 6 inches, when FULL HD is enough just for marketing
He could do that even with current batteries. It would just have to be larger enough to accommodate a larger battery.
ipad thin as paper the wind blows and flies out the window :D
I would slowly ban similar articles, there are at least 3-5 of them a year, but where there is nothing, there is nothing.
What is revolutionary about doubling the capacity? It's more like a free evolution... or does someone want to claim that if I only charge my phone once every 2-3 days, it will be a revolution? :D
progress cannot be stopped
it's probably not that simple... it says here that the investment in the attack is fifteen million... apple earned several thousand million a month and is not able to invest in battery development? it will probably be more complicated... and if apple doesn't really develop in this area, then I think that the management at apple isn't that stellar...