@Samsung_News_ is not a Samsung account, it's an independent blog.
Samsung Mobile (or at least a fan blog) has claimed development of its graphene battery technology is, er, all wrapped up, raising hopes of finding them in products soon. SamsungMobile.News helpfully tweeted yesterday: Samsung has completed the developing of it's Graphene Batteries👌🏼 pic.twitter.com/pKlX3eNiDY — SamsungMobile …
I suspect agile methodologies on a completely new hadware design don't quite cut the mustard - it's quite difficult and expensive to iterate forwards.
In which case, the next step once "development" has been completed is testing. I suspect they're going to be quite careful of putting this into the field until rigorous testing has been completed - they don't want to get burnt (literally and metaphorically) as they did before with the Note 7, particularly as this is likely to be part of a flagship product
That depends if it steadies out or falls off a cliff after the 500 cycles. After 1000 would it be 70% or <50%? With the former, that would be commercially viable right now.
More to the point, fast charging is all A-OK but what about energy density? Can an approx 3000mAh battery with this technology still fit inside a 6-inch smartphone without significant increase in weight/depth?
Except now we'll need 500A charging cables.
Tesla Superchargers operate at 400V and 250 amps already, and the Generation 3 model was rumoured to offer 430-525 amps with compatible vehicles, although I don't know if that will ever reach production - the faster you charge, the higher the internal resistance of the battery and thus greater heat generated in a shorter time - I'd guess there are safety and longevity concerns.
In terms of the cable thickness, the Supercharger lines are actually not much thicker than the hose of a petrol pump.
In terms of the cable thickness, the Supercharger lines are actually not much thicker than the hose of a petrol pump.
Thickness is one thing, stiffness is quite another. My father used to work on diesel generator sets and they would deal with heavyweight cables on a regular basis. The actual engineers would always insist unreeling cables was a two man job once it got into the 150-200A territory.
Wasn't very popular with management. Especially if it was a hire set for a weekend, as if that makes a difference to the properties of the required cable.
'Except now we'll need 500A charging cables.'
Cable sizing is specified by the potential fault current of the circuit, not the expected load current.
i.e. If there was suddenly a dead short on the end of the cable instead of a load, could the cable cope with the power flow without burning out, until the protective device next up the chain activates. This being the case load heating characteristics have no impact.
Relatively short cables of a very good conductor such as copper can take surprisingly large loads for short periods of time. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the existing supercharger cables could cope.
What is the rating of the average sub-station? What's the current loading capacity of the cables running down the average street? How many fast charging cars can be coped with at once.
The labs I used to work in needed 5 substations in the building and we needed 11KV lines running around the galleries.
'What is the rating of the average sub-station? What's the current loading capacity of the cables running down the average street? How many fast charging cars can be coped with at once'
Any answers you get would be meaningless because you can't define average in this context. The reality will be that the charging stations will probably negotiate their loading at any one time based on tariff, energy source and local loading. If the local power transformer is overloading the first indication is the voltage drops off. Some simple electronics will detect that and the smarts will do the rest. To think you will get first dibs on the available power because you were plugged in first is a little naive.
Faster charging is a good thing - but equally it is a marginal gain for most people. The one thing that most of us want is longer battery life. If I had a phone that took a day to charge and lasted two weeks, I'd take that in preference to a phone that lasted a day and charged in two minutes (which is where we seem to be heading).
"Still not what customers really want"
"I'd take that in preference to... "
Based on sales of phones in the last few years, what customers really want is quite different from what you prefer!
Joking apart, if you want a phone to last 2 weeks on a charge, most dumbphones can do that if you're not chatting away all day, and even smartphones in ultra-power-saving mode (ie mostly acting as a dumbphone) can last around a week or so. Manufacturers have also been pushing thinner/lighter to the detriment of battery capacity, and savings made by lower-power-consuming chips are eaten up by the tons of apps that insist on running in the background.
Clear out the app cruft, allow a larger, heavier and slightly thicker phone, move to ultra-low-power 7nm chips, and maybe add an e-ink secondary screen for reading text* and maybe you could double or triple the current 1-2 day life to a bit less than a week, still quite a bit short of your target. Batteries are limited by energy density and there's only so much juice you can squeeze into a handheld-sized pack, and for most users it's clear that power-use trumps battery life considerations as long as they can get a day of full-whack mobile-ing.
And given how ubiquitous power points and compatible chargers are, I rather understand that.
* by the way whatever happened to that Russian dual-screen full colour + e-ink phone? I haven't seen any other manufacturer copy that so I guess it was a bust?
Clear out the app cruft, allow a larger, heavier and slightly thicker phone, move to ultra-low-power 7nm chips, and maybe add an e-ink secondary screen for reading text* and maybe you could double or triple the current 1-2 day life to a bit less than a week
Well, I was speaking generically. I'm actually a very light phone user, I have a Xiaomi Redmi Note 4X with a 4,100 mAh battery, and it gives me about four to five days use unless used as a satnav or similar continuous use.
I'd agree that SALES suggest I'm wrong, but I'd challenge that in the UK it is difficult to buy a phone with a decent sized battery - unless you turn to the grey market. Lots of people think that's risky, despite the poor support that the official imports usually have. Even the better mid-rangers typically only offer 3,000 mAh, many are still touting miserable 2,200 mAh units.
"Manufacturers have also been pushing thinner/lighter to the detriment of battery capacity,"
For a simple reason - airlines and others have imposed Wh limits on what they'll tolerate as installed on carryon luggage and/or checked baggage.
Samsung _could_ make a thicker S9 with 6000mAh battery, but then you'd have to leave it at home when you go to the airport.
"but then you'd have to leave it at home when you go to the airport."
That's no problem -- as a USian, there is no way I'd be willing to take my regular phone with me on a flight. There's just too much risk that the TSA might want to examine it. I take a burner instead.
"For a simple reason - airlines and others have imposed Wh limits on what they'll tolerate as installed on carryon luggage and/or checked baggage.
Samsung _could_ make a thicker S9 with 6000mAh battery, but then you'd have to leave it at home when you go to the airport."
According to this AnandTech review, the Samsung S9+ comes with a 3500mAh battery, which comes out at 13.47Wh.
According to this explanation at PetaPixel, 100 watt-hours (Wh) is the limit.
The FAA also say the same, though it is listed under uninstalled batteries/powerbanks
So even at 6000mAh (<28Wh), it is well below the 100Wh limit.
Personally, I would prefer a heavier device with a bigger battery, as I often have to resort to charging the phone on the fly due to low battery, which itself is against recommendations and both generates excessive heat, and reduces battery life.
A phone that lasted a day and charged in two minutes would do me. It would be trivial to couple it to a charger for a couple of minutes to keep it topped up.
Only an issue if you spend your life away from electricity.
So not most 1st world customers.
I strongly want to recharge at the lowest frequency possible. How long it takes to do the charge is much less important. If the only thing that required charging was the phone, I'd agree with you -- but it's not. I have several other devices that also require charging, and when the device count rises, how often they need charging becomes more important than how long it takes.
This is, for example, one of the reasons why I don't use wireless headphones -- I don't need yet another device to have to charge.
> If I had a phone that took a day to charge
Overnight rather than a day.
Well if I can charge my car while I sleep and it can do enough miles the next day before I need to sleep again and can do this every day for a few years without significant degradation that is sufficient. Also doesn't cost as much as a Tesla. (Ignoring drive-sharing case.) We're just about there (60kWh Leaf and a few other models) which is great.
"Well if I can charge my car while I sleep and it can do enough miles the next day before I need to sleep again and can do this every day for a few years without significant degradation that is sufficient"
As long as you can always find a free and functioning charge point wherever you're parking. Currently that's a bit of a pipe dream, but I think we'll get there in the next 20 or so years
How many miles is enough? Is your enough the same as mine? Is my enough one day the same as it is another day?
Who knows? But as a rough guide, charging at 13 amp gives about 9 miles of driving range per hour of charging. So (depending on whether you charge across the evening peak or not), you'd be able to add between 80 and 110 miles or range per night on a slow charge, plus whatever residual capacity the battery had at the start. If you have a 16 amp car charger then the range becomes 100 to 135 miles range.
Obviously that's dependent upon model, driving style, and use of accessories, lights and heaters, but that's comfortably more than most drivers would need, although road warriors doing over 20,000 miles a year might find themselves pinched.
Because you've over-simplified graphene vs graphite a little too much - this article explains it quite nicely:
Basically a given thickness made up of multiple layers of graphene will behave differently to the same thickness of graphite.
Too bad "charging 5x faster" isn't what we want or need (before anyone says "what about cars", the charging time for cars isn't a limitation of batteries, but how much power you can get into it)
What we want are batteries that last more than ~500 charge cycles before becoming noticeably degraded, or store more energy by volume.
Besides, many greatly improved batteries have been "developed" over the past decade, but never seem to find their way into mass production.
"What we want are batteries that last more than ~500 charge cycles before becoming noticeably degraded, or store more energy by volume."
These exist in LiIon. They've been produced in the lab for the last 5 years or so (10,000 cycles to 80% capacity) based on Olivine (a very common mineral)
The question noone's ever answered is the energy density and charge/discharge rates.
Everything is compromise when it comes to batteries.
OK, every other month, a new battery or battery formulation is announced, yet it's sort of like the fusion reactor thingie, always "just 5 (50?) years away". I would someday like to see something that is really in the system and/or on the retail shelf. All we get are Lithium Ion + + (++++) because the 10 nm, whoops wrong promises, newer composition batteries vanish into the post "we've done it!" atmosphere.
Tired of cheshire cat-ions.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019