Researchers at the University of Southern California, led by Professor Chongwu Zhou, replaced graphite with porous silicon nanoparticles in anodes of lithium-ion batteries to come up with a new design. The battery, which could be available in two to three years, has a longer life and charges more quickly than lithium-ion batteries used now. (Source: Mingyuan Ge & Chongwu Zhou/USC)
The perspective of "talk time" is the user's, which is why the term was invented. Although it's therefore a "marketing" term, it gave a much clearer picture of what the challenge actually was, i.e., improve and extend the system function and therefore the user experience, something that can get lost when looking only at specs. As mentioned, that was back in the day: cell phones were used for talking only, and batteries didn't last very long, certainly not as long as users expected. These days we should also be saying "text time" as Al points out.
Recharging in 10 minutes is a very valuable feature. With smartphones, talk time seems to be meaningless in terms of how the battery is doing. The data connection is the big user of power at least for me. Maybe I'm not talking as much as others versus texting, surfing. Amp-hours is probably more accurate but definitely a tech spec in comparing models.
Come to think of it, Chuck, I guess amp-hours is a useful metric for general comparison purposes. I do look at that number when I'm purchasing rechargeable AA cells. Sure, manufacturer X is optimized for application Y, but it is a good starting point that is probably at least as accurate as talk hours.
Chuck is right, "talk time" varies from one battery brand and model to the next. Length of charge or how long charge is retained is probably the appropriate term & spec for comparison purposes. Although actual talk time, i.e., actual usage time, is shorter than how long a battery retains its charge. That's why the term "talk time" was invented: how long can you continue to use the product?
Hi, Pubudu, sorry I don't know offhand that information but I will take a look at the info about the research online and see if I can find out. Here is a link to a press release about the research: http://news.usc.edu/#!/article/46778/cheap-strong-lithium-ion-battery-developed-at-usc/
Jack, I didn't think of that, but it would be a good idea to have a standard for comparison. Funny, but as important as the battery is, it seems we sometimes often forget about it when buying a gadget if we are determined to have the latest and most innovatively designed device. Or maybe that's just me!
"Talk time" is application dependent, so the same battery might have a different talk time from one application to the next. So I would imagine the best way to express it would be in the battery manufacturer's parlance -- Amp-hours -- wouldn't it?
Researchers have been working on a number of alternative chemistries to lithium-ion for next-gen batteries, silicon-air among them. However, while the technology has been viewed as promising and cost-effective, to date researchers haven’t managed to develop a battery of this chemistry with a viable running time -- until now.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies.
You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived.
So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.