5 ms·

I'm no expert on this, but as a consumer, I wouldn't mind having a heavier phone if it meant a longer battery life. In fact, I much prefer a device with some he

• galdosdi 10y ago
  It sounds like it would _not_ have longer battery life, in the sense of "how many days can I go in between having to charge" It sounds like the battery can withstand more charge cycles before getting crappy and needing replacement (eg, your phone might take 4 years instead of 2 before you have to replace the battery) -- way less useful
  • Cerium 10y ago
    Why? It seems that phones are space constrained, not weight, and this proposed battery is 3x better by space but 2.5x worse by weight. That would allow a 1 day phone to go 3 days right?
    • cmdrfred 10y ago
      If I know anything about cellphone manufactures they will simply use this tech to make the phone razor thin rather than increasing battery life.
      • thecrazyone 10y ago
        I'd like to wager there'll be all kinds of phones trying to discover what the customer wants. I'm guessing, for the majority, it'll be neither of the extremes - heavy with max battery, or light weight with min battery - but somewhere in between those extremes
    • PhasmaFelis 10y ago
      Even "space constrained" is arguable, depending on the context. We've had powerful, feature-packed phones no taller/wider than the screen and thin enough to fit in a tight pocket for years, and that's all anyone reasonably needs. But developers and gadgetphiles fetishize thinness to the point that devs are now actually removing important features, like headphone jacks and (on Android) removable batteries, to squeeze out a few more useless millimeters. As long as those priorities remain, any power-per-volume improvements will be twisted around to serve pointless shrinkage rather than actually improving anything.
      • Retric 10y ago
        Some of this relates to the size of the phone in a case which add a lot of bulk and seem overly popular. But, another factor is larger phones need to be very thin to be comfortable in many pockets.
        • nine_k 10y ago
          To the contrary, a long and very thin phone is hard to put into a tight pocket without the fear of bending and breaking it.
      • Altay- 10y ago
        Do you really think the audio jack was removed because of thinness? Have you seen the inside of a smartphone? Its not just about thinness. There is very little space for anything besides the battery. Also, removable batteries and the audio jack get in the way of dust/water proofing. You may think shrinkage is pointless, but that's clearly not what the market or the top designers think. Why do you want a giant, useless, 100+ year old analog port on your 2017 device? I don't. Its ugly.
        • waivej 10y ago
          I think the audio jack was removed as a step toward not requiring cables at all.
          • ComputerGuru 10y ago
            You need to revisit your comment. A 3.5mm port with Bluetooth does not require cables any more than a Bluetooth-only device.
            • spacemanmatt 10y ago
              Except BlueTooth audio quality is terrible. No one is wrong to want something better, wireless or 3.5mm.
  • adamweld 10y ago
    It has higher energy density than Lithium, so theoretically yes it could increase the battery life of your phone. For equivalent energy the size is 33%, so one could fit 3x the energy capacity into a cell of the same size.
    • desultir 10y ago
      until phone makers realise they can shave 1mm off the thickness of the phone by cutting the battery size by 66% (and they will) Then we're back to barely-a-day-of-charge
      • jfoutz 10y ago
        Or 33% thinner and double the life. I'd take that trade, for sure.
        • kbenson 10y ago
          But why not 0% thinner and 3x-3.5x times the life? Are we really plagued by thick phones right now?
          • drcross 10y ago
            The real reason is that if you make several million phones that a certain percentage is always going to explode, either by manufacturing defect or a user pierces the cell through accident. This might mean the difference between some light leg burns or your death and phone makers are not going to take the negative press of the latter scenario. Their only answer is better power usage.
            • jandrese 10y ago
              One of the big advantages listed in the article is that these batteries don't explode like today's Li-Ions. Maybe in a few years we'll look back at this time and wonder how people were ok with putting a bomb against their face every day.
  • sgk284 10y ago
    If you get the same energy in 1/3 that space (but 2.5x the weight), you could have a phone that is the same size as today but with 3x the time on a single charge in exchange for a battery that is 7.5x heavier. Phones are light enough that I'd probably make that trade.
• batmansmk 10y ago
  A digital watch would benefit from those batteries. Smaller watch.