15 ms·
Has Li-battery genius John Goodenough done it again? Colleagues are skeptical
- nmc 10y agoI have the same intuition about this that I had when the OPERA team thought they had exceeded the speed of light [0] -> this violates a fundamental law of physics so this must be wrong. My money is on experimental error. [0]: (most upvoted HN post if you search for "speed"+"light") http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484
- dmoy 10y agoPrevious discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13778543 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13778543 Maybe some additional added detail in this qz.com article, idk.
- Recurecur 10y agoThere are some odd disparities between the UT article and this new article. The UT article claimed: "The use of an alkali-metal anode (lithium, sodium or potassium) — which isn’t possible with conventional batteries — increases the energy density of a cathode and delivers a long cycle life. In experiments, the researchers’ cells have demonstrated more than 1,200 cycles with low cell resistance." That would seem to completely rule out the lithium-air explanation. Regarding the mechanism for energy storage, the UT article said: "The engineers’ glass electrolytes allow them to plate and strip alkali metals on both the cathode and the anode side without dendrites, which simplifies battery cell fabrication. " Does the "plating and stripping" language imply energy storage/discharge? The abstract from the paper itself reads: "The advent of a Li+ or Na+ glass electrolyte with a cation conductivity σi > 10−2 S cm−1 at 25 °C and a motional enthalpy ΔHm = 0.06 eV that is wet by a metallic lithium or sodium anode is used to develop a new strategy for an all-solid-state, rechargeable, metal-plating battery. During discharge, a cell plates the metal of an anode of high-energy Fermi level such as lithium or sodium onto a cathode current collector with a low-energy Fermi level; the voltage of the cell may be determined by a cathode redox center having an energy between the Fermi levels of the anode and that of the cathode current collector. This strategy is demonstrated with a solid electrolyte that not only is wet by the metallic anode, but also has a dielectric constant capable of creating a large electric-double-layer capacitance at the two electrode/electrolyte interfaces. The result is a safe, low-cost, lithium or sodium rechargeable battery of high energy density and long cycle life." It is also referred to as a "metal-plating battery" in the abstract. I find it mystifying that neither of the terms "plate" or "plating" appears in the Quartz article.
- neutronicus 10y ago"Goodenough" is a very apt name for a leader in battery technology.
- thanatropism 10y agoLife lesson: John Goodenough is certainly happier than Pete Best.
- noiv 10y agoIsn't it strange good enough sells better than the best?
- syncsynchalt 10y agoAs any HN reader should know, Worse Is Better (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better)
- stevefeinstein 10y agoYou'd think if there were anyone on the planet who should have quit while he was ahead it would be a gentleman named "Goodenough"
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- callesgg 10y agoI am hopping for some experimental verifications :)
- mratzloff 10y agoIf you're even the slightest bit interested in this topic, I highly recommend the Nova special "Search for the Super Battery" that aired in February, hosted by David Pogue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCDuM_apIg8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCDuM_apIg8
- roywiggins 10y ago> For his invention to work as described, they say, it would probably have to abandon the laws of thermodynamics, which say perpetual motion is not possible. The law has been a fundamental of batteries for more than a century and a half. "A fundamental of batteries", yes, but also just, well, fundamental of everything.
- tonmoy 10y agoWell, perpetual motion is not impossible, obtaining energy from it impossible
- fmihaila 10y ago> Well, perpetual motion is not impossible, obtaining energy from it impossible This is incorrect. From Wikipedia [0]: "A perpetual motion machine of the third kind is usually (but not always)[10] defined as one that completely eliminates friction and other dissipative forces, to maintain motion forever (due to its mass inertia). [...] It is impossible to make such a machine,[11][12] as dissipation can never be completely eliminated in a mechanical system, no matter how close a system gets to this ideal (see examples in the Low Friction section). " [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
- Jach 10y agoParent is probably referencing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_crystal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_crystal Because a time crystal is a driven (i.e. open) quantum system that is in perpetual motion, it does not violate the laws of thermodynamics... does not produce work...does not spontaneously convert thermal energy into mechanical work...cannot serve as a perpetual store of work... A time crystal has been said to be a perpetuum mobile of the fourth kind: it does not produce work and it cannot serve as a perpetual energy storage. But it rotates perpetually.
- fmihaila 10y ago> Parent is probably referencing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_crysta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_crysta Possibly, but that is not the meaning intended in the article, nor the usual meaning of the expression, so it's not relevant.
- Mizza 10y agoIf there is a theory that the battery is in fact a Lithium-air battery, couldn't this be easily disproved by running the experiment in a vacuum?
- csours 10y agoTLDR; Batteries store electrical energies by using materials with different potentials. The paper in question does not indicate materials with different potentials, at least as far as others in the battery field can see. 1. unlikely - the paper is a complete fraud 2. Some sort of measurement error has occurred (possible) 3. The method of action is different from what is described in the paper 4. The method of action is novel
- canada_dry 10y agoGood synopsis. Given the pedigree of scientists involved my money is on #4.
- hwillis 10y agoI'm skeptical. The conclusions drawn in the first paper were... egregious. I think its more likely that there was insufficient oversight. I'm reminded of the FTL neutrino experiment.
- greglindahl 10y agoIt's definitely an extraordinary claim. Even people excited about the possibilities should be tempering their expectations.
- logicallee 10y agodo researchers not have professional courtesy to do something like replicate an experiment without publishing the experiment it was based on (without letting the cat out of the bag)? (I mean if they were approached to do so by a researcher with an extraordinary result.) What I mean is if someone across the world sent you a detailed methodology to test, without mentioning the result you're expected to get, would you do it for them without wanting coauthor credit, and without talking to anyone else about it?
- hwillis 10y ago
- 6stringmerc 10y agoVery interesting. I remember how many entries to the LITECAR challenge essentially said "Use graphene!" as the innovation, which, frankly speaking, is fundamentally useless. As in, it doesn't really exist as a viable notion right now, or for the foreseeable future in consumer application. I like how the article notes one of the primary benefits is related to cost, which always is a concern of mine when reading about innovations and developments and discoveries like this. All that said, I'd really like to see what a catastrophic failure looks like, because if they're going to be on the road eventually, let's see what we're in for in some worst-case-scenario testing.
- cr0sh 10y agoI hope they're doing more than just arguing over whether it works or not. Assuming there is enough information in the paper to replicate the experiment, then the proper course of action would be re-run the experiment and see whether the counter-hypothesis that this won't or can't work is true or not. Of course, other groups should also do the same. I just hope this isn't another case of "we can't afford to do a replication of the experiment because that doesn't get us grant money" - which I have read about elsewhere is a big deal right now in scientific research (that is, new research is not being replicated - thus science isn't really being done properly). This research, if it does turn out to be valid, could or would be world changing.
- omginternets 10y agoNot that you're completely wrong, but it's worth recognizing that experiments aren't exactly trivial to replicate. There's a (sometimes massive) cost in time and money, and expertise can get unbelievably niche. It's really not as simple as "just replicate it".
- easytiger 10y ago> There's a (sometimes massive) cost in time and money, and expertise can get unbelievably niche. This being a potential trillion dollar business I wouldn't worry about expediency in pursuit of it's veracity
- omginternets 10y agoThe promise of future trillions doesn't help when you need, say, 300k right now, not to mention that you can't pull requisite expertise out of thin air. Again, replication is crucial. It's a Good Thing. It's just not a trivial thing that we can expect to "just happen".
- tericho 10y ago300k is nothing given the potential profit of this idea working. Tesla probably spends more than 300k on R&D every week.
- aetherspawn 10y agoTitle reads like a bad dip.ly clickbait...
- jpm_sd 10y agoHonestly, it doesn't matter to most of us right now. Goodenough's original breakthrough didn't hit the mass market for 20 years. Turning breakthroughs into /products/ is still really, really hard.
- mrob 10y agoBetter battery technology increases demand for batteries. Lithium ion technology made batteries good enough to be common but not good enough for everything we want to do with them. There's so much battery dependent technology now that another breakthrough could be even more profitable. There's strong incentive to get it to market quicker than 20 years.
- ralfd 10y agoThat is true, BUT: In the 1980s A) far fewer mobile devices were around and B) such devices ran happily on Mignon batteries (think the Walkman). There is a vastly bigger hunger now for batteries (also as storage devices/electric cars) and I bet inventions/innovations will be faster implemented.
- hwillis 10y agoI had a highly upvoted comment on the original submission- the thing I missed was that in the original paper they claim they went from metal lithium on the cathode to metal lithium on the anode after discharge. You can't do that. In order to have a battery the lithium has to move from a high energy state to a low energy state- not from one state to the same state. There is something fundamentally fishy about the experiment, but I'm not sure what. The way it is portrayed in the paper, you could basically just switch the cathode and and suddenly have a fully charged battery.
- logfromblammo 10y agoIf you had a normal electrochemical cell, with a sodium anode and sulfur cathode, and liquid electrolyte, the sodium would release an electron into the circuit and hop off the solid anode into the liquid electrolyte. On the other side, sulfur would grab electrons from the circuit and hop off the solid cathode into the liquid electrolyte. In the middle, the ions would keep their charges and physically arrange themselves such that the charges are balanced in every direction. This would be an energy minimum, and it would be hard to reverse. Trying would probably cause the electrolyte to decompose instead of redepositing the original reactants onto their electrodes. It would not be rechargeable. As a physical metaphor, you have two mutually-attracted boulders rolling down from opposite ridges into the same bowl-shaped energy valley. When they collide, they strike with such force they turn to sand. In the rechargeable battery, you prevent that last step by putting a giant springy foam block in the center of the valley, so that the boulders can't touch. You prevent the sodium and sulfur from coordinating physically to cancel out the physical force from separated charges. Then to recharge, you tow or push the boulders back up the hill. I think the "same metal at the cathode" might be an artifact of putting the springy foam block in to keep the boulders intact. You couldn't switch the anode and the cathode any more easily than you could swap the elevations of the ridges and the valley. That is, it takes as much energy to do the physical rearrangement as it would to charge the system electrically.
- hwillis 10y ago>I think the "same metal at the cathode" might be an artifact of putting the springy foam block in to keep the boulders intact. You couldn't switch the anode and the cathode any more easily than you could swap the elevations of the ridges and the valley. That is, it takes as much energy to do the physical rearrangement as it would to charge the system electrically. That is the case in normal batteries, but in this battery the start and end product are both just lithium metal- not intercalated into graphite or bound to sulfur, literally just solid lithium. There's no (obvious) place for the energy to be hiding. It would appear that you could just scrape it off and receive free energy.
- nocman 10y agoFrom the article: "Goodenough invented the heart of the battery that is all but certainly powering the device on which you are reading this." ^ rumors of the demise of the desktop are greatly exaggerated. Yeah, I get it, a lot of people read internet articles on a tablet or phone, but using the phrase "all but certainly" is way beyond the scope of reality. A brief google search suggests mobile usage is probably between the 50% and 60% of internet traffic. Yeah I think mobile will continue to grow, but I don't think the desktop will disappear in the near future, if it ever does completely. Of course, the blurring of the lines between the two could cause making the distinction to become more challenging.
- savanaly 10y agoA charitable interpretation of the "all but certainly" line is that they meant to imply given that you are reading this on a mobile device, that device is all but certainly powered by the device invented by Goodenough. In fact, that's how I read it. After all, rising above the level of semantics, what is the topic of the sentence? That the things he invented have widespread use. Percent of people reading a given article on mobile vs desktop is not close to the topic of the sentence so that's probably not what they intended their words to be a commentary on.
- hbosch 10y ago> brief google search suggests mobile usage is probably between the 50% and 60% of internet traffic. Devil's advocate: author could have been making his assumption based on Quartz (qz.com) readership profile, which I would assume probably consists of a high number of mobile and laptop (also Li batteries) users – probably more than desktop (assuming we are not counting laptops as desktop).
- elif 10y agobesides the obvious of laptops being a large part of the 40-50% "desktop" figure you use, the CMOS battery in your desktop tower is lithium.
- infecto 10y agohahahaha was about to point out the same exact thing.
- gene-h 10y agoMy money is on it being an air battery, in the paper they commented: "The charge and discharge voltages show a good coulombic efficiency over 1000 h; the cycling was continued beyond 46 cycles despite an imperfect seal of the cell. " A rather simple test to determine if it is in fact behaving as an air battery would be to weigh the battery before and after discharge. Air batteries get heavier as they discharge.
- logfromblammo 10y agoFrom what I understand of this, the battery works like this: You have a sodium or lithium metal anode, and a sulfur-carbon "ink" cathode on a copper charge collector. The battery is encased in steel, so a cross section would be steel-Na|Li-glass-S (aq)-copper-S (aq)-glass-Na|Li-steel. The anode has to be sealed away from oxidizers and water, or it will react violently with a direct chemical reaction rather than through the desired electrochemistry. During discharge, at the anode, the reactive metal violently throws its extra electron away as hard as it can, because it hates having that extra one. It really, really wants to have +1 charge. The steel casing doesn't help, but that glass electrolyte is apparently porous enough that +1 ions can pass into it. So the lithium/sodium throws an electron down the wire and jumps into the electrolyte, because positively charged ions repel each other. That works fine until the electrolyte fills up all those empty spaces with positive ions. The anode can't throw any more electrons down the wire, because positive ions have nowhere to go, and attract the electrons right back out of the wire just as strongly as the atoms could throw them. On the cathode side, electrons are coming in from the wire, spreading out across a copper plate, and jumping onto sulfur atoms, which devour extra electrons with a passion. Sulfurs love to have 2 more electrons than they usually own. Sulfurs near the copper plate devour two free electrons and become [S]--. It just so happens they live in a thin "ink" cathode, and are therefore very close to the positive ions that have been filling up the electrolyte when they become charged. They get yanked across to the glass. Ordinarily, if all this happened in an aqueous electrode, each negative sulfur ion would coordinate with the two positive ions in solution so that the sulfur can keep its extra two electrons, and the lithium or sodium wouldn't have to take back their hated extra. The glass-aqueous interface probably prevents this? I would guess that the glass electrolyte allows so much positive charge to be present in it, without allowing the sulfur inside, that as soon as the sulfur hits the glass, it fumbles its extra electrons that fly out of its grasp and home in on one of the positive ions, converting it back to neutral metal. Sulfur grumbles and goes back to the copper to pick up another pair. Repeat until the positively charged layer in the electrolyte is not strong enough to yank the electrons off of sulfur, and it hangs on to its electrons at the ink-glass interface. The battery is now fully discharged. Physically, you have layers Li, [Li]+ (glass), Li (glass), [S]-- (aq), Cu. I'm guessing here, as I haven't read the paper. During recharge, you are pushing electrons into the anode and pulling them from the cathode. That reactive metal wants nothing to do with extra electrons, so it starts attracting positive ions back through the electrolyte toward the metal anode. Meanwhile, that copper plate is having electrons sucked out, getting positively charged, and yanking the sulfurs across to take their borrowed electrons back. The neutral sulfurs can then wander back to the glass and grab electrons from the reactive metal in it. They shuttle the electrons back and forth, turning the metal on the cathode side of the glass back into ions that transport back toward the anode. Eventually, the electrolyte is once again saturated with only positive ions, and the battery is fully charged. As soon as the charge is removed, the atoms in the anode will once again try to throw away their extra electrons and escape into the electrolyte. It seems important that the glass electrolyte be constructed such that the cathodic atoms and ions cannot enter it. While the battery is charging or discharging, those will be bouncing back and forth like ping pong balls in a Chinese recreation center, shuttling electrons between the glass-ink interface and the ink-copper interface. The action of the battery is allowing the reactive species to ionize, and get their charges closer together, but not so close that they can coexist in the same ionic crystal or aqueous solution. That would make it too difficult to separate the charges again, to recharge. Of course, as I am not a chemist, I might be completely wrong about this.
- scythe 10y agoAll-solid-state Li-S batteries have been previously reported by ORNL. Manufacturing is the giant hurdle here.
- wfbarks 10y agoSeems like a pretty good battery, but is it goodenough?
- amai 10y agoThe use of glass in this invention sounds similar to this one: https://phys.org/news/2015-03-glass-coating-battery.html https://phys.org/news/2015-03-glass-coating-battery.html