Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Iron Ferrite Batteries 45

Posted by CmdrTaco from the kill-the-damn-rabbit dept.
Rustin writes "New Iron Ferrite battery may change batteries forever." I just pray that this doesn't mean a resurgence in energizer rabbit commercials.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Iron Ferrite Batteries More

Iron Ferrite Batteries

Comments Filter:
  • I'm buying Nickel Metal Hydride batteries for my brand-spankin' new digital camera... last much longer than alkalines, can be recharged in an hour, and they have no "charge memory" so you can recharge them at any time. The only hassle is that they lose their charge if they're just sitting around, so you have to keep them in a trickle charger if you want some handy on the spot.
  • They're claiming ~100 cycles now; it was around 20 when they first came out. I think that even at the "end" of their cycle life, they have similar performance to a standard NiCd.

    There is no "one size fits all" rechargeable battery. If your application always runs the batteries to zero, NiMH is probably the best choice. For standby items like flashlights, or low-drain devices like remote controls or palm pilots, RA's are ideal since you can just throw the batteries into the charger every few weeks to keep them topped up.
  • To first order, you're correct. Some months before Rayovac's product came out, there was a device being sold on TV to recharge regular batteries.

    However, I think that there is some subtle tuning of cell chemistry and sealing in the rechargeable alkalines. I have used my Rayovac charger to charge regular alkalines, but I have also had some of them leak inside the charger. I don't mind paying a bit more for the proper batteries, if it saves me from having to scrape KOH out of my equipment.
  • Hmmm... do you think the possibilities of an electric car, capable of long distance runs as a gas/petrol/diesel based vehicle, are now even closer? Or is this new development in batteries still restricted to small, electronic consumer devices? The article didn't mention how quickly these new batteries recharge; a quick charging battery would be a bonus for electric cars.
  • wow, I've never seen that... and when he does, it's offtopic... ah well (rob 'pants are optional' malda?)
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
  • but "they" don't want you to know about it... you need to send the energy in pulses, or somthing, so you don't overload the battery. this is how Rayovac works. I'd be willing to bet that rayovac rechargers can charge any kind of battery....
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
  • Licht's "super-iron" is ferrate, an unusual form of iron combined with oxygen. It is usually unstable but he found that if it is kept very pure, it stays in a stable and usable form.
    that should be ferrate, not ferrite!
  • Yes, they officially speak Hebrew. But in the same way that India and Hong Kong speak "British" english, Israel speaks "American" english.

    -Barry

  • A million is the same for Europeans. It's at the billion level that it starts being different. 10E+9 is a billion in English but a milliard in French. 10E+12 is a trillion in English but a billion in French.

  • rust, my friend. It decays into rust. now when was the last time rust killed anyone =)


    How about the Tin Man from the Wizard Of Oz?
    He may not of been killed by it, but it surely inconvenienced him a great deal.

  • Rechargable? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I can confidently predict that if it's rechargable, it'll quietly wither and die. There's too much income at stake from disposables for this to become the dominant player.

    PS. You can recharge ordinary alkaline cells, but for a high cycle life, do not discharge more than 70%. Recharge ONLY with half-wave rectified AC. [The "do not recharge" warnings you commonly see are primarily to keep sales up.]
  • There is a different story that's linked on geeknews that instead has 60 billion per year, which would amount to about 8 per person per year (but not all of the world uses batteries).

    Your original number could make sense with the US and how wasteful everyone here is. 8)
  • the reason why people doesn't use public transportation, even when it's faster, is that they want to sit in their own car and pick their noses and fart, and whatnot. ;-)

    With all due respect, I don't think your argument quite holds: every time I get on the bus or train, I end up sitting next to someone who's picking their nose and farting.

    I take public transportation to work every day. Sometimes I ride my bike to the train; usually I take the bus. While everybody else is fighting traffic, I'm reading the newspaper. Then again, folks in cars can listen to NPR while I'm listening to the Gangsta Rap leaking out the headphones of the guy sitting three seats down from me, picking his nose and farting.

    I can think of four reasons cars keep winning out over public transportation:

    • Flexibility: A car goes down any road; the train and bus only travel on established routes, many of which are beyond walking distance from desired locations. Also, busses and trains run on schedules, another limitation cars do not suffer.
    • Status: A car is still a symbol of status, wealth, and independence. In the U.S. at least, the word "public" has long been a code adjective for "for people so poor they can't do it on their own," e.g. "public housing," "public health," "public transportation."
    • Privacy:You can pick your nose and fart, without being exposed to other farting nosepickers. Nobody listening in on your conversations, no bums asking for money, stinking of urine, falling asleep and drooling.
    • Alienation: This is an extreme case of privacy. In a car, you've got lots of metal, plastic and glass between you and everybody else. You're isolated from everyone else. One of the greatest components of road rage (which has been around far longer than that alliterative, media-friendly term) is not the threat or danger presented by another driver's action, but the disruptiveness and invasiveness of it. Half of what people are screaming when they're screaming at someone who cut them off in traffic is, "How dare you make me acknowledge your existence! How dare you make me alter my behavior for you!"

    Reasons one and four above combine quite nicely as symptoms of something much nastier: many Americans feel they have very little control over their own lives. This fear drives alienation and the desire for other, more superficial, freedoms. I don't know how much of a problem this is in other industrialized countries.

    Fortunately for many of us on Slashdot, we manage to get our control fix playing with computers.

    --

  • For one thing, the body can handle iron intake far more easily than it can nickel. It's easy to get a nickel allergy from ingesting too much (and the body takes a very long time to get rid of it), whereas an excessive iron intake will only hammer your heart to bits (if I remember correctly).
    John

  • Re:Trillion != 10E+12 elsewhere? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Misleading use of "English". In England, a billion used to be 10E12 with a "thousand million" used for 10E9. We have moved over to the common usage now (mostly). This doesn't help the confusion over battery sales though - the only other possible value for a trillion is 10E18, which makes the figures *really* daft. ac.uk.
  • Some compounds of carbon, nitrogen and hydrogen can be very toxic (like HCN). Ditto carbon, hydrogen and oxygen (like formaldehyde, CH2O). The toxicity of a compound does not necessarily have anything to do with the toxicity of the elements of which it is composed.

    While I'm aware of nickel being somewhat toxic as well as allergenic to some people, iron is an essential nutrient. People work with iron rust all the time and do not get toxic reactions. This ferrate battery is going to be about as safe as you can possibly get.

  • But our predecessors were smart cookies. There's a reason why we have lead-acid... cheap, dependable, doesn't freeze at 32 degrees, etc...
    Just FYI, these are alkaline batteries we're talking about here. They use a hydroxide electrolyte, and give you similar freezing-point depression to acid electrolytes. (Or did you think there wasn't any water in the H2SO4 in your car's battery?)
  • I can confidently predict that if it's rechargable, it'll quietly wither and die. There's too much income at stake from disposables for this to become the dominant player.
    You're assuming two things:
    1. That the battery companies will all maintain ranks to preserve the market for disposables (instead of trying to grow the market for batteries, or just plain cutting into the market for the other guy's product), and
    2. That no company outside the disposable-battery market would enter the rechargeable market to take advantage of the unserved need.
    As counter-examples, look at the way long-lasting radial tires got rid of bias-ply tires to the ultimate detriment of the tire companies, and recall that dozens of microcomputer companies sprang up to sell devices that mainframe and mini manufacturers did not think were worthwhile. This is all recent history.

    The upshot is, if these things work well and provide good value, they'll sell like mad and make lots of money for the company that sells 'em.

  • ferrate (Score:3)

    by noy ( 12372 ) on Sunday August 15, 1999 @09:39AM (#1745629) Homepage
    any idea what bulk manufacturing costs of this stuff are? if it needs to be so pure, will these batteries end up being megabucks? what about comparisons to lithium ion... i wonder... either way, sounds cool, all of our gadgetry could use more juice...
  • Yet another technology ten years away? If this isn't as vapor as other stuff we've seen, then I'd be quite interested. No mention of laptop batteries, though.


    j-a-w-a-d------------------------------
    replace ,'s in e-mail address with .'s.

  • Toxicity? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    They say this battery decays to give rust compared to conventional batteries "often poisonous compounds, varying from mercury, cadmium, manganese and nickel oxides". I understand that as heavy metals, mercury, cadmium, lead, plutonium etc. are highly toxic, but why should nickel oxides be significantly more toxic than iron oxides? They are adjacent on the periodic table, and from my memory of high school chemistry, chemically quite similar.
  • I've seen this same technology about a year ago in MIT's Technology Review magazine. They said it seems as though companies aren't interested in the technology, even though this pretty damn cool.
  • >> rust, my friend. It decays into rust. now when was the last time rust killed anyone =)G
  • There is a searchable MSDS archive at http://siri.uvm.edu/msds/ [uvm.edu], where you can browse the relative toxicity of various compounds. (BTW, the sequence is Iron, Cobalt, Nickel).
  • He's probably also counting cells, not batteries.

    9V batteries have 6 1.5 V cells
    6V batteries have 4 1.5 V cells
    Car batteries have a bunch of cells, 6 or 8 I think

    He's probably also counting rechargeable cells, per charge.

    But it still doesn't make sense. Not at all.

  • Lies, Dammed Lies, and Statistics (Score:3)

    by Solemn Bob ( 16065 ) on Sunday August 15, 1999 @04:34PM (#1745637) Homepage
    "Licht said about 60 trillion primary batteries are used each year. Both dry and alkaline batteries use manganese dioxide and zinc."


    Huh. That's 30 new batteries, every day, for every man, woman, and child on the planet. I can't quite figure out what he's talking about, unless he's counting individual green plants as "primary batteries", since, after all, they do store up solar energy ...

  • Rayovac has sold rechargeable alkaline batteries for several (5?) years now. I don't know how much better these "Super-Iron" batteries will be, but they are certainly not the only alternative to single-use alkalines.
  • I'm not surprised at all that nobody's interested in producing these batteries. Alkaline batteries are a cash cow for the companies that produce them. Like inflated CD prices, it is to these companies' mutual advantage to keep alkaline battery output comparable across brands, because in the long run it means more batteries will be sold. These "Super-Iron" batteries have the dual disadvantages (advantages if you're a consumer) of lasting longer and being rechargable. This effectively converts batteries into long-term purchases, which no corporation whose infrastructure is built upon alkaline batteries wants to invest in.

    To take off, this technology needs some kind of government support, just as emission standards have forced auto manufacturers to clean up their act and laws in states like Massachusetts force electric utilities to help their large clients conserve energy. I have no doubt that iron batteries will eventually take the place of alkalines, even if it takes 10 years.
  • rust, my friend. It decays into rust. now when was the last time rust killed anyone =)

    "What is now proved was once only imagin'd"

  • Iron Batteries are neither new nor little-used (Score:3)

    by Multics ( 45254 ) on Sunday August 15, 1999 @05:23PM (#1745643) Journal
    Nickel-Iron batteries have been around a very long time. They are still available and offer considerable benefit for some kinds of uses. They have VERY long deep-cycle lives (40+ years is typical for daily use) and thus are great for un-interruptable power use. If you are in the USA, you've almost certainly talked on a public phone exchange held up with Ni-Fe cells. They also can be run totally dry and still be recovered far better than any other kind of wet cell.

    The down side of such cells is low energy density vs weight, so the volume of the cells is large compared to things like wet NiCads. These also have a higher than NiCad self-discharge rate and consume more water than Lead-Acid or NiCad cells.

    Ni-Fe technology uses a highly alkaline electrolite.

    So perhaps they've invented a new way to deal with Fe cells, but iron has been in the battery domain a very very long time.

    Need more on Ni-Fe batteries? Ask your favorite search engine.
  • I don't understand the biochemistry of nickel, but I do know that some nickel compounds, such as nickel carbonyl, can be very toxic.

    A friend told me that the use of nickel catalysts in fat hydrogenation has poisoned people in some countries.

  • Lithium has one of the greatest voltage half-reactions in the redox table (CRC 1995) that I have. The reduction reaction Li+ +e- -> Li renders about -3.0401 E/V. And since the other half-reaction is the standard hydrogen electrode, we end up with a battery generating 3 volts per cell for lithium, which is a real boon.

    The only greater reduction potentials are from 3N2 + 2H+ + 2e -> 2HN3 , Pr3+ + e -> Pr2+, Ca+ +e -> Ca, and finally Sr+ +e -> Sr which tops off at -4.10 E/V.

    On the other hand, if we look at our Iron FerrATE (by the way, CmdrTaco, it's FERRATE (O4) and not FERRITE (O3) !!!) Iron Ferrate is Fe04, and according to my handy dandy table:

    Fe04 2- + 8 H+ + 3e- -> Fe3+ + 4 H20 at +2.20 E/V

    Here we're charging the battery and losing a lot of water. I'm not sure how Li Ion batteries charge becuase it's been to long since electrochem, but it's clear that lithium ion is a much better technology in terms of energy density:

    1. Voltage is probably much better
    2. Fe -based batteries will weigh about 10 times more
    3. Fe - based batteries will have to deal with lots of water, which takes VOLUME becuase it doesn't reduce volume when dissolved back into solution...

    So, in all, I bet you the energy density of a Li Ion battery is about 15 times what a ferrate battery probably is.

    But I could be wrong - it's been many years since I've played a lot with electrochem.

    However, when we look at cycles, nothing beats charge-discharge of those iron-nickel batteries... so there you go...

    But I think a ferrate battery might make an interesting replacement for lead-acid batteries in cars in WARM climates, considering that all you'd need to add is some water once in a while, and that's pretty innocuous compared with sulfuric. Yipes.

    But our predecessors were smart cookies. There's a reason why we have lead-acid... cheap, dependable, doesn't freeze at 32 degrees, etc...

    Personally I like the idea of a giant iron-based UPS!!! that'd be fun... ; )
    But there you go...
  • Whether people want electric cars or not is IMHO not about economy or environment. People want a car that they think sound like a car and smell like one, too.

    Also, the reason why people doesn't use public transportation, even when it's faster, is that they want to sit in their own car and pick their noses and fart, and whatnot. ;-)

    Until we understand these kinds of strangenesses that car-owners have, we're not in a good position to convince them to buy an electric car. ;-)

Slashdot Top Deals

A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.

Close