Any new battery technologies on the horizon?

Specifically for lights, of course

I know there are slight improvements in LED efficiency and such but I'm just wondering about the state of battery technology.

i also know many (most?) here are more concerned with output. My EDC lights are plenty bright. I'm more interested in primaries (specifically CR123A but AA and AAA as well) with longer run times,

I'm hoping for (but have no idea if this has ANY basis) for a battery that will drive, say, a 300 lumen light for 300-400 hours.

Is this something that's feasible at some point, or will physics and chemistry get in the way?

Appreciate any thoughts.

Ken

OK well very roughly speaking (according to some quick checking of some self built graphs, probably not very accurate), the state of the art right now seems to be about 10 hours to 50% per 18650 cell at ~300 lumens.

So, to get your 300 hours based on current technology, you'd need to carry around about 30x 18650 cells, which I suppose is doable in one of those petrol-can sized HID type lights.

So what's coming? I don't have any special information here, but I do occasionally see reports in scientific publications about "promising" new technologies based on semiconductor capacitors, graphene or carbon nanotubes. Generally they are all considered to be "about 10 years away" which is scientist-speak for "STFU and stop asking me when it will be ready, it probably won't even work". Still, it's likely that one of these technologies will pay off some time in the next 10 years.

Anyway, all of these are generally expected to yield something in the order of 10x improvement over the current state of the art.

So in that case, you might expect that, if we're lucky, in around 10 years time, you could have something about the size of a 2D maglite, perhaps even smaller, that would meet your criteria. Whether that technology would actually make its way into mainstream torches that quickly is doubtful, but it'll probably be available for laptops, phones and so on, and modders and custom-builders will be able to get hold of the cells and build them, for presumably quite a lot of money. For a comparison, consider how long lithium ion batteries were available in laptops before they became as pervasive as they are nowadays.

Interesting. So a more modest gain? Say 2x? Maybe 2-3 years out? Again, I'm primarily talking about primaries here (and they already last pretty long the way I generally use them) Mostly just curious to see where things are headed.

Appreciate your thoughts,

Ken

kbuzbee said:

Interesting. So a more modest gain? Say 2x? Maybe 2-3 years out? Again, I'm primarily talking about primaries here (and they already last pretty long the way I generally use them) Mostly just curious to see where things are headed.

Click to expand...

I honestly don't know enough about current battery tech to say about this. Others might have some better knowledge of what's actually in the pipeline right now, and could say what sort of percentage improvements we're likely to see over the next few years using technology that already exists but it's widely available yet.

However, I doubt that you'll see anything like a doubling of efficiency within a few years. Incremental improvements on the same basic technology tend to be in the order of a few % every one or two years. So to see a radical difference, you need a completely new technology. In some areas, doubling of efficiency would be seen as a massive jump and indeed that would be the case with current battery tech. However most of the things I've read about have talked about a likely 10x improvement, so I think we'll most likely go from these small incremental improvements to a sudden big jump, skipping any smaller jumps like doubling or tripling of efficiency. That said, it's quite likely that the supply side will artificially restrict any such radical new technology to maximise profits, which means when it becomes available, it will initially come in a watered-down form that is maybe "only" twice as efficient as current tech, which can then be doubled every year or two until the theoretical limits are realised.

Whether that happens or not somewhat depends on whether there is sufficient consumer demand for significantly more efficient batteries. For things like smartphones, laptops and, quite likely in a few years, wearable VR gear, it's likely that the big players like Sony and Apple will look to push the tech a long way pretty quickly, because the benefits would be tangible. For example 10x more battery life might mean the ability to have a full VR computer in a self-contained lightweight headset, which is something that's currently impossible. That makes it a much bigger selling point than something like "laptop battery now lasts for 4 days instead of 2", when most people only really care whether or not their laptop can run for a full working day between charges. So how quickly we see revolutionary battery technology realised depends in a large part on whether it enables any such disruptive technology, or if it's just going to be an incremental improvement for existing devices. Stuff like torches will certainly not drive the demand for this kind of tech because for the most part they are already "good enough". They are just something that will benefit as part of a secondary market and become much better as a result.

kbuzbee said:

I'm hoping for (but have no idea if this has ANY basis) for a battery that will drive, say, a 300 lumen light for 300-400 hours.

Click to expand...

Sure, I have a battery like that right now. It's a SLA deep-cycle marine battery. Of course, it weighs about 50 pounds, so portability is a concern.

If you want something like that in a AA or 18650 size, you'll be waiting a very long time. Battery technology has inched forward in small steps for the past 100 years or more, but it never jumps forward in great leaps. That's not going to change. Maybe in 50 or 100 years, you might have the battery you want.

If anything, I expect larger batteries to lead in technology innovation. We need those large batteries for things like electric cars, and for storage of PV solar and wind power. Nobody really cares about developing a super-powerful small battery for a flashlight.

Etsu said:

Nobody really cares about developing a super-powerful small battery for a flashlight.

Click to expand...

This is true, but bear in mind that people do care quite a lot about battery technology, because right now it's the main bottleneck in the biggest business of our time: mobile computing. There's also a lot of interest in the area of 'green' power generation, which needs more reliable storage options (for things like solar and wind power that can't match power output to demand). However some of the most promising tech in that area is things like water towers, flywheels and supercapacitors, none of which will result in portable technology.

Still, there's a lot of R&D investment going into battery technology right now and a lot of promising technology on the horizon. Unfortunately, none of it is viable right now, so it won't be available in the next few years. 10-15 years is certainly realistic to see a significant jump forward though.

Thanks guys!

Pretty much what wanted to know (and, frankly, was expecting to hear )

It's good to set realistic expectations but the concept of a "lifetime" battery intrigues me. I mean, the LED tech revs often enough that it would be a reasonable proposition to buy a light every two years (yeah, right! Recently it's been more like every two days! but, regardless ) and use it until it dies. At that point you get the next "latest-greatest". That doesn't work so well for a $500 titanium custom, but for a $50 3" EDC I like the idea. What battery is in it? Who cares? Its sealed.

It's the evolution of the disposable light. And when you get your new light there's a return label to recycle your old one.

I'm in (well, maybe, I'd have to give it more thought)

I don't think I'm up for the 50# marine battery idea though

Cheers!

Ken

It's unlikely that any battery will achieve energy density better than liquid gasoline. The volume of an 18650 cell is pi * (18mm/2)² * 65mm = 16540mm³. The energy density of gasoline is 34.6 J/mm³. So an 18650 filled with gasoline has 572,300 J of energy. One joule is one watt-second, and there are 3600 seconds in an hour, so that's 159 Wh. Current Panasonic NCR18650B cells are 3400 mAh at 3.7V, which is 12.6 Wh. So best case is roughly another factor of 13, barring some sort of nuclear power source.

Speaking of gasoline, a current 300 lumen LED draws about an amp. This means that a battery capable of 300 hours of runtime at one amp would have a capacity of 300AH, or about 1110WH. Assuming 100% conversion, this would take 115cc of gasoline, which is just under half a cup. That's FAR greater than the volume of an 18650. In other words, we would need a source of energy FAR better than gasoline in order to give this kind of runtime from a cell the size of an 18650.

flashflood said:

barring some sort of nuclear power source.

Click to expand...

...and it wouldn't even need a LED. Just a lens to focus the nuclear glow

The gasoline discussion was kinda where I was going with the 'limited by physics and chemistry' comment. Doesn't rule out a 2x enhancement by some technology other than lithium though. Thanks!

Ken

disposable light, old news..... I think Bic was the first:laughing:

flashflood said:

It's unlikely that any battery will achieve energy density better than liquid gasoline. The volume of an 18650 cell is pi * (18mm/2)² * 65mm = 16540mm³. The energy density of gasoline is 34.6 J/mm³. So an 18650 filled with gasoline has 572,300 J of energy. One joule is one watt-second, and there are 3600 seconds in an hour, so that's 159 Wh. Current Panasonic NCR18650B cells are 3400 mAh at 3.7V, which is 12.6 Wh. So best case is roughly another factor of 13, barring some sort of nuclear power source.

Click to expand...

That's a good way of approaching it. You're right, gasoline is pretty good, but I think it's a bit worse than your estimate because you need to add oxygen to the energy density for it to react. (Since batteries are closed systems.)

I think the energy density for burning aluminum is a couple times better than gasoline, but your point is still valid that a chemical battery wouldn't approach the OP's requirement. Hydrogen is about the best chemical energy source, but it would take up too much volume (you'd have a large, light battery).

The future of better batteries may be "smart batteries", where they automatically recharge when conditions are appropriate. Probably more useful in cars than flashlights, though.

kbuzbee said:

Interesting. So a more modest gain? Say 2x? Maybe 2-3 years out? Again, I'm primarily talking about primaries here (and they already last pretty long the way I generally use them) Mostly just curious to see where things are headed.

Click to expand...

Primaries haven't moved forward ever since Energizer Ultimate Lithium, which is about a decade-old technology at this point. Even the conventionally developed rechargeables are gradually approaching what only the best primaries can accomplish in terms of capacity (still not in terms of energy density/weight, but with most flashlights that's hardly a major concern). The only case I use primaries in my flashlights is when I'm taking a fistful of Ultimate Lithiums on a hike—where I can't recharge anything for a long consecutive time.

I think most makers have there hands full working on automotive power batteries.As regards professional users lights i can see more use of Li-On being order of the day.

It is not in the makers best interest to improve on good old Alkaline until the competition tries to steal retail shelf space then we get "Our best battery yet" ad campaigns.

Yeah, with the Tesla chock full of 18650s it's likely that Li - ions will be a priority.

Cell energy density is now a limiting factor for e car adoption. There would be a real rush to find a solution.

I think we're going to be lucky to see a 10x improvement of battery performance within our lifetimes. Doubling seems likely, but it will take many years to see production and may come with increased risks ala the li-ion exothermic self-disassembly events we oft see on youtube.

Improvements are slow in coming due to a number of factors, including the oligopoly existing in numerous specialized capital-intensive industries. Upstarts who threaten established players' investments in R&D + production can typically be slowed or neutralized through price manipulation, although other mechanism such as supplier coercion, price collusion with other big players, and incentivizing prospective customers not to do business with upstarts.

But the slow and tortuous R&D pipeline alongside the challenge of commercialization is the problem. We hear about lab advances all the time that fizzle when closely scrutinized or prototyped for real-world testing. Or lab advances that survive the gauntlet of peer review only to run into show-stopping problems readying them for production.

Etsu said:

Hydrogen is about the best chemical energy source, but it would take up too much volume (you'd have a large, light battery).

Click to expand...

Hydrogen - the fuel of tomorrow, never quite the fuel of today. Hydrogen fuel cells are expensive, temperamental, and rather inefficient relative to batteries. Hydrogen storage in a reasonable density requires heavy tanks to deal with the pressure or some sort of compound that releases hydrogen on demand - adding bulk and more complexity for its own apparatus.

Other small fuel cells such as direct-methanol do a little better, but you have the various issues of dealing with liquid fuels, the need for ventilation, and often proprietary/costly fuels.

Then there's the waste hear that fuel cells produce - perhaps a bit troubling for truly handheld applications such as flashlights.

2x, we might see 2000x if this tech makes its way forward to handhelds...
Not only is it supposed to be 2000x more storage, it's also supposed to charge 1000x faster.

Holy cow!

ssholtis said:

2x, we might see 2000x if this tech makes its way forward to handhelds...
Not only is it supposed to be 2000x more storage, it's also supposed to charge 1000x faster.

Holy cow!

Click to expand...

Er, what? Looks like some of your post has gone missing.

robert.t said:

Er, what? Looks like some of your post has gone missing.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

Last edited by Greta; Today at 04:29 PM.

Click to expand...

... might have something to do with it

Guessing some questionable linkage was involved.

CMAG said:

disposable light, old news..... I think Bic was the first:laughing:

Click to expand...

Well, sure, but if it won't hold enough charge for 1-2 years of routine use and great light, it's not what I was referring to. Same concept. Different goal.

Good discussion but I'm not hearing a reason to hold off restocking my CR123s

Ken