• atrielienz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Every time we get one of these articles we see some advancement in battery tech. But that is usually superseded by the amount of power hungry components new tech uses. So phones have gotten more complex with more power hungry components and every time we improve battery tech, the tech giants engineers figure out a way to utilise that new tech to cram more power hungry components inside and that’s why batteries don’t last as long as we remember.

    There’s no need to get excited. Even if we end up using this in new gadgets, you’re not going to see an improvement in battery life.

      • HerrBeter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        On my S10E I could adjust the CPU power limit to 80%. I had great battery life. Like two days of battery life. Until one android update when it went away.

        • SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I don’t understand why these updates seem to take away some of the most useful features imaginable (the optional CPU underclock) and in return we get “dIfFeReNtLy ShApEd BuTtOnS” and “NeW eMoJi InTeGrAtIoNs”

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is why we need to change the way we do things every few years, move faster than our waste stream.

        Which is faster turning your phone on and checking your email or turning your desktop on and checking your email? Which lasts long your cellphone battery or your laptop battery? Which has more free software that has been vetted for problems in one location your computer or your cellphone?

        It isn’t that your phone is better, it is not, it has just not yet become shitty. Give it time, and then move on to the next thing. The thing that hasn’t yet been shat on.

    • june@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not really sure what your comment has to do with the article.

      The headline is a battery that uses less lithium, not a battery that generates more voltage, has a longer life, or is otherwise better at powering things. The advancement here is a materials advancement that we desperately need as lithium is a finite resource.

      • atrielienz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        In response to the naysayers who don’t think we ever use these battery technologies that we developed. The people in the comments of this post specifically.

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There’s no need to get excited. Even if we end up using this in new gadgets, you’re not going to see an improvement in battery life.

      That’s too much of a blanket statement to be believable as factual truth.

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’ll let a battery expert tell you instead.

          Tell me what, that I agree with what the article you posted says? Seems self-evident in my initial response, pushing back against the “not going to see any improvement” comment …

          There’s no need to get excited. Even if we end up using this in new gadgets, you’re not going to see an improvement in battery life.

          That’s too much of a blanket statement to be believable as factual truth.

          From the article…

          Moore’s Law has simply outpaced battery technology, meaning that our phones have gotten better — and demanded more power — at a much faster rate than advancements in batteries have.

          … and …

          It’s not that there haven’t been any improvements: we’ve been able to steadily increase energy density over the past few years by shrinking down internal components. But according to Srinivasan, “Five years ago, it became clear we couldn’t remove any more things, there were fires. We’ve reached a stage where new improvements in energy density are going to come from changing battery materials, and new materials are always slower compared to what I would call engineering advances.”

          Those are two different things. We’re using the new battery tech (and hence agreeing with the article), its just that the new battery tech can’t keep up with the computer tech’s power needs.