x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA
  • Hidden picShow menu
  • Home
  • News
  • Imagine a battery for your phone that will charge to 70% full in two minutes, and last for 20 years

Imagine a battery for your phone that will charge to 70% full in two minutes, and last for 20 years

Posted: , by Alan F.

Tags:

Imagine a battery for your phone that will charge to 70% full in two minutes, and last for 20 years
Imagine having a battery inside your phone that can quickly recharge to 70% full in two minutes. Now, imagine that this cell will last 20 years before requiring a replacement. These are some of the specs of the lithium ion batteries being developed at Nanyang Technology University. This is accomplished by speeding up the chemical reactions inside the cell.

Instead of using a graphite anode, this battery uses a titanium dioxide nanotubes anode. This allows the battery to offer 10,000 charging cycles as opposed to the usual 500. And these smaller titanium tubes are cheap and easy to make. The material is found naturally in soil and is commonly used as a food additive or to absorb UV rays in sunscreens. Converting the titanium dioxide from its spherical shape into the thin nanotubes (a thousand times thinner than the diameter of a human hair) is what allows the chemical reactions to run faster.

The new cells could be ready to hit commercial markets by 2016. According to one estimate, the market for lithium ion batteries will be $23.4 billion in two years. These longer-lasting batteries should find a home in smartphones and could make it easier for you to hold on to that handset that you've had for a couple of years, that you don't want to send back to the manufacturer for a new battery.

The technology has already been licensed, and will eventually go into production.

The team at NTU that is working on the new battery cell

The team at NTU that is working on the new battery cell


source: NTU.edu via Engadget

74 Comments
  • Options
    Close




posted on 13 Oct 2014, 11:46 18

1. PrivateParts87 (Posts: 15; Member since: 06 Aug 2014)


its about time we had a good battery in a smart phone. bring it on!

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 11:53 1

6. akki20892 (Posts: 3899; Member since: 04 Feb 2013)


new invention
so it will cost too much......

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 12:23 2

16. PrivateParts87 (Posts: 15; Member since: 06 Aug 2014)


it says in the article that they're cheaper to make. Or at least the tubes are

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 12:41 18

21. BLUEBLASTER (Posts: 253; Member since: 23 Feb 2014)


You have heard of Apple right? They will add the logo and charge double!

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 12:46 8

23. PrivateParts87 (Posts: 15; Member since: 06 Aug 2014)


oh no I think they like there idevices to run flat half way though the day, probably listed as a feature

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 12:50 8

25. phil2n (Posts: 487; Member since: 30 Apr 2012)


Not just feature, another patent coming.

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 13:02 2

28. PrivateParts87 (Posts: 15; Member since: 06 Aug 2014)


the iflat phone, extra £100 for a smaller battery "upgrade"

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 17:52 2

54. bob_monkeywarts (Posts: 236; Member since: 14 Apr 2014)


And then sue NTU! It's an iBattery!

posted on 14 Oct 2014, 00:31

67. jpkelly05 (Posts: 92; Member since: 13 Nov 2012)


And then sue anyone who uses anything similar. I swear their stocks are worth, what they are because of their legal team.

posted on 14 Oct 2014, 10:48

74. Vinayakn73 (Posts: 191; Member since: 05 Oct 2011)


triple would be right? right

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 13:09 1

29. sunninho (Posts: 1; Member since: 13 Oct 2014)


and in laptops!!

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 11:48 3

2. djk4363 (Posts: 18; Member since: 23 Apr 2013)


I may sound stupid, but why haven't solar powered batteries been used, like they were done on calculators? Phones will always be charging when light is available and many problems will be eliminated that way, Again, forgive an ignorant but honest question.

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 11:51 3

4. PrivateParts87 (Posts: 15; Member since: 06 Aug 2014)


no good place to put the solar panel and they out put a tiny current and voltage. just not enough to power a smart phone

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 11:54 2

8. jaytai0106 (Posts: 1888; Member since: 30 Mar 2011)


The problem is, an average smartphone uses way more power than a basic calculator. The solar panel could help to recharge some of the battery, but it won't be able to keep it running. However, maybe there will be a day that the solar panel technology is so good that we don't need another kind of power source anymore. Furthermore, most people keep their phones in the pockets, bags, or purses, there isn't really any chance for the solar panel to work.

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 13:35 2

35. KillgoreTroutTime (Posts: 433; Member since: 06 Jan 2014)


a calculator uses .000001% the energy a modern cellphone uses...

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 17:54 1

56. bob_monkeywarts (Posts: 236; Member since: 14 Apr 2014)


A solar panel wouldn't charge in your pocket...

posted on 15 Oct 2014, 03:34

75. kent-gaga (Posts: 476; Member since: 10 Apr 2012)


there has been phones that use solar panels on their back cover but those days are the days when 3 inch phones were the norm, not 5 inches
and by the way most people use phones indoor or put their phones in their pocket etc.. when it's not in use so your opinion is really just not possible

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 11:51 3

3. jaytai0106 (Posts: 1888; Member since: 30 Mar 2011)


So you are saying if they develop a 5,000 mAh battery that can be charged to 70% for about 5 minutes? TAKE MY MONEY!!

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 11:54 7

9. MasterSyrron (Posts: 59; Member since: 08 Dec 2012)


No, they can't take your money unless they shut up first.

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 11:56

12. jaytai0106 (Posts: 1888; Member since: 30 Mar 2011)


Take my money please :( I want that battery in my phone

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 19:00

57. Brandonvillatuya108 (Posts: 2; Member since: 13 Oct 2014)


I registered just so I can tell you that you've made my day haha. Now if I ever go to a Fry's electronics, I'm going to be thinking of Philip j. Fry.

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 11:52

5. Micah007 (Posts: 254; Member since: 09 Oct 2014)


Heck yeah, shows you what intelligence can do for the world. Great job guys.

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 11:54

7. DeusExCellula (Posts: 1084; Member since: 05 Oct 2014)


Thats insane but the price of a phone with that battery would be pretty high i guess.

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 11:55 3

10. jaytai0106 (Posts: 1888; Member since: 30 Mar 2011)


The article did mention is cheaper to produce this type of battery :D

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 12:28

18. naittosan (Posts: 234; Member since: 28 Jun 2014)


Didn't anyone read that the battery is much cheaper to produce.

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 13:11

30. Penny (Posts: 1647; Member since: 04 Feb 2011)


Cheaper to produce doesn't mean it will reduce retail price. It's a new and improved technology, and you can be certain that the marketing departments involved will focus on the "better" aspect instead of the "cheaper" aspect when selling you on their new phones. The cheaper part is for them, for profits.

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 15:23

44. TheMan (Posts: 476; Member since: 21 Sep 2012)


Agreed, and as we know have removable batteries know, batteries change every year with each new phone model. The cell may last 20 years, but the cell phone won't.

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 11:55 7

11. VZWuser76 (Posts: 3601; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)


The problem is IIRC they reported on this years ago. We always hear about this kind of thing, but it never seems to come to fruition.

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 12:21 6

15. Slammer (Posts: 1515; Member since: 03 Jun 2010)


Exactly. It's not going to happen. To much money is made in recycling the sales. No one would hardly ever have to purchase batteries again. How would the battery industry feel about this?

The Fortune500 controls the world wealth. Many of these companies are part of this structure. No battery sales equals going out of business. Develope an automobile to go far more than 46mpg? My '82 toyota got 48. Here we are 30 years later with far more technology and only getting close to this?

John B.

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 12:33

19. VZWuser76 (Posts: 3601; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)


Exactly. The reason why quality has gone downhill isn't because of any freak occurrence. It was a business decision because if you make something that works without issue for long periods of time, all they get is that onetime sale. But if they engineer planned faults into the product that will need to be fixed or require replacement of the product, they get more revenue. They seem to be following the idea "Get them on the back end". Another reason is cutting manufacturing to hit a low price point. No only do they lower the production cost, but if it fails due to that, they have another device they'd be happy to sell you.

But I don't necessarily see this as being on the smartphone OEMS. If they could have a battery that lasted longer, it would be a major selling point and eliminate certain issues that they can't overcome with current battery tech. I believe this lies squarely with battery manufacturers. Something like this could cut their sales by 10 times what they're getting now, assuming most batteries last 2 years, which many don't.

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 19:18

59. wyrishman (Posts: 39; Member since: 11 May 2014)


I completely agree with you both, Slammer and VZWuser76. There was an article years ago about converting the heat from a smartphone's screen/processor and converting it into battery power. While there may have been engineering or production issues, it's just as likely that the idea was was derailed from not only battery manufacturers, but especially charger manufacturers. Who would need spare chargers with a self-charging device or one that can charge in 5 minutes?

There's definitely foul play afoot which sucks for us consumers. Those innovations could revolutionize the market.

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 12:48

24. designerfx (Posts: 76; Member since: 26 Mar 2013)


You couldn't be further from the truth.

Your 82 toyota may have had what, 82 horsepower? Today we have cars getting 46 mpg that have 160+, and do a bunch more and are far more reliable than an 82 which is falling apart by now. New cars are a hell of a lot safer while being lighter, too.

Please disconnect your cable modem from the internet before you consider posting anything, as you are not capable of thinking.

If you think this battery wouldn't ever make it to the US, I'd like to remind you where it was developed - which confirms it'll make it here. The reason it wasn't developed in the US is because of our failure as a nation.

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 13:21 1

31. Penny (Posts: 1647; Member since: 04 Feb 2011)


Cars in particular are one industry where the argument of old school stuff being built to last doesn't necessarily work. Tech in general sees lots of improvements, and the new generations will almost always be better than the old generations.

While we may have in our minds lots of anecdotal evidence that older items were built to last, we have to keep in mind that this is a bias of sorts. We only remember the old school things that last if they are still around, which means you will only really remember those items that DID last. Therefore, you will be inclined to think that all your older items are still around, while in reality you are not thinking about all your older items that have crapped out and been disposed of years ago.

I will say that higher quality materials used to be used in a lot of manufacturing in the past for consumer products. More metals and less plastics, more long-term performance in mind than short-term performance. Manufacturing standards used to be high because that was a major industry and economic factor for many countries, U.S. included. Now we are primarily an import economy and look for cheaper manufacturing, which means cheaper-built products.

So, bottom line, there's truth to both sides of the argument. Tech is continuously improving, manufacturing quality has not been improving due to a focus on cost reduction (for many items).

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 13:23

32. troutsy (Posts: 309; Member since: 17 Feb 2012)


Shh, you're ruining the delusion that they have created for themselves.

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 17:18 1

49. Slammer (Posts: 1515; Member since: 03 Jun 2010)


---"Please disconnect your cable modem from the internet before you consider posting anything, as you are not capable of thinking."---

Maybe it's best I stay connected for those that totally misinterpret my posts as you did. It had nothing to do with how well built vehicles are today vs yesterday. My point is that manufacturers of products are designing these products to work with what they have given to them.

As a 53 year old, I can assure you that I know a thing or two. The oil companies do not want their profit margin sacrificed and neither do the battery companies. The auto manufacturers have to engineer their engines to do as much as possible with a certain gas mileage. My uncle was employed at AC Delco and worked in the electric motor division and his friend worked in the carburetor division. In the late 50s early 60s, there were blueprints in developing a carburetor to meet or exceed 150mpg. It would never happen. The battery industry is no different. What has happened, as I explained in the beginning of this post, is the manufacturers of devices have been exceedingly engneering thier products to work with current battery technology.

It has nothing to do with things "falling apart" or being "better built." We know things are engineered better. But, It has to do with better engineering to adapt to decades old power sources be it gas or battery; not frame or construction.

Please ascend to my logic before making an assumption by way of insult.

John B.

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 17:46

53. medtxa (Posts: 1103; Member since: 02 Jun 2014)


well, this battery tech could be easier to apply, smartphone technology innovation now is moving faster, this mean manufactur should adapt their way so they can ditch old technology easily for better new technology without losing much of investment.

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 17:22

51. VZWuser76 (Posts: 3601; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)


If you seriously think everything is made to last today as it was back then, I just don't know what to say. Electronics are a prime example, components especially. We we installing swirches in a graphic panel at a detention facility, and about 2-3 years after installation they failed. My boss just shook his head, because one of his first jobs he'd done (in 1978) he installed a panel similar to what we'd done. The switches he installed were still in their and still running, which at that time was 22 years old. So 3 years vs 22? Can't really call that close.

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 12:05 1

13. Captain_Doug (Posts: 985; Member since: 10 Feb 2012)


It doesn't mention anything about increased capacity. Why get a longer lasting battery(lifespan) if it still can't last a day? Not very useful tech for smartphones. The 70% charge thing is cool I guess but that's no so high on my priority list.

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 16:59

46. medtxa (Posts: 1103; Member since: 02 Jun 2014)


read again "0-70 full in two minutes" meaning almost non existent charge time, I don't know how can this fact slip from your mind

posted on 14 Oct 2014, 06:03

71. Captain_Doug (Posts: 985; Member since: 10 Feb 2012)


.. I mentioned the 70% charge thing, can you not read? Who cares if I can charge my phone quickly if that still means carrying a charger or battery pack everywhere I go.

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 12:13 7

14. Slammer (Posts: 1515; Member since: 03 Jun 2010)


---"These longer-lasting batteries should find a home in smartphones and could make it easier for you to hold on to that handset that you've had for a couple of years, that you don't want to send back to the manufacturer for a new battery."---

This is the argument I've been trying to embed in people's heads.

Why should we have to send these devices to the manufacturers? Why shouldn't we be able to change our own batteries? Just make them removable. Afterall, it is the weakest link in any phone regardless of price or brand.

I also feel this new technology will mysteriously disappear. The battery industry is similar to the oil industry. Money is made by purchasing new batteries or gas. Getting far more life or mileage would restrict revenue. This isn't the first time we've heard about new battery technology to take over the world. Just like when carburetors were developed to obtain 160mpg for a standard automobile. How'd that work out for us?

John B.

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 12:50

26. designerfx (Posts: 76; Member since: 26 Mar 2013)


This is incorrect.

We didn't simply try to make devices not have removable batteries. It's more that we pressured manufacturers to make thinner and thinner phones. At some point that requires keeping the battery flush on the inside. You'll notice samsung phones with removable batteries have thicker cases.

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 13:27 1

33. Penny (Posts: 1647; Member since: 04 Feb 2011)


The point you made does not invalidate Slammer's comment in the slightest.

All you're stating is that removable batteries are not a priority, all Slammer's suggesting is that it should be a priority.

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 17:08

47. medtxa (Posts: 1103; Member since: 02 Jun 2014)


wrong! phone with non removable battery on market tend to be thicker see htc m8, moto x, moto g, one plus one, and iphone 6 vs galaxy alpha with the same battery capacity.

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 20:55 1

62. Slammer (Posts: 1515; Member since: 03 Jun 2010)


I have reservations about the stories revolving around the thinner and lighter devices. The difference in comparisons is minimal at best and in some cases the opposite. We as consumers are giving up our control in maintaining a level of simple repairs by letting the manufacturers forcing us to bow to service centers for something as simple as a battery replacement.

The basic design and inner components of the common rechargeable battery haven't changed in about 30 years. The materials to make them more resistant to constant charging have to a certain extent. But, the offest is that modern technology for devices is always adapting to the weakest link; the battery.

You are not doing a service to consumers by coddling the hyperbole that the industry is trying to feed to us. Someone that has been around technology most of my life, can see through this marketing. Batteries are a common failed element in all forms of the industry. Sealing them inside a device as powerful as today's computational products, is an insult to those that take technology seriously.

I will ask this again: Why are some people like yourself, so inept in replacing your own power source that you need to pay someone to do it for you?

John B.

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 12:25 1

17. TBomb (Posts: 661; Member since: 28 Dec 2012)


it also doesn't say how long the batteries will last and if they are big conductors of heat, etc. interesting though.

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 12:34

20. Dee79 (Posts: 280; Member since: 19 Jun 2014)


Why cant phone companys have solar built in phones

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 12:45 1

22. darkskoliro (Posts: 1076; Member since: 07 May 2012)


Solar would be unfeasible. The components required to make a solar charging unit in itself would take up too much space for a smartphone to be usable. In addition to that, solar is only effective when it has a large number of time being spent absorbing the energy, since there is no way to have 100% efficiency when translating that into power.

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 13:37

36. KillgoreTroutTime (Posts: 433; Member since: 06 Jan 2014)


educate yourself on solar....

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 12:59 2

27. alumoyo (Posts: 344; Member since: 26 Aug 2013)


For as long as I've been reading these mobile phone sites (since 2006), I've always seen these new magical battery technologies being promised. Two or three incredible ones get reported each year - some charge super fast, some are super slim, some are super light, some carry massive power: but until now NONE OF THEM have made it into production. WHATS GOING ON!?

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 14:57 1

42. pegasso (Posts: 268; Member since: 27 Nov 2011)


their main ingredient, the blood of unicorn, is rare and very hard to find.

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 21:26

64. KillgoreTroutTime (Posts: 433; Member since: 06 Jan 2014)


Mostly they are just impossible to mass produce without having a huge fail rate.

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 13:35

34. hellonerds (Posts: 312; Member since: 27 Aug 2013)


Nice.. be cool to have it in cars

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 13:44

37. MEeee (Posts: 330; Member since: 19 Oct 2011)


I hope Apple doesn't file patent for this like they did with the fuel cell battery patent.

http://www.phonearena.com/news/Apple-granted-patents-for-mobile-hydrogen-battery-systems_id25106

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 13:49

38. surethom (Posts: 589; Member since: 04 Mar 2009)


Imagine is the correct word, another battery tech that will be here in a few years, that just be the 12 "New" battery tech coming soon in the last 4 years & STILL not one has come to market.

Wake me up when 1comes to market.

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 13:54

39. gigaraga (Posts: 1454; Member since: 29 Mar 2013)


It'll probably won't come anytime soon. There are always new about this 'fast' charge and what not but yet to see it. (And sending phones back to the manufacturer to replace the battery is noob, that's what replaceable batteries are for.)

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 13:54

40. ManusImperceptus (Posts: 724; Member since: 10 Jun 2014)


If it lasts for twenty years, the two minute charging time is kinda pointless, no?

posted on 13 Oct 2014, 17:16

48. medtxa (Posts: 1103; Member since: 02 Jun 2014)


2 minutes charging is pointless?? huh

posted on 14 Oct 2014, 01:12

68. ManusImperceptus (Posts: 724; Member since: 10 Jun 2014)


Uh, yes - if 1 charge lasts for twenty YEARS I wouldn't really care if it took 2 minutes, 2 hours or even 2 days...

posted on 14 Oct 2014, 01:14

69. ManusImperceptus (Posts: 724; Member since: 10 Jun 2014)


Oh, misread the article... Anyway, who cares about a battery cell lasting 20 years if the device only lasts 2?

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories