Timeline for Why are car batteries still so heavy?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
43 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 27, 2018 at 11:32 | history | protected | CommunityBot | ||
| Dec 4, 2016 at 5:17 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackElectronix/status/805279808167014400 | ||
| Nov 23, 2016 at 11:18 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| Nov 23, 2016 at 11:04 | comment | added | user130311 | @sharptooth - I really have no idea either. The vast majority of people who have been involved with this discussion seem to have somehow not got confused or found the question too broad.... | |
| Nov 23, 2016 at 10:47 | comment | added | sharptooth | Why, just why is this being close-voted? What's the point in having knowledge and being an expert if you cannot reasonably answer questions like this? | |
| Nov 22, 2016 at 17:53 | comment | added | Tim Spriggs | The best battery for the money, IMO, is the Auto Zone Platinum battery. It is maintenance free and no acid to worry about. | |
| Nov 22, 2016 at 13:53 | answer | added | user143522 | timeline score: 0 | |
| Nov 22, 2016 at 9:24 | comment | added | Luaan | @Passerby That's no secret. Greeks only used concrete in compression, just like stone. We use reinforced concrete, which also undergoes tension and torsion - and the iron rusts over time. And don't forget that most of the Greek concrete buildings are either completely gone, or significantly damaged. A few buildings survived in decent condition, the rest is gone - that's just selection bias at its finest. And it's not like we have modern degraded concrete buildings - we replace them long before that. Compare the concrete fortifications from WWII - they don't have a scratch. | |
| S Nov 21, 2016 at 17:14 | history | suggested | Peter Mortensen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Copy edited (e.g. ref. <http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/15953>).
|
| Nov 21, 2016 at 17:04 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Nov 21, 2016 at 17:14 | |||||
| Nov 21, 2016 at 3:33 | comment | added | Hot Licks | An important point is that a lead-acid battery is much more robust and easier to maintain and manage with a relatively simple charge/discharge system. Only rudimentary voltage and current limiting is required when charging, and no exotic mechanism is required to limit the rate or "depth" of discharge. All other battery technologies are far more fragile. | |
| S Nov 19, 2016 at 23:47 | history | suggested | user1306322 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
"Title Case" is not very readable on the internet and creates confusing capitalization. Please reserve capital letters for names of things.
|
| Nov 19, 2016 at 23:14 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Nov 19, 2016 at 23:47 | |||||
| Nov 19, 2016 at 22:52 | comment | added | jamesdlin | techcrunch.com/2015/08/12/… | |
| Nov 19, 2016 at 22:41 | answer | added | Juraj | timeline score: 5 | |
| Nov 19, 2016 at 22:06 | comment | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | A sort of meta answer to this (one that will give you a handle on how to think about these kinds of questions in general) is that non-trivial technologies have long requirements lists, and observing that a possible replacement system is better on one of them doesn't tell you much. You need to dig in and find the several limitation that characterize technologies and the breadth of the conditions under which the tech is expected to perform before you start a cost-benefit analysis. | |
| Nov 19, 2016 at 21:27 | comment | added | user | Definitely related: Why is there so much fear surrounding LiPo batteries? | |
| Nov 19, 2016 at 21:10 | comment | added | barbecue | Another similar question from mechanics | |
| Nov 19, 2016 at 13:31 | comment | added | Marcus Müller | @Passerby (I might be a bit passionate about things like these, so please bear with my ranting :) ) Point is that what we call Roman Concrete (RC) (which I think you're referring to) is different from the types of Portland Concrete (PC) we use nowadays in chemistry. RC is less likely to form long cracks. However, it's pressure resistance, and thus, it's quality as material to build large structures seems to be inferior ("seems" b/c there's not 1 mixture,but a variety). Furthermore,PC is generally great b/c it has nearly the same thermal expansion as steel armaments–which is necessary. | |
| Nov 19, 2016 at 13:10 | comment | added | Marcus Müller | @Passerby that is a gross oversimplification and pretty much, simply not true. I'm not a structural engineer, so I'm not going to praise concrete too much, but that's one of these ever over-used "the ancient did it better than us" cliches. | |
| Nov 19, 2016 at 2:21 | comment | added | Passerby | @Marcus yet our concrete deteriorates quickly, while ancient Greeks had concrete that is still standing. | |
| Nov 19, 2016 at 1:43 | answer | added | Marcus Müller | timeline score: 5 | |
| Nov 18, 2016 at 23:23 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Nov 19, 2016 at 0:45 | |||||
| Nov 18, 2016 at 19:09 | comment | added | Johnny | Note that even hybrid cars that have big battery packs still tend to use a lead acid battery as a starting battery, so that should tell you something about the suitability of lead acid for this role. Though they tend to use AGM batteries, which are slightly lighter -- when I replaced my old flooded lead acid battery with a new AGM battery, the AGM battery was about 10% lighter (36 lbs instead of 41 lbs) | |
| Nov 18, 2016 at 16:53 | comment | added | Voltage Spike♦ | Lead Acid battery's work, they are relatively stable and don't require a lot of charging circuitry. And that is all you need. | |
| Nov 18, 2016 at 14:46 | comment | added | Nick Alexeev | Batteries are among those few stubborn things that don't follow The Moore's Law. | |
| Nov 18, 2016 at 13:25 | answer | added | Russell McMahon♦ | timeline score: 20 | |
| Nov 18, 2016 at 13:11 | comment | added | anonymous2 | Similar, but on a different stack: mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/25752/… | |
| Nov 18, 2016 at 13:00 | comment | added | Russell McMahon♦ | The latest batteries are much lighter and cost less over a vehicle lifetime. But they do not use LA (lead acid) chemistry. A LiFePO4 (Lithium Ferro Phosphate) battery will do what is required at acceptable whole of life cost BUT at higher initial capital cost - which makes it unattractive to car manufacturers. Cycle life is very much greater than that of LA. A "spike through the heart" will not cause the issues a LiIon has. Charging control is "easy enough". Allowed depth of discharge, & max acceptable charge rates are higher, temperature range better, recharge efficiency better. | |
| Nov 18, 2016 at 12:53 | review | Close votes | |||
| Dec 4, 2016 at 3:03 | |||||
| Nov 18, 2016 at 12:48 | comment | added | J... | Well.... the price, oh, the price, and... the price | |
| Nov 18, 2016 at 12:44 | answer | added | J... | timeline score: 19 | |
| Nov 18, 2016 at 11:30 | comment | added | user16324 | Because the rest of the car is still 2000lbs of iron. If we were making 200lb cars of graphite/kevlar/epoxy and titanium, then 40lbs of battery would become more significant. | |
| Nov 18, 2016 at 11:28 | comment | added | Majenko | Imagine someone drives their car into yours and fractures your lead-acid battery. What do you get? You get a bit of acid leaking out onto the floor. Now imagine that with a Li-Ion. What do you get? You get a huge fireball that engulfs you and your family. Which would you choose? Ok, maybe that's an exaggeration, but you get the idea ;) | |
| Nov 18, 2016 at 10:15 | comment | added | Marcus Müller | @dim :) I extended my comment to illustrate my agreement with you :) | |
| Nov 18, 2016 at 10:12 | comment | added | Marcus Müller | @dim? 45? More like 120 years... but yeah. We still build bridges out of steel, our concrete has gotten better, but still is essentially concrete, we use Asphalt for roads, copper is still our favourite conductor, the most commonly found amplifier technology in everything that isn't basically low-frequency is a bipolar-transistor based class A/B amplifier, we still burn oil to keep our homes warm, and our refrigerators still aren't based on Peltier elements, but on compressing more or less dangerous fluids. | |
| Nov 18, 2016 at 10:00 | comment | added | dim | Well, all the technology from 45 years ago isn't obsolete as of now. | |
| Nov 18, 2016 at 9:59 | answer | added | Marcus Müller | timeline score: 65 | |
| Nov 18, 2016 at 9:46 | answer | added | Andrew | timeline score: 14 | |
| Nov 18, 2016 at 9:44 | history | edited | user130311 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added a bit of clarity
|
| Nov 18, 2016 at 9:39 | answer | added | Marcus Müller | timeline score: 73 | |
| Nov 18, 2016 at 9:37 | review | First posts | |||
| Nov 18, 2016 at 10:01 | |||||
| Nov 18, 2016 at 9:33 | history | asked | user130311 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |