• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Entropy violation?

Red Baron Farms said:
A Glass Battery That Keeps Getting Better?

Real? or fake news?
Click to expand...

I would think that the recharge cycle of all batteries lowers the entropy of the battery being recharged. As the article alludes to, this battery just isn't in it's optimal configuration when it's first built. The first set of recharges can simply be viewed as part of the "construction process" of the battery.
 
No. They aren't talking about a battery that magically never needs recharging and doesn't lose energy as it is used, but about a battery who's capacity increase (very slightly according to the article) as it us used.

So instead of a battery that can power your laptop for 5 hours, you use it for 3 years and it can only power your battery for 3.5 hours you would have a battery that could power you laptop for 5 hours and after 3 years it could power your laptop for 5.25 hours.

You would still need to charge the battery. No violation of entropy.

To be clear I can't speak to the validity of the claim itself, but it does not in principle violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
A Glass Battery That Keeps Getting Better?

Real? or fake news?
Click to expand...

Assuming this is not a deliberate hoax (the source would seem to rule that out), and is not a simple error of measurement (likely)...

Not sure how this would be a violation of entropy. Entropy would be violated if more energy is being removed from the system than is being put into it, and this is not occurring here. What is occurring is that the medium is able to handle more energy being put into the system. They are putting energy into the system. The explanation of the charge/discharge cycle as somehow "optimizing" the materials makes a certain amount of sense.

The article mentioned that the capacity increase occurred over roughly 300 cycles, but doesn't mention whether it continues through the battery's lifespan of 23,000 cycles. If it only occurs for the first few hundred cycles and then levels off, then material optimization seems to be a reasonable explanation. It also doesn't note whether there is a decrease in capacity in the longer term.

At this time, I'm going with "measurement error" as the most likely explanation; and "short-term material optimization with normal long-term degradation" as the second most likely.
 
Last edited:
luchog said:
At this time, I'm going with "measurement error" as the most likely explanation; and "short-term material optimization with normal long-term degradation" as the second most likely.
Click to expand...

While "measurement error" is my main bet, my hedge money would be on "Increase in capacity that is traded off by decrease in efficiency" (i.e. You can use your laptop for longer, but have to leave it charging for even longer). At first, you may store 90Ah by burning 100Ah, (90% efficiency) but later you can store 120Ah by burning 150Ah (80% efficiency). Solid-state dielectric domain alignment could have this effect.
 
GodMark2 said:
While "measurement error" is my main bet, my hedge money would be on "Increase in capacity that is traded off by decrease in efficiency" (i.e. You can use your laptop for longer, but have to leave it charging for even longer). At first, you may store 90Ah by burning 100Ah, (90% efficiency) but later you can store 120Ah by burning 150Ah (80% efficiency). Solid-state dielectric domain alignment could have this effect.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I kind of took the reduced efficiency as read.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom