My apologies, somehow I missed your response....
So, if those miracle 10 minute chargeable batteries are so common
Not particularly common, but available. Most manufacturers prefer energy density to charge time. You get ~2/3rds the energy density on fast charging packs that you get on the highest density 18650s.
So, a little less energy density (30%?) I think for fast charge rates people would give up 30% runtime in a whole host of pluggable environments. So there must be some other reason we don't see reliable fast charge batteries in common applications. I'm thinking cost would be number one.
(Hoverboards) So far, some reports have blamed the batteries, others the cables, but we don't know for sure
Having owned one, and noting that there was a significant spark when attempting to plug it in, I'd say there was more wrong with those hoverboards than just batteries or chargers... quite possible the entire charging subcomponent consisted of a single wire from plug to battery. I had to plug it in a second time just to be sure I saw what I saw, and Amazon kindly refunded it immediately.
Not a single thing that you listed uses fast charge batteries.
And yet they all wound up in smoking piles of burnt electronics.
Right. Computing is the one thing that's advanced so dramatically. Your expectation that if a technology doesn't advance as fast as computing is absurd.
Of course it's absurd. We're also in the very very beginning of this tech. It's no different than the invention of the wheel to hyperloop, just compressed down into roughly 80 years. Just wait on the next technical revolution that may go even faster - bio-engineering.
Tensile strengths? To what are you referring?
I'm referring to tensile strength. If you don't know what tensile strength is, you really need to learn some very, very basic physics. That's like saying "I don't know what mass is"
Of course of materials. Materials in all fields. Tensile strengths, compressive strengths, elastic moduli, etc have all improved with time.
Totally incorrect - the tensile strength of an elemental material is a physical limit. Now, we may have not reached those limits in manufactured components, but the tensile strength is fixed. Now, for engineered materials, we certainly are improving, as well as creating new materials and new manufacturing techniques that bring us much closer to that physical maximum we seek on a macro scale.
But like pretty much every technological field except computing, the rate of improvements are nothing at all like some endless, 1.5-year exponential growth rate.
Computers, in case you haven't noticed, have fallen off the treadmill. The last 5 years at least have almost been standing still.
Batteries win hands down.
I guess I didn't recall how recently Lithium ion batteries came into existence. They certainly increased battery performance hugely, but within them they haven't really done more than double or triple over the last 20 years. (Note, that leaves the first 10 years where there were significant improvements)
ICEs still to this date are nowhere near their Carnot limit.
But they are near the physical limits of power losses due to friction and conduction losses until a frictionless, non-melting non-conducting material can be found, at least regarding efficiency. Now power out of a given sized engine? That can still go up quite a bit, at least from what we have in our day to day cars.
Today's tires are better in rolling resistance, comfort, safety, *and* cost than those of several decades ago. But again, the curve is nothing like that of computing.
Actually, tires have improved tremendously in many ways, reliability, treadwear, improved wet traction, lowered noise (due both to materials and tread design) etc etc etc. Rolling resistance is something that has not improved tremendously, since there were very low rolling resistance tires quite a ways back, and those were actually worsened wrt to rolling resistance to increase comfort. I'd say the biggest improvements were the combination of treadwear and traction, and then separately, reliability. I still recall belts (both regular and radials) breaking in tires and causing blowouts. A spare was expected to be used, now, it's truly "in case of emergency only" if you even have one.
You're holding batteries to the standard of the one thing that's advanced faster than everything else (computing). Which is ridiculous.
The point here is that a battery is still like a 1800s wood burning steam engine compared to the charging rate of a battery
I can't even parse that sentence.
In a word - supercapacitor. Another word - flow. Both beat regular batteries in certain areas of performance, both have their drawbacks. I'd love a supercapacitor with the energy density of the best lithium battery at the large scale cost of a flow battery.
Somehow we got hung up on computers and all related tech and the amazing improvements over the previous 40 years. However, that curve has significantly flattened, like Thor's hammer hit it, at least until there's a fundamental shift, much like with batteries when lithium ion batteries were introduced. I will predict that genetic engineering is about to enter a similar phase of amazing improvement, provided we don't wind up killing ourselves.