The patents involve fuel cell technology, spurred, according to Apple’s filings, by “our country’s continuing reliance on fossil fuels.” That, argues Apple, “has forced our government to maintain complicated political and military relationships with unstable governments in the Middle East, and has also exposed our coastlines and our citizens to the associated hazards of offshore drilling. These problems have led to an increasing awareness and desire on the part of consumers to promote and use renewable energy sources.”  
 
Fuel cell technology isn’t new, but it could be groundbreaking in a laptop. Fuel cells are basically a way to convert the energy released from chemical reactions into electricity. They’ve been used in everything from NASA space satellites and probes to various types of vehicles, including automobiles, boats and submarines. The most common source of fuel cell energy is hydrogen, ergo the so-called “hydrogen car,” which couples oxygen and hydrogen to fuel the vehicle and produces little more than water as a byproduct.  
Apple’s patent filing describes a “portable and cost-effective fuel cell system for a portable computing device”:  

This fuel cell system includes a fuel cell stack which converts fuel into electrical power. It also includes a fuel source for the fuel cell stack and a controller which controls operation of the fuel cell system. The fuel system also includes an interface to the portable computing device, wherein the interface comprises a power link that provides power to the portable computing device, and a bidirectional communication link that provides bidirectional communication between the portable computing device and the controller for the fuel cell system.

 
Apple says a device powered by such a fuel system could run “for days or even weeks without refueling.” The system would theoretically be capable of both powering and receiving power from a rechargeable battery.  
“This eliminates the need for a bulky and heavy battery within the fuel cell system, which can significantly reduce the size, weight and cost of the fuel cell system,” reads one of the filings. “This fuel cell system includes a fuel cell stack which converts fuel into electrical power. It also includes a controller which controls operation of the fuel cell system.”  
 
[via AppleInsider]

[This post republished from Techland.]

Today, my iPhone died after about 8 hours—not even enough to get me through a full day without recharging (and this is typical). This was not 8 hours of constant use (unless you count the constant pinging of notifications, which may be the culprit). It was 8 hours total from the time I unplugged it in the morning and took it with me until the screen went black at around 4 PM. According to the specs, the iPhone 4S is supposed to get 200 hours of standby time, 8 hours of talk time, and “up to 6 hours” of Internet use on 3g. During the day, I made half a dozen calls less than 5 minutes each, used the Internet for an hour on the train (email, Twitter, light Web browsing), and then maybe another 90 minutes throughout the day.

Schonfeld isn’t the only person I’ve seen grumbling about this issue. Macworld’s Chris Breen has covered it, and provided some troubleshooting advice. And the Guardian’s Charles Arthur says that Apple is on the case.

How much battery life you get out of a phone is heavily dependent on how you use the phone and what you use it for–and I’m not sure if there’s such a thing as a typical user of the iPhone 4S or any other smartphone. But in my time with the iPhone 4S so far, I haven’t noticed any striking difference in battery life compared to the iPhone 4. With both phones, I can almost always get through one day, and a bit more, on one charge.

If you have an iPhone 4S and upgraded from an earlier iPhone model, have you detected a difference?

The case itself looks pretty much like any nice two-piece snap-on black iPhone 4 case, except:

• The section below the dock connector is a bit taller than usual and sports a Micro USB connector;
• There’s an area on the back with electrical contacts.

The contacts on the case’s back are there because you can connect the battery there like a backpack. It’s a 1250 MaH unit, so it should come close to doubling the standard life of the iPhone’s own 1420 MaH battery. You can simply use the phone with the battery in place–it looks a little strange, but I found it comfortable enough in the hand–or attach the battery only when you need it, such as when the iPhone’s own battery is about to croak.

The Third Rail battery isn’t just an iPhone battery, though. It’s got a MicroUSB connector that accepts a bundled adapter with a full-sized USB connector on the other end, letting you plug in other products that can charge via USB–such as other phones, Bluetooth headsets, and wireless hotspots–either while the battery is attached to the iPhone case, or when it isn’t. (It’s not, however, designed to charge particularly power-hungry devices such as the iPad.) The batteries themselves can also be charged via USB. And they can be snapped to each other like Lego blocks–on or off the iPhone case–to create a bigger power pack with longer endurance.

For the most part, the setup worked well in my tests. (Exception: When I carried my iPhone in my pants pocket with the battery attached, the battery popped off a couple of times.) It’s important to note that Third Rail’s case blocks the iPhone’s dock connector and replaces it with Micro USB–possibly an advantage if you’re a Micro USB cable fan, but it could be an issue if you use iPhone add-ons that use the dock connector, such as the iPhone integration in my car. My understanding is that Apple doesn’t permit anyone to build devices with pass-through dock connectors, so Third Rail didn’t really have a choice but to do it this way.

A Third Rail case and battery will run you $89.99 ; a case alone is $39.99, and a single battery is $59.99. (Why might you want to buy a case without a battery? Well, for one thing, a household with multiple iPhones might share batteries. And when future iPhones come out, Third Rail plans to sell cases for them, too–letting you use the battery you buy today without having to start all over.) By contrast, Mophie’s Juice Pack Air lists for $79.99, or ten bucks less than Third Rail’s system.

If you have multiple devices you need to charge on the go, the premium for Third Rail would be worth it–especially if, like me, you’ve been known to  purchase and travel with both an iPhone battery and a separate external battery for charging other devices. (I use one with my Mi-Fi, since it can only go for a couple of hours on a charge otherwise.) But I’ll bet hardcore gadget hounds would appreciate a discounted combo pack with a case and two batteries. Currently, buying that configuration would cost an imposing $149.97.

Third Rail says it’s thinking about extending its offerings further–possibly with batteries in different capacities or cases for handsets other than iPhone 4. That would make a lot of sense: the richer the system gets, the more appealing it’ll be. And the Smart Battery and Slim Case are already worth a serious look if you carry multiple gizmos and are in the habit of draining their batteries in less than a day of use.

Actually, what I’m impressed by is the fact that Energizer’s system is based on Qi, a new standard for inductive charging. Earlier inductive setups such as Powermat are based on proprietary implementations–you have to buy the mat and the sleeves and replacement battery covers from the same company, and if no support if offered for your phone, you’re out of luck. By supporting Qi, Energizer’s mat will work with any Qi sleeve or battery cover. Eventually, if all goes according to plans, there will be phones with Qi support built right in, and the standard will work with other mobile gizmos such as cameras.

Qi is the creation of an industry group called the Wireless Power Consortium, and while the name strikes me as pointlessly confusing (the Energizer boxes have to explain that it’s pronounced “Chee,” and even the logo is cryptic),  the member list is stellar: Energizer, Duracell, Best Buy, LG, Olympus, Panasonic, Samsung, Verizon Wireless, and many other interested parties.

Energizer is charging $89 for the Inductive Charger mat (which can charge two devices simultaneously, plus another plugged in via USB) and $34.99 apiece for an iPhone 3GS sleeve (which is better-looking than Powermat’s lumpy version) and a BlackBerry 8900 battery cover. The company has plans for an iPhone 4 sleeve, but isn’t going to support scads of phones itself; instead, it’ll count on QI becoming common enough that other companies do the job.

Energizer’s prices still strike me as a tad pricey for a product which, when all is said and done, saves you the hassle of plugging cables into ports on phones. But if all the companies behind Qi really come out with products based on the standard, it should tend to drive prices down, and if Qi is built into gadgets, it’ll make the whole proposition a whole lot appealing. The Energizer mat is also designed to stay at home, but the company is mulling over what a more portable version might look like. (An Energizer representative I spoke with also through out an interesting what-if: Wouldn’t it be nifty if Qi was built into the desks in hotel rooms?)

It’s not a given that Qi is going to take off, but a standard is the only logical way to do this stuff. Are you intrigued, even a little?

I bought my iMac early this year, and felt awful at the idea of having to burn through disposable alkaline batteries. A plurality of fanboy friends told me that my Magic Mouse was “pretty awesome,” but “ate up” its batteries. My solution was to purchase some Sanyo Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH) batteries and the accompanying charger.

I’ve gone through at least four charge cycle for my Magic Mouse; the keyboard batteries only had to be recharged once. Had I not taken it upon myself to be more environmentally responsible, they would be at least as many batteries sent to wherever Manhattan’s trash goes. My question is: Why didn’t Apple use rechargeable batteries in the first place?

Most of Apple’s customers wouldn’t have minded paying a few more dollars in their Mac’s sticker price. Apple sold 3.472 million Macs last quarter. Not all of those Macs shipped with wireless peripherals–for one thing, the majority were notebooks, not desktops–but many did. While Apple could have been more forward thinking then, it has the technology now. I’d like to see it begin to bundle greener batteries with its products.

At first glance, these batteries look like any other, just with neon green caps. But that cap pops off, revealing a USB plug which is inserted into the port on your computer. Charging takes a little bit of time — about five hours or so, and usable time is a little less than what you’d find in typical rechargable batteries, probably because of the smaller capacity.

(USBCells have a 1300mAh capacity — whereas these Nickel Metal Hydride batteries from RadioShack have a 2500mAh capacity. Obviously the latter batteries are going to last twice as long.)

Interesting concept though, and I’d think probably good for those emergency situations when you need some extra battery power. The batteries come in a pack of two and retail for about $15.

Microsoft has signed up a bunch of third parties to endorse the technology, and intends to license it for use by other manufacturers. (It’ll license it for free for use in products for disabled people who might have particular difficulty with standard battery compartments.) Oddly enough, it’s not making any announcements regarding using InstaLoad in its own products which could benefit from it, such as mice and keyboards.

Do you ever feel like the actual battery life on your notebook never quite equals the information that appears in promotional material? For example, you may see “up to five hours,” but actually get about half that.  Well, you aren’t alone.  I hear it all the time, and if you do a quick Twitter search on the topic, you’ll see lots of discussion.

I can assure you that no devious plot exists to mislead you. It really comes down to a few simple factors.

#1: Measurements are best case: Like a car’s “highway miles per gallon” which gauges the best case (cruising at a sustained speed for an extended period without stop-and-go driving), notebook battery life is typically based on MobileMark 2007. This benchmark primarily measures battery life while the notebook is doing nothing–not even wirelessly connecting to the Internet. A “city-driving” equivalent of notebook battery life doesn’t exist…yet.

#2: Different strokes for different folks: We all use notebooks differently, and therefore will see different battery durations.  Some watch HD web videos on YouTube, some may just do email, and some play more games than others. all of which will mean varying battery life.  You can see this data from AMD here that shows the phenomenon.  (Disclosure: I work for AMD) This also shows that battery life varies depending on the combination of components inside a machine.

#3: Battery life varies over time: The longer you own your notebook, use it, charge, and recharge, over and over again, the more the battery loses its effectiveness.  So theoretically, your longest battery life will be on the first day you crack open the packaging.  See all the people selling new batteries for old notebooks?  Some even say that battery life is variable with heat.

So what should you do?

• Grade battery life on a curve–let’s say, 60% of the claimed performance. If the label says 10 hours, my guess is it’s probably only about 6 hours in real use.
• Ask your retailer and systems providers to provide the “city miles per gallon,” or, using the tried and tested cellphone analogy, “talk-time.” They all have Web sites–and when all else fails, you can ask them over Twitter.

I may have not added back 40% of your battery life, but hopefully you know why you only get 60% of it!

Pat Moorhead is Vice President of Advanced Marketing at AMD. You can find him on his AMD blog, Twitter, FriendFeed, and LinkedIn. His postings are his own opinions and may not represent AMD’s positions, strategies or opinions.

The journal Nature is reporting that Byoungwoo Kang and Gerbrand Ceder of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology developed a glass-like Lithium mixture for electrodes that allows a charge to be rapidly stored inside of a battery. The battery is designed so that lithium ions move more freely, moving the charge in and out of storage from cathode to electrolyte. The material also retains its capacity through charge cycles.

However, don’t expect laboratory performance at home just yet. Ars Technica has noted that the battery are not entirely compatible with today’s electric grid. For example, a cell phone battery would drawn 360W in ten seconds– for a single charge. Cue the blown circuit breakers.

I’m certain that some happy medium will be reached, and we can all look forward to more advanced batteries in our electronics. This breakthrough eliminates many of the restrictions that today’s batteries place on device manufacturers, and will should lead to more powerful mobile hardware and a greater variety of devices. It’s a big win for consumers and the industry alike.