Reply to comment

Rechargeable batteries question

May 7, 2008

My dad and I are having an argument. And most of the sites I've gone to to try to settle the argument kind of leave a small grey area that neither of us is willing to conceed proves the other's point.

Our disagreement is about how rechargeable batteries work.

Our argument started when the ad we read about 15 minute chargers stated they are green because they use less electricity because they don't charge as long.

My dad said, that just means that they have to put the same amount of electric in faster, which means you are still using the same amount, and its not really green.

Ideally, I feel that the charge is part of the chemical, and that the electrons are passed from the cathode to the anode through the chemical, and then when a reverse charge is applied to both -odes the electrons are passed back to the original starting position. In an idea world, the battery is fresh again. But in usage, nothing is lost, ideally (I realize this is not totally true, but it just makes it easier to explain), if there were 1,000 electrons moved from the negative to the positive pole, then 1,000 electrons are then reversed by the presence of the revered electric fields at the poles.

My dad feels the charger puts electric directly into the battery. I feel it just provides a reverse current to put the already present electrons back at the negative pole. My dad argues that energy has to be used in the electric process, and that its not possible that all of the energy is still in the battery. I argue that the electrons generates a field that generates electric as it passes through the circuits of the device, but that the electrons themselves actually go through intact and unused and end up at the positive pole of the battery.

Depending on which of us is right.. What is the validity of the claim that the 15 minute batteries use less electricity to recharge and are therefore more green than other batteries?

Anyone care to settle our argument?