The biggest inconvenience with cell (or “wireless”) phones is the fact that its primary means of powering itself is via a battery. And we all know what it’s like to “run out of juice” where you have to purposely disconnect a call or scramble for a power cord just to keep connected.
Has there ever been a method of actively charging a cell phone using solar power?
Yes.
But they weren’t too attractive for two very good reasons:
1. Bulky.
This universal charger is absolutely enormous and would serve to do nothing but get in the way most of the time.
There have also been innovators that have attempted to make a cell phone with an array built into it. But once again it’s huge compared to today’s compact phones.
2. Doesn’t charge as well as traditional current.
A drawback to solar power has always been that it simply doesn’t deliver the same power efficiency as plug-in-the-car or plug-in-the-wall current.
. . .
Another reason why modern cell phones positively suck at holding a charge is because they’re loaded with too much crap.
If you had a cell phone that:
- Did not have a backlit screen.
- Had a screen that was super-simple monochrome-only (very similar to a digital wristwatch).
- Had no speakerphone.
- Only played monophonic ringtones (no MIDI, no MP3′s, etc.)
- Operates as a phone only (no text messaging, no games, no internet, etc.)
- Had a chassis that was slightly thicker to accommodate for a bigger battery.
- Was powered by a lithium ion battery.
…you could probably talk on it for five hours straight. When you eliminate all the crap, the phone battery lasts much longer.
The solar-powered cell phone would be difficult to bring to fruition, but a phone that if designed to be ultra-simple would extend battery life by a very large margin.
If you’re saying to yourself “Isn’t that how cell phones used to be?”, you’d be correct. However they weren’t powered by lithium ion batteries. They were either NiCd or NiMH.
If you’re now saying “Okay! I’ll buy an old cell phone and put in a new Li-ion battery!”
You can’t do that.
Most older cell phones do not have E911 capability and several US states will not allow the registration of new service on a wireless phone if the phone doesn’t have it equipped.
However, if you are able to locate a basic used cell phone with E911 (try eBay) that can be equipped with a new replacement Li-ion battery, you’ll be pleasantly surprised at how long the battery life will be.
Like what you read?
If so, please join over 28,000 people who receive our exclusive weekly newsletter and computer tips, and get FREE COPIES of 5 eBooks we created, as our gift to you for subscribing. Just enter your name and email below:
This article is inaccurate. Buying an older cell phone with a simple UI will not use less energy than a modern phone with advanced features. It’s not just a matter of battery capacity, but also of component efficiency. Every year mobile phone components make great advancements in terms of performance and energy efficiency which is the reason why we have smart phones that can be left running for days on a single charge.
That said, your idea of a simple boiled down phone does exist with modern components and can be bought very cheaply. The Motorola Motofone F3 was designed for developing countries, is thin and stylish, and even uses an e-paper display to greatly reduce energy consumption. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Motofone_F3
And as far as solar chargers go, they now have pretty compact chargers that have onboard batteries so you can solar charge the built in battery then plug it into your phone and transfer the power even at night. They’re coming down in price and getting much more advanced. Some of these chargers have USB outlets so you can charge an iPod, iPhone, or any phone with a USB charger like many Motorola phones and PDA/smartphones.
Generally speaking, anything that lights up or transmits anything more than voice on a wireless phone drains the battery a lot quicker no matter how advanced the phone power tech is. I’ve found that older phones with less features typically have longer battery life even though they have yesteryear tech inside them. Granted, it depends on the phone because some of the older ones were just plain awful. But I know of several older Nokia models that had extremely good battery life.
The Motofone F3 is an outstanding example of what can be done when you simplify. However they’re hard to come by. I found only two on eBay – but the ones listed only work in Europe. One can only hope they’ll become more readily available stateside.
I’m a big fan of solar power and would love to see compact solutions that actually work without costing an arm and a leg. I feel the time for a well-priced solar solution for wireless phones is long overdue.
Sorry, Rich, that’s just not true. You can’t make assumptions about energy consumption based on how long the battery life on a Nokia lasted.
To make it easier to understand, look at modern Intel processors. Every major version has managed power more efficiently and consumes less electricity per MHz and frequently less overall. Take the Intel Core Duo which consumes significantly less power than the most equivalent Pentium 4 chip. Now you can’t tell me that an old laptop with a Pentium 4 and less features consumes less power than a modern laptop with an Intel Core Duo and more features.
Another example is vehicle technology. Every year the amount of safety and technology features that are standard on cars increases, but at the same time fuel economy increases. Look at the Toyota Prius. The first model Prius was very basic. It had simple electronics like a cassette deck and was small and cramped. The current generation Prius is larger, has many more features like side curtain airbags, backup camera, automatic air conditioning, bluetooth, voice activated navigation etc, and yet on top of all that the fuel economy increased versus the old version.
To make the claim that old technology – because it appears simpler on the surface – uses less energy than modern technology, is ignorant of the facts and advancements that occur every day in this industry.
If newer cell phones are so great with their advanced tech, they should absolutely trounce the old Nokia phones concerning battery life, but they don’t. I’m sure these “advancements” you speak of marvels of modern technology, but they still can’t get a cell phone to hold a charge longer than an older simplified wireless phone.
Any Motorola V3 can go for 12 days of standby time and over 5 hours of talk time on a single charge. Show me an old Nokia phone with no advanced features that does that. Hell one of the Nokias currently for sale from T-Mobile will last for 14.5 days on a single charge. If certain phones don’t last as long as their ancestors, then that’s only because the physical size of the phones has gone down so much and they have reduced the size of the battery to accomodate that. If you’re concerned about battery life why use an antiquated phone when you could get a modern one and carry a spare battery and still take up less pocket space!
I’m not trying to insult you or anything, merely trying to help you and your readers see what really is out there.
You want it, you got it:
http://www.mobile-phones-uk.org.uk/nokia-1110.htm
Five hours talk time.
Up to 380 hours standby time (almost 16 days).
Introduced early ’06. Looks like a jalopy compared to modern phones, however:
Simple black/white screen and only the most basic of features. The tech inside it is ancient compared to new offerings.
Let’s go back even further to 2004 using your brand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_V180
350 minutes talk time (5.8 hours), 275 hours standby time (11.5 days). Once again, a very basic phone. It loses with standby but meets and/or beats the new ones in talk time.
There have even been instances where people have used this phone and gotten nine hours out of it:
http://tinyurl.com/3xs3xc
Why use an antiquated phone? Because it’s a waste of cash to use a new one that gets poorer battery life in many instances yet costs more.
Your “advancements” once again don’t really seem to measure up to the older models.
Motorola isn’t my brand – I’ve owned a few but I currently use an HTC S620/Dash smartphone that I have to have for work. It will run for 5 hours of talk time and 9 days of standby, and this is a phone with Windows Mobile that includes WiFi, Bluetooth, EDGE, a megapixel camera with video, full internet browsing (through Opera Mini), full email access, instant messaging, music and video playback, and more.
The Nokia 1110 is still sold as new by some carriers around the world. It’s designed for the same market as the Motorola F3. It’s not antiquated, it’s a phone that is purpose built to be inexpensive and efficient, which is exactly what I’m talking about.
The Motorola V180 you posted is another perfect example for my argument. The Motorola V195 is the newer version of that phone, includes features such as bluetooth and PC syncing, and is currently available from the T-Mobile website for $20 with contract and it will go for 8 hours of talk time and 17.5 days of standby time. That beats the Nokia 1110 on both talk and standby time, plus it’s got a full set of modern features.
http://www.mobiledia.com/phones/motorola/v195.html
Even the pinnacle of cellular excess, the Apple iPhone can go for 8 hours of talk time and over 10 days of standby on one charge.
Either way, we’re straying far off topic here. The point of this article has to do with solar charging and cell phones. Any of these phones that we’ve discussed could be used with some sort of solar charger. I will admit that there aren’t too many good choices in that department – and the most promising ones are USB based chargers which while many phones have that capability, not all are there yet. Hopefully with the growing “green movement” by next summer we’ll see a lot more of these solar devices pop up, bringing the price and size down. I think we can both agree that the time for solar charging of small electronic devices is now – we just need the manufacturers to catch on.
Phones like the 1110 purposely use older tech inside of them because they don’t drain the battery as much, hence the longer battery life. The b/w screen is totally old-tech, and it works.
The V195 while impressive unfortunately has its battery life defeated with the inclusion of all the additional crap (AOL messaging, MP3 ringtones, etc.) If you use the phone without the add-on crap it will hit its mark, otherwise it’s no better than the V180.
As my original article states, phones with crap are battery suckers. No crap or as little crap as possible means the battery will last longer.
The 1110 and aforementioned Motofone F3 are outstanding examples of what can be done with simplified tech. Those are the phones I champion the most aside from simple-tech older models.
The iPhone on the other hand is a complete piece of junk. Reason? You can’t change the battery. So even if solar tech comes full circle and provides affordable solutions, it means absolutely nothing for iPhone users because the battery will eventually fail, rendering the phone completely useless. One can only hope the next gen iPhone will have a battery that you can actually replace.
And yes I do support “green” phones 100%. These low-powered phones are more than ready for solar tech and they will most likely be the first wave so-to-speak to have the advantage of solar solutions.
The V180 had “all the additional crap” such as AOL instant messaging, MP3 ringtones, MMS, downloadable Java games, web browsing, and two screens. Hell, my first T-Mobile branded phone, a Nokia 3390, had AOL instant messaging on it and that was 2001. You have to remember that the power is not going to be consumed by these features if you don’t use them. I humbly suggest doing some more in depth research before you make these types of claims, especially on a tech blog.
Anyways, this argument is silly – let’s just all go and enjoy the long weekend!
I will concede that the V180 sucks just as bad as the V195. I missed the fact the V180 has crap in it. Good call. Good reason not to buy one.
I already said in my previous comment that if you use the phone without the add-on crap it will hit its mark concerning battery life.
And why would I need to research anything when guys like you correct every single thing I wriite? See, I made a typo there. Correct that. Thanks.