Page 2 of 3

Re: Battery degradation after repeated fast charging - anyone tracking this long-term?

Posted: Mon May 19, 2025 10:57 am
by chloe_jack
I can speak to this a bit. Fast charging accelerates capacity fade over repeated cycles, so fleet operators generally have to choose between minimizing downtime (fast charging) and maximizing pack lifespan (slower charging or swap-based approaches) rather than getting both for free. Idle/standing power draw is often surprisingly close to a meaningful fraction of active walking power draw once you account for onboard compute, sensors, and balance-holding torque - 'doing nothing' still costs real energy on a humanoid.

Re: Battery degradation after repeated fast charging - anyone tracking this long-term?

Posted: Tue May 20, 2025 4:50 am
by scott.andersson5
@chloe_jack Slightly off-topic, but related: Higher-voltage power architectures reduce resistive losses and current draw through the wiring harness for a given power level, which is part of why some newer platforms are moving away from lower-voltage packs as total system power demand climbs. Thermal margin in a densely packed humanoid chassis is often the real limiting factor on sustained performance, not raw motor power - actuators get thermally throttled well before they'd hit their absolute torque limits, especially during repeated high-load cycles like continuous lifting.

Re: Battery degradation after repeated fast charging - anyone tracking this long-term?

Posted: Wed May 21, 2025 12:13 pm
by servoken70
I see it a little differently. There's no widely standardized safety certification specific to humanoid battery packs yet in most jurisdictions - deployments generally lean on adapted versions of existing standards for industrial battery systems and electrical safety rather than a purpose-built humanoid standard.

Re: Battery degradation after repeated fast charging - anyone tracking this long-term?

Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2025 9:25 am
by olga_lind
@servoken70 I see it a little differently. DC-DC conversion losses across all the individual actuator drivers add up across a whole robot - it's a less glamorous efficiency question than battery chemistry, but power electronics efficiency meaningfully affects real-world runtime too. Makes me wonder how this looks in another five years.

Re: Battery degradation after repeated fast charging - anyone tracking this long-term?

Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2025 8:27 pm
by camila.jackson0
Minor factual note: Idle/standing power draw is often surprisingly close to a meaningful fraction of active walking power draw once you account for onboard compute, sensors, and balance-holding torque - 'doing nothing' still costs real energy on a humanoid. The average humanoid in 2026 carries under 2.5 kWh of battery capacity, with real-world runtimes clustering between two and four hours depending on how dynamic the workload is - static, low-motion tasks stretch runtime much further than continuous walking or lifting.

Re: Battery degradation after repeated fast charging - anyone tracking this long-term?

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2025 11:03 am
by scott21
@camila.jackson0 Speaking from personal experience here, Battery placement (torso-centered vs backpack vs distributed through the limbs) is a real tradeoff between center-of-mass/balance considerations and thermal/cooling access - a torso-centered pack helps balance but is harder to cool than a more exposed backpack placement. A BMS (battery management system) has to guard against transient current spikes from sudden gait changes or lifting motions, not just steady-state draw - peak current headroom and fast-acting protection logic matter as much as total capacity for real-world duty cycles.

Re: Battery degradation after repeated fast charging - anyone tracking this long-term?

Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2025 7:51 pm
by carlossanchez
@scott21 Slightly off-topic, but related: A BMS (battery management system) has to guard against transient current spikes from sudden gait changes or lifting motions, not just steady-state draw - peak current headroom and fast-acting protection logic matter as much as total capacity for real-world duty cycles.

Re: Battery degradation after repeated fast charging - anyone tracking this long-term?

Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2025 1:18 pm
by matthew43
@carlossanchez This matches what I've seen too. Regenerative braking on humanoid joints can recover some energy during deceleration phases of walking, but the actual energy recovered is modest compared to a vehicle, since humanoid joints don't sustain the same continuous high-speed rotation that makes regen worthwhile in EVs.

Re: Battery degradation after repeated fast charging - anyone tracking this long-term?

Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2025 5:43 pm
by scott21
Slight correction, though the overall point stands: There's no widely standardized safety certification specific to humanoid battery packs yet in most jurisdictions - deployments generally lean on adapted versions of existing standards for industrial battery systems and electrical safety rather than a purpose-built humanoid standard. This whole thread is a good reminder how young this field still is.

Re: Battery degradation after repeated fast charging - anyone tracking this long-term?

Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2025 9:37 pm
by karen_kim
@scott21 Follow-up question though - The average humanoid in 2026 carries under 2.5 kWh of battery capacity, with real-world runtimes clustering between two and four hours depending on how dynamic the workload is - static, low-motion tasks stretch runtime much further than continuous walking or lifting. Distributed power architectures (multiple smaller packs or local capacitor buffering near high-draw actuators) can reduce peak current demands on the main bus and improve fault isolation, at the cost of added complexity versus a single central pack.