That the electricity-out-of-moisture-in-the-air batteries don't go on working indefinitely is a new and rather disappointing wrinkle in the blanket. As originally presented, the impression given was that the electricity really did (in some mysterious, unexplained way) come from humidity in the air. But, if they are good only for a finite number of laps before being confined to land-fill (and apparently not too many laps at that), the inescapable implication is that a chemical change occurs within the battery film itself. So the moisture-in-the-air is NOT the source of electricity at all; it is only the catalyst that releases the micro-flow of electrons from whatever the battery film is made of.
Environmental considerations aside, I hope they're very cheap to make because the cost:output ratio isn't looking too good at the moment. Then you have to add packaging, marketing, transportation, retail mark-up, shelf-life, etc. What will be the eventual at-point-of-consumption cost per microwatt second? (Else, can they develop the technology further, to make them "rechargeable"? I "recharge" the sunlight sensitivity in my transitional-lens spectacles by putting them in the freezer for a few hours, once very few months or so. I was told when I bought them that they would get lazy and stop working after a few years. That was more than sixteen years ago.
So, with the batteries, if humidity causes them to release electrons, would a short spell in a warm, very dry place reverse the chemical process and recharge them? Has any testing been done on this?)
I HOPE someone who knows more about these batteries than I do can shoot down in flames my present underwhelming view of them.
