3 ms·

Right, but that the demand/supply curve isn't really my point. (Maybe we're still "talking past" each other.) Nobody wants to buy 2GB of memory at a "640 kB ou

by tomp 8y ago

Right, but that the demand/supply curve isn't really my point. (Maybe we're still "talking past" each other.) Nobody wants to buy 2GB of memory at a "640 kB ought to be enough for anybody" price point; that's fairly obvious. My point is, human civilisation has proven time and again, especially when it comes to micro/nano-electrical/chemical technology (batteries, transistors, screens, chips, ...), that it is possible to optimize, improve, reduce price and make more efficient, production (while making the product better) beyond what anyone thought possible (well except Gordon Moore). Why would batteries be different? If I find some way to make a battery better, 50% more efficient and/or 50% lighter, why can't I just dump $1-10bn into research/production and then dominate the market (likely worth 10-100x more)? Is there a fundamental technological reason (for some technologies/inventions at least), or is it just a matter of economics/management (too risky)? I'm guessing this comment reads fairly unclear (my thoughts aren't particularly clear on this matter either), but hopefully it gets some of my point across. Edit: petra gives a good example below - scaling of biological processes often fails; which makes sense because biology - we don't understand how life works, and it changes/evolves/moves by itself! But it seems that non-biological processes should be manageable, at least at this scale (i.e. not quantum/high-energy processes).

ChuckMcM 8y ago
> (Maybe we're still "talking past" each other.) Yes and no, I understand your point. If I can restate it for you, your point is this "Anything that is invented can be improved with a variable amount of effort." And I don't disagree with that point at all. Where we part ways is that I also believe that there are inventions that cannot be improved enough to actually be worth producing. They are "dead ends" in the parlance when the amount of effort needed to produce the thing (even with the improved process) is insufficient to make that thing worth doing. My interest in batteries and battery chemistry comes from my interest in mobile robotics (from roomba sized to battlebot sized). So I've been following the market pretty closely since 1986 or so when I joined the Homebrew Robotics Club in the Bay Area. I have watched many battery "breakthroughs" go no where. And it isn't because the people didn't want them to go no where, they lost a lot of money that way[1]. I will grant you that these companies "improved" what they had done in the lab, but they never improved enough to actually be able to sell batteries and keep the company going. Which is what I am defining as "not possible." If you would like to explore this topic further there is even a book on it [3]. Salient comment from that article "While countless breakthroughs have been announced over the last decade, time and again these advances failed to translate into commercial batteries." [1] For instance, only 36 battery startups received more than $500,000 in funding since 2000, and of these only two returned more money than was invested into them --https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/consumer-electronics/portable-devices/why-us-battery-startups-fail https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/consumer-electronics/po... [2] Company: Aquion Energy Select VC investors: Bill Gates, CapX Partners, Constellation Technology Ventures Total disclosed funding: $196.6M Company CEO, Scott Pearson, commented: “Creating a new electrochemistry and an associated battery platform at commercial scale is extremely complex, time-consuming, and very capital intensive. Despite our best efforts to fund the company and continue to fuel our growth, the Company has been unable to raise the growth capital needed to continue operating as a going concern.” -- https://www.cbinsights.com/research/biggest-startup-failures/ https://www.cbinsights.com/research/biggest-startup-failures... [3] https://www.technologyreview.com/s/534866/why-we-dont-have-battery-breakthroughs/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/534866/why-we-dont-have-b...
- tomp 8y ago
  Ok, I think I get it... mostly. I'm reading a book about rockets right now ("Ignition"). It actually contains many funny stories about inventions and dead ends; how some substance seemed very promising, but then it turned out it corrodes steel very slowly; or how they abandoned a better fuel for a slightly worse one that was more practical (e.g. wouldn't freeze in the winter). I guess in general, we only hear/see the success stories, i.e. technology that is better, and could be put into production and scaled. As a software developer I might be a bit blind to that ;)

by tomp 8y ago

ChuckMcM 8y ago

> (Maybe we're still "talking past" each other.) Yes and no, I understand your point. If I can restate it for you, your point is this "Anything that is invented can be improved with a variable amount of effort." And I don't disagree with that point at all. Where we part ways is that I also believe that there are inventions that cannot be improved enough to actually be worth producing. They are "dead ends" in the parlance when the amount of effort needed to produce the thing (even with the improved process) is insufficient to make that thing worth doing. My interest in batteries and battery chemistry comes from my interest in mobile robotics (from roomba sized to battlebot sized). So I've been following the market pretty closely since 1986 or so when I joined the Homebrew Robotics Club in the Bay Area. I have watched many battery "breakthroughs" go no where. And it isn't because the people didn't want them to go no where, they lost a lot of money that way[1]. I will grant you that these companies "improved" what they had done in the lab, but they never improved enough to actually be able to sell batteries and keep the company going. Which is what I am defining as "not possible." If you would like to explore this topic further there is even a book on it [3]. Salient comment from that article "While countless breakthroughs have been announced over the last decade, time and again these advances failed to translate into commercial batteries." [1] For instance, only 36 battery startups received more than $500,000 in funding since 2000, and of these only two returned more money than was invested into them --https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/consumer-electronics/portable-devices/why-us-battery-startups-fail https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/consumer-electronics/po... [2] Company: Aquion Energy Select VC investors: Bill Gates, CapX Partners, Constellation Technology Ventures Total disclosed funding: $196.6M Company CEO, Scott Pearson, commented: “Creating a new electrochemistry and an associated battery platform at commercial scale is extremely complex, time-consuming, and very capital intensive. Despite our best efforts to fund the company and continue to fuel our growth, the Company has been unable to raise the growth capital needed to continue operating as a going concern.” -- https://www.cbinsights.com/research/biggest-startup-failures/ https://www.cbinsights.com/research/biggest-startup-failures... [3] https://www.technologyreview.com/s/534866/why-we-dont-have-battery-breakthroughs/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/534866/why-we-dont-have-b...

tomp 8y ago
Ok, I think I get it... mostly. I'm reading a book about rockets right now ("Ignition"). It actually contains many funny stories about inventions and dead ends; how some substance seemed very promising, but then it turned out it corrodes steel very slowly; or how they abandoned a better fuel for a slightly worse one that was more practical (e.g. wouldn't freeze in the winter). I guess in general, we only hear/see the success stories, i.e. technology that is better, and could be put into production and scaled. As a software developer I might be a bit blind to that ;)