5 ms·
---------------------------------------------------------------- Dear battery technology claimant, Thank you for your submission of proposed new revolutionary
by grishka 6y ago
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dear battery technology claimant,
Thank you for your submission of proposed new revolutionary battery technology. Your new technology claims to be superior to existing lithium-ion technology and is just around the corner from taking over the world. Unfortunately your technology will likely fail, because:
[ ] it is impractical to manufacture at scale.
[ ] it will be too expensive for users.
[ ] it suffers from too few recharge cycles.
[ ] it is incapable of delivering current at sufficient levels.
[ ] it lacks thermal stability at low or high temperatures.
[ ] it lacks the energy density to make it sufficiently portable.
[ ] it has too short of a lifetime.
[ ] its charge rate is too slow.
[ ] its materials are too toxic.
[ ] it is too likely to catch fire or explode.
[ ] it is too minimal of a step forward for anybody to care.
[ ] this was already done 20 years ago and didn't work then.
[ ] by this time it ships li-ion advances will match it.
[ ] your claims are lies.
----------------------------------------------------------------
- rkangel 6y agoIs the lack of check-marks here your suggestion that this is actually something of significance? That was my (cautious) reading. Assuming that it doesn't fall foul of the last one "your claims are lies" it seems to be a step change in performance that's in early production and has a reasonable path to actual production.
- antisthenes 6y agoThe lack of check-marks is because it's a blank form to be printed out and filled, before handing it over to sensationalist news websites.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y agoI remember this meme format from Slashdot comments back in 2002ish for anti-spam solutions - its not meant to be printed out - the OP simply forgot to fill the relevant checkboxes for this particular news story.
- megameter 6y agoIt goes back all the way to 90's Usenet, as a memetic format for commonplace rebuttals. Possibly one of the most longstanding pieces of Net culture!
- DaiPlusPlus 5y agoThank you for the correction, I didn’t know it was that old
- yumraj 6y agoCurious if the Lithium-ion technology would have passed your checklist on day one?
- jerf 6y agoIt's not "day one" for fantastical claims of 10x+ of battery improvement on some dimension that only works in a lab. They claim to be bringing this to market in under a year, though, so that is a deviation from the usual battery story we read. Whether or not it's true... shrug ask me in a year.
- bsder 6y agoAny claims of better than 2x should be viewed through a hugely skeptical eye. 1) 2x would take an electric car from 300 miles range to 600 miles range. That is a pretty radical improvement in energy density that possibly exceeds even hydrocarbons. 2) Automotive is a terribly unforgiving environment for batteries. Heat, cold, and vibration are all the worst. Oh, and don't do something silly like emit toxic fumes or explode when someone ruptures your containment with a 30mph crash.
- temp667 6y agofor the last 3 years I've been reading of these breakthroughs. They are not just 2x Lithium Ion, they are usually 10X!! or in this case 60X creating an "EV Range Breakthrough" to quote the title exactly. You have a 60x EV Range breakthrough - and you are still a small company not snapped up by some monster. How in the HELL is that possible. 60x range is 20,000 miles for the tesla Model 3. How is this amount of energy even carried safely? I've become jaded to these announcements. Glad someone is coming out with a checkbox for them. Note that for EV's COST has become a key driver - 315 miles range is "good enough" if you get to leave your house every morning with a full charge. Hopefully the 60X improvement creating this "range breakthrough" translates into a 60x cost reduction given you can use a much smaller battery for the 315 miles.
- brightball 6y agoThe only 60x in the article was charge time improvement.
- chrisco255 6y agoIt was 3x on capacity, 60x on charging speed. Which, if true would solve the two main problems with electric vehicles.
- pkaye 6y agoI was watching an episode of Nova on PBS about "Search for the Super Battery" and it was pretty enlightening. The basic lithium battery can store a lot of energy but due to dendrite formation it can short circuit and fail catastrophically. So they made some modifications to improve its safety while compromising other parameters and we get an lithium ion battery. But scientists are learning how to improve its safety without degrading other properties too much. They play around with different anode and cathode formulas and the separator membranes between them.
- cogman10 6y agoSo, if you are interested in lithium ion batteries, their problems, and current industry solutions, I can think of no better youtube channel then "the limiting factor". Here's his video talking about Tesla's new silicon/lithium tech. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL6xp4fLdFw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL6xp4fLdFw
- DesiLurker 6y agobatteries are the oldest tech scams, remember EEStor? My guess is that these 'breakthroughs' are basically directed towards current leaders in LiIon manufacturing and mostly serve as distraction from going all-in into liion while status quo can be maintained just a little longer.
- wolverine876 6y ago> Unfortunately your technology will likely fail, because: To Whom It May Concern: If human beings took advice like yours, we'd be living in caves. And no doubt the first person who proposed living in a cave heard the same. You are free to say what you like, of course, but try to stay out of the way of the people working. :) How is something like this found on Hacker News, hosted by Y Combinator in SV?
- kemiller 6y agoHow long have you been watching this space? Batteries are hard and many many lab-scale advances don't make it. It's still cool to check them out, but skepticism is definitely warranted.
- strofcon 6y agoNaysaying != skepticism.
- athrowaway3z 6y agoNaysaying != bad. Before i take a real look at a flat earth model it has to at least predict solar eclipses and explain seasons. Before i take a look at 'EV Breakthrough' it has to address everything on this list. Alternatively, a title less grand then 'EV Breakthrough' is also fine.
- ryzvonusef 6y ago+5 Nostalgic
- m463 6y agoSkepticism is fine, but shouldn't you detail the reasons? (not just all possible reasons)
- jfengel 6y agoThis is a variant on an old joke about ideas for fighting spam: https://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt https://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt To over-explain the joke: we hear a lot of ideas but they never pan out, and here is a simple checklist for all the reasons that they might fail. Check those that apply. (Ironically, email spam does seem to be a largely solved problem, though it has morphed into a lot of other things.)
- m463 6y agoyes, I have seen the same list on hacker news before - except people added the specific checkmarks which increased the s/n
- clouddrover 6y agoThis battery doesn't check any of those boxes. You need more boxes.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]