Please don't post curmudgeonly, sneering comments or shallow dismissals on HN. We're here for curious conversation that engages with the content of the article, not reflexive, blanket dismissals based on stereotypes.
(Cost unknown, but it's part of a $35K motorcycle, which somewhat limits the possible range unless there's VC chum involved.)
[x] it suffers from too few recharge cycles.
[x] it is incapable of delivering current at sufficient levels.
(Motorcycle, again.)
[x] it lacks thermal stability at low or high temperatures.
[x] it lacks the energy density to make it sufficiently portable.
(400 Wh/kg is better than Li-Ion)
[x] it has too short of a lifetime.
[x] its charge rate is too slow.
[x] its materials are too toxic.
[x] it is too likely to catch fire or explode.
[x] it is too minimal of a step forward for anybody to care.
[x] this was already done 20 years ago and didn't work then.
[x] by this time it ships li-ion advances will match it.
(not directly addressed, but in combination with the rest, I'll give this a pass.)
[?] your claims are lies.
It kinda looks like they read through this exact list and addressed every item but the last. Where by "addressed", I mean simply that: they made a claim regarding the item.
I am using "x" to mean that the line item is addressed by the article. Sorry, I guess that's backwards from the original intent of the checklist.
I am saying that the article addresses every reason for doubt that the checklist raises (save for the last, which it can't). Whether the technology actually addresses that shortcoming is another question, but the article does claim to have solved every single one of those common drawbacks.
As for the item about li-ion advances, I think the claimed capabilities are well beyond what li-ion could reasonably be expected to reach in the short remaining timeframe claimed.
tl;dr: the checklist is a cynical but normally accurate way of spotting fatal flaws in newly announced battery technology. Based on the announcement, this technology suffers from none of the flaws listed therein.
Please don't post curmudgeonly, sneering comments or shallow dismissals on HN. We're here for curious conversation that engages with the content of the article, not reflexive, blanket dismissals based on stereotypes.
Please take a moment to read the guidelines and make an effort to observe them in future. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Sorry Tom, that wasn't my intention at all. I read the article and it hit on a few, perhaps I should have elaborated more on that. Thank you!
Based wholly on the claims in the article:
[x] it is impractical to manufacture at scale.
[?] it will be too expensive for users.
(Cost unknown, but it's part of a $35K motorcycle, which somewhat limits the possible range unless there's VC chum involved.)
[x] it suffers from too few recharge cycles.
[x] it is incapable of delivering current at sufficient levels.
(Motorcycle, again.)
[x] it lacks thermal stability at low or high temperatures.
[x] it lacks the energy density to make it sufficiently portable.
(400 Wh/kg is better than Li-Ion)
[x] it has too short of a lifetime.
[x] its charge rate is too slow.
[x] its materials are too toxic.
[x] it is too likely to catch fire or explode.
[x] it is too minimal of a step forward for anybody to care.
[x] this was already done 20 years ago and didn't work then.
[x] by this time it ships li-ion advances will match it.
(not directly addressed, but in combination with the rest, I'll give this a pass.)
[?] your claims are lies.
It kinda looks like they read through this exact list and addressed every item but the last. Where by "addressed", I mean simply that: they made a claim regarding the item.
> [x] it suffers from too few recharge cycles.
100000 recharge cycles is "too few"?
Or are you using "x" to mean "this claim is rejected"? If so, on what grounds do you assert "[x] by this time it ships li-ion advances will match it"?
I am using "x" to mean that the line item is addressed by the article. Sorry, I guess that's backwards from the original intent of the checklist.
I am saying that the article addresses every reason for doubt that the checklist raises (save for the last, which it can't). Whether the technology actually addresses that shortcoming is another question, but the article does claim to have solved every single one of those common drawbacks.
As for the item about li-ion advances, I think the claimed capabilities are well beyond what li-ion could reasonably be expected to reach in the short remaining timeframe claimed.
tl;dr: the checklist is a cynical but normally accurate way of spotting fatal flaws in newly announced battery technology. Based on the announcement, this technology suffers from none of the flaws listed therein.
You didn't check any of the boxes.. Finally we run out of excuses?