Slashdot Mirror
John Goodenough's Colleagues Are Skeptical of His New Battery Technology (qz.com)
Earlier this month, a research team led by John Goodenough announced that they had created a new fast charging solid-state battery that can operate in extreme temperatures and store five to ten times as much energy as current standard lithium-ion batteries. The announcement was big enough to have Google's Eric Schmidt tweeting about it. However, there are some skeptics, including other leading battery researchers. "For his invention to work as described, they say, it would probably have to abandon the laws of thermodynamics, which say perpetual motion is not possible," reports Quartz. "The law has been a fundamental of batteries for more than a century and a half." Quartz reports: Goodenough's long career has defined the modern battery industry. Researchers assume that his measurements are exact. But no one outside of Goodenough's own group appears to understand his new concept. The battery community is loath to openly challenge the paper, but some come close. "If anyone but Goodenough published this, I would be, well, it's hard to find a polite word," Daniel Steingart, a professor at Princeton, told Quartz. Goodenough did not respond to emails. But in a statement released by the University of Texas, where he holds an engineering chair, he said, "We believe our discovery solves many of the problems that are inherent in today's batteries. Cost, safety, energy density, rates of charge and discharge and cycle life are critical for battery-driven cars to be more widely adopted." In addition, Helena Braga, the paper's lead author, in an exchange of emails, insisted that the team's claims are valid. For almost four decades, Goodenough has dominated the world of advanced batteries. If anyone could finally make the breakthrough that allows for cheap, stored electricity in cars and on the grid, it would figure to be him. Goodenough invented the heart of the battery that is all but certainly powering the device on which you are reading this. It's the lithium-cobalt-oxide cathode, invented in 1980 and introduced for sale by Sony in 1991. Again and again, Goodenough's lab has emerged with dramatic discoveries confirming his genius. It's what is not stated in the paper that has some of the battery community stumped. How is Goodenough's new invention storing any energy at all? The known rules of physics state that, to derive energy, differing material must produce differing eletro-chemical reactions in the two opposing electrodes. That difference produces voltage, allowing energy to be stored. But Goodenough's battery has pure metallic lithium or sodium on both sides. Therefore, the voltage should be zero, with no energy produced, battery researchers told Quartz. Goodenough reports energy densities multiple times that of current lithium-ion batteries. Where does the energy come from, if not the electrode reactions? That goes unexplained in the paper.
Where does the energy comes from? Well, from the battery of course. What a silly question.
... created a new fast charging solid-state battery that can operate in extreme temperatures and store five to ten times as much energy as current standard lithium-ion batteries.
The first thing that comes to mind is extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
I would be more worried about the folks who aren"t skeptical. Hopefully the cold fusion debacle (and others, that is just the most prominent in my mind) has taught us something about the value of scientifically reproducing phenomena. In particular, the community should be diligent regarding those phenomena that seem to defy the known laws of physics or go beyond the known boundaries. Those are most likely to a) be incorrect, subject to some sort of falsification, etc.; or, b) represent a revolutionary change in some area of science.
"I'm Goodenough. I'm smart enough, and gosh darn it, people like me!"
"The law has been a fundamental of batteries for more than a century and a half." .....I would have thought laws of physics were from the beginning of time....
So do the experts know about capacitors? Tim S.
First it was "literal isn't literal" and now Goodenough isn't good enough?
You'll be able to reproduce the results once you license his patent, and then perhaps you'll be under NDA or threat of death if you disclose the "secret" (he's figured out how to create a stable wormhole to another dimension where the charge is much greater than our own (see, not creating energy from nothing, just stealing from someone else)... Whoops! Hope they don't come after me)... Until then, they will likely have sole control of the technology.
2) Anything that is so useful would have already been invented, probably before 1900, so this must be bogus.
Nice try, Mr. Fancy Pants Professor, with your oh-so-impressive track record.
(everyone knows numbered points are irrefutable)
I had no clue there was a li-ion battery powering my desktop.
Aeris Died For Your Sins.
Not in this case. We aren't talking about black holes or climate changes — things, that can not be easily observed and examined by experiments.
He just needs to offer a working line of batteries for sale. Nothing extraordinary about that...
(He can even call them "Shipstones" for all I care.)
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
"For his invention to work as described, they say, it would probably have to abandon the laws of thermodynamics, which say perpetual motion is not possible,"
I read this section of the article several times, and I cannot make heads nor tails.
The entire invention, assuming it is real, replaces the normally plastic-and-liquid electrolyte with a glass sheet. The major result of this change is that it prevents ion movement across layers, which suppresses dendrite growth. As a result, you can replace the electrodes with pure metal, which you can't do in a conventional design because this massively promotes dendrite growth. Using pure metal electrodes allows higher voltages.
That's it. It's a huge advance, if true, but there's certainly no new physics in here.
So when I real people not understanding the presence of pure electrodes, I wonder what they are thinking. There are lots of batteries with pure electrodes, not the least of which is the common dry cell, and on the other end things like ZEBRA which have pure sodium as one of the electrodes. The ZEBRA is a good example, because it too uses a solid electrolyte (beta something). I don't recall anyone saying it breaks the 2nd law.
Yet, reading the article, that appears to be the argument for this statement.
I believe this technology was being tested in the Galaxy Note 7.
Could be worse, they could have retired to run the department of housing and urban development.
> John Goodenough... ... did not invent this. It was largely developed by the first author on the paper prior to arriving in the US.
Either it's patented (and thus disclosed) or it's a trade secret. You cannot have it both ways.
Goodenough & Helena Braga surely know they were going to be painted bright orange as frauds without additional proof.
They surely know they had to follow up with a public display of a cell under charge, then discharge cycles with component weights and measurements to confirm the claims.
Anything else would be a lifelong purgatory in an engineering gulag of con artists.
...that is Goodenough for me.
Goodenough's work is not good enough.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Whatever the battery is, I'm sure will be good enough. Or would that be Goodenough?! =)
Life is not for the lazy.
Some people use desktops. There may be a small lithium cell in mine that keeps the firmware alive but the power comes from the wall socket.
Ninjaed.
I think he's had "colleagues" steal his ideas in the past. Especially colleagues who were basically spies working for Panasonic and other large battery manufacturers. In fact I think Slashdot did a story.
So if his breakthrough is true, it makes sense to keep the secret sauce secret until the legal stuff is to protect it.
Which sorto of draws the whole notion of extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence into question, now doesn't it?
(he's figured out how to create a stable wormhole to another dimension where the charge is much greater than our own (see, not creating energy from nothing, just stealing from someone else)... Whoops! Hope they don't come after me)...
i'd be more worried about the estate of Isaac Asimov coming after you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In fact patents are public records, so he's basically handing over the technology to anybody that cares to verify it, they just can't sell products based on his idea without licensing it.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
But was he ever?
I read the paper.
The actual paper describes in some detail how the battery is constructed and how it works.
The actual paper makes no extraordinary claims. It's just a better way of making a battery.
R Good Enough
You forgot to mention that e-Cat. That "works" too. By "works" I mean it is a complete fraud.
10% Asking for clarification on the issue
5% Explaining their understanding of battery tech
8% People talking about the story without reading it
77% 'Good Enough' jokes
The Chinese might copy a patented item but that doesn't mean they can sell in countries where the patent exists. The Chinese market is surely very big, but not as big as the rest of the world.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
Either it's patented (and thus disclosed) or it's a trade secret. You cannot have it both ways.
To expand on this a bit, because it's really sad (and bad!) that so many people don't understand the theory behind patents: Encouraging disclosure, and hence reuse, is the point of having a patent system. The word "patent" is latin for "lying open". Patents were created to allow inventors to open their inventions to the world without fear of losing the opportunity to profit from them. Without patents inventors have to keep their ideas secret to profit from them, which impedes progress and adds huge overhead to the process of using the ideas to build things that benefit society.
The fact that InvalidsYnc fails to understand that the notion of an NDA for a patent is utterly nonsensical is sad, but what makes it a big problem is that this lack of understanding isn't actually unreasonable, given how deeply broken our patent system is. It has been subverted and does not accomplish its primary goals of enabling open sharing of ideas.
To understand just how bad it is, note that the way to test whether a patent system is enabling the spread and reuse of good ideas is to examine the way the patent database is used. If the system is functioning well, we should see inventors regularly scouring the patent database in search of ideas they can license in order to solve their problems. If your widget needs to frobnizz cleanly in order to wozzle, but the frobnizzing operation is unreliable and unstable, you should be able to do a patent search for a frobnizz stabilization system which you can license for less that what it would cost you to research your own, which will enable you to bring your wozzling device to market sooner and cheaper.
But in actual practice, at least in the software field and I haven't heard anyone from other fields saying it's different in theirs, attorneys tell working engineers specifically *not* to look at the patent database. This is because it's chock full of obvious ideas which they might independently reinvent, but if the patent holder can prove that the engineer probably saw the patent then it's not just simple infringement due to independent invention, but willful infringement subject to treble damages. In addition, the way in which patents are written means that the database would be extremely hard to use even if engineers did try to mine it. So engineers avoid using the patent database for its intended purpose.
This doesn't mean the patent system is completely failing to do its job, because it undoubtedly still does remove the need for a lot of secrecy, which removes a lot of overhead. But it does mean that it's not working nearly as well as it should. It may be removing some overhead, but it is not actively enabling the reuse of good ideas.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Then it will be Goodenough for me.
okay i'll show myself out, goodnight everybody!
I'd be more worried about not having the second wormhole open to the complementary dimension, to prevent accumulation of plot-badness in ours.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
"For his invention to work as described, they say, it would probably have to abandon the laws of thermodynamics, which say perpetual motion is not possible," reports Quartz. "The law has been a fundamental of batteries for more than a century and a half." Quartz reports
It actually is not fundamental. And if people come up with the law of thermodynamics it would be nice to mention which of the 3 or 4 laws they refered to. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... or perhaps a better link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The only law of thermodynamics that is remotely elevant for batteries is the second one, simplified and summarized as: "entropy will increase over time". In a battery that means the small charged particles are at some point to widely distributed over the substrat that they can not hold a charge anymore.
And exactly this problem the team of Mr. Goodenough and Braga is tackling with a solid state substrat, because there the ions/charged particles have it much harder to distribute themselves over the whole sustrat.
The rest of the "break through", like charging time and charge, has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with thermodynamics.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The first thing that comes to mind is extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
You obviously haven't been paying attention to US current events... :-)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
!?
The difference between an e-Cat and an EM drive is that the plans for how to make an EM drive are free to anyone wanting to do so, and it appears several labs around the world annoyingly keep finding it works.
The e-Cat on the other hand is surrounded by secrecy with nobody allowed to know how the device works or what it looks like on the inside, and certainly no independent verification of it working.
That is the e-Cat is classical snake oil stuff with lots of secrecy. The EM drive however is the complete opposite.
The company I work for owns patents that are licensed in every mobile device you own. Without the patent system we would either immediately stop investing billions in R&D, or have to manufacture everything in house and instead of licensing technology we would sell black box tamper proof chips to cell phone manufacturers. Phones would suck and cost more.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
And yet, there are patents methods for swinging on a swing (thousands of years of prior art), and stuff like toolbars. Obviousness to those skilled in the art hasn't been a test for patents for at least a couple of decades. Many trivial patents are now being issued - including stuff that has been "public knowledge" already.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
are neutrons being emitted?
.. the "secret" (he's figured out how to create a stable wormhole to another dimension where the charge is much greater than our own (see, not creating energy from nothing, just stealing from someone else)... Whoops! Hope they don't come after me)...
So, really, he's invented epsilonic radiating aorist rods... :P
This reminds me of the cold fusion thing that was going around a while back.
To create a standard, however, all you have to do is shout loudly, and become "accepted wisdom".
Except the current standard came into existence by dislodging the previous notion.
There is a long line of such dislodged notions for all current scientific theories, reaching back to the Enlightenment (and beyond, in some cases).
It's not like we had zero explanations for how things worked, so we fought about it until someone killed off or suppressed all dissent. Oh wait, we did, and it's called religion. And science supplanted it centuries ago as a reliable font of knowledge.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
Hopefully the cold fusion debacle (and others, that is just the most prominent in my mind) has taught us something about the value of scientifically reproducing phenomena.
Cold fusion is a scam. It'll never work. I, however, have been off the grid for over 30 years with my perpetual motion machine. I tried to get it patented but Big Oil stole the technology from me and buried the patent so they could make money selling black gold. Cold fusion and batteries are useless when you have perpetual motion!
I generally agree but that puts the formation of life in a bad spot...
The use of an alkali-metal anode (lithium, sodium or potassium) â" which isnâ(TM)t possible with conventional batteries â" increases the energy density of a cathode and delivers a long cycle life. In experiments, the researchersâ(TM) cells have demonstrated more than 1,200 cycles with low cell resistance.
Additionally, because the solid-glass electrolytes can operate, or have high conductivity, at -20 degrees Celsius, this type of battery in a car could perform well in subzero degree weather. This is the first all-solid-state battery cell that can operate under 60 degree Celsius.
Braga began developing solid-glass electrolytes with colleagues while she was at the University of Porto in Portugal. About two years ago, she began collaborating with Goodenough and researcher Andrew J. Murchison at UT Austin. Braga said that Goodenough brought an understanding of the composition and properties of the solid-glass electrolytes that resulted in a new version of the electrolytes that is now patented through the UT Austin Office of Technology Commercialization. The engineersâ(TM) glass electrolytes allow them to plate and strip alkali metals on both the cathode and the anode side without dendrites, which simplifies battery cell fabrication.
Another advantage is that the battery cells can be made from earth-friendly materials.
âoeThe glass electrolytes allow for the substitution of low-cost sodium for lithium. Sodium is extracted from seawater that is widely available,â Braga said.
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
I'm using a laptop, but it's plugged in at the moment. I, also, am using a computer not powered by a lithium-ion battery.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
So you are suggesting people not patent their ideas? Then what? Then you have no protections anywhere.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Uh uh. The e-Cat was "independently verified" too. You guys fall for it every time.
"the heart of the battery that is all but certainly powering the device on which you are reading this" This I learned - my desktop computer runs off a battery! Guess I'll just unplug this useless power co
>it undoubtedly still does remove the need for a lot of secrecy Scoff
If you have a point, make it.
Note that I didn't say the patent system eliminated the need for all trade secrecy. Obviously.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Why are so many batter researches skeptical, then, and even claim violations of basic principles? Do you understand something that they don't? If so, it'd be nice to share here (and probably elsewhere, too).
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
Since the AC was good enough to post a Goodenough joke that was at least possibly good enough...
How do we know it's an imposter? No one else seems to have noticed. It would seem that if Goodenough is actually an imposter, that the imposter might actually be good enough.
Slashdot doesn't believe in patents so it would be impossible for anyone to steal his ideas. His ideas belong to everyone.
Physicist start out insane. They do a better job of selectively hiding it then let themselves go as they get older.
Actually they can, they just need to have more lawyers and/or persistence than the originator. See Segway, etc.
You can read it here:
https://docs.wind-watch.org/br...
If you choose to actually read it, you will find out, that there are absolutely no extraordinary claims in there.
1) The energy density is stated relative to the amount of pure Lithium and they need about 8.5Wh per gramm of lithium or about 120 Gramms of Lithium per kWh. Which is in line with ordinary lithium batteries. The difference is merely, that lithium-ion batteries mostly consist of anything but lithium. The graphite anode alone is about 10 times as heavy as the lithium it can store.
2) The concept is a Lithium-Sulfur battery, in which the cathode consists of lithiumsufide. This is a well known and established concept, that has some major problems with liquid electrolytes, as some of the polysulfides that form as the cathode releases lithium ions are actually liquid themselves. Which causes parasitic discharges and damages in to the cathodes. This battery has a solid electrolyte.
It is also not a panacea. There is a reason why the title isn't "A safe rechargeable battery with insane capacity" but "Alternative strategy for a safe
rechargeable battery". It is a new approach to develop a practical battery with this technology and it looks rather promising, but far from perfect. If you read it, the battery cycled for 1000 hours. Where each cycle consisted of 10 hours charging and 10 hours discharging - so it releases its energy rather slowly (as well as taking it up). There were also only some 40-ish cycles in total.
I don't know who wrote the article or whom they interviewed to write it. But they never read or understood the article that Goodenough actually wrote.
Could you clarify what you're referring to about Segway? I admit I didn't do tons of research, but I'm not even sure if you mean Segway stole someone else'e patent, vice versa, or something completely different.. If it was something like that, I would have expected at least some mention on the Segway wikipedia page.
I don't think Hawking is going bananas. AI is a real risk that most people are blissfully unaware about. Hawking is just well-informed and thinking ahead.
entropy happens
This might sound good, but is not true. I am a physicist, and I know lots of physicists. What happens is: as a student you make a lot of mistakes and get corrected all the time. As you learn stuff, you make less and less mistakes, and get corrected less and less. At the same time, you get used to knowing stuff that most people do not know. Even more, you get used to being right about stuff that most people are just mistaken about (like relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics...). That has an effect on your psyche. As an active researcher, you still have the peer-review system to save your sanity: knowledgeable people criticizing your work keeps your ego in place. But after you retire, you just get prize after prize, and no scientific feedback anymore. Many physicists start believing that every brain fart they have is a genial idea, and that anyone that criticizes them doesn't know the first thing about what they are saying.
entropy happens
This article is beyond awful. Its description of the invention by Goodenough and Braga's team is filled with outright falsehoods. There isn't pure metallic lithium or sodium at both ends of the battery, but in fact a mixture of different materials deposited onto a copper current collector at one end of the battery with pure metal only at the other end. (Those materials include sulfur, ferrocene, carbon black, and particles of the same material as the glass electrolyte. Other materials are also investigated.) The battery's metal of choice does migrate through the electrolyte and is deposited onto the other side of the battery, but it's deposited onto this mixture. The researchers who are skeptical of this either clearly don't understand the invention (which does little that could be considered extraordinary outside of having a solid electrolyte and presenting a potential pathway to an all-solids battery) or are deliberately misrepresenting it.
This whole thing reads like a hit piece. Do your own research. Braga, Goodenough, and their colleagues are making real progress. The jealous asses who lent their voices to this article are not.
He's Badenov, Boris.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
... you probably lose your scientific career soon enough (sadly).
http://philip.greenspun.com/ca...
"This is how things are likely to go for the smartest kid you sat next to in college. He got into Stanford for graduate school. He got a postdoc at MIT. His experiment worked out and he was therefore fortunate to land a job at University of California, Irvine. But at the end of the day, his research wasn't quite interesting or topical enough that the university wanted to commit to paying him a salary for the rest of his life. He is now 44 years old, with a family to feed, and looking for job with a "second rate has-been" label on his forehead. Why then, does anyone think that science is a sufficiently good career that people should debate who is privileged enough to work at it? Sample bias."
Having a successful and informative experiment may sometime even end your career sooner than failing in an ideologically approved way:
http://disciplinedminds.tripod...
"In this riveting book about the world of professional work, Jeff Schmidt demonstrates that the workplace is a battleground for the very identity of the individual, as is graduate school, where professionals are trained. He shows that professional work is inherently political, and that professionals are hired to subordinate their own vision and maintain strict "ideological discipline." The hidden root of much career dissatisfaction, argues Schmidt, is the professional's lack of control over the political component of his or her creative work. Many professionals set out to make a contribution to society and add meaning to their lives. Yet our system of professional education and employment abusively inculcates an acceptance of politically subordinate roles in which professionals typically do not make a significant difference, undermining the creative potential of individuals, organizations and even democracy."
Part of the reason why: ...
https://www.its.caltech.edu/~d...
"By now, in the 1990's, the situation has changed dramatically. With the Cold War over, National Security is rapidly losing its appeal as a means of generating support for scientific research. There are those who argue that research is essential for our economic future, but the managers of the economy know better. The great corporations have decided that central research laboratories were not such a good idea after all. Many of the national laboratories have lost their missions and have not found new ones. The economy has gradually transformed from manufacturing to service, and service industries like banking and insurance don't support much scientific research. To make matters worse, the country is almost 5 trillion dollars in debt, and scientific research is among the few items of discretionary spending left in the national budget. There is much wringing of hands about impending shortages of trained scientific talent to ensure the Nation's future competitiveness, especially since by now other countries have been restored to economic and scientific vigor, but in fact, jobs are scarce for recent graduates. Finally, it should be clear by now that with more than half the kids in America already going to college, academic expansion is finished forever.
Peer review is usually quite a good way to identify valid science. Of course, a referee will occasionally fail to appreciate a truly visionary or revolutionary idea, but by and large, peer review works pretty well so long as scientific validity is the only issue at stake. However, it is not at all suited to arbitrate an intense competition for research funds or for editorial space in prestigious journals. There are many reasons for this, not the least being the fact that the referees have an obvious conflict of interest, since they are themselves competitors for the same resources. This point seems to be another one
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Perhaps the opposite of: http://brilliantlightpower.com...
"The SunCell was invented and engineered to harness the clean energy source from the reaction of the hydrogen atoms of water molecules to form a non-polluting product, lower-energy state hydrogen called "Hydrino" that is the dark matter of the universe wherein the energy release of H2O to Hydrino and oxygen is 100 times that of an equivalent amount of high-octane gasoline at an unprecedented high power density. The compact power is manifest as thousands of Sun equivalents that can be directly converted to electrical output using commercial concentrator photovoltaic cells."
Assuming hydrinos really exist...
But probably it is plain old chemistry...
AC, I like your idea of measuring the weight distribution in the battery in any case.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
See also a comment by "Rene" here: http://www.e-catworld.com/2017...
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Hmmm... I'm pretty sure I said "almost outright attacked Newton for making his own mathematics to explain his theories,"
They didn't accuse him of using Liebnitz's mathematics as they didn't give him an opportunity to explain where he got the theories and principles from for his papers. I assume that if they knew the mathematics had credibility and wasn't his personally hack and creation, they would have had to simply pick on his hair or boot buckles. But from what I read within the forward of the translation of his "Principia" which, while I don't feel like digging for the exact quote at the moment, should be found in the forward of the first translation here https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Mathematical_Principles_of_Natural_Philosophy_(1846), states something along the lines of "The mathematical and scientific community accused Newton of developing mathematics for his own means to describe his theories and that his theories lacked any foundation in reality if he must reinvent math to describe them".
I think the point was they felt Newton's theories lacked merit because the only proof of their merits was in "his" mathematics and "his" mathematics lacked merit because the only proof of their merits were in his theories.
There were obviously later disputes which came up. I don't think I've dug deep enough to identify whether Newton was accused of "Stealing" Liebnitz's work, whether Newton claimed to make the same discoveries as Liebnitz or whether he simply gave him credit where credit was due. These types of arguments and debates generally always bother me since I tend to publish most of my ideas for other people to steal whether they give me credit or not. I also tend to find that more often than not, the community and history like to aggrandize some great battle between two colossi with weapons of such greatness as has yet been seen. Sides are chosen and damsels are deflowered. More often than not, people who are intelligent would rather just share their stuff with the world and don't necessarily mind who gets the credit... and even if they do... bygones. I know I'd rather move onto working on the next theory or next idea rather than debating and fighting over who did what first.
I thought I heard of that title before.
Isn't that one of those books on "Free Energy" which tend to go nutty on things like government conspiracies and how the oil market hunts down and assassinates anyone who tries to tell the truth?
I'm pretty sure that Goodenough has better sources if that's the case.
The word "patent" is Latin for "lying open".
That's exactly what we're using it for: "openly lying" about inventing things!
The word "patent" is Latin for "lying open".
That's exactly what we're using it for: "openly lying" about inventing things!
Sadly true in all too many cases.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Seriously now... If it was just Goodenough making these claims, and if he did not have more credibility than everyone else in the business, I could understand the distrust. But he would not risk tarnishing his stellar reputation after all these years, and knowing he has a staff all of whom apparently back his claims, the only reasonable action at this point is to listen to the dude, and understand what he has to say. Yeah, it might mean he is turning physics and/or chemistry and/or everything we think we know about the Universe at this point on its pointy head, but... no one seems to be more likely than him to do it.
Seems that the fix for that would be to ban intent as a criteria to set damages. I.e make all infringements attract the same penalty which should fall between the two extremes.
Linkedin http://in.linkedin.com/in/robinsaikatchatterjee
10 Hours discharging may not be an issue but 10 hours charging would be a roadblock for most commercialization. However if you were charging your tesla or other electric vehicle overnight just think of the difference the increase in capacity would mean for your range. I am surprised that Elon musk or someone similar has not jumped all over this.
Linkedin http://in.linkedin.com/in/robinsaikatchatterjee
Seems that the fix for that would be to ban intent as a criteria to set damages. I.e make all infringements attract the same penalty which should fall between the two extremes.
No, that wouldn't be good. Normal damages for unintentional infringement shouldn't be much higher than licensing fees, otherwise you impose an additional cost on innovation -- requiring people to scour the database searching for any patent that might possibly apply. Equally, it's important that intentional infringement receive higher damages, else there's no reason ever to bother with licensing.
What we really need is fewer, better patents, written in a more useable way. What gums up the works is all of the patents on obvious inventions that are highly likely to be independently reinvented by anyone competent who looks at the a given problem.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Also consider the reduction in weight from eliminating the graphite anode. That would be very useful in an electric car.
Hi meta-monkey! I'm making a "meta" comment on the social-financial framework around battery (or any) science. :-)
Just look at the whole "cold fusion" or now "LENR / solid state fusion" controversy and fight over funding and recognition. The idea that a solid-state metal lattice can induce hydrogen atoms (on its surface, in a micro-crevice, or otherwise absorbed somehow) to behave differently than when hydrogen is in a gas is still heresy requiring immediate excommunication after vilification by a mob of virtue-signalling "disciplined minds" whose social standing and, worse, grant funding is threatened by the idea.
http://lenrtoday.com/lenrexpla...
http://www.infinite-energy.com...
"In retrospect, I have concluded that much of the blame for the "cold fusion war" -- and it certainly has been just that -- stems from a vituperative campaign against the field with deep roots at MIT, specifically at the MIT Plasma Fusion Center. Not exclusively in that lab, however."
Ironically, about thirty years later:
http://coldfusionnow.org/cold-...
"The Cold Fusion 101: Introduction to Excess Power in Fleischmann-Pons Experiments course will run again on the campus of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) over the IAP winter break Tuesday through Friday Jan. 20-23, 2015."
Fusion via cavitation also falls into that category of heresy (but may be emerging):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge...
As does power via hydrinos (which may also just be LENR in disguise):
http://brilliantlightpower.com...
So, that's a third option to either it works or it does not work -- whether it works or not, your science career gets trashed because you even talked about an idea, let alone seriously tried to do an experiment about it. And your career gets trashed because of the *politics* of science funding. Science is a human enterprise after all, and humans being humans...
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
"Goodenough invented the heart of the battery that is all but certainly powering the device on which you are reading this."
Pretty dumb line to insert into a summary, tbh.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.