<story><title>EV Range Breakthrough as New Aluminum-Ion Battery Charges 60 Times Faster to Lit</title><url>https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltaylor/2021/05/13/ev-range-breakthrough-as-new-aluminum-ion-battery-charges-60-times-faster-than-lithium-ion/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>qayxc</author><text>While the research itself sound promising, the article leaves a lot to be desired.&lt;p&gt;The use of units and their notation is horrendous, almost as if the author doesn&amp;#x27;t know even the first thing about SI units and their use:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; 197 mAh g−1&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; 10 gigaWatt to 50gW plants&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m sorry, but nonsense like that detracts from the trustworthiness of the content.&lt;p&gt;The title is also a bit click-baity - so far they&amp;#x27;re working with coin cells and statements like&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; It charges an iPhone coin cell in less than 10 seconds.&lt;p&gt;are highly misleading. What does that even mean? An iPhone doesn&amp;#x27;t contain coin cells.&lt;p&gt;Another irritating statements follows immediately after:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; The new battery cells are claimed to deliver far more energy density than current lithium-ion batteries, without the cooling, heating or rare-earth problems they face.&lt;p&gt;According to them, their cells achieve 160 Wh&amp;#x2F;kg. That doesn&amp;#x27;t add up at all. A mainstream APN 616-0809 Li-Ion battery pack (iPhone 6) has a capacity of 1810 mAh @ 3.8V and weighs ~45.5 g, e.g. ~150 Wh&amp;#x2F;kg.&lt;p&gt;So their current cells are no better than current Li-Ion batteries, but only just match them. I mean, heck, a Tesla Powerwall - a fully integrated, plug-and-play unit - comes in at 114 Wh&amp;#x2F;kg (13.5 kWh @ 114 kg) [0].&lt;p&gt;If they have a product with unique selling points (no rare earths required, much faster to charge, safer), why make claims that are demonstrably false? Little things like that make the whole announcement sound fishy and I can&amp;#x27;t tell whether it&amp;#x27;s the author or the researchers who messed up there.&lt;p&gt;I mean, seriously, the COTS Panasonic NCR18650B cell has an energy density of 252 Wh&amp;#x2F;kg [1] so even with cooling&amp;#x2F;heating elements a battery pack would have a higher energy density (by mass) than their product.&lt;p&gt;Something just doesn&amp;#x27;t add up in this piece.&lt;p&gt;[0] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.tesla.com&amp;#x2F;sites&amp;#x2F;default&amp;#x2F;files&amp;#x2F;pdfs&amp;#x2F;powerwall&amp;#x2F;Powerwall_2_AC_Datasheet_EN_NA.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.tesla.com&amp;#x2F;sites&amp;#x2F;default&amp;#x2F;files&amp;#x2F;pdfs&amp;#x2F;powerwall&amp;#x2F;Pow...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.batteryjunction.com&amp;#x2F;panasonic-ncr18650b-3400.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.batteryjunction.com&amp;#x2F;panasonic-ncr18650b-3400.htm...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>jartelt</author><text>Also, this statement is very strange:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Testing by peer-reviewed specialist publication Advanced Functional Materials publication concluded the cells had “outstanding high-rate performance (149 mAh g−1 at 5 A g−1), surpassing all previously reported AIB cathode materials”.&lt;p&gt;Advanced Functional Materials is just a journal. They do not do third-party testing (unless something really has changed in scientific publishing in that last few years). Just because your paper was accepted for publication doesn&amp;#x27;t mean you can go around claiming your device performance has been validated by outside investigators. The peer-reviewers for journals just look at the data&amp;#x2F;figures submitted and make a judgement call on if it looks legit&amp;#x2F;plausible or if it looks fake&amp;#x2F;wrong. They don&amp;#x27;t actually get devices from the authors and test them out in their own labs to verify things...&lt;p&gt;For third party verification you need to pay outside consultants (e.g. Exponent) to test your devices or need to get a national lab like NREL to test things.</text></comment>
<story><title>EV Range Breakthrough as New Aluminum-Ion Battery Charges 60 Times Faster to Lit</title><url>https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltaylor/2021/05/13/ev-range-breakthrough-as-new-aluminum-ion-battery-charges-60-times-faster-than-lithium-ion/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>qayxc</author><text>While the research itself sound promising, the article leaves a lot to be desired.&lt;p&gt;The use of units and their notation is horrendous, almost as if the author doesn&amp;#x27;t know even the first thing about SI units and their use:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; 197 mAh g−1&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; 10 gigaWatt to 50gW plants&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m sorry, but nonsense like that detracts from the trustworthiness of the content.&lt;p&gt;The title is also a bit click-baity - so far they&amp;#x27;re working with coin cells and statements like&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; It charges an iPhone coin cell in less than 10 seconds.&lt;p&gt;are highly misleading. What does that even mean? An iPhone doesn&amp;#x27;t contain coin cells.&lt;p&gt;Another irritating statements follows immediately after:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; The new battery cells are claimed to deliver far more energy density than current lithium-ion batteries, without the cooling, heating or rare-earth problems they face.&lt;p&gt;According to them, their cells achieve 160 Wh&amp;#x2F;kg. That doesn&amp;#x27;t add up at all. A mainstream APN 616-0809 Li-Ion battery pack (iPhone 6) has a capacity of 1810 mAh @ 3.8V and weighs ~45.5 g, e.g. ~150 Wh&amp;#x2F;kg.&lt;p&gt;So their current cells are no better than current Li-Ion batteries, but only just match them. I mean, heck, a Tesla Powerwall - a fully integrated, plug-and-play unit - comes in at 114 Wh&amp;#x2F;kg (13.5 kWh @ 114 kg) [0].&lt;p&gt;If they have a product with unique selling points (no rare earths required, much faster to charge, safer), why make claims that are demonstrably false? Little things like that make the whole announcement sound fishy and I can&amp;#x27;t tell whether it&amp;#x27;s the author or the researchers who messed up there.&lt;p&gt;I mean, seriously, the COTS Panasonic NCR18650B cell has an energy density of 252 Wh&amp;#x2F;kg [1] so even with cooling&amp;#x2F;heating elements a battery pack would have a higher energy density (by mass) than their product.&lt;p&gt;Something just doesn&amp;#x27;t add up in this piece.&lt;p&gt;[0] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.tesla.com&amp;#x2F;sites&amp;#x2F;default&amp;#x2F;files&amp;#x2F;pdfs&amp;#x2F;powerwall&amp;#x2F;Powerwall_2_AC_Datasheet_EN_NA.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.tesla.com&amp;#x2F;sites&amp;#x2F;default&amp;#x2F;files&amp;#x2F;pdfs&amp;#x2F;powerwall&amp;#x2F;Pow...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.batteryjunction.com&amp;#x2F;panasonic-ncr18650b-3400.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.batteryjunction.com&amp;#x2F;panasonic-ncr18650b-3400.htm...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>scythe</author><text>The use of ampere-hours per gram and derived measurements is extremely common in battery research. For example:&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.nature.com&amp;#x2F;articles&amp;#x2F;nature14340&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.nature.com&amp;#x2F;articles&amp;#x2F;nature14340&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;pubs.acs.org&amp;#x2F;doi&amp;#x2F;abs&amp;#x2F;10.1021&amp;#x2F;jacs.5b06809&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;pubs.acs.org&amp;#x2F;doi&amp;#x2F;abs&amp;#x2F;10.1021&amp;#x2F;jacs.5b06809&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.nature.com&amp;#x2F;articles&amp;#x2F;s41560-017-0014-y&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.nature.com&amp;#x2F;articles&amp;#x2F;s41560-017-0014-y&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>