onetrack Posted January 6 Posted January 6 Somebody had better call The Donald real quick, and organise to shut this guy down! He's gonna destroy half of American industry, if he isn't stopped! Can you imagine an America with no oil production, and no V8 engines?? 😄 1
Thruster88 Posted January 6 Posted January 6 Almost unbelievable for a company that has only been around for a year or two. No patents filed. Time will tell. 1 1
onetrack Posted January 7 Posted January 7 All this, should raise eyebrows globally .... 400 Wh/kg energy density Five-minute full charge Designed for up to 100,000 cycles Extremely safe Made of globally abundant materials Over 99% capacity retained in -30 degrees celsius Lower cost than lithium-ion So ... Donut Labs have achieved something that no other major research institution, global corporation, or even a mega-billion dollar State-funded effort (here's looking at you, China and America), has achieved - and all without battery cooling as well?? Methinks someone is stretching the truth more than a little. Unless they've found new chemical structures that no-one else has been able to find to date, their claims need to be taken with a large grain of salt. And I'll wager all of the above-mentioned parties involved in improved battery development, will be placing bulk orders for these batteries, so they can go straight to their labs for teardown. And I think Thrusters comment about no mention of any patents is very telling. That is usually the first thing to brag about, in new, outstanding advances. I'm reminded of the R&D effort by Caterpillar in a JV with the Firefly company, much earlier in this century. Caterpillar set off with a target of producing a new, outstanding lead-acid battery, with vastly improved performance, lighter weight (targeting one-quarter the weight of the standard lead-acid battery), much lower cost, and using materials and chemicals and compounds that were not exotic, nor held by "unfriendly" countries. At the end of the day, after the expenditure of multiple tens of millions of dollars in their search for the holy grail of lead acid batteries, Firefly came out with the Carbon-Foam plate battery. Firefly established a small market for their new battery, virtually limited to the U.S., and virtually limited to marine and camper use, all the while still claiming outstanding advances in battery technology, along with multiple tens of new battery technology patents. Around 15 years on, the Firefly carbon-foam battery has made no appreciable inroads into the battery market; Caterpillar pulled out of the JV in 2010, stating that they could find better uses for their R&D money - and Firefly have moved all their manufacturing to India. The Firefly batteries still aren't cheap, in fact they are "premium" priced batteries. In addition, there are numerous Firefly battery end-users who are disappointed that the claims made by Firefly often don't stack up - especially when it comes to longevity, and the ability to deep discharge and fully recharge successfully. I trust that Donut Labs can "produce the goods", that match their "marketing spiel" in their promotional material - but I feel that many of their claims may turn out to be exaggerated marketing hype. 1
Kyle Communications Posted January 7 Author Posted January 7 6 minutes ago, onetrack said: All this, should raise eyebrows globally .... 400 Wh/kg energy density Five-minute full charge Designed for up to 100,000 cycles Extremely safe Made of globally abundant materials Over 99% capacity retained in -30 degrees celsius Lower cost than lithium-ion So ... Donut Labs have achieved something that no other major research institution, global corporation, or even a mega-billion dollar State-funded effort (here's looking at you, China and America), has achieved - and all without battery cooling as well?? Methinks someone is stretching the truth more than a little. Unless they've found new chemical structures that no-one else has been able to find to date, their claims need to be taken with a large grain of salt. And I'll wager all of the above-mentioned parties involved in improved battery development, will be placing bulk orders for these batteries, so they can go straight to their labs for teardown. And I think Thrusters comment about no mention of any patents is very telling. That is usually the first thing to brag about, in new, outstanding advances. I'm reminded of the R&D effort by Caterpillar in a JV with the Firefly company, much earlier in this century. Caterpillar set off with a target of producing a new, outstanding lead-acid battery, with vastly improved performance, lighter weight (targeting one-quarter the weight of the standard lead-acid battery), much lower cost, and using materials and chemicals and compounds that were not exotic, nor held by "unfriendly" countries. At the end of the day, after the expenditure of multiple tens of millions of dollars in their search for the holy grail of lead acid batteries, Firefly came out with the Carbon-Foam plate battery. Firefly established a small market for their new battery, virtually limited to the U.S., and virtually limited to marine and camper use, all the while still claiming outstanding advances in battery technology, along with multiple tens of new battery technology patents. Around 15 years on, the Firefly carbon-foam battery has made no appreciable inroads into the battery market; Caterpillar pulled out of the JV in 2010, stating that they could find better uses for their R&D money - and Firefly have moved all their manufacturing to India. The Firefly batteries still aren't cheap, in fact they are "premium" priced batteries. In addition, there are numerous Firefly battery end-users who are disappointed that the claims made by Firefly often don't stack up - especially when it comes to longevity, and the ability to deep discharge and fully recharge successfully. I trust that Donut Labs can "produce the goods", that match their "marketing spiel" in their promotional material - but I feel that many of their claims may turn out to be exaggerated marketing hype. Well there are lots of claims that seem too good to be true...maybe this is just another one.....as usual time will tell 2
onetrack Posted January 7 Posted January 7 I might add, that the Firefly Carbon-Foam battery, which retailed at around US$530 for a 116 A/H battery a year or two ago, appears to have been taken out of production, in favour of a Firefly Li-ion battery. Firefly appear to be still intent on selling their Carbon-Foam technology, which the company indicates, has multiple applications, besides batteries. My money is on a Chinese lab producing the next biggest improvement in battery technology - the amount of Chinese money going into battery technology is staggering, and Trumps "anti-immigrant" stance has driven a lot of highly intelligent Chinese researchers to leave the U.S. universities and corporations they worked for, and return to China - and of course, they won't be employed by American companies or unis, once that occurs. 1
skippydiesel Posted January 7 Posted January 7 All insightful comments. however I live in hope. This would not be the first research breakthrough by a small lab. Just takes one tangential thinker and or a lot of luck. 😈 1
BrendAn Posted January 7 Posted January 7 2 hours ago, skippydiesel said: All insightful comments. however I live in hope. This would not be the first research breakthrough by a small lab. Just takes one tangential thinker and or a lot of luck. 😈 A tangential thinker is someone whose thought process is characterized by a tendency to veer off-topic and fail to return to the original point. This can manifest as a complete loss of goal-directedness, where the speaker's response may be grammatically correct but lacks coherence and logical flow. that describes me not someone with a revolutionary idea.😁 4
skippydiesel Posted January 7 Posted January 7 Oh! the cup half full personalities. A tangential thinker, either by habbit or accident, can also be the person who sees the problem from a novel perspective, arriving at a solution that no one else has considered.😈 1
BrendAn Posted January 7 Posted January 7 2 minutes ago, skippydiesel said: Oh! the cup half full personalities. A tangential thinker, either by habbit or accident, can also be the person who sees the problem from a novel perspective, arriving at a solution that no one else has considered.😈 A tangential thought process occurs when an individual responds to a question or prompt by veering off-topic and never returning to the original point. Although their sentences may be grammatically correct or superficially logical, the overall train of thought lacks coherence, goal direction, and closure. The result is a response that feels disorganized and disconnected—often leaving the listener uncertain about the intended message. Key Features of Tangential Thought Process: Missed central point: The speaker’s response fails to directly address the original question. “Drifting” narrative: Answers tend to veer off into loosely related or irrelevant tangents. No return to topic: Unlike circumstantial speech, tangential speech does not circle back to the main point. Listener confusion: The flow of thought may feel disjointed, rambling, or difficult to follow. This communication style often signals an underlying thought disorder. It is frequently observed in individuals with schizophrenia spectrum disorders, bipolar disorder (manic episodes), and occasionally in neurological conditions or trauma-related presentations. Recognizing tangentiality can provide crucial diagnostic insight and guide appropriate clinical interventions 1 1 1
rgmwa Posted January 7 Posted January 7 I think you've just described the occupant of the Oval Office. 1 3 1 1
skippydiesel Posted January 7 Posted January 7 (edited) This is what 99% of politicians do, when asked a question: Key Features of Tangential Thought Process: Missed central point: The speaker’s response fails to directly address the original question. “Drifting” narrative: Answers tend to veer off into loosely related or irrelevant tangents. No return to topic: Unlike circumstantial speech, tangential speech does not circle back to the main point. Listener confusion: The flow of thought may feel disjointed, rambling, or difficult to follow. 😈 Edited January 7 by skippydiesel
skippydiesel Posted January 7 Posted January 7 For you linear (conservative) thinkers; - Hard graft, building on previous research, pays off, but is often slow, takes a lot of resources and very long time. History is, perhaps not full, of the brilliant tangent/breakthroughs but have occurred by someone thinking outside the square , recognising a condition/pattern/something that others have dismissed. One of the greatest was the development of penicillin, a chance occurrence that could so easily have been binned, just happened to be recognised by a tangential thinker, Alexander Fleming.😈 1
facthunter Posted January 7 Posted January 7 Totally different to Tangential thinking which would be an impediment to Proper Process. . Fleming's observation was more luck than anything else, on that occasion. The Scientific Method builds on established knowledge and able to be re produced results, starting with an Hypothesis and proceeding through several stages to eventually a Law if it passes the necessary scrutiny and review by Peers. . Nev. 1
onetrack Posted January 7 Posted January 7 Skippy, I think you're a little confused with your wording. The general consensus is someone who goes off on a tangent, is someone who loses focus on the subject, or the project aim. Perhaps you meant "divergent thinking", or "thinking outside the square", as it is commonly described. Many revolutionary discoveries were made completely by accident, and I believe Flemings discovery of penicillin was one of them. Fleming returned from a 2 week vacation to find an uncovered petri dish had become contaminated by a blue-green mould, and the mould, in subsequent research, was identified as a rare strain of Penicillium notatum. 1 1
skippydiesel Posted January 7 Posted January 7 There are few real accidental discovery's in research - there has always to be some foundation, the right person, the right time. Flemings discover was, in large part luck, however it was his observation and questioning of what was happening, in the petri dish, which eventually resulted in the discovery of penicillin. It is entirely feasible that another, more conventional researcher, may have binned the dish, as just another contaminated /spoilt experiment. Fleming saw something, that could have been a spoiled experiment, but unsteady his mind went off on a tangent and he questioned what if ??????? I only used Fleming as an example - there have been others, often derided by their peers, for not conforming to doctrine, just as the "knockers" on this Forum refuse to entertain, even the possibility, that there may have been a breakthrough, by a small research group, rather than the hugh government underwritten activities elsewhere. Yes "divergent thinking", or "thinking outside the square" is part of going off on a tangent - not being a slave to doctrine is also a large part of it. As I mentioned earlier there are those who habitually go down this track and those who suddenly have an inspiration, possibly a one off. The French lost to the Germans in WW2, because the Germans didnt follow the rules and went around the Maginot Line, rather than make the expected frontal attack. Tangential thinkers can be disruptive, as noted, they can also be the expression of genius. Only an arrogant fool, is so dismissive, as to not entertain even the possibility of the subject of this thread 😈
facthunter Posted January 8 Posted January 8 You are very good at emotional Blackmail, and selective quotations often devoid of context. Attempts at a good discussion with you are FUTILE. You INSULT those who disagree with your view of things. Name calling rather than analysis. Nev 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now