20KW would *melt* domestic feeds even before you get to the meter.

I don't know about you, but my new house is going to have a 100A feed. It's not that unusual. 100A * 240V = 24kW.

Secondly, ulltra-fast home charging rates are irrelevant. Seriously, in what scenario is that necessary? Home charging is for overnight. Fast chargers are only needed on highways.

This is not going to suddenly "change everything". First off, there's so little info here you can't even see through the hype. There's nothing to get an idea of how hard this would be to commercialize, what its energy density would be, or any of tons of other things that make a big difference. And secondly, these are hardly the first lab-scale batteries to have properties like this. Heck, there have even been lithium titanate batteries commercialized before. Crazy charge / discharge times, but they were largely a flop except in niche applications - the cost was way too high and the energy density too low.

There is every week or two some great research breakthrough in battery storage. Most of them you'll never read about. Most of them will never go anywhere. But a few will. And they will slowly, inevitably make their way into the battery technology of tomorrow. Silicon anodes, for example, were once among those crazy lab future battery techs. Now they're in commercial cells. People never stop to think about how little the batteries in their phones have gotten in an area of increasing computing power, larger screens, greater demands on lifespan, etc. Energy density continues its inevitable march.... in the background. But the odds that any one tech that you read about is going to carry the industry is very small. And these things take half a decade to go from the lab to stores.

And of course, the assumption that if your station's maximum output is 10 MW that you have to have a 10 MW feed to the grid is also wrong. It presumes that you can't have a battery buffer in your station. Look at your typical gas station; pumps spend by far most of their time idle. A charging station with a peak output of 10 MW could probably meet all its needs with a 2 MW feed and a 20-minute battery buffer (although a statistical analysis of consumption patterns would be required for specifics)

It's not at all reasonable to reharge the entire pack every 17.5 hours. If your car has a 200 mile range, and you're charging that fully every 17.5 hours, then you're driving 274 miles per day.

In a naive calculation, one can easily determine that the charging cable would be way too heavy and unwieldy for a person to use.

Of course, that's the problem with naive calculations. The solution in practice for very high power charging is very simple, just cool the cable rather than requiring it to be passively air-cooled.

Personally, I think very high-power chargers should also provide coolant for the vehicle, through the charging port. It makes a lot more sense to me to make a small number of chillers (aka, part of the chargers) which can keep a store of coolant than making every single vehicle have to haul around a high power chiller and coolant reservoir. Coolant comes from the charger's reservoir, along its switching electronics, down the cable, into the vehicle, into its pack, and then heated coolant is returned on the cable's return line

We can play this game until the correct horse battery staples come home.

Is it...

"Correct Horse Battery Staple"
"Correct horse battery staple"
"correct horse battery staple"
"CORRECT HORSE BATTERY STAPLE"
"CorrectHorseBatteryStaple"
"Correcthorsebatterystaple"
"correcthorsebatterystaple"
"CORRECT HORSE BATTERY STAPLE"

And that's assuming you remember four random words easier than a sentence that you chose because it has meaning to you, which is quite the assumption to make. Was it "Right mule charger tape"? "Proper stallion storage glue?" "Accurate mustang AA stapler?"

Trust me, I've used both types of passwords. The sentence one is much easier to memorize. And it's shorter, faster and more accurate to type.

Bad analogy. You're applying rules to make my version more complicated, you should apply rules to make yours more complicated also. So it's no longer "correct horse battery staple", it's "c@553kt!H0rS3;8ATT3Ry^5Ta7E". And damn well yes the former is easier to memorize.

Of course not, no papers published at all. It's all part of the conspiracy, MAN! Because as we all know, scientists despise clean energy and grant money is given out in accordance with how much you don't do anything revolutionary. Fight the evil scientist cabal!

So why is a seven randomly-chosen word password, which would average in the ballpark of 50 characters, somehow less typo-prone than an abbreviation password a tiny fraction of its length for the same level of entropy?

The former being 13 characters long and the latter being about 50 characters long.
Make a sentence that abbreviates to 20 characters and it's more secure than your "7 random words and two punctuation marks" example. And probably a heck of a lot easier to memorize than seven random words and two random punctuation marks at random locations.

"Love is beautiful, like birds that sing." is more secure than "Lib,lbts". Why are you making your password less secure?

"Lib,lbts" is not brute-forceable in most contexts, and the concept of having to type in 40 characters every time you want log in is absurd. And if you don't think Lib,lbts is secure enough, then what about Lib,lbts.Linu,lriapov? It's a lot more secure than "Love is beautiful, like birds that sing" and takes half the time to type in, with half the risk of typos and all that comes with length.

There are better routes than "Correct Horse Battery Staple".

Think about how memory champions memorize arbitrary data: yes, it's visual, but it's not random words stuck together like "Correct horse battery staple", it's a meaningful scene, something you could describe with a sentence. Now, of course, that's too bulky to make a password. But you can deal with that easily - the easiest way is just take the first letter of each word, an abbreviation / acronym password. For the first sentence in my post, depending on how you apply the rules you may get something like tabrtchbs or Tabrt"CHBS" or the like.

Now, obviously on an attacker can reduce the search space with statistical analysis of sentences, but overall sentences yield an extremely random password - moreso than "Correct Horse Battery Staple", it's much shorter, and it's easier to memorize. And if the security of such a standard approach isn't good enough, you can apply your own extra rules, such letter substitutions, arbitrarily inserted characters, change the order of the word or what letter you pick from each word, etc.

Oh, hey, just looked it up. Seems that there's wide belief among the skeptics that it works based on a really simple trick: a rigged plug. Inside the plug he's got the ground wire swapped with a live wire. So inside the box he can at will make the power draw seem to disappear, because they're not measuring the ground wire. He's actually refused a million dollar prize from a skeptic who wanted to test his device in a way that would include measuring current from the ground wire. Funny, that. ;)

Also looks like in all of his previous incarnations there were no unusual isotopic concentrations measured in the ash. So funny that all of the sudden after facing that criticism his reactor changes how it works and starts outputting extremely enriched stuff in the "ash". Funny how that works. ;)

Publish what for review? This "paper" is not peer-reviewed, and would never pass peer review. And it doesn't take doing stuff behind their backs, their setup is so bad. And FYI, have you ever looked up Rossi's background? This is his third scam. His first landed him in jail, it was an "organic waste to oil" company that took the waste, illegally dumped it, and never made a drop of oil. His second was "20% efficient thermoelectric generators", which were anything but.

Just a random thought, the device could be profitting from distorting the phases on the AC supply. Multimeters designed to read AC power can give false readings when presented with a non-sinosoidal supply.

The papers' commentary about the nuclear "changes" seems really over the top, leaping on to the cosmological significance of lithium 7 depletion and the like. They don't describe how this ash materializes but it's quite possible that it's just a non-nuclear isotopic enrichment process. Another possibility is less pretty - that some parts were designed to specifically burn to ash, and these were made of enriched isotopes.