Forgot your password?

Comment: That said... (Score 3, Informative) 37

by Rei (#47437451) Attached to: Sand-Based Anode Triples Lithium-Ion Battery Performance

... the greater your capacity, the less cycle life matters. If you want an EV that battery that will run a 250Wh/mi vehicle for an average 20 miles a day for 15 years, then you want it to cycle through about 30MWh. If you use a 100 mile (25kWh) battery pack, then that's 1100 cycles. If you use a 200 mile (50kWh) battery pack, then that's 550 cycles. If you use a 400 mile (100kWh) battery pack, then that's a mere 275 cycles. Actually, the improvement is even better than that in the real world, because the greater your capacity vs. how far you're actually driving, the more you can cycle the cells through a less destructive state of charge range rather than doing deep discharges.

A lot of people picture battery packs in EVs backwards, they think that things like hybrids stress the packs the least, PHEVs moderately, and EVs the worst. But it's reversed. If you look at how big hybrid packs are vs. how much electric range they hold, you'll see that they're disproportionately large, even after you factor in any differences in Wh/kg. The reason is that because hybrid packs get cycled so much, they have to keep the cycling in a very narrow state of charge range, only allowing shallow discharges. So if you only have a narrow discharge range, you have to make your pack bigger to make up for it. EVs can discharge through much more of their pack because they need fewer total cycles and only rarely go down toward the lower end of their allowable discharge range. Some EVs also let you limit the max that your pack charges up to to further extend lifespan (it's usually destructive both to use the very top end and the bottom end of the discharge range).

Comment: Re:Correct me if I'm wrong, but... (Score 2) 37

by Rei (#47437401) Attached to: Sand-Based Anode Triples Lithium-Ion Battery Performance

1024 mAhg1 is excellent capacity even vs. brand new graphite or amorphous carbon, about 3x as much as graphite's maximum. Silicon's theoretical max is 8-10x that of graphite, but the main problem with it is durability, it tends to tear itself apart on loading. There are silicon anodes in some newer li-ion cells on the market, but the tech is in its infancy.

That said, the real papers you want to be on the lookout for are cathode improvements, there's a lot more potential for volume/mass reduction there than in the anode. But it seems to be a more difficult challenge. Getting a 3x improvement in anode density is absolutely not the same a getting a 3x improvement in battery life.

Comment: Re:Little Bit of History Repeating. (Score 2) 37

by Rei (#47437377) Attached to: Sand-Based Anode Triples Lithium-Ion Battery Performance

Commercial li-ion battery energy densities have continued to improve during that time period, including the commercial introduction of cells with silicon anodes. Of course, silicon anodes are a new tech, so there's a great deal of room for improvement, which probably won't come close to "maxing out" for a decade or more.

Of course, that said, this article is your typical fluff piece following the guidelines of fluff science reporting.

1. Present an oversimplified version of one technology challenge that may or may not address the biggest issue and certainly doesn't address all of them - but don't mention that.
2. Introduce an outside-the-establishment loner with a passion - or at least someone you can try to present as "outside the establishment" and glaze over anyone who helped him.
3. Loner gets a "vision" based on some everyday activity
4. Present their solution and make it out to be a huge revolution that will certainly solve all our problems - if they can only get corporate backing / funding!

I think these sort of articles hurt the image of science because people read them, think "OMG, all our problems are solved!", then when everything's not solved afterward, fail to trust science in the future. For example, in this case, the most important element to improve is the cathode, not the anode. And cathode improvements are less common and usually less major than anode improvements. There's also tons of different anode improvements out there in various stages of research. Pretty much all of the silicon ones get way better than graphite or amorphous carbon.

That doesn't mean that this isnt an important paper - actually, from looking at it, it looks pretty good. It's just not "all that".

BTW, anyone know how credible this journal is? I see it's hosted on but not part of Nature, and I tried to find an impact rating for it but couldn't.

Comment: Re:Uh (Score 2) 244

Metadata maps the social networks, storage allows you to drill down into the details. The FBI used the same technique with paper dossiers during the civil rights uprising and the misadventure in vietnam. Understanding the metadata is far more informative about a groups strengths and weaknesses than snooping on a specific individual.

Comment: Re:Why is this news? (Score 1) 379

by TapeCutter (#47436341) Attached to: The First Person Ever To Die In a Tesla Is a Guy Who Stole One

I step off my bike

I was stopped at some lights one time and there was a guy next to me on a pushbike doing the balance thing where the bike is upright but not moving. He suddenly lost balance and fell on the side of my car, no damage to anything but his dignity. I only wish I had a photo of his face because the mental image of it sliding down the passenger window still makes me laugh.

Comment: Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (Score 1) 401

So you're doubling down on your accusations of lies, because your Sauron-class Morton's demon convinced you that you have very damned good reason to believe you were telling the truth. Just like you've doubled down on almost every other absurd claim you've made (an astonishingly vast collection- you're like a nonsense firehose). And like most of those other times, you reasonably should have known that. So once again, I'm not surprised that you can't recognize that your libelous accusations are baseless.

But how could you possibly not recognize that you're Lonny Eachus, a pathological liar posing as a woman on the internet?

In 2012 Jane Q. Public left a public comment at my website linking to

Googling showed that it's Lonny Eachus's website.

Jane could've posted a screenshot of our conversation anonymously at a site like PostImg, but Jane's charming filename seemed like a message. So I wondered if Jane's domain name was also a deliberate message. Was it a cry for help? Part of Jane's comedy act? It couldn't be an unintentional rookie mistake, because Jane's a skilled web developer.

Comment: Re:Jane Q. Public is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 401

To what "accusations" are you referring? You have kept saying that, but I have no idea what you mean. Certainly, I have criticized climate science, when I thought it deserved criticism. But where are these "accusations" that YOU are accusing ME of making? [Jane Q. Public]

Again, your accusations of fraudulent bullshit lies are baseless, and you should have reasonably known that. You made those libelous accusations as Jane Q. Public, and as Lonny Eachus. Because, once again, you're a man dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet. Is that really so difficult to understand, or are you still trying to pretend that you aren't Lonny Eachus?

Comment: Re:Jane Q. Public is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 401

You think you are mimicking my own behavior but I assure you, there are some very large differences. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-09]

Jane's telepathy isn't working correctly, but some very large differences are listed below.

It is pretty easy to show, even on your own blog, that while I have been wrong at times, I have used logic and logical arguments, while your arguments have demonstrated straw-man, ad-hominem, "moving the goalposts", and other logical fallacies to the point of utter ridiculousness. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-11]

"Apparently you think *I* am an idiot. Try reading the goddamned thread. If you really don’t want to be perceived as a “brainwashed idiot”, maybe you could bother to figure out what the argument is about before you put in your irrelevant 2 cents. As for the rest, you are one of those lazy asses I mentioned. But you are too damned lazy to look any of them up? And yes, that to me means “brainwashed idiot”. get off your lazy ass and LOOK IT UP YOURSELF!!! since you insist on being spoon-fed There are many more, very easily found, but I am not going to do your homework for you. Now go away. You disgust me." [Jane Q. Public, 2009-07-09]

"My personal opinion might be that you are an insufferable, hypocritical asshole, and that your arguments are frequently contradictory, facetious, hypocritical, or disingenuous, but actual "fraud" never crossed my mind. An opinion that my claim was "ridiculous" is yours to have if you wish, and I don't give a damn, but stating that I made one or more statements that were "obviously fraudulent" is serious enough that you had best either back it up with evidence NOW, or back the hell off. You have very much gone over the line." [Jane Q. Public, 2010-02-18]

"... you were insufferably arrogant and pedantic ... I told you to get stuffed and told you that UNDER OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES I would sue you. You are a pompous ass, and you distort other peoples’ statements in order to try to make yourself look good. Then you use that as a self-advertisement to try to bolster your reputation as a “scientist”. When in fact all it proves is you are a pompous ass." [Jane Q. Public, 2012-06-07]

"Or maybe -- just a guess -- you are trying to be a vindictive asshole again, just as you have been before?" [Jane Q. Public, 2012-09-07]

"... I didn't call you a vindictive asshole because you asked me a question. I called you that because of your habit of being annoying, rude, insulting." ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-10-29]

"... you're a clueless asshole. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2013-09-15]

"... you're such a flaming, large-bore asshole. ... " [Jane Q. Public, 2013-12-21]

"... you just make yourself look more like an ass. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-01-18]

It is not reasonable or logical to say in one sentence that it is "obvious" that I don't believe my statements are baseless, and then just a short time later accuse me of deliberately lying. The two are mutually exclusive. [Jane Q. Public]

Again, you're deliberately lying about your own gender. I've long assumed that your other misinformation isn't deliberate, that you're just an honest victim of cognitive biases. (Even though, once again, you should have reasonably known that your accusations of fraudulent bullshit lies were baseless.)

Whenever your misinformation is challenged, you almost always double down and refuse to admit your mistakes. I'm challenging your pathological lies about your own gender to see if you act differently when you're defending blatant lies that can't possibly be blamed on cognitive bias. So far, you don't. It's getting increasingly difficult to rule out the possibility that Jane/Lonny is deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation. If true, this would imply that Jane/Lonny Eachus has betrayed humanity.

Comment: Re:Jane Q. Public is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 401

Once again, obviously you can't recognize that your accusations are baseless, even though you reasonably should have known that. Obviously, this is not an admission that your comments aren't baseless. It's an admission that your Sauron-class Morton's demon has such a tight grip that you'll probably never be able to recognize that your accusations are baseless, even though you reasonably should have known that.

"I am curious: is there something wrong with calling a liar and a bully a liar and a bully? Fact and libel are different things." [Lonny Eachus, 2013-04-08]

Comment: Re:Yes (Score 1) 469

Yeah, the Lenovo T420s has an array of mics up top around the webcam, and in theory they can be used to filter out noise from typing and be tuned to pick up the voice of the talker and not the speakers. But I went through all that calibration and it still sucks... it does filter out a lot of the keyboard noise but it also attacks the voice as well. Maybe someday Lenovo/Conexant will release better, more tunable drivers, but I haven't seen anything positive on any of the Lenovo support message boards yet.

In Lenovo's defense, I bought a z710 for my wife, and it appears to work great with Skype and stuff out of the box (though I've never sampled the audio quality on the far end of the call). It's a nice little desktop replacement box, at the time probably the cheapest laptop I could find with a 1920x1080 LCD and a half-decent NVidia GPU. Of course, it still has an Intel 4000 integrated GPU as well for "hybrid power savings"... you can't disable the iGPU, and the thing would BSOD with any 3D applications using the Nvidia GPU until I installed the right combination of driver updates relatively recently.

A computer scientist is someone who fixes things that aren't broken.