For someone who says others are unable to follow a conversation, you certainly show yourself to be unable to do so
I'm following the current discussion. Let me remind you that my post above was in response to your post:
He said the electrolytes have a small window for a stable voltage range. The most likely means that if you charge the electrolyte to (for instance) 3.4 volts it will be stable, but you can't charge it to more than 3.5 volts or less than 3.3 volts.
So my response on state-of-charge and the desirability of a stable voltage range is appropriate for the context of this discussion. Good try, but I have a bullshit-cutting katana.
But he was aked about the FAILURE mode of the batteries. And in answer to that he said there is a narrow WINDOW which will produce that stable voltage range. The WINDOW is refering to the CHARGE voltages that are required in order for the battery to produce that stable range on discharge.
Actually, the voltage at which you charge the battery only affects the rate at which it charges (and the amount of overcharge you can get when nearing/exceeding 100% capacity). Discharge voltage is controlled entirely by battery chemistry.
In other words: Everything you said there is factually-incorrect, technically-inaccurate, and wrong.
By reading ALL of his answers
I'm only interested in the response he gave to the question of why Lithium chemistry batteries suddenly lose capacity as a failure mode, which he answered by spouting a bunch of irrelevant and inaccurate bullshit. If you ask, "Why is the sky blue," and a guy starts talking about how the sky on Mars is red during the day and oceans reflect heat off the surface of the planet due to their mercury content, he's 1)
spouting irrelevant bullshit; and 2) wrong. The content of the rest of his diatribe in a forum of further questioning is irrelevant to that inquisitive cycle.
he is saying that in order to keep the DESIRABLE stable voltage range
He suggested the stable voltage range is a problem caused by flammable electrolytes. You claimed that the stable voltage range is the charging range above, and have now changed the definition (fallacy of equivocation).
You're really not good at arguing with people who can think and comprehend, you know that?