What happened to him?

>>8905422
> Was [it] another meme drive?

Probably.

Note: solid electrolyte batteries existed before this particular paper.

Note: I still haven't found good confirmation that it's 3x better capacity / mass. It may be 3x better capacity / volume. The 3x better capacity / volume is believable, but the 3x better by mass is less believable. I stopped looking into it, after not being able to find any credible solid sources. The paper itself doesn't clear it up either. It's most unfortunate.

>>8905437
You're the reddit guy who was called out by actual specialists in the field in the last thread.

>>8905551
>specialists
Lol

>meme drive

I thought NASA did an independent test and verified the results. Did something else happen?

>>8906576

Last I heard the results were indistinguishable from measurements errors.

The Chinese of course claim it works.

>>8905551
>the reddit guy who was called out by actual specialists in the field in the last thread.
Yup, he's that idiot. Ignore him. He takes strong positions on things he can't understand even when spoonfed.

>>8905422
>What happened to him?
Nothing. The development work is continuing. They were reporting their results from early lab prototypes. It'll be years before you can buy them. You think there'll have been something newsworthy in a couple of months since the last wave of media attention?

If you're interested, just keep an eye on the wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_battery

>>8906651
No one claimed to be an expert in the field who was in the thread.
The paper did not support the claims being made in the popular news article on the university website, which as far as I can tell is the basis of all of these claims about energy density. Based on other sources, including reddit, it seems likely that they meant "3x better energy storage / volume", not "energy storage / mass". I am still not entirely confident of this, as I said in the other thread. If you have a proper source to show that it's 3x better energy storage / mass, please give it.

>>8905422
It's also worth pointing out that it wasn't actually Goodenough's research, some other researcher who no one actually cares about just came to work with him and essentially tack Goodenough's name on their paper.

>>8905437
>>8906834
No one wants you here. Leave

>>8906872
that's-nice.jpg

>>8906872
just don't reply. you may also filter his tripcode.