Thank you!

@stazeII i was expecting to see H2SO4 but now wondering if it would work with HCL ? :-)

@@YTANDY100 Ah, H2SO4, Professor: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jNSSnLmoxJeqfqc.html (about 45 seconds in).

MnO2 is manganese dioxide, not manganese oxide.

my mistake. Sorry.

@@YTANDY100 No. lead acid batteries are a bit unique in that the electrolyte itself is part of the reaction. Sulphate from the electrolyte reacts with lead oxide to form lead sulphate.

Thank you. Of course it is for free. Any in this case en-Lyten-ed

@@illinoisenergyprof6878 Fantastic videos. Plus the production is quite good!

@@illinoisenergyprof6878 Pun game en-pointe!

Really? Do you get down on you knees and bow your head as well?

But Bill Maher can solve ALL of our problems... For FREEEE

Agreed. And promises to double or triple capacity is a sure sign of future failure. A 15% improvement over existing technology would be amazing enough. Making such bold claims indicates that the project is still in the fantasy phase where excitement overpowers rational thinking and the problems with the tech are yet to be realized. Good luck though. I love the nuclear power videos!

@@montmorencysjerome3769 Right, modern batteries not only require special chemical components, but the also have to have sufficient mechanical properties, so the battery can endure thousends of charge cycles. This has been a stumbling block for silicon anodes for instance. Furthermore, I like to think that any major breakthrough in battery technology will take some time and requires a solid understanding of every single aspect and reaction of its components and it seems unlikely that a singly company can truly figure it out without others noticing. Any new battery type can only be produced and applied, if it is a genuinly mature and well understood technology and in the case of the hypothetical Li-S battery, it is quite literally a very potent chemistry (with a very violent reaction in elementary form) and I don't think you'll see such cells with large quantities of pure Lithium and Sulfur in them, bc they'll probaly also need alot of other chemicals for facilitating the rections. Pretty much like current cells.

Unlike other cell technology, LiS have had working prototypes that have been used by governments, like the solar plane in Europe. LiS has had labs around the world claiming that they solved the cycle limitation problem. If lyten stars selling cells to individuals to test, then I will be more willing to recommend them as a promising stock.

Production at scale is always the issue with new technology from biofuels that battery tech It was only a little over a century when the technology to mass produce steel became effective and efficient and it's only been since the 1950s when the ability to produce aluminum at crazy scale had been effective before these times both were rare and expensive (aluminum was at one point equal to precious metals some royalty even had cutlery made out of it because it was so prestigious) these advancements have revolutionized the world and how we modern humans live hopefully wit the amount of investment in battery tech and biofuels they can have their own renaissance and achieve commercial viability

"Hey now guys, trust us, the perfect solution is on the horizon. Trust us, we'll make it out of this hole, we just need another decade of development. No, don't worry, you don't have to pass legislation, we'll save humanity, just give us a little more time. Yeah, we're going to have to use fossil fuels until then, that's only reasonable. Yes it's reasonable, trust us, the climate will be ok for another decade. Hey now, don't be unreasonable, we're funding this tech for sustainability, don't be unreasonable... Wait, hold on, trust us, graphene will save you all, you just have to wait a few years longer, hold on, hold on, hold on now!..."

@@avialexander Sounds like the pitch for hydrogen fuel cell cars... 🙂

@@avialexander Sounds like the pitch for nuclear (to cheap to meter). 🙈

@@avialexander I worked for a startup for a year. Yeah, that's not an unfair criticism. But it's also a fundamental part of trying to get funding. These days, big companies just can't take the risks needed for real innovation. Everything is incremental. Which is fine, I understand their position. But that means we have to let the startups do their thing, or else innovation will be nearly impossible. Just .. be a wise investor. Don't fall for the newest fad or unicorn.

@@danclassic7065 I was a founder of a tech startup, I know too well how they work, they can't save us. Making money is orthogonal to doing good for humanity.

That's what I was left asking at the end of your lecture. Can it be scaled effectively? Can you reliably produce & manipulate defect-free graphene? Also, how can my computer's spell check not know 'graphene'?!

What about sodium-ion batteries? Have you heard of or know anything about that technology?

"A few years perhaps?" Jeez, Lyten sounds a lot like Elon XD

If they can mass produce graphene in an affordable way it has the potential to revolutionize a lot of things. They will be rich.

In the field of Organic Light Emitting Diodes (OLED), manufacturers achieved a miracle of sort, where they are able to build the OLED with a genre of inkjet printer. Maybe it is possible to print the grafene, too?

Thank you!

Thank you

Thank you!

This video was an advertisement to try to convince people to invest in the thing that will make him money. He provides free research labor via his students, the company scratches his back with money. He offered no explanation of how this "3D" graphene is supposed to make any kind of difference. Also, if it's 3D, it's no longer a sheet (not graphene). It's amorphous carbon. He's a charlatan.

@@Dumdumshum All kinds of professors do the same sort of thing. If they don't, then they're just publishing esoteric papers that are rarely of use to anyone outside academia. If you want to start moving your idea up the tech readiness levels, you've got to collaborate with industry or form a startup company. As for 3D graphene, Google is your friend. It's all over the peer-reviewed literature.

@@Dumdumshum "He provides free research labor via his students" Free is a huge misnomer for research intern work. Many such students get their names on academic papers as a result of taking part in such research and it gives them credibility both within the research/academic community in general, and a serious uptick on their possible employment options.

@@danclassic7065 It's not really graphen anymore when you start going 3D being as graphene itself is a 2D allotrope of carbon. Otherwise you can just call single walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) 3D graphene too, even though that classification is patently incorrect.

It is! That is why I was excited to make the video. Thanks.

I know Lexus owners doing the same thing.

The old inline 6-cylendar in 90's Jeeps are known to last the long if you can get the rest of the vehicle to survive the trip. My '99 is 2/3 of the way there since it's been relatively lightly used over its lifetime.

@@OOZ662 20 year engine in a 5 year package.

By the way we didn't compare the price of a tesla battery pack, vs a ICE engine.

My last 2 Holden commodore's I owned both did 500,000 km each. ICE cars and truck's have very good range and reliability

Where’s your KZfaq channel? Haha

Because that is a good critique, what’s your job? Chemical Engineer?

The real key is the way to make Graphene cheap, plentiful and without resin. That is where a breakthrough was needed and I think that is where a breakthrough has been made.

@@illinoisenergyprof6878 I remain skeptical to such claims until the product can be proven in practice. We never get close to theoretical results in practice and rarely do real world use cases get as good as the lab results. Not to mention I'm highly skeptical of claims of binding graphene at a 3D level when such has basically been impossible without making it an alloy; which as I said in my master comment isn't graphene anymore. It's why we have different terms for graphene which is a 2D carbon latus vs say carbon nanotubes which is a 3D structure also made purely of carbon in a crystal latus. The difference is purely the fusing it to itself or just a single layered sheet. But when I hear people claiming sky high claims on graphene my skeptism immediately goes off as I've seen way too many businesses and products claiming they use graphene to beat the competition, and it turns out to be mediocre or even in some cases inferior to the competition. Graphene is a neat material, though it isn't magic. But even if they beat these concerns, there's still one major hurdle left, cost. Yes sulfur batteries in theory are much cheaper, but adding these rare materials that need new machinery to make it means it will take a long time before costs fall to competitive values. It's like when blueray players came out they were over $500 average vs old DVD players at even as cheap as $30 and a good one for still less than $100. Being used in cars, cost really does matter. When we use thousands of batteries even a small rise is a drastic raise in cost to produce. We're seeing this issue right now with Tesla as nickel and manganese have drastically raised in cost, as a result, their cars are selling for an extra 20-30% more.

@@Skylancer727 It looks like a typical technological development, maybe it works out. Maybe it is Lithium Oxygen. BUT there might be an investment opportunity or well... hope for you kids in the future to use this.

I don't think it's really possible to say, graphene is not currently mass-producible and companies have been looking for ways of mass producing over the last decades with little commercial success. Furthermore, pure graphene is just about impossible to make, so the question will be; are these batteries of any use if we use cheap impure graphene?

They have been studying batteries for more than 5 years. the concept itself is viable and proven to work. the problem is not the theory, but the implementation of it. Right now the biggest problem is the manufacture of the membrane. The Graphite membrane is only a few atoms thick and the structure of the graphite must be perfect to improve the efficiency of the reaction. But it is one thing to theorize or make some test models in a laboratory and another is to manufacture thousands of square meters of a graphite membrane with a perfect atomic structure at an industrial level. Models and "prototypes" have been manufactured, but at the moment mass production is not possible. In the manufacturing process of the graphite membrane, irregularities, errors, bad formations of the membrane occur that today make its large-scale manufacture unfeasible. The loss of material derived from the "bad formations" is too great and the graphite membrane formation process is too slow and expensive.

@@jonaboy3 graphite cannot be impure. I think you have not understood the concept of the "product" precisely the key to graphite is in its purity and in its structure... if it is impure it does not work it does not work. that is precisely the key to the problem with the large-scale manufacture of graphite.

​@@gorkarullanYeah, I think I'm getting my graphite/graphene mixed up. Basically you can never make that perfect material so the question over the next 5-100+ years will be "can I make an awesome graphite battery with a material I can mass-produce".

@@gorkarullan I agree, 100%. That said, if the science is there and compelling, then it becomes an engineering problem. And those problems can be solved. Maybe not today or next week, but depending on the economic pressure, it will be solved.

Another great learning experience, thank you

Lol

My 1998 Nissan 200SX has over 300,000 Mi on it without an engine rebuild

I didn’t like how he ignored the source of Lithium

Electrolosis of brine, can make lithium. Brine? Basically a very very salty water.

Brine will get you lithium carbonates, you would need lithium hydroxides for this?

You just stopped learning one day?

@@MikeTrieu I stopped going to school one day.

I have a Chevy Volt too -- from 2014. I wish they were still making them!

Thank you! It is Thursday night here in the US

@@illinoisenergyprof6878 I guess I should have pointed out that I'm off tomorrow for a 3 day weekend, so it's "my" Friday night. Nothing but sunshine here in Albuquerque, New Mexico! Also, great video. Definitely more interested in future electric vehicles if they can utilize this technology!

@@CodyShell you lucky bastard.

probably a mixup during writing. I thought it was odd he said HCL too.

2500 Wh/KG isn't physically possible TNT the explosive is the limits of an enclosed energy system. TNT has an energy density of 1277 Wh/KG Even pure hydrogen oxygen is 3,700 Wh/KG assuming 100% conversion efficiency which isn't possible These are limits which can not be reached as they are pure elemental reactions Using the TNT limit of 1277 Wh/KG That is a one way reaction Woth zero container mass Most likely we will never be able to achieve even half of that figure so 500 Wh/KG for a rechargeable battery anything above that smells of scam However the good news is we don't need batteries that good. The current batteries are good enough. Just need mass produced EVs to reduce the cost

This feels like PBS techno-optism.

@@j03man44 yup but way more feasible than wind and solar. Unless graphine becomes the next fusion.

graphene and membrane manufacturing is more practical and already something we can make but struggle with in mass manufacturing. Supercapacitors are in a similar state. In the near future they may be very common, they're not that complicated. Fuel Cells suck though, inefficient idea.

Ultra capacitors work well in their niche, delivering very high power for a short time. It's just not on the level of capacitance gel from Demolition Man, yet 🙂

Except fuel cells and ultracaps are already in production for the masses, way to self own.

Only 60% cycle efficiency at C/2, ouch...

I believe graphene can be used as a conductive additive in the anode. So it is added to the graphite anode to improve its performance, since graphene is very conductive and has very high surface area per volume compared to regular graphite. But I don’t think you can have a pure graphene anode, because high surface area means it would degrade quickly due to formation of an ‘solid-electrolyte interphase’ (SEI) layer which has negative impact on cell performance

See my video on decarbonizing air travel. I agree the answer is not batteries

You have to include the energy efficiency difference, of both electric and combustion engines, in your energy density equation

With OTR trucking you have to remember how much weight you're removing when you pull out the internal combustion engine, and drivetrain. If you could double or triple the current battery energy density you wouldn't add any weight to the truck in that swap. Not to mention there are short and medium haul runs that are volume not weight constrained. Electric would become viable for at least 50% of trucking scenarios.

@@feiter If we're specifically talking about aircrafts, there is another problem to think about that completely eliminates any efficiency difference many times over and it's the mass loss of burnt fuel. Aircrafts lose fuel over time during flight which makes them lighter and the return on energy efficiency becomes non-linear for fuels burnt compared to batteries. Essentially, what that means is range for an electric aircraft is at least 20% to 50% less than that of a similarly sized internal combustion powered aircraft even at the same energy density and at the same fuel/battery weight.

@@otm646 How heavy do you think the drive train is on those trucks? It weighs practically nothing compared to the cargo it's hauling as well as the cab.

I have a Toyota, it is pretty impressive given how it is affordable to maintain. I try my best to maintain the car's interior and exterior to push it through 20-25 years old, and I started to think like this when the car was 5 years old. You're right. If one would like to use the car's maximum potential, they better act that way and take a good care of their cars as soon as possible.

I've had two cars go nearly 300k and were still going when I sold them. 300k is very attainable.

Currently America uses TONS of trucking, so even if the improvement doesn't change 1 thing in railroad use. . . It will still benefit the currently 2 million semi trucks across America that are necessary for transporting goods.

@@DanDeGaston didn't change the fact the railroad is like at at least 50% more efficient and it's also electric

@@nightstar5077 I don't know about the railroad efficiency. But there are 2 million trucks that would become far more efficient irregardless if Railroads remain more efficient.

@@nightstar5077 Diesel-electric. Certainly the superior choice for bulk materials transportation.

Just finished watching the video on Castle Bravo nuclear test and the use of lithium 6, I’m not in a hurry to throw away my lead acid batteries yet

According to their website 20 minutes. I'm very skeptical of these kind of claims though. I'd like to see something apart from renders, but I suppose that'll only happen in a few years.

They don't know as they have yet to produce usable prototypes.

The fun part is Lyten already has competition from the existing Lithium-Ion batteries. That will put an upper limit on price can be charged for the graphene filtered Li-S batteries. For example, a car an owner might be willing to pay 3* as much for a battery that only provides 2* as much energy storage per kilo. But for a Li-S battery being used to replace the Tesla Megapack, the upper limit would be 2* the cost for 2* the capacity. Now if Lyten can get the price per kilo ratio lower than the energy per kilo, they will corner the market. (I.e. if they can only get 1.5* as much energy per kilo and keep the price at 1.45* as much per kilo, everyone will want to use their Li-S batteries) Basically the difference between space/military-quality, vs civilian quality. You will also have competitors buying their batteries, slowly figuring out how they work, and then developing ways to make those batteries, increasing competition and bringing down the price again.

I've watched so many videos it's unreal.