On 03/12/2020 18:36:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/12/2020 17:18, Tim+ wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/12/2020 16:34, Tim+ wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/12/2020 11:25, Tim+ wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
On 02 Dec 2020 at 14:28:16 GMT, The Natural Philosopher

wrote:

That shows to me that there is a fundamental theoretical limit
being
approached here. The chemistry we are using can't do any better.

Are there any other chemistries that have potential? If not, we
are ****ed.

Its not all about the chemistry, the designs are being improve to
increase
energy density and reduce charging time.

Energy density is ABSOLUTELY a function of the chemistry.

Chemistry AND cell design.

Do you think the surface area of the electrodes is irrelevant to energy
density of a battery?

Tim

In the limit, yes.


But were not at the limit yet are we?

Yes. We are.Â* See my experience.

No we are not at the limit. Technology is always improving even if
chemistry isn't.

So clearly at the moment design IS
important.

Not for energy density.

If you're denial of the above then you will not comprehend that energy
density is a function of chemistry and yechnology.

Â* So Im absolutely correct to say that its not ALL about the
chemistry.


No, you are wrong

Do make up your mind.

Out of interest, what do you take for your blood pressure?Â* Seems to
me you
spend a lot of your life being very angry.

No, I dont.

Perhaps you should consider anger management?