Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 22 of 22

Thread: Tesla million mile battery

  1. #21
    radical strawberry
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Humanist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,493
    Amen (Given)
    471
    Amen (Received)
    1038
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLurch View Post
    I think you're going overboard in imputing bias here. It's perfectly reasonable (and generally important) to identify how two experiments differed in order to consider things like the degree to which they can be compared, or whether it counts as a reproduction, etc. But there are plenty of reasons for experiments to differ that don't involve someone trying to make their results look better than previously published stuff.

    Labs have limited time and resources. It could be that the lab was most interested in conditions that are different from those tested by other labs. or they don't have the same equipment available for testing, or they tried to do a number of experiments but the one that was a direct reproduction of previous results failed for some random reason. It could even be as simple as a grad student not knowing the literature and setting up the experiments that looked interesting to him. In this case, since we're talking long-duration battery testing, it's not an easy thing to go back and redo an experiment later if your realize you don't quite have the data you wanted.

    So, there's plenty of non-nefarious reasons the experiments don't precisely mimic what's in the literature. It's a reason to be cautious about interpreting the results of these experiments in comparison to others, but it's not a reason to assume the researchers arranged that intentionally.
    Some of the differences will create better results, some worse, and it's important to note which is which if we're to make fair comparisons. I'm not suspicious of the temperature regimes, and only slightly concerned by the top voltage, and in any case, the differences are clearly posted.

    But the C/3 thing looks bad on its face, and even more so when you factor in limited time and resources. Working with a slower charge rate consumes more of both.

  2. #22
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,388
    Amen (Given)
    91
    Amen (Received)
    570
    Quote Originally Posted by Juvenal View Post
    Some of the differences will create better results, some worse, and it's important to note which is which if we're to make fair comparisons. I'm not suspicious of the temperature regimes, and only slightly concerned by the top voltage, and in any case, the differences are clearly posted.

    But the C/3 thing looks bad on its face, and even more so when you factor in limited time and resources. Working with a slower charge rate consumes more of both.
    Or not, if you consider this from the POV of researchers asking the question of "how long can we possibly keep this battery chemistry working?" If that's the question they wanted to answer, then running at least some of the samples at low charge rate—which we know allows batteries to handle more cycles—makes perfect sense.
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

  3. Amen Teallaura amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •