[jaybeavers]

At this point I strongly distrust any 'breakthrough' article about research at MIT. After hundreds of these, I'm fairly convinced that any time a grad student pours liquid into a beaker, MIT's marketing department is out publishing the fact that Flubber has just been invented and we're all going to be saved by bouncy flying automobiles.

I mean, congrats on the great marketing department. But it's tiring to be disappointed over and over by the hype.

[mensetmanusman]

Views like this are common amongst STEM types, but they vastly underestimate the importance that science communication plays in getting the public on board with science funding.

These are articles for taxpayers, not for you.

A scientist who is also an effective communicator can be 10-100x more effective than one who only publishes in journals, because it can build consensus to fund large projects and get champions and stakeholders.

[toss1]

That's lovely, but if this is not even effective communication.

Very frustrating that the article entirely fails to provide key information about its main topic - batteries. They even fail to provide even rough order-of magnitude values.

How much energy can it store, i.e., the energy density (watt-hours per kilogram or equivalent measure)?

How much power can it put out per unit mass (watts per kilogram or equivalent measure)?

What level of cost (e.g., dollars per kilogram) are we talking about?

Sure, they talk about some new feature, but without at least a rough order of magnitude on these key parameters, we cannot even guess at what will be the valid applications. For example, a battery with a very modest energy & power density but really cheap will be worthless for transport or airborne applications but may be great for fixed storage, and many other combinations.

But with only highlighting some new feature in isolation, the only possible audience is ignorant enthusiasts, who we hope are not making policy.

I used to be really enthusiastic about most new battery tech articles, but at this point, if they fail to even mention one of those three parameters, it looks to me just like clickbait or spam.

[warvariuc]

<quote>These are articles for taxpayers, not for you.</quote>

Are they? Taxpayers don't decide where their taxes go.

[Fatnino]

Am I not also a taxpayer?