[nathanb]

This article has a "path to market" section, which I appreciate. But that section raises its own questions, such as: if this technology is so amazing, why is it being deployed in satellites and medical devices but not cell phone batteries and laptops? Why would you put unproven technology into the most fault-intolerant sectors first? Maybe I'm too much of a skeptic, but that doesn't sound plausible.

Honestly, unlike you, I don't want to hear about it if it's going to turn into vaporware. Should it be published in a peer-reviewed journal? Absolutely. Do I want Apple and Tesla and Samsung looking into it? Definitely. Do I, personally, want to hear about it? Not particularly.

[danielweber]

When ramping up production, you would start with markets that are small, price-insensitive, and performance-sensitive. If it costs 10x as much as a normal battery but performs 5% better, that could be a value proposition that captures them the entire satellite market, letting them expand production into cars and consumer goods.

(I know squat about the satellite battery market; this is generic market wisdom.)

[coldtea]

>raises its own questions, such as: if this technology is so amazing, why is it being deployed in satellites and medical devices but not cell phone batteries and laptops? Why would you put unproven technology into the most fault-intolerant sectors first?

Don't know the specifics for this technology, but the answer is obvious in general.

Because new techologies are first put to use in expensive and demanding sectors, that can pay the top dollar needed for them (since they are not mass-market yet to have economies of scale).

That's why the army, NASA, industry etc had GPS, cellphones, etc before you had one, and the same for most other such technologies.

[JackFr]

First paragraph mentions a longer functional life, which presumably is of greater value in medical devices and satellites.

The batteries in phones often outlast the model of the phone.

However, it would be nice to see some numbers rather than just 'better', 'longer', etc.

[mark-r]

Unfortunately the markets they're targeting are going to need very thorough testing and characterization. And they're probably way too expensive for the other uses that come immediately to mind. It'll be years before you see these in action.

[mikeash]

Using it first in satellites and medical devices indicates to me that reliability has been sufficiently demonstrated, but that cost is high. If it was cheap but unproven, you'd first see it in toy helicopters or something. I don't think it's unreasonable that a new technology could be demonstrated to be reliable but not yet be cheap.

[mnw21cam]

Higher power density would be ideal for toy helicopters, as they typically have to use a different formulation of LiIon battery that compromises energy density and recharge cycle endurance in order to get a little bit more energy density.