Electrical, Not Mechanical Separation, Finally Make the Liquid Sodium Battery Practical

Started by Bret Cahill January 27, 2018
One serendipitous breakthrough:

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/26/mit-group-may-solved-liquid-sodium-battery-conundrum/


Bret Cahill

On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 20:08:26 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<bretcahill@aol.com> wrote:

>One serendipitous breakthrough: > >https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/26/mit-group-may-solved-liquid-sodium-battery-conundrum/ > > >Bret Cahill
About the 12,000th battery "breakthrough" this year so far. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
> >One serendipitous breakthrough:
> >https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/26/mit-group-may-solved-liquid-sodium-battery-conundrum/
> About the 12,000th battery "breakthrough" this year so far.
And it's not even February yet! Actually this one probably does work economically, not in cells or small motor vehicles but ships and the grid. But that isn't what's so remarkable. It seems like so many of these researchers have such a disorganized haphazard approach to these discoveries. You'd think a lot more of the science would have been well settled back in the late 19th century. But you'd be wrong.
On Sat, 27 Jan 2018 18:12:00 -0800, Bret Cahill wrote:
 
> But that isn't what's so remarkable. It seems like so many of these > researchers have such a disorganized haphazard approach to these > discoveries.
Some of the greatest inventors had shambolic workshops!
> > You'd think a lot more of the science would have been well settled back > in the late 19th century.
Eh? Before Thompson and Chadwick had even discovered the electron and neutron? Before Bohr's first rudimentary atomic model?? -- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
On Sat, 27 Jan 2018 14:27:10 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 20:08:26 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill > <bretcahill@aol.com> wrote: > >>One serendipitous breakthrough: >> >>https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/26/mit-group-may-solved-liquid-sodium-
battery-conundrum/
>> >> >>Bret Cahill > > About the 12,000th battery "breakthrough" this year so far.
Well sooner or later someone *will* make that much-needed breakthrough in battery technology - and they'll become stratospherically rich as a result! -- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
> >>One serendipitous breakthrough: > >> > >>https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/26/mit-group-may-solved-liquid-sodium- > battery-conundrum/ > >> > >> > >>Bret Cahill > > > > About the 12,000th battery "breakthrough" this year so far. > > Well sooner or later someone *will* make that much-needed breakthrough in > battery technology - and they'll become stratospherically rich as a > result!
Not the same sodium battery but _someone_ is making _some_ money off of Na-Ion: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180122005819/en/Global-Sodium-ion-Batteries-Markets-Materials-Technologies-2022
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/26/mit-group-may-solved-liquid-sodium-battery-conundrum/

What's so interesting is that this isn't so much an engineering breakthrough as a
_science_ breakthrough, and a major one at that, yet another victory of physical
chemistry & materials over the mechanical.  

Even if the battery they envision never becomes a commercial success the new science
opens up a lot of opportunities for other researchers.

Goodenough's Li-Ion discovery followed the same route only he _deliberately_
developed the science first.


Bret Cahill 

On Sat, 27 Jan 2018 18:12:00 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<bretcahill@aol.com> wrote:

>> >One serendipitous breakthrough: > >> >https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/26/mit-group-may-solved-liquid-sodium-battery-conundrum/ > >> About the 12,000th battery "breakthrough" this year so far. > >And it's not even February yet! > >Actually this one probably does work economically, not in cells or small motor
vehicles but ships and the grid.
> >But that isn't what's so remarkable. It seems like so many of these researchers
have such a disorganized haphazard approach to these discoveries.
> >You'd think a lot more of the science would have been well settled back in the late
19th century.
> >But you'd be wrong. > >
I'm often amazed at how discoveries (maybe that's too strong and should be observations) made in the 19th century do get turned into useful devices when the technology catches up with the observation.
On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 14:35:17 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<curd@notformail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Jan 2018 14:27:10 -0800, John Larkin wrote: > >> On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 20:08:26 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill >> <bretcahill@aol.com> wrote: >> >>>One serendipitous breakthrough: >>> >>>https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/26/mit-group-may-solved-liquid-sodium- >battery-conundrum/ >>> >>> >>>Bret Cahill >> >> About the 12,000th battery "breakthrough" this year so far. > >Well sooner or later someone *will* make that much-needed breakthrough in >battery technology - and they'll become stratospherically rich as a >result!
A more likely scenario is that patent infringement lawsuits will last for decades and their spouse will become wealthy, along with a lot of lawyers and expert witnesses.
> >> >One serendipitous breakthrough: > > > >> >https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/26/mit-group-may-solved-liquid-sodium-battery-conundrum/ > > > >> About the 12,000th battery "breakthrough" this year so far. > > > >And it's not even February yet! > > > >Actually this one probably does work economically, not in cells or small motor
vehicles but ships and the grid.
> > > >But that isn't what's so remarkable. It seems like so many of these researchers
have such a disorganized haphazard approach to these discoveries.
> > > >You'd think a lot more of the science would have been well settled back in the
late 19th century.
> > > >But you'd be wrong. > > > > > I'm often amazed at how discoveries (maybe that's too strong and > should be observations) made in the 19th century do get turned into > useful devices when the technology catches up with the observation.
Lord Kelvin is responsible for the ink jet printer, George Boole for digital electronics . . .