For those who believe governments only serve to stifle innovation, please take heed to this counter example(before the Silicon Valley PR machine recasts the research as a work of its own genius).
It's a fine sentiment. Tor is another good example of innovation ran by the (US) Navy. Which is to be expected, as navies traditionally were big into crypto.
The military has long history of both doing their own research (logistics & management, and cryptography being good examples), running research institutes with civilian employees (as it seems to be in this case), and contracting out R&D to run-of-the-mill civilian institutions (half of the SV on a good day).
It's worth remembering that the military in typical country is set up with certain similarities to free market economy: it negotiates budget with the "customer" (government), it has several major branches that fiercely compete with each other (typically air force, army, navy; US also rolls with marines as a separate branch), and there are vertical & lateral transfers of employees at times. Lastly, there's always the competing militaris abroad ;-)
Heck, one of common view of the Cold War is that of NATO bankrupting the Soviet block via military arms race.
Yes, it is ethical to put military research to the best use we can. Whether logistical systems, trauma medicine, personal weapons, or encryption, all those improve our efficiency, our safety, our leisure, and our privacy.
Wars aside, the military is a place where practical problems are encountered daily, and the solutions battle-tested at scale. It's reasonably safety-minded and cost-aware (spicy anecdotes aside).
Moreover, it's helps a lot when the research isn't walled off by stringent IP regulations.
The US Government did not develop Tor, they 'only' funded it. I understand that funding something often effectively imbues a project with whatever mojo the funding org has associated with it. That's certainly not the case here though. Tor's ideals and direction was established and set before said funding, and have remained steadfast since.
To the bigger point:
> But is it ethical to use military-developed innovations?
That's complicated in the real world. Many good, moral things have been created or encouraged by immoral organizations, and vice versa. The US Government has sponsored the development of many different good, useful technologies over the years.
The reverse is true as well, though perhaps to a lesser extent.
Why does it matter who 'developed' it?
The idea always existed in the space of possible ideas. The military-backed researchers just found it first.
You're going to deprive yourself of using it just because of who found it? That makes it pretty easy to deprive you of tools, if someone else using them will stop you from doing so.
Is it ethical to be the beneficiary of the military keeping supply chains safe and keeping supply chains open worldwide?
In this world your existence is "unethical", in regards to a question like that, unless you want to live on a mountain peak above the messiness of ordinary human moral calculation and compromise.
The end of WW2 saw the Americans and Soviets rushing to take over Germany so we could acquire as much Nazi tech and scientists as possible. Our ICBMs technology was based upon this Nazi technology, and now SpaceX and NASA tech is based upon that as well. While the origins of it are based upon a destructive goal, they have enabled the Mars rovers, Moon landing, Hubble telescope, etc. Technology should be evaluated on its own merits and not its origins.
> The Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET) was an early packet-switching network and the first network to implement the TCP/IP protocol suite. Both technologies became the technical foundation of the Internet. The ARPANET was initially founded by the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) of the United States Department of Defense.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET
"Where Wizards Stay Up Late" by Katie Hafner is an entertaining chronicle of its creation.
A ton of great innovation comes from Universities and the National Labs. I would argue most innovation comes out of basic research funded by the government. Interestingly, in a lot of ways this research is subsidized R&D for American corporations and startups. Much of what gets funded in basic research is set by lobbyists. It makes sense, not many companies can sink millions or in some cases billions of dollars into R&D that may never have commercial applications. There was a really good book review about this in a Physics Today issue a few years back (I cant currently find it).
Not even counting government research, roads and bridges and other infrastructure make innovation possible. Where would Uber, Amazon (deliveries) be without good roads and bridges.
Are you sure? Every party republican I know seems convinced that everything they've ever done is theirs and theirs alone, and has nothing to do with the 200+ years of work that the United States has put into education and infrastructure
Considering both Romney and Brown lost in 2012, I'd say it failed. Trump, for all of his many failures and faults, pivoted away from this logic in 2016.
Sometimes I think if the majority of HN had their way we'd be living in a feudal system again, except with right to rule given to Silicon Valley start-up royalty instead of divine-right nobility.
Similarly, military research can yield innovations that, while initially designed for military use, turn out to have important and transformative non-military applications.
GPS is a pretty good example of that. While it was developed by the US military, civilians world-wide use it every day. I'd call it a transformative technology. Turn by turn directions, self driving cars, drones (not military), cameras, phones, etc.
For those who want to accurately represent what those who disagree with you actually believe, please use parent comment as an example of how not to do it.
There is a tradition among mainstream press outlets of taking battery-related research, misreading it in a way that makes it sound more impressive than it really is, and publishing breathless articles about how revolutionary it is. This article continues the tradition.
The Electrek article claims that the researchers made a cell with "an impressive energy density of 460 Wh/Kg". But the Nature paper says that they made a cell with "460 watt-hours per kilogram of total composite electrode". These are not the same; a cell contains other components besides the electrode: the anode, the electrolyte, and the package. The paper doesn't state the overall energy density (at least in the abstract), but it will surely be much lower when other components are counted.
It is an interesting advance (and one far beyond my technical ken) but the main point that stood out for me when this was first posted on HN a few days back is the so far untested longetivity of the system, with it so far only having been tested for 150 dis/charge cycles. This doesn't at all preclude improvement, but the military's needs and budgets don't necessitate very long-life uses, unlike consumer items - especially expensive battery on wheels items like cars.
It may be that the new batteries simply haven't had the time to be thoroughly tested. My great uncle worked on batteries in the 60's and we are still running experiments on them today to examine their life cycle.
It's crazy how much technology comes from government investment, yet people continue to assert that private industry can somehow fill the gaps. With quarterly cycles being what they are, the only one thinking long term is the govt. They're the only ones who engage in fundamental scientific research or even near term research and are responsible for much of the innovation that private industry loves to claim.
Note that 460 Wh/kg is the density of the electrode, not the cell as a whole which given the aqueous electrolyte would be less but still higher than existing technologies.
However, the key point is not just the density, but the density combined with the materials used, and (perhaps most importantly) safety.
I think it's worth comparing to LiFePO4 as a baseline. It has the lowest density of common li-ion batteries (110Wh/kg), but it is very safe as it does not have the likelihood of thermal runaway. Other battery types have higher densities, like li-poly and other li-ions, but they can have thermal runaway if damaged or overcharged requiring battery management systems to prevent fire. (With LiFePO4, you also need a BMS, but mainly to prevent permanent damage to the battery to protect your investment, rather than fire.)
From my understanding, if this can be commercially viable (as it should be with the lower material cost), this will achieve high density, low cost, and thermal safety, which puts it in a league of its own.
> From my understanding, if this can be commercially viable (as it should be with the lower material cost), this will achieve high density, low cost, and thermal safety, which puts it in a league of its own.
And it would be perfect if we could get cycles beyond the current ~500 range.
I would be happy if we could get one within next 5 years.
>Also I wonder why it's always the military and public funding making real progress in research, almost never private ventures.
Because it costs money, isn't guaranteed, and can take longer than a quarter which is a combination of aspects that private ventures hate. Private ventures can also easily pair up with universities to have the public pay the bill and then get IP protections over the innovation and sell it themselves
>Private ventures can also easily pair up with universities to have the public pay the bill and then get IP protections over the innovation and sell it themselves
Can you elaborate more on how that works? Seems like something that should be illegal.
"It is common today for university researchers to get grants to develop a system, develop it nearly to the point of completion and call that “finished,” and then start companies where they really finish the project and make it usable. Sometimes they declare the unfinished version “free”; if they are thoroughly corrupt, they instead get an exclusive license from the university. This is not a secret; it is openly admitted by everyone concerned."
I think it’s because the profit motive is only sometimes incidentally aligned with the goal of technological progress while publicly-funded researchers have progress (and often actually bettering the world) as their primary goal.
Private ventures have different motives. Private ventures are generally focused on getting to market: keeping quiet is important because they don't want their competition to know what is coming.
> When combined with their previous development of “water-in-salt electrolytes (WiSE)”, they claim that they can achieve an impressive energy density of 460 Wh/Kg.
> Some soldiers have to carry between 15-25 pounds of batteries and this technology could significantly lower that weight
What's the energy density of current batteries and how much lighter would equivalent batteries be using this technology?
> while preserving safety due to the aqueous nature of the electrolyte
What does this mean - why could the new battery be safer?
(I don't post this to be annoying contrarian in a discussion of battery tech. The externalities of burning carbon aside, it's just astonishing how effective gasoline is a relatively safe, stable means of transporting energy.)
The energy in the batteries weighs almost nothing, the batteries are just the storage mechanism, like the gas tank. To make a fair comparison between these cars, you almost need to compare not just the weight of the fuel but the entire system to convert that fuel into kinetic energy: the weight of the engine, transmission, drive shaft, gas tank, fuel pump, oil, cooling system. There is almost 500Kg of stuff in a typical passenger car to convert that gasoline into motion, the transmission alone in some cars can weigh almost 100Kg.
Right now a Tesla Model S weighs about 450Kg more than a comparable luxury car (Audi/BMW etc) and the battery pack (including cooling system etc) weights about 545Kg by itself. Another doubling of battery energy density would bring Teslas much closer in weight to a comparable gasoline car with the same range. In fact one would expect the range to go up for the Tesla by making it lighter as well. Teslas are notoriously heavy, even for an electric vehicle, an energy density of 400 Wh/Kg for batteries should bring weight parity between electric cars and gasoline cars for the same range and the same amount of cargo. That seems like the only weight number worth comparing.
Not to detract from your point since gasoline is amazingly useful, but there's a gap between energy density and usable energy density. An Otto cycle has a maximum theoretical efficiency of up to 61%, but in practice, friction and powering auxiliary system result in closer to 35% efficiency for a gasoline engine. VERY rough spitballing not to be cited: ~4500 usable Wh/kg.
Permanent magnet motors achieve upwards of 92% efficiency under optimal load, from the numbers I can find with quick googling.
Just to continue the discussion: 4,500 Wh/kg is still a 10x improvement on this new state of the art, and over a 20x improvement in current popular battery chemistries. Gas looks pretty good.
Another thing to consider is the weight of the equipment needed to convert the stored energy into "whatever." For a car, that is the weight of the drivetrain. A typical car engine+transmission weighs 300-600 lbs depending on the size and power of the car. Two Tesla model S (no transmission needed) motors weigh around 150 lbs.
This weight advantage is significant when you realize that 20 lbs of gas weighs 120 lbs. So when considering the density of a "useable system" with all necessary conversion equipment then electric is starting to catch up. Gas still looks best for most cars (also consider the convenience, and price factors), but I'm pretty sure gas will lose within our lifespans.
No, I was including it. Adding 150 lbs to a 1,200 lb battery only reduces the overall energy density by 11%. Adding 360 lbs to a 120 lb tank of gas reduces energy density by 75%. Where gas originally appeared to have a density advantage of 20x, it's now down to a 6x advantage after factoring in powertrain weight. That is what I mean when I say that batteries are catching up if you consider the total weight of the system.
Probably worth considering the efficiency of converting that stored energy to useful work. Average ICE efficiency is ~20% yielding effective storage of ~2600 Wh/kg.
Roughly an "order of magnitude" more density.
EDIT: Hadn't refreshed the page since lunch. Many have made this point already. Apologies haha
To the electric battery's advantage, electricity doesn't need to be "transported" until it reaches the car. Gasoline in the other hand needs an entire specialized and -I assume- expensive supply chain.
> What's the energy density of current batteries and how much lighter would equivalent batteries be using this technology?
Not my area, but the best info I can find around is somewhere in the region of 200-250Wh/kg at the top end for current typical lithium ion batteries. I'm not sure if that's the type they're using.
Some generals would certainly think that. To them, they are thinking of battle rattle as a knapsack problem where soldiers have demonstrated the ability to carry 80+ lbs of weight and 80+ liters of pack size. 10 more lbs of bullets means more fighting power.
Other generals are thinking that going from an 80 lb pack to a 70 lb pack means fewer injuries, so your fighting readiness increases without changing anything else. Fewer injuries means more fighting power.
The bean counter types are also considering that they can ship the same amount of electric energy to the front line with fewer shipments (assuming that they are weight constrained, but they are often volume constrained). This frees up logistics capacity for getting other things to the front lines. This means more fighting power.
No matter which lens you view it through, this thought process is what leads to military leaders salivating at the thought of new technologies. If you want your startup (or academic research team) to make big bucks, then seek out government contracts for small businesses or technology development contracts. These contracts are very favorable to your company, as you almost always get paid for your work even if you don't deliver the promised product. As long as you're willing to accept some stigma from Silicon Valley you probably have a much higher probability of success.
> opens a possibility to significantly increase the lithium-ion battery energy density while preserving safety due to the aqueous nature of the electrolyte.
You put baffles in the liquid so the sloshing is reduced. Or use a spherical container.
There's a fantastic Engineering Connections where Richard Hammond explains essentially the same thing about LNG transport ships.
> The researchers, led by Chunsheng Wang, R.F. and F.R. Wright Distinguished Chair Professor in UMD's Department of Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering and Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry; Kang Xu, ARL Fellow, and Oleg Borodin, ARL scientist, developed the battery into a testable stage...
