researchers at the University of Science and Technology of China developed all-solid-state batteries that match cutting-edge performance at just 4 per cent of the cost.
researchers at the University of Science and Technology of China developed all-solid-state batteries that match cutting-edge performance at just 4 per cent of the cost.
Performance of all-solid-state device developed by Chinese researchers akin to that of advanced varieties, findings published in Nature Communications say.
You're viewing a single thread.
50/200 is 25%, not 4%. Let's fix this title:
"Technology developed in other countries taken credit for by a Chinese company that has a nonviable product promised to eventually be the best, according to imaginary numbers."
Literally the first paragraph of the article explains that it is 4% of the cost:
Chinese scientists say they have developed a new solid-state battery technology to match cutting-edge performance at just 4 per cent of the cost.
You seem to be confusing the cost of materials with the overall cost of production.
I know what the article, with its many grandiose hypotheticals, says.
The problem with believing the article is that there's no evidence for it, and the numbers are obviously manipulated to prop up the Chinese team and denigrate all of the other people who already developed this technology.
There are no hard numbers, just vague superlative statements, no timeline of development, no acknowledgment of the other 50 companies that are already developing viable solid state batteries.
It's another silly statistically skewed China technology articles that doesn't bear any weight in the scientific world.
Could they blah blah blah? Yes they could blah blah blah. That's not exactly a newsworthy sentiment though.
None of these criticisms are rational. This response to an otherwise boilerplate news article speaks to an extreme anti-China bias.
Just because you feel threatened by Chinese technological developments doesn't warrant baselessly acting as though they are hoaxes.
The headline is based on false numbers.
The article ignores existing solid state battery technology, and only talks about this "discovery," glamorizing it by use of said imaginary numbers.
This is not a hoax. This is simply an unsubstantiated, obviously biased blurb about an inconsequential experiment, that has strangely been posted to a community related to world news.
Using false numbers and ignoring the scientific context of any developmental technology is scientifically a responsible and certainly not world news.
The article is not boilerplate since it is deliberately misleading with its data and its statements.
Even if it were boilerplate, do you want to support propagandizing a single country's boilerplate articles among relevant world news?
That's what Yogi(op) is doing.
And 7/200 is 3.5%, maybe you should read that article again…
You might want to read the paragraph again." Could.". " Great promise."
Yeah everyone's prototypes have great promise, why don't you try making them into a commercially viable product and then compare the real numbers?
It's not like this is the first country that's created a solid state battery, they're pretty late to the game.
That seven dollars is a hypothetical cost of raw materials alone. The lowest cost they have of a viable solid state batteries is $50 and that's from the US.
The $200 is from a theoretical upper cost of specifically the most expensive material somebody could use to make expensive ceramic batteries, ignoring the actual costs and materials of solid state batteries other countries and companies are using, except to say that those prices aren't important because they aren't commercially viable - problem is, that part of the article is incorrect as well. There are dozens of companies already making solid state batteries, nowhere near $200 per kilogram of raw material, more like $75 per produced commercially viable kilowatt hour (Nissan).
But 75 is higher than 7, you might say. $7 is an unverified lab while other companies and countries have actually produced what state batteries, publishing the actual cost, rather than silly self-congratulating imaginary numbers.
What does anything of that have to do with you quoting 50/200 as 25% not 4% 😂
The fact that the headline is using inaccurate numbers to draw incorrect conclusions and then tout those false findings as an achievement.
So you thought you’d add your own inaccurate numbers, okay.
Stay out of my inbox now, thx.
Nope. Those are the numbers from the article.
So if you don't believe their imaginary numbers, the point is moot.
Even if you do believe their imaginary numbers, their math is wrong, or at the very least willfully inaccurate.
You keep messaging me! Thank you for your support.
By your logic, we can go back to credit just about everything in existence to China giving paper and gunpowder inventions to the world. "White man" world of imperialism and warmongering would literally not exist without China.
Wow, that is an extraordinarily poorly worded non-sequiter. Can you perhaps complete your thought, explain what logic what you're referring to, why you brought race into the discussion, and what was wrong with the Chinese developing gunpowder and paper?
It seems like you're making up your own logical fallacy without evidence in the first sentence, and attributing it to me, but then agreeing with your own logical fallacy in the second sentence. Is that your dissonant perspective?