Edison hides the forever battery
(youtu.be)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (7)
sorted by:
These sorts of videos tend to make conspiracies about things that are literally just on Wikipedia. The exact story in this video is in the History section of the article. People are welcome to make these batteries if they want, but their performance as compared to Lead-Acid is not hard to find, and it is apparent why the NiFe was not adopted for automotive use.
If people think that the "official numbers" on Wikipedia are a lie as a part of a larger conspiracy, then fine I guess. I am not really interested in debating that. In that case, I would just advise you to make some forever batteries and make yourself some money.
No one in c/Conspiracies should be even looking at Wikipedia..... And yeah, who wants a battery every damn 40 years!!!! Much funner to buy every two or three. Thank you for showing my post was against consumerism!! Will try to support more in the future.
The link to Wikipedia was really just to indicate that this battery is not any sort of secret, as I assume everyone views Wikipedia as the prime example of "the official source of information." The article indicates pretty clearly that this battery design has long life as one of its strongest points. The problems with the battery should be pretty apparent from the article, especially when considering the demands needed by an application like automotive.
Also, I will look at Wikipedia whenever I desire, thank you very much. There are a lot of conspiracies that get hawked on the internet, many of them bad, and Wiki is one of the fastest ways to get the "official response" to them and test these responses for reasonableness and validity. It also turns out that Wiki is a pretty good summary of information as long as it is not too controversial. Scientific data usually falls into that category. When this assumption fails, I don't hesitate to get controversial scientific information from elsewhere.
My comment specifically said that if you dispute the numbers published on Wikipedia, I encourage you to build your own forever battery. I don't mind if someone disputes what is on Wikipedia. Even Wikipedia itself says they aren't a citable source of information lmao.
Yet you use it
Dude they have a light bulb that been on for over 120 years...
The video is not about the light bulb, it is about the battery. The Wiki I linked to says that the durability can be 50 years, which means that yes, there likely exist batteries still working after 100 years +. I am just saying that if you read about the battery and compare it to the other common electro-chemistries, you can see what the limitations are and why it is not as commonly used as the life alone would lead you to think. There is more to battery design and selection than the maximum amount of deep cycles.