Clarifying on TABLESS 16850 -
1. As I said, it;s a moonshot, not saying it happened
2. In theory very doable. Simplified: make separator narrower + change capping machine
3. In practice, w. legacy machinery even making separator narrower could require replacing entire machine
1. As I said, it;s a moonshot, not saying it happened
2. In theory very doable. Simplified: make separator narrower + change capping machine
3. In practice, w. legacy machinery even making separator narrower could require replacing entire machine
https://twitter.com/ConnectingODots/status/1405029329566900225
2/
(narrower separator - so foil edges would stick out to be folded with cap)
4. The devil is in the details, and so is the god. It's an out-of-the-box idea, which should be checked.
- If requires major changes, drop it.
- If moderate changes - HUGE HUGE gains there
(narrower separator - so foil edges would stick out to be folded with cap)
4. The devil is in the details, and so is the god. It's an out-of-the-box idea, which should be checked.
- If requires major changes, drop it.
- If moderate changes - HUGE HUGE gains there
3/
5. "HUGE HUGE gains" are lower resistance (=more range, less cooling needed), plate cooling possible, faster charge and discharge, no tab-welding so faster production and less defected batteries
6. NOT suggesting changing size or going dry electrode. These require new line
5. "HUGE HUGE gains" are lower resistance (=more range, less cooling needed), plate cooling possible, faster charge and discharge, no tab-welding so faster production and less defected batteries
6. NOT suggesting changing size or going dry electrode. These require new line
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
