NanoGrafs’ New Battery Material Shocks the World with Its Power!

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 7 ноя 2024

Комментарии • 31

  • @antonnym214
    @antonnym214 3 месяца назад +1

    at 1:54 You mean "farther", not "further". Use "farther" when talking about distance, and "further" for everything else.

  • @jepsparow9363
    @jepsparow9363 Год назад +1

    wheennnn release to public in daily use equipment
    hope the price affordable

  • @truesimplicity
    @truesimplicity Год назад +3

    Anything developed in the laboratory can sound amazing, the reality of mass production of the graphene sheets and nanotubes is another story, yes to good to be true...🤤

  • @dennygreene7693
    @dennygreene7693 Год назад +5

    I didn't know the US govt is allowing nanotubes to be used in electronic applications for its citizens, they have been blocking such nanotechnology applications since the 90s and made a law in 2003 that makes electronic and nanotubes illegal. So, I wouldn't hold my breath!

    • @weirjf
      @weirjf Год назад

      Source or you're full of it.

    • @dennygreene7693
      @dennygreene7693 Год назад +1

      @@weirjf www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/senate-bill/189

    • @FarmerRiddick
      @FarmerRiddick Год назад

      I gave the law a quick look over. There is a lot of federal level bureaucracy involved however, I'm not seeing where nanotube technology in electronic applications is illegal, or any of the nano tech is illegal.
      Medical nanobots have been under research and development for awhile. I'm sure those researchers are under the scrutiny of the various federal agencies.
      The concern seems to be in regards to the application of any of the nanotech being used by nefarious bad actors.
      I can see where bad actors could make certain aspects of the technology dangerous and even lethal - like a science fiction becomes reality, kind of lethal.
      Also, that law is some twenty years ago. I would be surprised if there aren't other players in the global space that have their own programs going strong by now.

    • @dennygreene7693
      @dennygreene7693 Год назад +2

      @@FarmerRiddick the wording is tricky, Ive read it maybe 20 times (first time being in 2003). I read a part then think on it and go back and try to find said part again. I am dyslexic so hard for me to read but when I do I retain 95%. But this law and the way its written is made to be hard to comprehend. Ill give you the gist. Its stipulates that the US has to be the leader in this field. Not by leading but by threatening war against any country that dare implement nanotechnology that the US refuses to allow. In 2019 mark Z made a deal with rayban for his new AR glasses that used nanotubes (that went over like a lead balloon), It feels as if the US used this law to shut him down. In 2020 elon announced his new battery (with nanotubes), the 4680. now everyone is mad they arnt here and blaming mark and elon. Elons Stock has taken a huge hit and Mark just issued huge layoffs in the AR sector. In the law it claims King Charles (then Prince Charles) is behind the US willing to go to war to block this tech. You are the first person I met willing to even skim the law. kudos!

    • @CRsolar
      @CRsolar Год назад

      looks like gov oversite of this tech - what I read . but quick skim of it.

  • @jeanmarcchauveau-u4q
    @jeanmarcchauveau-u4q Год назад +6

    The problem with this battery is that it still uses lithium unfortunately. However, at CATL, Cobalt and Lithium are no longer an integral part of their last element that they have already started to produce. I believe much more in the sodium battery, with solid electrolyte and much more respectful of the environment.
    Nevertheless, very good video with remarkable sound quality and images.
    A little French on the West Atlantic coast very close to the small port of Pornic. Jean-Marc

    • @jellyboy123
      @jellyboy123 Год назад

      not solid state battery that uses sodium

    • @jeanmarcchauveau-u4q
      @jeanmarcchauveau-u4q Год назад

      @@jellyboy123
      A small update of your knowledge is necessary in this case. You are light years away from what is being prepared for this year.
      More Cobalt, more Nickel and more Lithium. Therefore a more environmentally friendly battery.
      But that's not all. I let you discover this new technology.
      Good viewing.
      ruclips.net/video/xe_Mi2H6ONQ/видео.html

  • @eliarad27
    @eliarad27 10 месяцев назад +1

    Please. Get rid of Lathum. Change to Sodium...

  • @HenrikSvensson-is4mq
    @HenrikSvensson-is4mq Год назад +1

    what will this battery cost per kw?

    • @FutureGalaxy
      @FutureGalaxy  Год назад

      NanoGraf Corporation, the lithium-ion battery industry is close to achieving the $100 / kWh milestone, the price at which electric vehicles will be cost-competitive with internal combustion engine-based cars.

    • @josephcontegiacomo1964
      @josephcontegiacomo1964 Год назад +1

      YES. That is why ICE vehicles are so dangerous. In the US the is a car fire every three minutes. Then there is the enormous problem of carbon emission from ICE vehicles.

    • @jeanmarcchauveau-u4q
      @jeanmarcchauveau-u4q Год назад

      @@josephcontegiacomo1964
      A vehicle every three minutes...! You don't seem to be exaggerating a bit here..?
      " More than 200,000 fires In raw data, the results speak for themselves. In 2021, 52 electric cars were declared set on fire compared to… 199,533 combustion engine cars (petrol and diesel combined) in the United States. Over the same period, plug-in hybrids recorded 16,051 (starts of) fires. Nothing very surprising so far, since thermal cars are largely in the majority in the car fleet, a fortiori in America. It is therefore normal that claims involving them are more numerous. That's why Auto Insurance EZ reported this data per 100,000 vehicles on the road. A risk up to 138 times lower! Once the proportionality calculation has been carried out, there are then 1,529.9 gasoline and diesel car fires per 100,000 units. For electric cars, this figure amounts to only… 25.1! Or a risk of combustion divided by more than 60! But that's still nothing compared to cars hybrids which, comparatively, accounted for 3,474.5 fires. That is a value 138 times higher than that of cars with exclusively electric motors. "
      www.autoplus.fr/pratique/voitures-electriques-prennent-feu-plus-souvent-557104.html#item=1
      What are your sources..?

  • @dannysdailys
    @dannysdailys Год назад +1

    Yeah sure, I'll believe it when I see it.

  • @williamjaques3617
    @williamjaques3617 Год назад +1

    Everything comes back to carbon!

  • @aaronknight1009
    @aaronknight1009 Год назад +1

    The only EV that makes sense is the Aptera, throw this battery in and the world is golden.

  • @johnmarkgatti3324
    @johnmarkgatti3324 Год назад +1

    get rid of the ecologically horrendous lithium and cobalt ,and find something recyclable ,I may get excited . [ and something that doesn't blow up !?].

  • @KOl-xj4jt
    @KOl-xj4jt Год назад +1

    charging is mocking) make it self charge

  • @Godarium
    @Godarium Год назад +1

    another ground breaking, number 73044

  • @CombatSport777
    @CombatSport777 Год назад +1

    These breakthroughs are a dine a dozen, they almost never make their way out kf the lab. Most ICE vehickes have ranges clise to 300 miles not 600. You are comparing typical EV ranges to The ICE edge cases.

  • @rongt859
    @rongt859 Год назад +1

    Ah yes it always starts with " imagine " and then follows with " its a game changer " . The laws of Physics - the more energy density you make these things the bigger the bomb you are making

    • @jeanmarcchauveau-u4q
      @jeanmarcchauveau-u4q Год назад +1

      What is your thesis based on here..? Since for the moment, no piercing test has yet been carried out.

    • @dannysdailys
      @dannysdailys Год назад

      @@jeanmarcchauveau-u4q Yeah, because it doesn't exist. Hello?

  • @shakermomand7111
    @shakermomand7111 Год назад +1

    😮