742
Donut Lab's miracle battery found to be a fraud, investigation claims (interestingengineering.com)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
112 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 186 points 3 months ago (23 children)

Wild. Did they really think they could just hype this up and release something like this and not get found out?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 23 child comments
    •
  • [–] 63 points 3 months ago (9 children)

    It's worked for their channel so far.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 58 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (8 children)

    Except they’ve misled investors, and that will get them into deep shit.

    Because fuck consumers

    Mislead consumers, FTC sleeps

    Mislead investors…

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 30 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    What FTC lmao, they're a Finnish company registered in Estonia. Billionaires don't get fast tracked court cases here. They'll move to some other country long before anything happens.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Wouldn’t those countries have more strict regulations than the US? Maybe Finland more than Estonia?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    Courts move at snails pace usually. Years for such a thing in Estonia at least. Have to prove fraud and all that.

    For debts it's possible to accelerate things, but the key here is that Donut Labs is the debtor, not Mark. He himself will only be liable when fraud is proven.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    Reading the article, the investigation isn't a case of independent labs getting hold of the battery and definitively disproving Donut's claims. It's battery experts and researchers looking at the data Donut has released and saying, "these claims are extraordinary and the evidence doesn't yet convince us. Here's what we think the battery actually is." That's a very reasonable scientific position, especially when you're talking about 400 Wh/kg, 5-minute charging, and 100,000 cycles all at once.

    But without independently tested samples, there are still a lot of unknowns and inferences involved. That's not to say the skeptics are wrong, but it's still arguably a case of skeptics being skeptical... reasonably so, but based on analysis of the available evidence rather than direct examination of the battery itself.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 43 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    This seems to be a smoking gun:

    Researchers say the most convincing evidence came from measuring how the cell expanded during charging.

    When a battery charges, ions move into the anode, causing it to expand. Graphite anodes have a unique expansion pattern because of changes in graphite’s layered structure. The Donut Lab cell showed this exact pattern.

    This finding matters because sodium ions are too big to fit into graphite the way lithium ions do. According to investigators, the graphite expansion pattern clearly shows that lithium is the active ion in the battery.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    Yep, that's a massive argument against Donut. But the question I haven't seen the battery experts address is whether the expansion pattern is unique to the chemistry they believe it is. Are there other chemistries that could produce the same effect? The investigators clearly don't think so, but Donut also isn't claiming to be using previously seen tech.

    Either way, it's not looking good for Donut. The burden of proof is, and always has been, on them, and they have a looooong climb out of the hole they've dug.

    Regardless, Ziroth and others make a good point that Donut's marketing games are damaging to the industry. Other legitimate players seeking investment will be tarnished by Donut's antics. So even if their tech turned out to be legit, they're still going to be a bad actor.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Technically, they have a very short distance to climb if they wanted to: just give the battery (or preferably multiple batteries) to an independent 3rd party to test to their hearts content. If they aren’t full of shit, that’d clear things up in an instant. If someone can show their claims are true, that’s all they need.

    If they are completely full of shit, then there’s no no way out of the hole. I think this is unlikely given the carefully selected tests they’ve already released— they have… something. It likely isn’t an entirely non-existent product appearing only on paper.

    If they are only partially full of shit, in that they have a battery that is decent or better than current batteries but not totally fulfilling their claims, then it’s a moderate hole to climb out of. Some egg on the face, but survivable.

    If they are substantially full of shit, with batteries that are equivalent or worse than current batteries, then they’re gonna be laughed out of the market real fast. Probably mentioned in the same breath as Peter Molyneux, for similar reasons.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    Yes, if they supplied batteries to independent testers, that would quickly prove their technically claims are true or false.

    But the hole they've dug isn't just about technical claims. As I said, they've relied on dodgy marketing tactics which has caused industry damage, and that wouldn't just disappear. They'd still have huge business reputation issues regarding things like trust for starters. Businesses are far more than just their technology. Plenty of great tech has failed due to other factors and execution.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    I hold that If their claims were true, any sketchy marketing would be forgiven very, very quickly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Battery chemistry patents are notoriously easy to "design around" to create variations. Who is going to want to risk working with a company that has a track record of being notoriously dodgy, especially when there's a couple of dozen well established major players that have solid reputations and scale.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    However they don't mention heat threshold. Other analysis showed the battery withstanding well over the temps lithium ion would, even with a punctured vacuum. I personally don't believe the crazy 400 figure, but I'm not sold either way on it being a lithium ion battery just yet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    That wouldn't be unprecedented behavior in the battery industry. The mark ups on batteries can be huge and if they fail, unless the battery explodes, most people will just buy a new one. It's difficult for one customer to see the difference between a defective battery and a battery that failed sooner than expected. It is the kind of industry that attracts con artists.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent