RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:What is the ratio of silicon and graphite for anode testingMostlyserious,
Tku for your response.
First paragraph , I get it, not related to graphite. But " I have no idea of the product QRR produces " Really?
Ok, you have not seen it but the NRs are there and you've most probably read them.The commissioning and operation of the QRR was extensive. QRR is the foundation on which the Novacium silicon battery partnership was built. It's been proven and now built upon.
I knew that the NSiR technology rights were given back to PYR at no cost (from PYR) and we don't know all the details about that. I think a fair deal might be in HPQ' s future.
NSiR (labscale) was nevetheless a technological success not a failure.
A commercial no go for now, sure.
Even it's big brother the QRR is a no go, now.
But within a year,I am very optimistic.
Falsehood,inapropriate, ok I will use better words next time.You shoud do the same.
Like "use" instead of pursue that has a connotation of ending.
"There was no reason to pursue QRR to get the feed used in the battery application testing."
TOCKY8008
Mostlyserious wrote: Tocky, no falsehoods in any of my discussion.
The whole discussion started with a question: "Does QRR need to be modified to create graphite and silicon mixture foe anode material?" The crux of my answer was: "QRR has nothing to do with graphite. Your question should rather be whether QRR can provide the quality of Si needed for the battery applications." I am correcting a false premise behind QRR, being polite with the poster and suggesting a question that would make more sense. My answer to this question would be that I am not assuming that it does not. If you are asking me to go beyond that, sorry, I have no idea of the product QRR produces, and I have no idea of the product that they are buying for testing. But that has nothing to do with the correcting point that I was making in terms of implying that QRR processes graphite.
I then went further to state the fact that HPQ is not dedicating any further development efforts on this right now, as described by BT in a few videos, and supported by the company presentation you referred me to, and on page 5 that shows "upcoming catalysts" and QRR is not there. It is in the suite of technologies but page 5 is consistent with what BT previously said and what I am properly contextualizing. Nothing out there suggesting that this is an incorrect interpretation of published material.
As for NSiR, I am not going to dig through the interviews to find what I recall hearing. Too many videos to go through. But as per your suggestion that NSiR has been "put on the shelf for now", that may not even matter. The fact is that your statement gives a false impression: it is not on HPQ's shelf anymore. So, I take props to at least informing you of something you may not have known.
I will remind you that by the effort I take to explain myself, it is clear to reasonable and fair individuals that use of the term "falsehoods" to my content is inappropriate. The term carries a connotation that includes intention and is therefore a term that applies to many other posters, and not myself. I may be wrong, I may not be factually accurate, but lying as a synonym of spreading falsehoods is not applicable.
Cheers.
TOCKY8008 wrote: Mostlyserious,
1) No mixup on the kind of reactor. OK (silly assumption on my part)
2) Relatively small amount of Si material, needed to produce SiOx for battery cell confection and testing cheaper than using QRR. Yes I agree.
3)The NSiR (lab scale) was a technological success. Not a failure. Reread the last few NR pertaining to it if you need to.Given the challenges for commercialisation (one of them being the high reactivity of nano particle size pure silicon to oxygen) and the capital needed, it was put on the shelf for now. Focusing their efforts (HPQ/PYR) on the fumed silica reactor for fastest,cheapest path to commercialisation.
4) No BT never said. But QRR is/could be a game changer.
As for you " falsehood " : " Your question should rather be whether QRR can provide the quality of Si needed for the battery applications."
Well, what is your answer to that question.? It kind of insinuate it can't.
And some bozo (Breizh1) post a lie based on your misinterpreted post.
Maybe a few more detailed lines on some of your post would go a long way in correcting other's perception of you.
TOCKY8008
Mostlyserious wrote: Which parts of my statement is false?
I had clarified differences between QRR and NSIR several times before on this thread based on facts in publications and statements in the videos.
NSIR was a failure (as admited to by BT in one of the videos for reasons that he said in hindsight were obvious but he did not elaborate on that). It was given back to PYR for no proceeds.
QRR was a technology that they kept but at the time of some videos BT said that they are not actively pursuing at this time because they are dealing with limited resources and it was not a priority. And it was not a priority because the price of Si was noted as flactuating widely and the time this was explained, he noted that it was cheaper for them to buy Si material required for various testing they were doing on the open market.
This is more detail to the statements I made. So, which part of my summary is "false"? Did BT over the past couple of months state that they are actively starting to direct resources (and where are they getting those?) to continue work on the QRR?
TOCKY8008 wrote: Mostlyserious wrote: QRR has nothing to do with graphite. Your question should rather be whether QRR can provide the quality of Si needed for the battery applications.
From the early videos, BT stated that at the current time the Si available on the market was cheap and therefore there was no reason to pursue QRR to get the feed used in the battery application testing.
Mostlyserious,
Parts of your statement is false,you're mixing QRR with Nano Si Reactor.
And even that (NSiR) was a technological success.
QRR is still very much a game changer.
According to the latest HPQ Deck :
CORPORATE PRESENTATION On page 4.
TOCKY8008