HPQ Silicon Inc V.HPQ

Testing on 16850

[Breizh01]

Seems the cell size used for testing is popular
US military is mandating Nanograf (Chicago) for silicon development.
Reference:
«

NanoGraf Completes UL1642 and IEC62133 Global Safety Certifications for World’s Most Energy-Dense 18650 Lithium-ion Cell

Company to produce 35 tons of silicon anode material per year, enough to supply 24 million Lithium-ion cells to U.S. Military»

This NR is dated December 2023. Interesting nevertheless.

[Breizh01]

Title should read 18650

[Mostlyserious]

To add what was explained in the video. BT stated that there are companies that do testing but do not provide sufficient information as to the details.  For example, you can show a lot of improvements to an existing battery by chosing a battery of poor quality.  He explained that they chose a battery whose performance is well known and is one of the better ones (maybe the best one, I

[Mostlyserious]

And to add some other tidbits.  While various parties can express their interest behind the scenes in varoius informal and formal ways, I believe that BT was empathetic that completion of a pilot plant (and I presume production of resulting products) is one of the key stages where these interests may solidify and others may start pouring in. Sure, nothing is formulaic and anything can happen

[wasitreallyok]

Company has already had a pilot plant in opperation to create silicon, of which was going to supply battery market(s). Since the successful pour we have not heard anything more. Now Novacium has used silicon to make the latest battery. My question is where did Novacium source the silicon? Was it purchased from a competitor or was it produced by HPQ's pilot plant that would take quartz and

[Mostlyserious]

QRR for the production of high purity silicon from quartz needed for Novacium's SiOx is on the back burner for now.  There is sufficient material available on the market at prices that make further development of QRR uneconomical. As far as I understand it. Hound dogs can correct me if I am wrong because this does not sound the greatest from the perspective of having another product to

[Koooo]

Squealer. Kooooo

[lscfa]

HPQ has not yet modified it reactor for production of SiOx so Novacium must have obtained some small quantities for testing from elsewhere.  

[Mostlyserious]

Wouldn't that make Novacium stuff obsolete if the SiOx they were testing was someone else's?  Lab scale production of the SiOx being used?

[lscfa]

Novacium using 3rd party SiOx to do comparison testing is still valid to show its technique for combining graphite and SiOx outperforms pure graphite. Also, their comment that it is not yet optimized may be due to the patent pending tech. of surface coating the SiOx not being employed yet. 

[Mostlyserious]

For comparison testing it would be good to have it clarified whether the 5 better batteries are 100% graphite anodes or use some other materials including someone else mixing their own version of SiOx.  If it is against only graphite batteries common sense would dictate they have some ways to go to prove disruptive superiority, but from this interview it sounds like they aspire to compete

[lscfa]

The battery comparison chart is all 100% graphite anodes except Novacium (Pansonic being at the top). So investors are not impressed that Novacium's blended anode is only as good as the best graphite anodes. But the comparison is only on deterioration rates and capacity. The NR's should also remind readers that blended anodes have superior performance to pure graphite anodes in other

[lscfa]

Adding a chart to the NR comparing energy density is confusing. Readers may conclude that Novacium's blended anode is no better than pure graphite anodes but it is clear from figure 1 and 2 that blended anodes have superior energy capacity and similar degradation rates.