The EV battery discussion thread (bogus breakthroughs)

[JeffKeryk]

Just saying, because I only skimmed this thread because of the bickering.

In the processor world they naysayers kept saying the next shrink would be the last because of physics but that does not seemed to have stopped the progress. Progress takes time, money and failure. We need to let these companies try and fail to find the correct answer. There will always be scams, politics and hubris involved. In the end something will emerge because in the end it will make money.

When I started in SEMI, 65nm tech node seemed to be pushing the limit. And copper interconnects were not a viable substance at these geometries.
Now we are talking about 7nn, no 5nm, wait 3nm, now 2nm litho on the densest layer of the chip.

That's 2 billionths of a meter. Yup. Pretty unreal deposition, right? And the etch! And the layering! 3D NAN packaging baby!
Ah, the Quantum...
Certainly no offense to anyone, but this is precisely why I struggle with naysayers.
Come to Silicon Valley where we get rich doing the "impossible". And have a blast doing so.

 

[blingo]

All of you or is the money coming from somewhere?

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

In the processor world they naysayers kept saying the next shrink would be the last because of physics but that does not seemed to have stopped the progress.

That's a false comparison fallacy though.

What "physics" did those unqualified to speak use to push their points?

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

You would change your mind if you were receiving the lobby money for those pushing the agenda.

Bingo

 

[BeerCan]

That's a false comparison fallacy though.

What "physics" did those unqualified to speak use to push their points?

I'm not really going to get dragged down by this. I posted my opinion on an opinion board and I am going to leave it at that. Everyone is free to believe what they will. I don't like a lot of the bogus research as much as you don't but in the end I think smarter people that us will figure this out and we will have a workable system(s). I am pro renewables but I see a lot of them are bogus. Just like steam gave way to ice, ice will give way to electric. It will take years but it will happen.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

I'm not really going to get dragged down by this. I posted my opinion on an opinion board and I am going to leave it at that. Everyone is free to believe what they will. I don't like a lot of the bogus research as much as you don't but in the end I think smarter people that us will figure this out and we will have a workable system(s). I am pro renewables but I see a lot of them are bogus. Just like steam gave way to ice, ice will give way to electric. It will take years but it will happen.

I fully support your position and agree with your reasons but the bottom line is that when you post your "opinions" on a PUBLIC FORUM- you are by default inviting commentary ( pro and/or con) and should have the maturity and readiness to respond to those comments.

Those who make drive by comments then get upset when challenged might ought to reconsider the overall strength of their positions or perhaps reserve public postings in areas where there is less chance of being upset.

It works both ways.

 

[blingo]

What doesn't work is the silly "don't read, don't understand, you can't – I just proved that" - doctrine dragging as many threads as possible to your orcus. Dozens of acute ;-) breakthroughs ahead to debunk...

 

[JeffKeryk]

That's a false comparison fallacy though.

What "physics" did those unqualified to speak use to push their points?

No, he's correct. He is speaking to Moore's Law.
Not long ago, scientists believed Quantum effects would become problematic at the 5 to 7nm geometries.
The science and resulting technology has evolved.
I believe the A12 chip is 5nm.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

No, he's correct. He is speaking to Moore's Law.

No Jeff, he is NOT correct. Moore's "Law" is NOT a "law of physics". Its not an empirical vetted standard recognized by anyone anywhere.

Its a personal observation someone stuck the term "law" on to make it sound much more better and maybe even "official".

Like I said- false comparison fallacy

 

[UncleDave]

No, he's correct. He is speaking to Moore's Law.
Not long ago, scientists believed Quantum effects would become problematic at the 5 to 7nm geometries.
The science and resulting technology has evolved.
I believe the A12 chip is 5nm.

I was doing big business with Silicon Graphics from 95-2005 and its funny EVERY release and shrink the guys stated they couldn't keep keep it up.

 

[BeerCan]

I was doing big business with Silicon Graphics from 95-2005 and its funny EVERY release and shrink the guys stated they couldn't keep keep it up.

There was a a guy I used to read years ago, he was an industry insider. Very smart but always talking about how the fabs were at their limit and there was no way the next shrink was going to work. Very technical, outside of my realm but I enjoyed reading the commentary. Anyway eventually I stopped reading it, I'm sure its still out there telling everyone how it won't work next time.

 

[UncleDave]

There was a a guy I used to read years ago, he was an industry insider. Very smart but always talking about how the fabs were at their limit and there was no way the next shrink was going to work. Very technical, outside of my realm but I enjoyed reading the commentary. Anyway eventually I stopped reading it, I'm sure its still out there telling everyone how it won't work next time.

We were the guys in hollywood displacing dedicated hardware systems (Quantel Henry, Domino) with the then new mini supercomputers and software , our clients were happy to pay us money for the performance at the time, so it was a big guns game for us - wed show up with 500K worth of the latest and greatest hardware running a 250K license *discreet Logic Inferno) and the artists always knew exactly how to impose max load on sequences and imagery and would show up at trade shows and demos with setup files and imagery and wed load up the new machine and see how close the boys came to doubling performance every 2 years.

It was good times.

all these engineers ended up at Nvidia and we kept it going from a graphics standpoint.

The new keepers of the law have done an ok job, when they couldn't up clock speeds or shrink they added cores.

 

[JeffKeryk]

No Jeff, he is NOT correct. Moore's "Law" is NOT a "law of physics". Its not an empirical vetted standard recognized by anyone anywhere.

Its a personal observation someone stuck the term "law" on to make it sound much more better and maybe even "official".

Like I said- false comparison fallacy

What I am saying is, I understood his post to refer to the thinking of the time. And he is correct.
In SEMI, the scientists coined the term, "beyond the Quantum", referring to the the upcoming issues regarding smaller geometries.
We have had ALD (Atomic Layer Deposition, dep 1 atom at a time, for well over 10 years). But producing a chip obviously becomes more difficult as technology nodes push barriers.

It seems you did not see it that way.
I can tell you, from a historical standpoint he is correct.

 

[BeerCan]

What I am saying is, I understood his post to refer to the thinking of the time. And he is correct.
In SEMI, the scientists coined the term, "beyond the Quantum", referring to the the upcoming issues regarding smaller geometries.
We have had ALD (Atomic Layer Deposition, dep 1 atom at a time, for well over 10 years). But producing a chip obviously becomes more difficult as technology nodes push barriers.

It seems you did not see it that way.
I can tell you, from a historical standpoint he is correct.

Thank you for seeing my point in how it was meant. Sorry this devolved but I still think the discussion is good.

 

[BeerCan]

We were the guys in hollywood displacing dedicated hardware systems (Quantel Henry, Domino) with the then new mini supercomputers and software , our clients were happy to pay us money for the performance at the time, so it was a big guns game for us - wed show up with 500K worth of the latest and greatest hardware running a 250K license *discreet Logic Inferno) and the artists always knew exactly how to impose max load on sequences and imagery and would show up at trade shows and demos with setup files and imagery and wed load up the new machine and see how close the boys came to doubling performance every 2 years.

It was good times.

all these engineers ended up at Nvidia and we kept it going from a graphics standpoint.

The new keeps have done an ok job when they couldn't up close speeds or shrink they added cores.

The 90's were fun times in the IT world wasn't it. I was a small part of it and would not trade the experience and fun I had for anything.

 

[BeerCan]

What is this thread about again? LoL

 

[OVERKILL]

No, he's correct. He is speaking to Moore's Law.
Not long ago, scientists believed Quantum effects would become problematic at the 5 to 7nm geometries.
The science and resulting technology has evolved.
I believe the A12 chip is 5nm.

Yes, he's referencing Moore's law, but it doesn't apply to batteries (what's being discussed) or anything else that depends on physical limiting factors that are widely understood:

Moore's law is the observation that the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit (IC) doubles about every two years. Moore's law is an observation and projection of a historical trend.

That's why battery technology, despite being massively older than semiconductor technology, has not experienced the same rapid rate of improvement. As breakthroughs in the ability to produce smaller and smaller dies and increase complexity (transistor count) have occurred, this resulted in these rapid improvements. This is not how batteries get better. Improvements in batteries happen through different chemistries, compounds and packaging and typically those improvements are only incremental in nature with large periods of nothing between them.

On batteries, Lead Acid is still popular, how old is that now? But that tech has remained relatively unchanged. We've discovered improved battery chemistries, like Lithium Ion and Lithium Iron Phosphate, but the improvements over previous battery technologies were not of the same magnitude of say, going from the 8088 to the i7 for example.

If there is a massive breakthrough in battery chemistry that increases density far beyond what it is currently and reduces weight, it will have absolutely nothing to do with Moore's law, it will simply be a breakthrough.

 

[JeffKeryk]

Yes, he's referencing Moore's law, but it doesn't apply to batteries (what's being discussed) or anything else that depends on physical limiting factors that are widely understood:



That's why battery technology, despite being massively older than semiconductor technology, has not experienced the same rapid rate of improvement. As breakthroughs in the ability to produce smaller and smaller dies and increase complexity (transistor count) have occurred, this resulted in these rapid improvements. This is not how batteries get better. Improvements in batteries happen through different chemistries, compounds and packaging and typically those improvements are only incremental in nature with large periods of nothing between them.

On batteries, Lead Acid is still popular, how old is that now? But that tech has remained relatively unchanged. We've discovered improved battery chemistries, like Lithium Ion and Lithium Iron Phosphate, but the improvements over previous battery technologies were not of the same magnitude of say, going from the 8088 to the i7 for example.

If there is a massive breakthrough in battery chemistry that increases density far beyond what it is currently and reduces weight, it will have absolutely nothing to do with Moore's law, it will simply be a breakthrough.

Agreed. Battery improvements a far more likely to be evolutionary in comparison.
My take on his post was things do improve, sometimes in orders of magnitute but small improvements are the norm especially as the technology matures.
I believe that is what you are saying. All good.

 

[JeffKeryk]

No Jeff, Let me correct that point because this is not a different "viewpoint".

I understood his post also.

What he may have "meant" is whatever he may have meant. This isn't a "holistic" situation.

What he SAID is a different matter. He SAID "physics" ( which by implication brings the credibility of absolute factual proof that has been acid tested and shown to be an absolute or standard) in order to validate an OBSERVERS OPINION.

Is "1' an absolute value or is it close to .997 or is it "enough or what? its ONE. ( and nothing else)

The "fact" is that nowhere did "physics" ( as correctly identified) ever make such a claim.

That's called an appeal to authority and its routinely used to give false or misleading points validity to the sheeple.

Again, at the time, and today, the physics in question was Quantum effects in regard to smaller technology node.
I hope this helps.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

Again, at the time, and today, the physics in question was Quantum effects in regard to smaller technology node.

No Jeff, that's not anywhere near the context of the items discussed in this thread. ( referencing the post in question)

That's been pointed out clearly and concisely.

The example as it was used was incorrectly applied