Anyone know what energy the x-ray source is in their system? Seems really well designed, but if it doesn't have energy energy to penetrate the devices we need to scan, none of that will matter.
They don't mention anything on their website, but I guess - from looking at their machine - that they use an x-ray source which goes to the range of 150kV, since they also show larger items with more metal volume being scanned.
Good tomography meant that we get useful solid models in a form that is easy to interact with and pull numeric dimensional data from. Is the software separate from the hardware, or coupled?
Good resolution is also important. Say I want to analyze something the size of a can of soup and get to tens of microns resolution.
Zeiss and Nikon are not cheap options. Is anyone out there bringing the cost down?
> Is the software separate from the hardware, or coupled?
Usually bundled for the user, but can be completely separated.
> Good resolution is also important. Say I want to analyze something the size of a can of soup and get to tens of microns resolution.
The Bruker machine I use can do ~15 cm diameter samples at ~40 um voxel size, so that’s something that should be possible with any machines.
> Bringing cost down
MicroCT machines are not cheap, but - as I’ve seen from our buying process - all in the same ballpark.
You might not need your own machine, but use a ‘supplier’ for CT Scans in a case-to-case basis.
What a great concept for explaining the inner workings of everyday things. From a product perspective, what a dream to have that available to take the mystery out of what you do. I'm thinking of other hidden mechanisms that people use every day that it would be socially helpful to understand, and the sponsorship ops must be amazing. I suppose there's just some people you can't convince, so a 5G transmitter might not be a great example, but maybe a speed enforcement gun, the secure element on an iphone, SIM, or chip and pin card, the brake caliper of a car with regenerative braking, a high end espresso machine, a top tier audio amplifier, etc.
> We used the measuring tools in our Voyager analysis software to decode the model number: it seems to mean that the battery is 21mm in diameter and 70mm tall.
I'm pretty sure that sentence was supposed to be a joke. First of all, everybody knows this, secondly you really don't need a CT scanner to measure the diameter of a thing.
You led me down this rabbit hole [1] Curious choice my GM as I thought the LiPo packs were more prone to distortion/swelling which can cause the membranes break and the battery to short.
That's interesting and somewhat surprising. I'm not knowledgeable about battery design by any means, but I would have thought that there would be a better way to make a battery pack for a car than connecting thousands of small batteries together.
if I remember my basic chemistry, batteries don't deliver voltages at the level of 10/20/100v directly often, its more commonly 1/2v or 0.5v class voltages. You have to have a much more 'aggressive' chemical reaction to deliver higher voltages. And, the same with current: a single surface between two reacting things delivers less current. Its a function of surface area. Same with capacitance: you sometimes need 'more' surface to big up the effect.
Therefore all you have is stacking it up. parallel or serial, thats what there is to get higher voltages, more current draw, longer life per-cell.
Inside a lead acid battery its multiple surfaces, sub-cells. It's normal. inside almost any domestic battery I suspect its sub-cells, sub-cells all the way down.
A giant roll of surface, to increase the area in contact might be one way of getting "more" in terms of current draw or lifetime. I bet that its voltage remains close to the constant in this, hence Tesla "stacking" up the rolled cells, to boost voltage.
The Nissan Leaf uses larger cells [1], each roughly the size of a ream of printer paper. So there are real car designers who agree larger batteries are worth considering.
Of course, the Leaf makes a bunch of other decisions that are different to Tesla - lower price point, smaller battery/reduced range, air-cooling batteries instead of water-cooling, a (now abandoned) battery lease scheme, and suchlike.
Using standard form factors and manufacturing techniques made it much easier for Tesla to get batteries off the ground through their partnership with Panasonic. The extra space left by the gaps between cells also has the advantage of being ideal for cooling (battery performance and safety is correlated to temperature).
This strategy is one of the remarked upon things when I first heard of Tesla (something like “this California startup is powering their electric car with laptop batteries”) ironically laptops have almost all transitioned to lithium polymer (pouch cells) instead of the 18650s they used back then. Not all car manufacturers use teslas standardized cell technique, as it does have some downsides. I guess time will tell, but I doubt Tesla will abandon this technique any time soon.
Separating the cells allows makes it easier to cool them. It also provides more inert metal between them in case of fire.
A certain amount of stacking is necessary to get up to a decent voltage, as others have pointed out. But even "100 brick-sized cells" would be a more dangerous prospect than "thousands of 18650 cells".
I have some LiFePO4 batteries powering my laptop, and onboard electronics on my boat. They are very heavy, but have a super long life. Often forgotten, they are used a lot in automotive applications!
From a technical standpoint that makes a lot of sense. I think the main obstacle there is that Tesla doesn't (as far as I know) actually make LFP batteries. The ones they use in their cars come from CATL. Tesla could just buy batteries from CATL and package them in a Powerwall product, but they might not be interested in doing that since there's a big risk that CATL or some other manufacturer could make an identical product without the Tesla brand and sell it at a much lower price.
There's a theory that Powerwall was just a way for Tesla to not waste their excess battery manufacturing capacity when car production wasn't keeping up. I don't know how true that is, but if so there isn't much of a need for them to figure out how to sell CATL's excess battery supply.
Confused by the text about the alkaline scan (the first one). The +ve side is called the anode isn’t it, not the cathode? And electrons originate at the cathode not the anode. Or is the usual terminology inverted because it’s a battery or this particular type of battery? I don’t know much about batteries; chemistry never a strong suit.
As I understand it, the cathode is where electrons "leave", the anode is where they "enter". In case of a battery, electrons leave the minus side. But for a device being powered, electrons enter the minus side.
I always remember it by thinking about a cathode ray tube - on that, the flying electrons are called "cathode rays", i.e. the cathode shoots out the electrons that came in from the external connection. The power supply pushes electrons into the "cathode" terminal on the device. That is, "positive current" flows out of the cathode (in the opposite direction to the electrons).
How doable (guess not) would it be to make a "gravity battery" ? A tiny but heavy balls are thrown from top and while passing thru thin channels they rotate some sort of mini-dynamo that creates electricity. Once all balls are on the bottom, generated electricity is used to rotate the whole thing and start process anew.
Anyone with a napkin can elaborate why this is not feasable?
Or one Tesla Model S (~4600 lbs) suspended 17.6 km. With a range of ~400 miles, this means the storage-Tesla would have to drop ~0.027 units per unit travelled by the drive-Tesla, giving a "glide ratio" of ~36:1, which passes the sniff test on reasonableness.
No need napkins for it. Because of friction and other forces the dynamo does not generate enough energy to lift the balls back up and have extra to be stored for other uses. In short, you use more energy to lift them than produced. If anyone could invent such a device, the world hunger and money wouldn't be problems anymore and we would be traveling to the end of the universe already.
Switch the balls with water, and the channels with turbines, and you have discovered a hydroelectric reservoir, which is quite feasible, given that quite a few are already built.
> Once all balls are on the bottom, generated electricity is used to rotate the whole thing and start process anew.
If here, you mean part of the electricity generated by the flow, then it can't work because pumping it back up is subject to friction (in fact, generation from when it flows down is also subject to friction) and to mechanical/electrical conversion losses.
On a 100% efficient system with no losses, you would get perpetual motion, but subtracting any energy from the system would make it slow or stop.
How are they getting color? My impression is CT scan is mostly measuring density and x-ray absorption. Are they doing false color based on some sort of data (vs photoshop?)
The article mentions in passing that "The negative electrode is copper; its yellow color in our visualization means it’s denser than the other materials in the battery." So presumably the blue to yellow scale corresponds to material density.
I think in this case it's just the density (absorption) but on some machines it's possible to use different energy levels of x-rays (so-called dual energy CT) to see variations in materials/chemistry, that works in a similar way to colour in the visual spectrum (different materials absorb different energy levels of light differently).
Still very cool, and it shows the single tab connection that's the bane of old cylindrical cells that the 4680 solves.
I do wish Samsung would already release some of them to the public ffs. Surely they can come up with a price that would beat what Tesla's offering for bulk and sell it on the open market.
Might have to apply a layer of analysis over it. From what I understand the scan is a 3D maps of point densities, so it may or may not obvious what the separate components are.
If a device was made up of components that all had very different densities, maybe one could analyze the points and determine components and do a “explode” animation.
I always thought scroll jacking was taking over the behavior of the scroll? This seems different, as it's using the position on the page to run the animation but not controlling the scrolling behavior.
