Headed back up, page-51

my opinion hasn't changed. I think your ideas are great but you're pulling obscure research from universities desperate for funding.

Most battery breakthroughs fail on one key metric that the inventor won't tell you because they want investors to help pay to develop them (fix that metric).

That aluminum battery for instance has very poor capacity, the technology isn't new, its been around a long time. The fact they've gotten around the natural decay is one thing, but the capacity issue isn't going away. it has a neat feature if you can input an aluminium cartridge and recharge instantly, I'll admit that, but at what cost point does that become more expensive than a rechargeable (say 10'000 cycles+) battery?

Look up the reason why Lithium has been so successful as a cathode for so long, it's not because its 'new' its because of its position on the periodic table.

the only batteries I've seen that really had merit was the TiO2-lithium and the graphene batteries.. and the TiO2 has a fairly long way to go also because of the capacity issue.

Graphene batteries are definitely next gen, perhaps TiO2 or Vanadium after that (redox batteries have a theoretically unlimited charge balance).