Talk:StoreDot/Archive/2019-2022

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/green-tech/fuel-cells/storedot-wants-to-charge-your-ev-in-5-minutes and https://www.bp.com/en/global/ventures/latest-news/media-announcements/bp-invests-in-ultra-fast-charging-battery-company-storedot.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

At least one major contributor to this article appears to have a close personal or professional connection to the topic, and thus to have a conflict of interest. Conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, but are always welcome to propose changes on the talk page (i.e., here). You can attract the attention of other editors by putting {{request edit}} (exactly so, with the curly parentheses) at the beginning of your request. Requests that are unduly long, or are not supported by independent reliable sources, are unlikely to be accepted.

Please also note that our Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." An editor who contributes as part of his or her paid employment is required to disclose that fact. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

"Fully charged" claims are misleading and promotional

@Anutig: you have twice removed referenced information from the lead section. The information is referenced to the StoreDot battery whitepaper:

Recharging may be performed over and over, until both the biopolymer and the LiMO components are fully charged.

What will be a price for flash battery? – It will be priced at around 2X current lithium ion battery pricing.

Seems like both you and StoreDot take great pains to hide the fact that their 5-minute or 10-minute charging component does not fully charge the entire battery, only the fast-charging component. These claims of "fully charging" the battery are misleading and promotional. HueSurname (talk) 08:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Doron Aurbach (unverified reference)

Doron Aurbach is a well-published author, and the main issue with StoreDot technologies is that they have not been published in peer-reviewed journals yet.

I was unable to find any official source confirming the direct role in StoreDot (as a member of the advisory board). It can be found neither on the company's website nor Doron Aurbach's resume/webpage.

The reference given is a third-party press release. Please add a proper reference (official confirmation) or remove it.589q (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@589q: Doron Aurbach is listed as a member of StoreDot's Advisory Board and hence mentioned on the company's article page. Here is the link to their website: https://www.store-dot.com/Management/920/Prof.-Doron-Aurbach — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anutig (talk • contribs) 18:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Novelty of Germanium Anode

@HueSurname Your edited version still implies that the germanium anode was introduced by this company. It should be clarified that the germanium anode was known for at least three decades, and this company just devised a new electrode structure. In the latter case, the company should tell us what this new structure is.

We still do not know what is the new idea of StoreDot battery technology. The present article suggests that the new idea is the germanium anode. It doesn't matter if germanium is expensive or not feasible here; the question is about the new idea.589q (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

By the way, the reference you cited does not even mention the biggest problem of germanium anode, i.e. huge volume expansion. The high cost of a material can be justified for specific applications but safety issues cannot. 589q (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the phrasing implies germanium electrodes are novel, but feel free to re-word it. HueSurname (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Germanium and peer review

@HueSurname:, Please note germanium is no longer used by the company since it transitioned to EV batteries, as explained in a recent article in the Guardian from January 2021:

"The StoreDot battery replaces graphite with semiconductor nanoparticles into which ions can pass more quickly and easily. These nanoparticles are currently based on germanium, which is water soluble and easier to handle in manufacturing. But StoreDot’s plan is to use silicon, which is much cheaper, and it expects these prototypes later this year. Myersdorf said the cost would be the same as existing Li-ion batteries." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/19/electric-car-batteries-race-ahead-with-five-minute-charging-times The company has already issued samples of this new format, based on silicon: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/storedot-extreme-fast-charging-battery-132300638.html Anutig (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed StoreDot is playing a shell game with its technologies. Sometimes it's 5-minute charging, sometimes it's "50% faster charging", same as other next-gen lithium batteries. Sometimes it's samples with germanium that charge an order of magnitude faster than commercially-available lithium-ion batteries, sometimes it's samples with silicon that charge 50% faster. With StoreDot making so many different claims and being so secretive about its ever-changing technology, it's hard to keep up. HueSurname (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

It might be that I am missing much of the discussion, but I did once work in a semiconductor electrochemistry lab. The mention of silicon reminds me of some experiments we did related to electrochemical solar cells. A silicon anode an aqueous electrochemistry system grows an anodic oxide that is insulating. Since lithium cells often use a non-aqueous electrolyte, it might work, but I suspect will still be complicated. Silicon is not a simple replacement for germanium. Gah4 (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gah4:, in any case, germanium is no longer relevant for StoreDot, since it transitioned to focus only on EVs. I suggest reverting back to the copy I twice posted, last on Dec 28, 2021, otherwise, this article page is highly inaccurate suggesting a technology from 2015 instead of sharing relevant steps taken that have the potential to enable EV adoption at a more accelerated pace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anutig (talk • contribs) 15:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

This dispute is not about "adding new cited information that renders germanium irrelevant for StoreDot", that information is already in the article and it is not disputed. What's disputed is whether to keep the references to germanium or not.

The references to germanium are important because they show that the company sent prospective clients "samples" using a non-commercially-viable technology. The article does not suggest StoreDot will use germanium in its future products; the opposite: the references show that StoreDot sent non-commercially-viable samples that kept their "going-to-mass-production-next-year-since-2015" technology from peer review, or even industry review. Hence the section titled "peer review" with the CEO and other people describing how StoreDot dodges peer review. One of the ways StoreDot dodged peer review is by sending germanium samples. HueSurname (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Metalloids and inorganic compounds

@HueSurname:, you can leave the germanium bits inside, and leave the Peer review section if you think it is still relevant. The sections you posted were left in, they were not deleted, but why did you delete the more relevant and updated information posted twice, last on Dec 28, backed by references from sources such as Forbes [1] and The Guardian [2]? The dispute is about not deleting the following paragraphs that should be added to the page under Technology:

By designing and synthesizing proprietary organic and inorganic compounds, StoreDot's battery replaces the typical Li-ion battery anode graphite with nano-structured metalloids with the aim of improving energy density [1] and increasing ion diffusion, thereby reducing charging time of EV batteries to less than ten minutes.[1]

StoreDot previously used germanium for its small-form factor batteries. The company has transitioned into EV batteries and plans to replace germanium with more cost-effective silicon-based anodes.[2] Anutig (talk • contribs) 22:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Great, so we agree on germanium and peer review! As for sentences sourced to "1" and "2" above, the first is just promotional technobabble (which metalloids? which inorganic compounds? every single lithium battery uses metalloids and inorganic compounds) and the second about the company "plans" is already briefly mentioned in the peer review section. I think it's irrelevant what the company "plans" since it's been "planning" to mass-produce its batteries "next year" since 2015 if not earlier. As others have mentioned and edited, the entire "milestones" section is highly promotional and the less we quote what the company "plans" and its unverified "achievements" the better. HueSurname (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Promotional milestones and churnalism again

These edits restored press releases, churnalism (second-hand press releases), and investment round announcements, while also removing a peer-reviewed study and serious journalistic pieces about the company wondering why it switched undelivered products every two years.

If an edit consists mostly or entirely of press releases and announcements of investment rounds, it's promotional. A press release here and there is fine, but the bulk of the article has to be based on serious investigative journalism and peer-reviewed studies. HueSurname (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

no promotion. only neutral boring information. the version before my edits seems to be like a company's website: it claims, it announced, it claimed, it promised. Not following manual of style at all. I put History and Investments sections back. FightBrightTigh (talk) 11:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

FightBrightTigh, basing nearly the entire article on a company's press releases and investment round press releases is not encyclopedic. This is not supposed to be the company's investor relations page. If there is a peer-reviewed study about the company, it belongs here. If there are well-researched news articles about the company, they belong here. Churnalism and press releases do not belong here. Let me give you some examples:

Press releases:

• theengineer.co.uk/content/news/storedot-unveils-roadmap-for-xfc-roll-out/
• batteriesnews.com/storedot-extreme-fast-charging-battery-pioneer-ships-ev-battery-cell-samples-global-car-makers-testing-accelerate-adoption-delivering-100-miles-of-range-in-5-minutes-of-charging/
• suasnews.com/2020/07/storedot-demonstrates-worlds-first-5-minute-charge-of-a-commercial-drone-making-continuous-fully-autonomous-drone-delivery-a-reality/
• incus-media.com/storedot-announces-new-framework-agreement-with-eve-energy-to-manufacture-silicon-dominant-extreme-fast-charge-battery-for-evs/
• renewableenergymagazine.com/electric_hybrid_vehicles/storedot-to-establish-global-innovation-hub-in-20211022
• renewableenergymagazine.com/electric_hybrid_vehicles/storedot-completes-live-demonstration-of-extreme-fast-20220512

These alone show your edits are highly promotional. Furthermore, you add an "investments" section, and remove references to peer-reviewed papers. HueSurname (talk) 12:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I try to make the page look according to manual of style needed by the wp guidelines FightBrightTigh (talk) 11:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Those references are enough for a trivial coverage of routine company's milestones.

• incus-media.com/storedot-announces-new-framework-agreement-with-eve-energy-to-manufacture-silicon-dominant-extreme-fast-charge-battery-for-evs/
• renewableenergymagazine.com/electric_hybrid_vehicles/storedot-to-establish-global-innovation-hub-in-20211022
• renewableenergymagazine.com/electric_hybrid_vehicles/storedot-completes-live-demonstration-of-extreme-fast-20220512

FightBrightTigh (talk) 11:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

These edits, too, rely on churnalism articles that shouldn't be used. See the discussion above about the company's "milestones" and why its press releases are nearly worthless. I've included the information in the lead section more briefly, but I don't think it's due any more attention until more reliable third-party source cover it significantly. HueSurname (talk) 07:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

More press releases and churnalism:

• cleantechnica.com/2022/12/13/storedot-fast-charging-technology-validated-in-independent-testing/ - churnalism with over half the article copy-pasted from the press release
• www.media.volvocars.com/global/en-gb/media/pressreleases/298545/volvo-cars-tech-fund-invests-in-battery-technology-pioneers-storedot - press release

The article on TheDriven is decent. HueSurname (talk) 11:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

lead

I've expanded lead paragraph according to MOS: The lead section of a Wikipedia article—also known as the lead, beginning or introduction—is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph. FightBrightTigh (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Whitepaper

What's the problem with the whitepaper? It's the only almost-technical information the company ever supplied. This being a battery tech company, I think it's important to accurately describe its battery tech. It's the only document describing their (now defucnt) pseudocapacitor-LiMO battery. Everything else is a muddled mess of smoke and mirrors. HueSurname (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

User:FightBrightTigh using the whitepaper to say what claims StoreDot made about itself is fine. HueSurname (talk) 09:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@HueSurname no, it just shows your passion about proving something with the company, proving the company was wrong or right, but it is prohibited on Wikipedia. Only third party reliable sources are allowed to be used. Your phrase: pseudocapacitor-LiMO battery. Everything else is a muddled mess of smoke and mirrors -- shows that you try to make an original research here and push your POV. which is not ok per WP:POV. FightBrightTigh (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@HueSurname any mere Wikipedia user will not be able to find a whitepaper and read and make some conclusions. it all should be done in some news like Bloomberg, NY Times, etc. The Wikipedians should not make their own research FightBrightTigh (talk) 10:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

"Only third party reliable sources are allowed to be used" - okay, it's clear you're misunderstanding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Primary sources are allowed as long as they "make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". Anybody can read the whitepaper and see that StoreDot claims to have developed a pseudocapacitor-LiMO battery in 2014. HueSurname (talk) 10:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

From the whitepaper: "the organic material is used as a high power pseudocapacitive component, while the LiMO is used as an energy storage tank". The primary source is used without synthesis. It's a pure statement of fact that StoreDot claimed to have developed a pseudocapacitor-LiMO battery. HueSurname (talk) 10:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@HueSurname this is pure synthesis: he company's 2014 whitepaper claimed its 2014 pseudocapacitor-LiMO batteries were organic-compound-based and had a lifetime of 5000 charging cycles, and its future electric vehicle batteries would have a fast-charging organic psudocapacitor component and a lithium-ion battery that charges at a conventional rate, so fully-charging the lithium-ion battery would require multiple charging cycles of the fast-charging component.

as a non engineer I cannot get the whole thing and I think you should not use the white paper here FightBrightTigh (talk) 10:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

User:FightBrightTigh how is the paragraph you keep removing "analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize" the whitepaper? It's a pure statement of fact. You don't need to be an engineer to read the sentence "the organic material is used as a high power pseudocapacitive component, while the LiMO is used as an energy storage tank". It's simple English. The whitepaper says StoreDot developed a pseudocapacitor-LiMO battery. HueSurname (talk) 10:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@HueSurname it is also barely a whitepaper. no images are found there though they should be there. it's just a broken text on a company's website. You made a synthesis out of company's blog and that is a pure violation of PRIMARY. FightBrightTigh (talk) 10:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The whitepaper was published; whether or not the images are available in the archive is irrelevant, as the paragraph you keep removing only refers to the text:

the article	the primary source
The company's 2014 whitepaper	[published by StoreDot in 2014]
claimed its 2014 pseudocapacitor-LiMO batteries were organic-compound-based	the organic material is used as a high power pseudocapacitive component, while the LiMO is used as an energy storage tank
and had a lifetime of 5000 charging cycles	What is the life cycle of the battery? – Flash battery will have up to 5000 cycles.
its future electric vehicle batteries would have a fast-charging organic psudocapacitor component and a lithium-ion battery that charges at a conventional rate, so fully-charging the lithium-ion battery would require multiple charging cycles of the fast-charging component	The organic material is charged first. [...] The organic component’s energy level is decreasing vs. the LiMO component via internal charge transfer [...] Recharging may be performed over and over, until both the biopolymer and the LiMO components are fully charged.

These claims, as far as I can tell, are made in simple English and do not synthesize or interpret anything.

Put all together: "The company's 2014 whitepaper claimed its 2014 pseudocapacitor-LiMO batteries were organic-compound-based and had a lifetime of 5000 charging cycles, and its future electric vehicle batteries would have a fast-charging organic psudocapacitor component and a lithium-ion battery that charges at a conventional rate, so fully-charging the lithium-ion battery would require multiple charging cycles of the fast-charging component." This can be easily verified by anyone reading the whitepaper. There is no synthesis or interpretation. HueSurname (talk) 10:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

If you're worried about the lack of images, they can be found in the 2014 StoreDot pantent:

US active US10293704B2, Daniel Aronov, "Electric vehicles with adaptive fast-charging, utilizing supercapacitor-emulating batteries", published 2019-05-21, assigned to StoreDot 

"Methods comprise configuring a fast-charging battery to emulate a supercapacitor with given specifications (e.g., to provide the SCeFC) by operating the fast-charging battery only within a partial operation range which is defined according to the given specifications of the supercapacitor and is smaller than 20%, possibly 5% or 1%, of a full operation range of the fast-charging battery." In other words, "fully-charging the lithium-ion battery would require multiple charging cycles of the fast-charging component" as stated in the whitepaper. The patent, like many of StoreDot's publications, plays sematic tags. Instead of pseudocapacitor-LiMO battery it writes it writes SCeFC ("SuperCapacitor-emulating-fast-charging" battery) and so on. This is what I mean by "smoke and mirrors". Note that I have not used "smoke and mirrors" in the article, only in the talk page. The article is neutral.

Like I said, this is a battery tech company and an accurate description of its battery tech is highly relevant and encyclopedic. The patent dances around what they've actually claimed to develop, the whitepaper is the most straightforward description of what StoreDot claimed to develop in 2014. After saying it would be available in 2016, StoreDot abandoned it in 2017.

I don't really mind leaving it at "30-second charging organic-compound-based battery", but since you're interested in the comapny, wouldn't you want a detailed description of its technilogy in simple English? HueSurname (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Adding the ref to the whitepaper here, and also wondering why the perfectly accurate predictions of the peer-reviewed paper are "undue weight". Isn't it important that scientists knew, beforehand, that StoreDot will not deliver on its promises? Maybe it has to do with the tall tales in its whitepaper and press releases. Introduction to StoreDot's flash battery – Fast Charging Technology, StoreDot, November 7, 2017, archived from the original on November 23, 2020 HueSurname (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)