She didn't told the ressearch would do in nothing. She only said it was more difficult than one might imagine.
Industry wants money. If the big Li-on manufactures get high profite with batteries that last 2 years, why would they sell abattery for 50% of the price and lasts 60 years ?
That why we need smaller manufacturers that wants to cash by competing with the large ones. In the beggining the laws of
offer and demand would works and not reduce profit so deeply, and would take the consumers from the big manufacturers.
Why would she and Goodenough lie ??? They don't get millions for this discovery, and a lie so big would destroy their reputation in the academy. They would only have disavantages if they lie.
If it was a start-up, private ressearch, with the main ressearcher as CEO, I would be very skeptical too.
I will turn skeptical only if after they got all patents time pass and they don't allow anyone else to test their batteries. But would still find werid a lie just to destroy a academic life of credibility çike have John B. Goodenough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
I was hardly skeptical at the beginning of this thread, but now I don't believe any of it at all.
Researchers don't come up with conspiracy theories of why their research will amount to nothing, they simply share the results of their research.
The hamburger analogy is ridiculous. If people were willing to pay for that hamburger, I would produce it. Saying something is too good to be profitable is a load of bull.
As I said, name 1 time ever where something was too good and was not sold.
I think you've lead us on long enough.
|