World’s first ‘superfast’ battery offers 400km range from 10 mins charge::Tesla, Toyota and VW supplier CATL says production will begin in 2023

  • GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    184
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Not once in the entire article do they measure energy in a unit suitable for measuring energy.

    Measuring batteries in km is misleading and nonsensical. Batteries do not have a distance range. Cars have a distance range, based on many factors, only one of which is battery capacity.

    Similarly, please stop measuring light output in watts that an imaginary incandescent bulb from 30 years ago might theoretically have used to produce that amount of light.

    • audiomodder
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      1 year ago

      I remember having the light-measured-in-watts discussion years ago when LED lights were still considered a novelty. Of course, this was with a videographer who actually understood the issue. He complained that it wasn’t a good idea to limit car headlights based on their wattage, which is how all the laws at the time were written. 5 years later, suddenly there were LED headlights blinding everyone.

    • TenderfootGungi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      1 year ago

      I actually like the compatible watts for light bulbs. They should absolutely also prominently list a correct measurement (I assume linens?), but I only know how bright it is based on the old watt comparison.

      Just like crop frame cameras list lens lengths in full frame equivalent because that is what people understand. But they also need to lose the actual mm.

    • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Stopped reading after: “increase in battery capacity and charge time was achieved through a “brand-new superconducting electrolyte formula” that results in improved conductivity.”

      I guess the source, author or both don’t really care about technically accurate terminology. If it’s good enough for Star Trek, it’s good enough for us.