Did you read the first paper before Pathion hired Goodenough and Braga?

Superionic Conductivity in Lithium-Rich Anti-Perovskites
Yusheng Zhao and Luke L. Daemen
https://doi.org/10.1021/ja3...
July 30, 2012

And this one specifically mentions it's hydroscopic.
"For both ambient and high pressure syntheses, the reaction products are hygroscopic and sensitive to atmospheric moisture"

High pressure-high temperature synthesis of lithium-rich Li3O(Cl, Br) and Li3 − xCax/2OCl anti-perovskite halides
Jianzhong Zhang, Jiantao Han, Jinlong Zhu, Zhijun Lin, Maria H. Braga, Luke L. Daemen, Liping Wang, Yusheng Zhao
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.i...
Sep 1 2014

Yes, I referenced it in my first post, since it made clear the need for very dry conditions during and after synthesis: http://lacey.se/2017/03/29/...

Excellent discussion, Matt. Thank you.
I just wanted to add that errors such as mixing surface and bulk properties of materials are pretty common in scientific literature. For example, some years ago, there was a debate in cement research about the "Dielectric amplification factor", DAF, due to that.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S00...

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

At the end of the seminar, current increases as the pouch cells are heated, powering some LEDs.

Deep down in Louisiana close to New Orleans
Way back up in the woods among the evergreens
There stood a log cabin made of earth and wood
Where lived a country boy named Johnny B. Goodenough
Who never ever learned to read or write so well
But he could play a guitar just like a-ringin' a bell

An excellent post with a much more more detailed analysis of the inconsistencies in the reporting and research of this technology than I've seen elsewhere. It's greatly appreciated and really helpful for people trying to stay in the loop on where this potential (pun intended) technology is heading.

Don't worry about the haters in the comments - they're just marking a placeholder they can come back to so that if someone does figure out how to make it work, then they can feel like they're special and smarter than those stupid "mainstream scientists."

Such radical trailblazers, they are, knowing full well that when it turns out to be a sham no one will remember their brilliant arguments in support of the glass battery - good, reasoned arguments such as calling you dumb and saying you're just jealous of Goodenough for figuring it out before you. Including absolutely nothing, of course, that actually addresses any of the points in this article.

excellent stuff Matt - Dan Steingart seems to have lost interest in this. The self charge patent that you quote doesnt appear to show any energy conversion efficiency numbers and looks highly suspect at such low operating temperatures. By the look of these comments you seem to have attracted some rather oddball groupies.

This is just dumb. Bringing up thermodynamics as an argument against it is fake thinking. You put, and lose, energy into it while it increases capacity. It's not perpetuum mobile or stuff coming out of thin air.

Are you so upset it wasn't your idea? Or that the 96 yo guy is still better than you?

Are you not aware entropy can decrease on a smaller area at the cost of it increasing outside it? How did YOU happen as an organized life form if everything is deteriorating all the time?

You didn't read anything on this page, did you?

Deat Matt, actually there could be other reason's and valid ones, to explain how can a battery charges more than normal. Nobel prize of phisics in 1957. I believe is relating to that, once i also experienced that in converting electricity in comon power suplly.

Thank you Matt Lacey for this informational summary of the origin of the so called Quantum Glass Battery and putting it in a form that even a high school physics or chemistry student can understand. I started looking into this 2 hours ago after viewing a infomercial by Matt McCall on get rich quick investment stocks which one can get access to by subscribing to his investment strategy newsletters!!! A quick Google search revealed the Hydro-Quebec (government owned) origin of the scam. Obviously the citizens of Quebec are not going to get rich quickly, only Matt McCall, if you subscribe to his newsletter(s). Not having read the referenced papers myself, I appreciate your public review

Braga & team have also claimed that they had pouch battery prototypes powering different types of devices.

Interestingly, here's a 2016 interview with prof. Goodenough where the talks about he and his team initial pessimism and skepticism over Braga glass electrolyte when they first knew about it, being one of the reasons because it was synthesized by putting water on it.

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

From minute 53.

After that he talks about his criticism of the current scientific publications system.

Listening to you talk about something you have not experienced from top to bottom is reminiscent of an aerodynamics professor explaining why the bumblebee can't fly. I will digress and say that science is right "most of the time", however, sometimes there are crossover sciences that involve themselves and your current understanding and hypothesis are W R O N G.

It is ironic that you bring up the bumblebee anecdote since the point of that story is that oversimplified rationalisations of complex systems lead to faulty conclusions - it's just the other way round in this case. The authors' explanation of how the glass battery works is not unlike the aerodynamics professor saying that "well, we see the bee can fly, but it should be too heavy to do so, so we conclude that its wings create an antigravity field around the bee", to which a physics professor would object. Likewise, if the physics professors say "well, we see this battery storing and releasing energy, but it stores more than we expected, therefore it is charging itself", I as an electrochemist object on the basis that the extra charge comes from impurities they have overlooked, and there is 200 years worth of evidence which disagrees with their theory. I've been quite specific about where I think the issues are, so if you believe I have made a mistake on a particular point, then by all means, please be similarly specific...

I have long believed that build up on the cathode is a result of material sticking to the electrons as they flow from the anode and being left behind forming a deposit. If the inlets on the barrier are small enough to allow the electron through to the cathode without the clinging material, then wouldn't the material left behind begin it's own storage routine? Would it not increase the energy storage of the battery with more surface area now exposed of the storage medium to the catalyst?

Apologies for the late reply. The important question is, what is the material? If there is something being deposited, it should be possible to tell to some extent what it is. Then the question is, where does it come from? The electrolyte is supposed to be purely a conductor of lithium (or sodium) ions - it is not supposed to let anything else through from the anode, otherwise you have an unwanted side-process. If it's not coming from the anode or the cathode, then it's coming from a decomposition of the electrolyte itself. You might well get more than you expect from the theoretical reaction of the electrode materials on their own, and the side-processes might add up so that you get more than you theoretically expect. This is precisely what I think is happening. But this is generally not a good thing - the side processes are almost certainly not very reversible or very efficient. You could store energy with it, sure - and if you make a cell with massive amount of electrolyte (or source of side reactions) compared to the electrodes, and charge and discharge very very small amounts of energy in that cell, then it might look like it's working, even for a very long time. But if you try and make something bigger which has to store the sort of amounts of energy that a normal Li-ion battery has to store, it isn't going to work. Li-ion batteries store at least >100x as much energy for a given area of electrode and have electrolytes ~100x thinner than what Braga and Goodenough show in their papers. Now I know that it is not easy for academic labs to make prototype batteries to a comparable standard as industry, but this is pretty poor by today's standard and it's frankly ludicrous to think that it can be scaled to a level where it can compete with lead acid batteries, let alone lithium-ion.

It's not charging itself. It's capacity slightly increases. Can you tell the difference between a capacity increase (at some energy cost for sure) and a battery charging itself or are you too thick for that? Some of your arguments, however flawed, suggest some level of intelligence.

Serious scientific debate has no room for name-calling. It's almost as if you believe global warming is "settled science".

Of course it's not settled. It's fake. The arctic is actually cooling. The sea levels are rising only to annoy us. Don't believe it.

Global warming IS fake. Good. You are not too far gone.

Yes of course. Greenland at 6 degrees in winter is actually quite normal. Sure. Arctic melting also normal. Basically fake satellite photos. Actually, what satellites, the Earth is flat. All fake stuff. Relax mate.

Is that you Algore??? Blaming global warming as we go into a cooling period, caused by the serious reduction in sunspots. That's rich. I think Greta is calling you.

You're either a fool, or a fraud. I'll let you decide which face you show the world.

Who's the useful idiot again? The foolish one is he/she/it who responds with debunked lies and half-truths to a 6 month old post? There's some brain power right there.

I'll take the word of renowned scientists over incomprehensible blathering any day.

https://astronomynow.Com/2015/07/17/diminishing-solar-activity-may-bring-new-ice-age-by-2030/

6 month old comment. You know you're certifiable.

This discussion is neither on topic nor constructive, so please give it a rest - further replies will be deleted

Have you noticed that "self-charging" is literally in the *title* of the paper I discussed here? And mentioned in their patents, and other papers?

That's not "self charging" - read and you'll see it's dependent on thermal conditions, so it should have some energy transfer related to it. It's not perpetuum mobile. Note: I wouldn't count on too much energy being charged this way.

The issue here Ben is that we haven't actually seen the bumblebee fly in this case. What we see might have been a photograph of a bumblebee that for some reason fell off a ledge and is in freefall towards the ground. That photo of an airborne bumblebee does not necessarily mean it flies as the photo might first imply.

I really hope that this battery tech works as well as Braga/Goodenough claim it does, but unfortunately I think Matt is probably correct in his criticisms and that there are some fundamental errors that have been overlooked.

Matt - have you reached out directly to Prof Braga at all about this?