timsher

You're correct - On a high level, our technology is based on pulses that are fully adaptive, and their parameters are adjusted by the AI controlling the charging.

You're absolutely right; our business model is to license the technology to manufacturers (OEM, Tier 1, etc) - not B2C to anyone with an EV.

Sounds like you know the struggle :)

In the battery industry there's a saying; liar liar battery supplier. That definitely doesn't help things move fast!

Automotive OEMs do move slowly, but once they see value things definitely speed up - A lot of it has to do with being in front of the right people.

Hi! I'm one of the founders at GBatteries - I’ve partially answered this in another comment, so will copy paste portions.

We've demonstrated 5 min to 50% charge, 10 min to 100% charge - below is a demo that we’ve done at CES 2019, and that we’re now exhibiting at the Detroit Auto show demonstrating this.

[Video here: https://youtu.be/kSLrqR4TfnU Note: Charging times can vary by ~1 minute here and there, because the algorithm is adaptive and characteristics of batteries change from moment to moment.]

The problem with batteries today is not charging speed; it’s possible to charge any battery quickly, but the faster you charge a battery the faster it will degrade. Our technology is able to decrease the irreversible chemical reactions that happen during charging, so that the same batteries can be charged fast without compromising cycle life.

We’re working on enabling existing packs to charge as fast as possible. We’re not able to fast charge at these levels without approval from the OEM as they have limits built-in. We need to either be integrated inside of the vehicle, or on the charger but have the vehicles "approval" for charging at these higher rates, as at Level 3 and up it's DC to the pack.

That's correct, we're not able to fast charge at these levels without approval from the OEM because of the limits they have built. We need to either be integrated inside of the vehicle, or on the charger but have the vehicles "approval" for charging at these higher rates, as at Level 3 and up it's DC to the pack.

Hi, I'm one of the founders at GBatteries - sorry, the article had a mistake on publishing; should be 5 minutes for that example.

Hi! I'm one of the founders at GBatteries, please let me try to clear that up.

We've demonstrated 5 min to 50% charge, 10 min to 100% - I’ll edit this to include a demo that we’ve done at CES 2019, and that we’re now exhibiting at the Detroit Auto show demonstrating.

[EDIT] Video here: https://youtu.be/kSLrqR4TfnU Note: Charging times can vary by ~1 minute here and there, because the algorithm is adaptive and characteristics of batteries change from moment to moment.

First read says that they're delivering 60kWh in 15min, or they're pumping electrons at 240kW. This is just nonsense -- most deployed DC fast chargers are 50kW... the charger companies and the OEMs are experimenting with 200kW chargers, but those are liquid cooled. So physics says this is nonsense.

Okay, so second read: the 60 kWh is distracting technobabble, and what they're ACTUALLY doing is "adding 119 miles of range in 15 minutes."

There’s a mistake in the article, in both cases it should be in 5 minutes; should be corrected shortly.

In this example, we’re talking about a 60kWh battery with 238 miles of range (Chevy Bolt). Right now the car charges 90miles in 30 minutes, or 15 miles in 5 minutes because the manufacturer limits the charging rate for the batteries in order to preserve their life. Our technology can enable these Li-ion batteries to charge in 5 min to 50%, or 119 miles. This example assumes that the car goes to a fast charging station that has enough power to charge the vehicle in this time; fast charge infrastructure that’s currently being put up by companies like Ionity (350kW), Electrify America, or Charge Point (500kW capability).

The problem with batteries today is not charging speed; it’s possible to charge any battery quickly, but the faster you charge a battery the faster it will degrade. Our technology is able to decrease the irreversible chemical reactions that happen during charging, so that the same batteries can be charged fast without compromising cycle life.

That would be my oversight - we tested it but didn't post it. Will update today!

With the test the 15" MacBook lasted for around 4 hours, BatteryBox on its own did about 2 hour 20min.

It's the equivalent of 58% of the battery, or 55Wh (the 15" MacBook has a 95Wh battery).

Our intention is definitely defensive rather than offensive.

Hey - I'm one of the founders, maybe I can comment on this. You're completely right, first sale doctrine is something that would be applicable in a case like this (at least to my knowledge), but a users rights can be restricted by the EULA (End-user license agreement) and Terms of Use and Conditions when purchasing from a store.

The actual adaptor we planned to use didn't have any EULA restrictions that would have prevented us from going forward, however we at the last minute found out that the places we were purchasing these from did have Terms of Use restrictions that weren't favourable to us.

Though our situation was more of a grey area than a black and white one, we decided that the cons outweighed the pros. After all, our legal budget is a little lower than that of Apple :)

Animats, your idea is great and it's something we considered a lot when we were thinking about the connector. We almost went and did it. However there were a couple of problems with that patents (as a side note - my co-founder is actually a former patent troll, so we dug quite deeply into the patents). Our priority was to not infringe on any of Apple's patents, so we were as thorough as possible with our research.

Here are the main patents around the MagSafe: http://www.google.com/patents/US7645143 http://www.google.com/patents/US7901216 http://www.google.com/patents/US8087939 http://www.google.com/patents/US8177560 http://www.google.com/patents/US7311526 (the key patent)

Here are the main claims (apart from the one you mentioned): (a) A first connector comprising: a first plurality of electrical contacts, the first plurality of electrical contacts to mate with a second plurality of electrical contacts when the first connector couples to a second connector, wherein the first plurality of electrical contacts consisting of a central contact to convey a signal, two contacts to convey a power supply, one contact on each side of the central contact, and two contacts to provide a return path, one contact on each side of the central contact, wherein when the first connector couples to the second connector, the first and second plurality of electrical contacts define a corresponding plurality of electrical paths; and a magnetic element, the magnetic element to mate with a plurality of magnets in the second connector that are proximally located and arranged in opposing polarities with respect to each other so that when the first connector is brought in close proximity to the second connector, magnetic field lines travel through the magnetic element of the first connector from one of the plurality of magnets in the second connector to another one of the plurality of magnets in the second connector.

(b - part of it) a plurality of movable first contacts to make electrically conductive paths with a plurality of second contacts in a second connector when the first connector is mated with the second connector, each of the movable first contacts biased by one of a plurality of first springs;

The biggest problem is with the claim that speaks about a magnetic field from multiple magnets (4 are present on computer side) traveling through a magnetic element (ie. metal) on the connector side, which the patent states creates a stronger attraction. We thought it would be possible to place metal bits on the connector side in such a way that the magnetic field would only be passing through one element - thus creating less of a magnetic attraction but being a different invention. Unfortunately, at this point it becomes a matter of proving wether or not that's what's actually happening (this was our biggest worry as burden of proof would be on us).

There were another 2 - 4 other claims that also made it hard to improve upon (also not infringe on any of their patents) and create our own connector - not to mention the design patents.

I was actually thinking of writing a blog post about this issue, it was extremely interesting to look into all of this.