Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

...isn't that 30x? Also, I saw it listed as 500Wh/kg from the article, where was the 400 figure coming from? At 500Wh/kg, it's about 24x the energy density.

Also the NASA paper was published a year ago, and the article linked in OP was published a few months ago. Is there some development that is causing this to surface again now?



I saw the 400 number in the abstract of the paper. And yes, terrible math on my part!




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: