>>108224840
hell no it was a total scam

>>108224840
>5kWh
how much mAh is that? why use nigger unit but not the consumer power bank unit?

>didn't even have the money to make a nice print and instead printed the protoype case on some shoddy 100 bucks 3D printer
lol
lmao even

https://idonutbelieve.com/

>>108224840
Donut Steel

>>108224931
>CES claim motorcycles shipping by March 31st
>New claim on the website is "Q4 2026"

>CES claim was 10C charging with no cooling and that the cells actually "like" heat.
>VTT test results released today show while it can achieve 11C charge rate (0-80% in 4.5 minutes) it required 2 heatsinks strapped to each side and still went from ~26C to ~63C in that 4.5 minutes with the battery hitting 90C and shutting down when they attempted to do it with a single heatsink

Yeah this shit is obviously bullshit.

They wouldn't create some PR stunt website and drip feed selected test results that even THOSE tests results directly contradict their CES claims if their battery tech was actually legit.

>>108224898
>prototype built with a prototype maker

>>108224991
wouldnt you need superconductors for a battery being charged to not heat up

>>108224931
The way they're dripfeeding us test results with a weekly countdown timer to feed a hype train is so condescending.
I honestly think that they only hired that fat frontman to be the heel that makes the whole thing look like a scam. That way, they get even more engagement through a manufactured internet fight between skeptics and believers.

>>108224883
Because mAh changes meaning with voltage. A 3000 mAh 6V battery can do twice as much as a 3000 mAh 3V battery. Wh tells how much energy is actually in it regardless, and is volts times amp hours.

>>108225011
The current speculation is it basically is likely a supercapacitor or hybrid capacitor with probably quite a bit of leakage, making long term storage impossible (likely needing daily recharging or maybe a few days at best).

>>108224840
Finland's state-owned VTT Technical Research Centre ran some tests on the Donut Labs battery. They have so far confirmed that it indeed can be charged very fast, reaching 80 % capacity in 4,5 minutes and almost full charge in 7 using 11C charching speed. VTT noted, however, that this caused the battery to heat up dangerously. The other claims, like the 100,000 recharge cycles one, haven't been verified yet.

>>108225063
So it's really nothing, in the end.

There's currently nothing here that would warrant pretty much any of the claims outside of Li-Po realm: everything we've seen so far is possible with Li-Pos.

This captcha is full of shit

wtf is a "solid state" battery? i have never seen a liquid one

>>108225063
>heat up dangerously
I know nothing about batteries but what if, hypothetically, we put the battery in a very cold environment, would that solve the problem? I imagine the damage the cold would do, would negate any positives regardless lol

>>108226326
>i have never seen a liquid one
uh, most batteries are liquid. Battery acid?

>>108224840
If it was real they wouldn't be asking money from Finnish boomers who have just gotten into private investing. Also these same dudes claimed they invented AGI like a few years back.

>>108225063
>They have so far confirmed that it indeed can be charged very fast, reaching 80 % capacity in 4,5 minutes and almost full charge in 7 using 11C charching speed.
You can do that with almost any modern Li-ion battery but it will be fucked after a couple of cycles.

>>108224858
Sauce on that?

>>108224883
>how much mAh is that?
Really, as this shit can be formed similar to clay one would expect capacity to directly relate to size. IE: larger cell, more Amp.

>>108224991
>Yeah this shit is obviously bullshit.
Is it tho?
"better" heatsinks and active airflow during charing don't sound too impossible... Also maybe not dump energy in so quick...
If it actually holds and delivers the charge, it's a battery like them claim. Might have some sway about the numbers claimed being on the squiff, but if there's usable current there's usable current...

>>108226326
>i have never seen a liquid one
Pretty much every battery you've used has been liquid electrolyte...

>>108226376
>would that solve the problem?
Potentially. Probably not too practical to drive to antartic each time you wanna charge tho.

>I imagine the damage the cold would do
Beyond thermal expansion at that rate stressin' the fuck outta most materials... I hear they tollerate cold well.

>>108226404
>claimed they invented AGI like a few years back.
Eh?

>>108226470
>Eh?
The same niggas https://asilab.com/

>>108226376
Extreme cold tends to fuck with battery chemistry

>>108224883
Turns out there are more solid numbers:
"the nominal capacity was determined to be 26 Ah"

>>108224991
>Yeah this shit is obviously bullshit.
They claimed it'd store 92.5W, independant testing scored 91.021 Wh and 91.118 Wh in an initial capacity test, Rapid chargin' dropped that to 89.229 Wh tho.

To me. That's sounding like a battery.

"Under the specified test conditions, the cell was successfully charged at 5C for more than 9
minutes, and 100 % of the charged capacity was available during the subsequent discharge. The
cell was also successfully charged at 11C for more than 3 minutes, with 98.4–99.6 % of the
charged capacity available after a full charge"

>>108226470
Polymer electrolytes exist.

>>108226493
>Extreme cold tends to fuck with battery chemistry
Unless... You don't actually have chemistry, because it's solid state?

>>108224840
we already got a thread with info on the last test >>108219827

>>108226487
>https://asilab.com/
Where do they claim AGI?

>>108226526
They do!
This discounts my premise, how, precisely?

>>108226530
I missed that.
Not OP... But if I'd seen that 1'st...

>>108226528
chemicals can be solid, anon

>>108226547
Well, if you're gonna get pedantic enough, then yeah. There's plenty o things on the periodic that is solid at room temperature and sea level pressure.

The critical difference is the liquid elecrolyte behaves differently under different temperature gradients in terms of ion flow. Solid electrolytes are impacted less by the gradient...

Happy?

>>108225063
they also forgot to measuring the energy density totally legit

>>108224840
Solid state batteries are real but their claims about performance are exaggerated.
>>108225031
I doubt that. If it's not actually a solid state battery it might just br a regular lithium battery with a misleading story.

>>108226571
>forgot
Evidence this wasn't intentional?

From what I can make out this shit is gonna be light as fuck... they've laid claim to 'similar' densities to Li-Ion so it's not unfeasible to expect a touch under.
It'll need to be significantly under to not rapidly displace Li-Ion in a fucktonne of applications just on the 100k charge cycles...

>>108226579
>claims about performance are exaggerated
Maybe.
Significantly? I'm not seeing it so far.

>I doubt that.
Research more.
Might stop you talking about lithium when they've gone outta they way to flaunt the lack of rare earths, having given units out for independant testing...
Date on that is 9th, btw. So the other tests prolly done, just making wait on results... Might still be doing 100k discharge tests...

>>108224858
this. these grifters should be in prison.
shamelessly preying on the hopes of the gullible.
but then again, maybe you retards deserve to fall for this.

>>108224991
>it can achieve 11C charge rate (0-80% in 4.5 minutes)
>it required 2 heatsinks strapped to each side
>and still went from ~26C to ~63C in that 4.5 minutes
That's quite impressive, 11C charging is a lot. Modern batteries are charging in the range of 1 to 2 C and are still able to reach those temperatures. And unless your phone is made by Samsung most people don't need to care about that.
>with the battery hitting 90C and shutting down when they attempted to do it with a single heatsink
Getting filtered by basic physics and power conversion efficiency must be hard on the people around you.

>>108226530
Ah, sorry about that. I didn't mean to make a duplicate.

>>108227764
faggot

>>108227562
My guy, THEY CLAIMED AT CES IT "LOVED HEAT" and DIDN'T NEED ANY EXTENSIVE COOLING SYSTEM

So they lied about that, what else are they lying about?

>>108224931
>some fat fuck with a cap and accent

>>108224840
ill believe it when i can buy one and see it run

>>108224840
Donut Steel ORIGINAL BATTERY

That's a lot fatter than the original picture.
I knew the previous thin looking thing couldn't possibly produce 130A iirc for 10 minutes straight. Not sure if this brick can either.

>>108224991
Yeah, their first round of testing invalidated one of the key claims they originally made, and now they are pushing the date back and looking for investors. It's very obviously a scam.

I get the impression they are running a ton of bots because I've been seeing this garbage praised uncritically in a ton of places. I guess that's just marketing now.

>>108230041
>That's a lot fatter than the original picture.
The picture in the OP is from CES.

Thread of pointless speculation.
A 3D printed shell means nothing. People went and physically visited their so called manufacturing plant and its an abandoned warehouse with no traffic and nothing inside of it. Its just a VC money scam. They have nothing. Nothing.

>>108224883
miliamphours ARE the nigger unit you fucking moron
they're an incomplete calculation
watt hours tell you that a device consuming x watts will last an hour, 0.5x watts will last 2 hours, 0.1x watts will last 10 hours

>>108229456
As per the released test results, it charged quicker under higher heat load. The 90°C threshold for stopping the test sounds like an arbitrary limit set by the lab, especially given that one of the successful cycles reached 89°C at its peak.

File: iu.gif (404 KB, 498x372)

404 KB GIF

https://youtu.be/Qjyqe7x1nck

>>108230309
Everything charges more quickly under "higher heat load" you fucking idiot. What do you think thermal runaway is?

They directly and unambiguously stated the battery didn't require traditional cooling and wouldn't heat up at full charge speed. Both were lies.

Why are you running defense for them?

>>108230309
Look, if it wasn't bullshit, why aren't they releasing full test results?

Why drip feed them?

Further, they paid for this testing and are controlling the release, which means we have no idea how many tests they did, was it just test once? Was it tested 50 times? Did they test 500 different batteries until they got a golden sample that was good enough to show off?

There is too much shit we don't know, if this was legit tech they'd open it up to university researchers who would then write papers on the tech in general, and we'd have verified testing from multiple independent sources to confirm the results.

The fact they aren't doing any of that is telling.

>>108230335
>>108230364
I tend to agree that it smells like bullshit. I don't see these test results as outright disproving their claims, even though there's not enough to validate them either. Passive cooling via heat sink does not sound like an "extensive cooling system" to me without having looked at their claims with a great deal of attention.

>>108224931
This stupid site name tells you everything you need to know.
Clearly just some stupid marketing scam that has been planned out a year in advance.

File: Screenshot 2026-02-24 at (...).png (112 KB, 837x1071)

112 KB PNG

that's a spicy meatball

>>108227253
>but then again, maybe you retards deserve to fall for this.
You mean indendantly supplied data? Yeah. I'll fall for that.
Meanwhile you fall for internet memes... What evidence you bringing to bear this is scammery?

>>108229456
>what else are they lying about?
Wise question.
But consider, why did that shut down? Did it chut down because the cell cannot handle any more heat, or did it shut down because everything around the cell isn't safe with that much heat?

Power transfer commonly measured in watts, which almost always has unintended consequence (I suppose, dumpin' current thru nichrome is intentional) of heat... You apply more current, more heat isn't that unexpected...

Solving this problem sounds easy. Charge it slower, or apply active cooling as it charges...

>>108230041
>That's a lot fatter than the original picture.
That's not what's being tested.

>Not sure if this brick can either.
The thing I see I'd guestimate to 50mm x 130mm x 15mm ... How much of that 'brick' you wager is heatsink?

>>108230239
>A 3D printed shell means nothing.
Good thing they're testing the battery then, eh?

>They have nothing. Nothing.
Explaining independantly produced graphs of charge and discharge rates...

>>108230335
>Both were lies.
Can you demonstrate the cycle was interrupted to protect the cell?
How hot you think the cables goin' into it be gettin'?

>>108230364
>why aren't they releasing full test results?
I'd gustimate to build hyperbole. Plus it gives time to actually do the 100k discharge tests etc...

>>108230731
>there's not enough to validate them either
It accepted charge. It held charge. It delivered charge.
That validates claims of it being a battery?

>>108230825
>Clearly just some stupid marketing scam that has been planned out a year in advance.
And you have evidence VTT only exists to re-enforce this scam?

>>108230825
>Clearly just some stupid marketing scam that has been planned out a year in advance.
Evidence that VTT is in existence purely to validate the claims?

people are arguing about at the 11c charge but its not like we are going to use that often.
the infrastructure for those superhigh c charging is not something we are going to see easily
i care about the other parameters density and etc
i dunno why people tought they would get without any kind of heat disipation at all, did you guys expected a perfectly efficient charge? bc the losses are fucking heat and needs to go somewhere
the results is realistic giving the actual alleged uses, all bateries of that kind have some sort of refrigeration

Oh yeah, the bots are here
>Actually it's a GOOD thing it didn't do what they said it would, that proves it's a real battery! It didn't burn down the test rig so that's actually a win!
Insane stuff. I wonder if bots feel something like embarrassment?

Al potential investors: You are about to be fleeced. If the battery was anything like they said it was they'd have no reason to do all this.

I get it's an internet wide effort, but isn't spamming 4chan a waste of cycles?

>>108231001
Just wait till the battery release next week, er next month, ah, I mean, next year, er in two years! Then you'll see!

>>108224883
Ah is the amount of charge while Wh is energy.
Charge tells you fuck all about what you can do with it. You can only get a useful number from it by multiplying it by voltage because voltage is the potential difference. Energy is simply the potential to do (useful) work.

>>108231001
>If the battery was anything like they said it was
Fuck that noise.
I'm interested in what it *is*. There's a device out for independant testing - and it is largely backing claims.
So far the largest I've seen anyone throw out is "waa it got hot when you throw a few KW at it" - but show me something that doesn't...

Personally, I found the volt line on the discharge graph to be 'concerning' .... Didn't look very stable to me. But you can 'correct' this with something like an LM7805 or w/e downstream...

>but isn't spamming 4chan a waste of cycles?
And it's not possible there's organic interest in a potentially new technology, on a technology board?

>>108231104
>and it is largely backing claims.
It's not! The first results literally showed the opposite of what they said it would! Explicitly and unambiguously!
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.

https://youtu.be/H45HXs4xXfA
Techtwink changed his guess for it being real from 1% to 0.1% with the recent test results release.

>>108230968
Looks like your AI reply bot fucked up and accidentally replied twice with the same quote.
Better luck next time faggot. And the fact that they haven't send their shit to more than 1 """independent""" tester is proof enough.

>>108231136
i mean that guy is not someone knowledgeable, it just spreads hype of tons of shit that goes nowhere, he farms engagement

>>108230963
>Can you demonstrate the cycle was interrupted to protect the cell?
These testing machines can test up to 150c, it being limited was from Donut's instructions as VTT was following their plan.
>All tests described in this report were carried out on the same cell, following the customer’s test plan.
>the cell was charged at 5C(130 A) and 11C (286 A) in accordance with the costumer’s test plan
>How hot you think the cables goin' into it be gettin'?
>Current cables were attached to the tabs using nickel plated copper bars secured with bolts and nuts.
Not very.

>>108224840
looks real to me
have you tried calibrating your reality analyzer?

>>108231270
When it comes to battery tech it's fake until it's in your hand. It's a field where 99.99% of research efforts never amount to anything.

>>108230963
>We're totally testing it
>no its not an impartial independent lab publishing a full report
>its us just drip feeding isolated details
>we swear its real

retards like you genuinely deserve all the punishment and misfortune you encounter in life

>>108231119
>he first results literally showed the opposite of what they said it would! Explicitly and unambiguously!
By which you mean?

>I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.
Sounds like it too...

>>108231181
>Looks like your AI reply bot fucked up
Aint no AI, this is pure natural stupidity right here.
Yeah, that was a fuckup. The post needed splittin' then I lost most o it being a spastic and put suttin' back twice...

>Better luck next time faggot.
I don't do luck. That's your department.

>And the fact that they haven't send their shit to more than 1 """independent""" tester is proof enough.
Proof of what, precisely? How?
I'll concede it's not a good optic. I've been supposing it's to avoid clones being around before they've sold any...

>>108231256
>it being limited was from Donut's instructions as VTT was following their plan.
So... Performing the test under conditions the battery self-rates for?

>Not very.
No thermal bleed from the device it's powering?

>>108231444
>punishment and misfortune you encounter in life
That would be legitimately manifested by folk of your ilk.

Do you actually have any of my points to refute, ideally with some evidence that suggests them untrue, or do you only offer vague and nebulous concepts?

File: VTT_CR_00092_26.pdf.png (1.3 MB, 1207x688)

1.3 MB PNG

>>108231472
>So... Performing the test under conditions the battery self-rates for?
Donut originally claimed >100c safe operating temperatures.
>No thermal bleed from the device it's powering?
Once again, these testing machines are rated for 150c. They're using massively oversized connectors and 90c for 3 minutes wasn't an issue whatsoever for the testing equipment.

>>108231651
>Donut originally claimed >100c safe operating temperatures.
Yeah. I expect early claims to differ from real world results. The crucial part is *how different*.

As these cells are apparently mouldable like clay, I will posit - based on zero actual evidence - that the precise form factor can matter a lot here.

And really all this actually means is it requires a different charge dynamic to be useful, it doesn't mean it's entirely a boondoogle. What matters is puttin' charge in and gettin' it back later...

>wasn't an issue whatsoever for the testing equipment.
But they still felt the requirement to thermal probe the connector? Them ccables quite large. I'd imagine the connectors on the battery end to be significantly smaller. I'll concede I'm not an expert on the matter but that typically builds up heat...