• ferret@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Surely when you are making them yourself it makes more sense to use a shape that packs better?

    • Draupnir@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      What shape could they do instead? As I understand it a cylindrical cell offers the best energy density and ease of manufacturing

      • ferret@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Maybe they have the best energy density per cell, but you leave a lot of empty space between the cells. I doubt it ends up being more dense

        • threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.worksOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          Hexagons would pack better, but I’m not sure that the marginal gain (if any) in energy density would offset the increase in manufacturing complexity.

          Also, if any pressure were to build up in a non-cylindrical cell, it would be prone to bulging, possibly damaging its neighbouring cells.

    • A7thStone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      But then ol muskrat would have to admit to himself that cylinders aren’t the best. He put so much effort into convincing everyone that cylinders had some technical benefit, rather than the truth of surplus 18650 laptop cells being cheaper than anything rose at the time, that he even convinced himself of the lie.