# Possible LiFePO4 capacity improvement



## Siwastaja (Aug 1, 2012)

__-_-_-__ said:


> new battery technologies appear on a weekly basis.


... which is true (if not on a daily basis)...



> yet almost 0 improvement since 10 years ago.


But this is far from true. A very small part of inventions end up being usable, mostly just small process optimizations, but they have made a real difference. 10 years ago there was only LiCoO2 and it was pretty darn expensive, while cheaper Chinese products were of useless quality. Now we have doubled lifetime with half the price which together mean real 4x price drop which again means 4x range (Li has always been more price than weight limited), compared to what we had 10 years ago. Li-based EV was just a dream 10 years ago, now it's the reality.


----------



## WarpedOne (Jun 26, 2009)

__-_-_-__ said:


> ...yet almost 0 improvement since 10 years ago.


Facts don't agree:


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

That chart doesn't even show the latest available products. Tesla is using Panasonic cells with 250wh/kg and there are higher available. That means a doubling of specific energy in LiCo variants in the last 10 years, quite a bit more than your "0 improvement in ten years". As for buying LiFePO4 in 2003, you could not buy LiFePO4 in 2003. Don't let your frustration blind you to reality.


----------



## Tesseract (Sep 27, 2008)

__-_-_-__ said:


> tesla. a great example. really affordable 5 seat full size car. why don't you buy several ones?


Yeah, people said the same thing about the IBM PC XT back in the early 80's...


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

You completely missed the point, which actually had nothing to do with Tesla directly, just the cells they use, which Panasonic makes. Not only are you missing the obvious point but I get the feeling that for some reason you don't want to see it. The point is that the energy density has doubled and the price has dropped in the time period when you said it didn't.


----------



## Siwastaja (Aug 1, 2012)

Most of us agree that current battery technology is not "good enough" for all purposes, but if you want it this way, let's say it was _even worse_ 10 years before. And the difference is indeed big; 2000 Tesla would have been $150k and 200 km, and now it is $100k and 400 km. (Approx., given that only the battery price has changed.) Indeed, it's not comparable to what has happened to transistor integration in CPUs, but it's an odd comparison.

The energy density and useful life have doubled and the price halved, which means 4x energy for the same money. Regardless of whether it's still enough or not, relatively speaking, there has been a lot of progress.

Most of us dream about better technology at least every now and then, but in the end we have to use what we do have and cynicism-driven falsehoods do not help ("hey, let me lie to myself that there's a huge conspiracy going on which prevents me to make an EV when in reality I'm just a big lazyass"). Fortunately, now in 2013, EVs can be usable for surprisingly many driving habits, whereas in 2003 it was only niche for some certain cases, and there's nothing else than the progress in the battery tech which has enabled it.

Progress in the manufacturing is real progress even though there are only very few groundbreaking new ideas in the last 15 years.


----------



## Siwastaja (Aug 1, 2012)

You seem to have serious trouble making the distinction between _relative _and _absolute _expressions. To give you an example about "relative expression", if I say that Bill has twice as many oranges as Bob, Bill may have just two or 200 oranges, you cannot know. Bob would have 1 orange in the first case, or 100 in the second. An "absolute" expression would be that Bill has 6 oranges. And then, Sue might have 10000000 apples and it would make little sense comparing these.

Or; the price of batteries has dropped to about 1/4th of what is was 10 years ago per energy per cycle. It is 4x more affordable than _what it was_, but it may still not be very affordable.

Relative: Battery costs 4x less (colloquial for "1/4th") than 10 years ago. Absolute: Battery cost for energy x and lifetime y in 2003 was 100 000 monetary units, and it is now 25 000 similar units.

It's sad you missed the grade school, but don't be so bitter about it; the path for better life starts from admitting the problem. In fact, even the industrialized countries have surprisingly many of totally illiterate people, so as you can write (but maybe not understand what you read?) you have a _relatively _good start compared to those people who cannot do it at all.

Good luck! No need to reply to me on this.

(BTW, as a general side note, this forum has a neat little ignore feature once you find it from the user settings.)


----------



## Joey (Oct 12, 2007)

__-_-_-__ said:


> let's keep dreaming. new battery technologies appear on a weekly basis. yet almost 0 improvement since 10 years ago.





__-_-_-__ said:


> the price has dropped? yeah really affordable. I do see loads of EV's being sold much more cheaper then ice's. oh wait........


Nobody here has stated that they are statisfied with the current maturity of battery technology, just that you understated the progress made over the last 10 years.

The fact that Moore's law has held over such a long period in the semiconductor industry is remarkable and probably has something to do with increasing rates of investment in the industry. I would not expect the same exponential growth rates of improvements in battery technology or almost any other field.


----------



## Siwastaja (Aug 1, 2012)

Joey said:


> The fact that Moore's law has held over such a long period in the semiconductor industry is remarkable and probably has something to do with increasing rates of investment in the industry. I would not expect the same exponential growth rates of improvements in battery technology or almost any other field.


Actually, it is not _so_ far from the Moore's. Moore says that the number of transistors doubles every two years (sometimes stated as 18 months, but AFAIK this is a misconception?). It is a wrong conclusion that processing power per money would follow exactly the same pattern, but if we do that anyway and then compare to battery tech, including inflation correction, we are at about doubling the energy*lifetime per money every five years. It's about 2-3 times slower than the progress on CPU's. OTOH, _personal _computers and mobile devices have an usage history of maybe 20 years _among large public_, whereas _cars_ have nearly 100 years of _very_ slow progress. In this regard, the EV revolution is actually very quick, as everyone expects that cars change slowly and nothing big ever happens.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Please provide credible links to all the available technology that's not being used. Include pricing. There is no Moore's Law for batteries and you should not expect one since there is no connection between the two technologies. Bottom line, you made a ridiculous false statement and were called on it. Suggesting that EV's have been in development for 100 years is not even close to reality, cheap abundant oil killed all development up until very recently.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

For a look at what it takes to develop new battery technology read the comment on this article from Phil Roberts of CalBattery. Interesting to note the association with CALiB and CALB.
http://green.autoblog.com/2012/10/3...n-300-mile-li-ion-batteries-at-greatly-reduc/


----------



## TexasCotton (Sep 18, 2008)

__-_-_-__ said:


> The fact is that there is available technology since many years ago to produce much more powerful and cheap batteries. *


Untwist and untangle some of your statements,declarations, and posts.

Reality history cause for pause and you may want to visit battery university. 
The Lifepo4 cell for EV has only just hit a 10 year stride and is made(mostly mfg) in China aka (CALB) Valence and A123(now defunct)B456 limited domestic mfg are either reformed and/or mfg out of country.

Energy density, anode, cathode, and other factors define most of the battery future. Just because a "new" technology is declared, stated, doc, tested, and displayed. The reality that the "new" technology will be adopted and then go into a manufacturing process is a different cycle/timeline all together.Example the way that graphite is applied, oriented, and structured has a "new" and improved mfg process. The lag timeline for the above process is considerable.
None of that has any relationship to price.


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

__-_-_-__ said:


> you have loads of topics on the forum with dozens of links providing information about new battery technologies. just use the search function.


Just because something exists in a lab sample that lasts for 4 or 5 charge/discharge cycles doesn't mean it can be produced soon, or ever for that matter. Lithium-air batteries have existed in the lab for years now, but they only last for a few cycles and it may be decades before all of the challenges associated with them are solved.

Don't take this the wrong way, but its apparent you have no idea of the challenges faced in battery science.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

__-_-_-__ said:


> you have loads of topics on the forum with dozens of links providing information about new battery technologies. just use the search function.


I'm quite familiar with many of the potential new technologies. You are the one claiming that there are some ready for prime time right now. Prove it.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*a new manufacturing process takes only a few months to go into full scale production.

*Really? - not in this world mate!

Setting up a plant to use an old fully understood manufacturing process takes well over a year!

Get the funding,
Acquire the land/buildings
Get the permissions, council, environmental...
Order the physical plant
Get the physical plant built
Install the machinery
Employ the workers
Train the workers
Go into production

Some of these can be done in parallel but not all

Think of the Manhattan project - in 1938 they knew what was required - the first bomb was detonated in 1945 - and that was with unlimited budgets and manpower

If you want to make a small change to a manufacturing process it can take months checking all of the ramifications -
of course you can - Just Do It - 
and then go out of business as the change in process A wrecks process C further down the line


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

__-_-_-__ said:


> you don't seam familiar quite the opposite. I don't have to prove anything. Just google. use your ability to use new technologies to make a simple web search. you can also find lot's of info on the forum.


As I expected, you have no data at all.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

*I bet you work for the oil industry. *
Nope I am an Industrial engineer with experience in manufacturing
including setting up new facilities


_*yes new processes are already developed and it would only take a few months to get into full scale production.
*_
Utter cobblers -

_new processes are already developed-_ 
No they are not "developed" until they are in full scale production - 
as you go from laboratory

to proof of concept
to pilot production
to full scale production

There are issues and problems to be fixed - all of which takes time - months that quickly turn into years

Only somebody who has never done anything like this would believe that it only takes a few months 
(unless a few = 60)


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

From my own experience if I try to estimate a timeframe for a new product, I greatly underestimate it. I can often put together a rough mental image or outline of a project in a few days, and I put down the number of hours I think it should take to do each segment. But I find that the true amount of time follows the 90/10 rule as often expressed for software. You finish 90% of the work in 10% of the time, and then it takes 90% of the time to finish the last 10%. So there is roughly a 10:1 expansion from what is originally estimated. 

My most recent (and still ongoing) project is a good example. I came up with the original proposal in early September of 2011, and I had established five benchmarks for progress at 2-3 weeks, 4-6 weeks, 2-3 weeks, 4-6 weeks, and 4-6 weeks. My target for a working prototype and basic completion of the project was March 1, and in fact I had something that worked well enough to demonstrate. The estimate totals came to 16 to 24 weeks, or 4 to 6 months, so March 1 was spot on at the high end of the range. 

But the result of having the working prototype ushered in another round of redesign based on visual preferences and engineering improvements that were identified by the customer and some of his customers who evaluated it and made suggestions. There were many new proposals and much discussion, and the lengthy process of requesting quotes from multiple vendors and dealing with hard-to-get parts and various alternatives with decisions based on availability, cost, and performance. 

I also had other projects that I had neglected so I had to spend time to get those caught up. On top of that, my orthopedic issues with my hip limited how much I could work. But now, finally, we appear to be in the "home stretch" and should be able to deliver one or two first run units by mid-June. 

Since I do all the work myself (except for such things as PCB fab and some machining), I have a big advantage over larger engineering and manufacturing companies that have many specialized workers who require detailed plans and careful supervision. The equipment I design and manufacture are probably more complex than a LiFePO4 battery or those of other chemistries, but my designs are low volume and high price items where it is fairly easy to recoup the NRE costs. But EV batteries must be highly optimized for mass production where profit margins are slim, and there is a high probability of other companies stealing or reverse-engineering the technology and unfairly competing, so the innovator is saddled with the development costs and many years of marginal profits to recoup the investment. 

This has been discussed before with respect to VFDs, which are very complex and require a lot of testing under a wide range of conditions, and even BMSs which some people claim they can build for $2/cell, but to produce a viable commercial product in volume would have to sell for $5 to $10 per cell. And then you must also factor in the costs of business liability insurance and warranties and customer support and myriad local, state, national, and global regulations. It's no wonder that the Chinese can and do take unfair advantage of such technology as batteries which can be produced cheaply if you don't maintain excellent quality control and long-term support.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Paul

You are talking about manufacturing complex "machines" using existing manufacturing systems.
This as you said takes time - nearly 2 years

Making a new battery involves making the manufacturing process machines - the machines to make the thin films, seal them into units - and all of the other equipment to make up a manufacturing line 

This takes a long time!


----------



## Siwastaja (Aug 1, 2012)

I agree we "should" have those already. However, the reason is not that battery R&D is going on too slowly; rather, it is that it started very late. It could have started after the wars in the 50's like many technical R&D did; instead, it started 40 years late.

Proper battery R&D got really started in the late 1990's. People just didn't have enough imagination to think about (1) electric vehicles, (2) mobile phones (and other mobile devices) realistically. They sounded too sci-fi and unrealistic to investors.

Mobile devices started to catch on in the 1990's, which enabled more resources to battery development, and li-ion was realized. Last 20 years has been refining li-ion and at the same time, hectic lab work towards better technologies, many of which have been promising but none of them are still not ready for production. Most of these are less than 10 years old. You typically get nothing new to market just in 10 years.

The idea of electric cars resurfaced _after_ we had this better battery technology (due to mobile phones and laptops). _Now_, it is acknowledged as a separate development branch that has large possibilities. This has happened just in the last 3-4 years, so, we can expect more R&D resources.

While it's irritating to read weekly news about new battery inventions working in a lab while knowing they probably never make it, these news are the proof that the research is going on.

It's best to think that R&D has two phases, R taking at least 10 years and D another 10. Therefore, from the 20-year R&D effort on the battery field, we can expect starting seeing results in the near future.

What I believe is that there is no more "oil conspiracy" going on. Indeed, the "easy" oil solution prevented alternatives to be researched, but that's a thing of the past. We have already won the war. They can and will struggle but it won't make a difference. Oil companies cannot control independent research and independent investors who have seen this technology is possible.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Exactly right.


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

My first cell phone was a Nokia 5100 series and used a NiMh battery that is almost the volume and is heavier than most of today's current smartphones. The cell phone I got in 2003 used a lithium polymer battery and was tiny, nearly weightless in comparison, and would last much longer between charges. Consumer electronics like laptops have been using lithium cobalt chemistry for about two decades. LiFePO4 is newer and not nearly as widespread in use, the volume just isn't there for the R&D like it is for consumer electronics.

We like to use LiFePO4 in the DIY community because it is more resilient, yet not immune to overdischarge and some overcharge and generally is easier to use with the large form factors available to us. The real technology(R&D dollars) lies in smaller cells such as the lithium polymer cells such those in cell phones and lithium cobalt typically used in laptops. The strides for capacity there are huge although cycle life isn't as important for many of the consumer electronics we use since they are obsolete quickly anyway.

Tesla is using some high capacity, for their size, 18650 cells to make the 85kwh pack that the Tesla Model S is using because of the density, scale of production, and consistency in production, of that cell size. It is impractical for us to produce a pack with those cells and for many here, dangerous without the proper engineering and execution.

If we get more volume, those who produce them will likely get the improvements we want. At this point it seems we are getting increased performance in large format cells such as the CALB CA series gray cells but the size, weight, and cost seem to be roughly the same. FWIW less voltage sag gives us more effective capacity but not by too much in general cruising. It is hard to tell what will come for us in the future and how soon we will see it.


----------



## Siwastaja (Aug 1, 2012)

Because your Samsung smartphone uses something like 10-30x more power, and therefore, having 5x better battery is not enough. The real problem here is that the computer system science (which I know pretty well because it's my field of study as a researcher) is severely lacking behind. As a researcher I also know that surprisingly little R&D resources are being given to the basic research on computer technology.

"Moore's law" has enabled huge numbers of transistors, but too little attention has been given how to do things people want to do with minimum amount of power. This is mainly due to the fact that current microcomputers are based on the principle developed in the early 1900's (sequential CPU architecture) which, clearly, is not power-efficient at all. 

Current state of so called "software science" also has a lot to do with the power consumption problem.

Yes, Moore's law means huge growth, but surprisingly, we have been satisfied with this growth alone, whereas we should think outside the box and develop something _new_ on the microcomputer area. It has pretty much been about brute-forcing more transistors(/tubes/relays) for the last 100 years!

Therefore, it's quite hilarious that you use microprocessors as an example of "advancing" technology battery tech "should" be, whereas in reality the microprocessors suffer even more from the "no really new inventions, only streamlining old technology" paradigm than the batteries do.

Battery technology is an easy scapegoat. Given the complexity of computer systems, it may be easier to just develop better batteries than it is to develop better microprocessors.


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

__-_-_-__ said:


> even if it took 5 years to setup by now we already should have batteries with 10 times more capacity at a much lower price.


I guess you missed my post on the last page.



rochesterricer said:


> Just because something exists in a lab sample that lasts for 4 or 5 charge/discharge cycles doesn't mean it can be produced soon, or ever for that matter. Lithium-air batteries have existed in the lab for years now, but they only last for a few cycles and it may be decades before all of the challenges associated with them are solved.
> 
> Don't take this the wrong way, but its apparent you have no idea of the challenges faced in battery science.


Don't take an article about a certain battery chemistry on the horizon as some sort of indication that a massive leap is only a year or two away. Sometimes the figures being reported to the media are exaggerations or outright lies from companies trying to lure investors or government subsidies. 

Just because a certain kind of battery exists in a lab setting, doesn't mean that is anywhere near being ready for production. Often times cycle life is the issue. The lab battery may only last for a few cycles and they have to figure out how to extend the cycle life before it is viable. Sometimes they are having problems with dendrite formation causing shorts, and that issue must be solved before production is possible. 

There are all sorts of other problems that often exist in lab batteries. As I said, that is currently the case with lithium-air batteries. They have existed in the lab for a while now, but cycle life is nowhere near satisfactory and viable production lithium-air batteries are likely at least a decade away. The problems that battery scientists and engineers must solve with these batteries are no easy matter. 

What you are doing is akin to complaining that we aren't all carrying around pocket-sized quantum computers because you read some articles a few years ago describing a possible mechanism for building a quantum computer.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

The problem as I see it is that large scale businesses base their activities on maximizing profits and growth of sales. In the case of cars, we already had the technology to produce a safe, reliable passenger car that got 40-50 MPG by the 1970s, at which time the "oil embargo" boosted sales of efficient European cars like the VW diesel Golf. At that time some domestic car manufacturers started efforts to produce similar cars, but the crisis was short-lived and the redesign process was terminated in favor of pushing faster and more powerful cars that boosted gasoline sales. Then came the phenomenon of the big SUV which bypassed the emissions and CAFE requirements since it was classified as a truck. Some domestic vehicles, such as the Saturn, appeared in the early 1990s and achieved 35-40 MPG with adequate performance and low cost, but by 2005 or so the HP increased and fuel economy dropped to about 30 MPG. 

The hybrid phenomenon began with the very economical but underpowered early Prius, but plug-in varieties were held back until DIY mods and demand, bucked pressure from oil companies, and ushered in the PHEV. But at the same time other vehicles such as the Cadillac and SUVs were hybridized but fuel economy remained unimpressive because the selling point was largely additional (and unnecessary) power. Meanwhile, the major impetus for new models was to maintain and increase production and encourage people to purchase or lease new vehicles on a 2-3 year basis, often determined by style more than function.

Consumer electronics such as smart phones and computers are also driven more by profit and sales than need and function. Increased processing power, speed, and high performance displays are not needed for 90% of most functions, and a totally adequate computer could be designed with a non-backlit display and sufficient performance for word processing, spreadsheets, email, and web browsing, that could run continuously for days at a time using only a few watts and ordinary batteries would suffice. But such things as games and multimedia entertainment, and the desire to remain connected almost 24/7 via cell phone or WiFi adds a lot of power that pushes the limits of battery technology. But it also seems that operating systems, applications, and peripheral devices are constantly being expanded to make previous versions inadequate, so as to boost sales of new devices and software, and promoting the "throwaway" mindset.

I think the oil companies are still clinging to their century-old business plan of stimulating continued and expanding consumption along with steady and rising prices, to maximize their short-term profits. EVs and hybrids, especially DIY varieties, are not yet mainstream enough to pose a serious threat, and because of the continued demand for high-power ICE cars, and sometimes subtle efforts to discredit EVs, the electric car market remains too small to mobilize rapid R&D and large-scale deployment of new battery technologies. Besides, it seems unlikely that anything more than a two or three fold improvement in energy density, along with lower cost, will become available anytime soon (5-10 years, maybe). 

What is more important, IMHO, and what may be the ultimate solution, is a major "paradigm shift" in personal lifestyles, particularly transportation, and also entertainment, communication, and expectations of material "wealth". If people could live closer to where they work, or work from home, and become accustomed to a 4 or 3 day work-week, it would greatly reduce personal vehicle use and traffic jams and accidents and road rage. A greater appreciation for nature and the ability to appreciate the outdoors and subtle sights and sounds should replace much of our addiction to constant artificial stimulation by loud music, TV, and dependency on near-continuous cell-phone communication.


----------



## Salty9 (Jul 13, 2009)

Look down the road a bit when the comm wire will be implanted at birth and be powered by ATP.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

__-_-_-__ said:


> that chart shows how slowly things are going. it's about 5 times slower then moore's law for transistors. actually, moore's law could be applied because there's technology that makes batteries from similar processes. yet no one makes it.


LOL!!! You are clearly young, to be under the mistaken perception that "Moore's Law" is a "standard rule" for evaluating improvements in technology...

The chart shows a drop from $3 W/h to $0.50 W/h over 13 years, or about 2 1/2 doublings of W/h per dollar in that time period. However, it does not take into consideration overall inflation, which would show an improvement from nearly $6 to $0.50 per W/h in inflation-adjusted dollars. If we continue that trend, in another 10 years gasoline in your tank will be so stupid that the youngsters of that time will say, "Duh! You use GAS-o-line????"

I'd say this rate of improvement is GREAT! If it continues, and we have no reason to think that it won't for another 10 years, then combined with continued advances in solar power we will see the CO2 emissions in decline within about 15 -20 years and total levels in decline within about 30 years. While that will cause the current Carbon tax fear-mongering to be revealed as a hoax, it will in general be good for the planet.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

__-_-_-__ said:


> moore's law doubles the number of transistors every 18months. if this was the same for batteries (and it could very easily be with nanowire batteries) then by now we would have way much more capacity.
> 
> the price has dropped? yeah really affordable. I do see loads of EV's being sold much more cheaper then ice's. oh wait........


I suspect you don't actually know what "Moore's Law" is.

First, it is not a law at all. It was an observation that it was taking engineers approximately 18 months to double the number of transistors in the same space. 

There is a lot of speculation that it could have happened even faster, but that for marketing purposes they delayed it. However, that rate is no longer holding true.

In any event, "Moore's Law" has to do with the progress we made in miniaturizing circuitry, not with manufacturing large-scale items nor improvements in chemistry and nano-fabrication techniques nor with any other area of technological advancement - now, or ever.

What we are seeing with batteries is a doubling of delivered capability per inflation-adjusted dollar about every 5 years - which is great.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

What happened to __-_-_-__


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

major said:


> What happened to __-_-_-__


I think a moderator deleted his account because I strongly suspect he was only here to troll us. I was going to check his post history to be sure, but I only remember him posting to bitch about battery technology. I don't remember seeing any other posts from him.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Don't the posts usually remain after an account is deleted? Jack Rickard and GotTDI's did.


----------



## EVfun (Mar 14, 2010)

Perhaps _empty line_ decided to delete his posts. That is allowed here, When _JR_ went off I was LMAO because he burned bridges before deleting his own posts, and then had a fit about his posts.


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

JRP3 said:


> Don't the posts usually remain after an account is deleted? Jack Rickard and GotTDI's did.


The posts might stay if a user deletes their own account, like I believe those two did. Might be different if a moderator deletes their account.


----------



## Tesseract (Sep 27, 2008)

It was pretty obvious to me that "__-__-__" was just trolling here, so I picked one of his posts to report to the mods with a suggestion that said user might deserve the ol' ban hammer.

Remember...


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

But it's fun to play with them for a little while


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

It seemed rather extreme to ban him and delete all of his posts. He was merely annoying, and not abusive or threatening as happened with "Genius Pooh", where it was getting personal, and escalating in a bad way. Trolls just argue for the sake of pushing buttons and getting attention, even if it is criticism of outlandish statements. No great loss in this case to have him silenced, but it makes some of the replies confusing without the context. I have seen other posts by "Empty Name", but I don't recall their tone or content.

I am surprised that Jack Rickard was banned. Isn't he the EVTV guy?


----------



## Siwastaja (Aug 1, 2012)

PStechPaul said:


> I am surprised that Jack Rickard was banned. Isn't he the EVTV guy?


Yes, he is. His style is close to a religious leader; he starts out nice, talking nice things, being helpful, but when his belief is being disputed by showing facts, he gets really offensive and attacks strongly.

He's banned pretty much from everywhere, so he needs his own universe and has a pretty large group of supporters. I admit he has his own thing going on pretty well, but it only works in his own universe where he can choose whom to talk with, what to report and make up his own laws of physics.

I once read through his looooong cult / attack / ban thread on Endless Sphere and it was indeed hilarious.

Even though this guy does a lot of testing and reporting, I would never trust people like him. Too many outright lies and clearly unstable personality with unclear motives.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Yeah, Jack doesn't always like to let facts get in the way of his opinions. In truth, Jack wasn't actually banned from here, he was annoyed when some of his more harsh personal attacks were edited out and he left the board.


----------



## TexasCotton (Sep 18, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> Yeah, Jack doesn't always like to let facts get in the way of his opinions. In truth, Jack wasn't actually banned from here, he was annoyed when some of his more harsh personal attacks were edited out and he left the board.


Funny thing (not haha)Everyone in here mostly has the freedom to choose,educate, form opinion, resolve, fact find, search the truth as they think it. Sadly I have found on some forums(not this one) that personal attacks will occur on a thread or post. Thereafter the orig poster will try to respond and the moderators are either unaware, appear to take a side, mead out harsh uneven response. Not to say some action should not be taken. However the orig thread is cast off in the dust bin of time. Just because I may differ with another thread /orig poster I never personalize the difference and far too often many do. I always attempt when I differ to base the topic on merit, fact, and the truth as I understand it.


----------

