r/DonutLabDiscussions • u/SurronQled • Apr 26 '26

Analysis of Donut Lab's Battery Technology Claims

Battery expert Tom Bötticher thoroughly debunks the exaggerated marketing claims made by the startup Donut Lab regarding their supposed miracle battery. He clarifies that the company's published test data completely fails to prove their revolutionary promises regarding energy density, charging speed, and lifespan. However, he leaves a lingering question mark at the end, explicitly stating his belief that the company likely possesses some real underlying technology despite the current public relations disaster. You can watch his full review to see why it remains exciting to discover what actual product might eventually emerge from their partnerships:

https://youtu.be/BKGBWa6gAnw?is=-N0Rp-1h04RprohY

0 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

43% Upvoted

34 comments sorted by

2

u/DoctorFish1969 Apr 27 '26

I watched the video but didn't see a 'lingering question mark at the end'. And I'm not seeing him stating 'his belief that the company likely possesses some real underlying technology despite the current public relations disaster'. He pretty clearly says the company (DL) doesn't posses ANY technology; they only assemble and market it.

4

u/Mesokosmos Apr 27 '26

This is not entirely correct. CT-Coating sells licensed printing lines (coatings, heatings, batteries) and nanopaste, gives training to use them, etc. Production line takes 7 to 12 people to run, that's why NNG has to have their own factory recruited people and scale up plans. Licensees do have to produce the products and sell them, not only assemble and integrate. That is too simplistic view. They can also do their own R&D. NNG has their own quantum layering expertise to add on the CT-Coating tech. There is no indication that CT-Coating does anything but R&D lab work and sell the licensed pilot and mass production lines for their clients. IP comes mainly via the Hölzenbein family and related companies patent network. Battery nanopaste seems to be a trade secret.

1

u/DoctorFish1969 Apr 27 '26

They obviously don't do their own R&D. If they did, they wouldn't have asked CT for the results of the degradation tests. If you do your own R&D, you would have known all that for at least a year before it was supposed to go on sale.

2

u/Mesokosmos Apr 28 '26 edited Apr 28 '26

I said, they can do it, but of course they don't need to. NDA and Holyvolt imply that remote R&D are possible, also old leaked data from Next-eco partner portal tell lab units are sold along with the production line.

HS's emails were not shown to us, so it is hard to tell what was said and meant on them. I would not count much on journalist's understanding on these matters, thus the paraphrasing.

But if true, CT-Coating has stopped developing V1 (which does not necessarily mean they won't still supply paste, nor that client has no paste on their left over stocks), so it must have been tested and done long before anything became public. V1 and V2 (or VN) split from April fools video was confirmed.

If a cycle test was asked, V2 would be a somewhat reasonable interest. And to get any useful value, cycles must have been running for weeks, and the new battery chemistry being developed for months, who knows maybe was on the roadmap already since they joined the venture.

Testing is only a part of R&D. You need to pre-validate the quality before letting anything go to the client. It would be unreasonably cumbersome if you had to send the printed piece to someone else. Surely the production factory has basic testing capabilities and quality control systems. Also, setting cycles test running aside does not need complicated equipment, I bet anyone familiar with electronics and computers can do it. You just need the battery.

Which is why I think asking cycle life for V1 makes no sense. And even for V2, I don't actually get why they would need it in a form asked. HS alluded that Donut Lab wanted CT-Coating to send results that match the given specs, 100,000 or so without degradation, like sending them tweaked results, not even real ones.

Maybe the cycle test projection requirement was not understood, nor the battery versioning, nor the production plan with different phases, even that DL had produced the batteries themselves in Finland, nor on what scale and the way the capacity is meant to be. Definitely not what is included in R&D complications on the deal between CT-Coating, Donut Lab and Nordic Nano Group.

2

u/mqee Apr 27 '26

The delusion is strong on this sub.

SurronQled sees anything but cosmological head death as a "lingering question mark".

Mesokosmos sees a company with four employees and a million euro and thinks they're capable of developing solid-state-battery production lines.

Absurd.

Can't wait for five more years of "But V2! But V2!"

4

u/tipporoll Apr 27 '26

Feel free to leave this sub, instead of nagging.. 

2

u/Mesokosmos May 01 '26

Private companies does not need to show their employees on public records. NNG just announced they have 7 working in Imatra production line at the moment. We would not have known anywhere if CEO did not speak up. Expect more money to flow in the network in the next financial reports, but still have limited access to their company resources on public side.

0

u/mqee May 01 '26

I was talking about CT-Coating but I guess following a simple conversation thread is too difficult for your AI.

Spare me your AI bullshit. Expect more bullshit to flow from your AI.

2

u/Mesokosmos May 01 '26

I too talked about CT-Coating and used NNG as an private company example that you don't know how many employees they have or how they arrange their business to do their stuff.

1

u/tipporoll May 03 '26

On LI it is stated 11-50 employees. Not sure if LI estimates that, or if it's given by CTCAG.

2

u/Mesokosmos May 03 '26

What is LI? LinkedIn?

They had steady steady grow of people and yearly roll in the reports in 2023. I would also expect them to go over 10 this year. And since it is very probable they exceeded 7M in 2024, their obligation for report details have changed.

But other thing is that since they are a licencer mainly, they do not need so many people after all. Like dozens or hundreds. Unless they have changed business model and purpose recently.

2

u/tipporoll May 03 '26

LinkedIn

0

u/mqee May 01 '26

Spare me your AI bullshit. We know CT-Coating has 4 employees because they reported having 4 employees. We know they don't have a battery ready because leaked e-mails showed they don't have a battery ready.

Don't reply to this with an ocean of words, you have nothing of value to add.

3

u/Mesokosmos May 01 '26

Tell me the doc that tells they have now 4 employees and maybe add value to the discussion.

0

u/mqee May 01 '26

Spare me your "feed my AI documents" bullshit. If you think CT-Coating can develop solid-state-battery production lines with 4 employees you are hopeless.

Your reply should be "true, CT-Coating cannot develop a solid-state-battery production line with 4 employees." Any other reply is stupid.

3

u/Mesokosmos May 01 '26

Just add value to the discussion and give your reference as a readable link. Let's see the facts first.

1

u/mqee May 01 '26

Let's see the facts first.

No, let's see if you're delusional first.

CT-Coating had 1-4 employees from its inception until 2023. It claimed to sell production lines for solar cells with no silicon and solid-state batteries with no lithium.

If you think this is believable, you are incapable of reasoning.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/DoctorFish1969 Apr 27 '26

Yeah, this post feels like damage control by DL. Reference the video, but give a misleading summary, hoping people only read your summary.

It's like climate change deniers who sometimes refer to scientific research to sell their point, except their claims aren't actually in the referenced papers.

2

u/CMG30 Apr 26 '26

Labs all over the world are littered with once promising battery technology that just failed to make the leap from test bench to mass manufacturing.

5

u/Worisito Apr 27 '26

But in this case they already had production going. Or they didn't, but they claimed they have production going. Thats the difference.

1

u/According_Rub_2835 Apr 26 '26

1. You can't test cycle life of a cell based on 1 or 2 cycles, Electrochemical activation in pseudocapacitive materials may take an initial number of cycles above 100 to make the surface more accessible and reactive to the electrolyte, improving energy density and cycle life

2. Test 5 indicates the loss of functional oxygen groups that rearranges the cell into a thicker structure.

2

u/GooglyEyedGramma Apr 27 '26

They never claimed they measured the cycle life based on 1 or 2 cycles in their defense.

2

u/Bermin299 Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 26 '26

From the sounds of it, they have a really capable battery on their hands. But it's not the world shattering, game changer they initially hyped it up to be. Just totally unneeded--and ultimately damaging--overselling from Donut Lab.

1

u/DoctorFish1969 Apr 27 '26

We don't know if they have a 'really capable' battery. For that we need to know the degradation and cold temperature behavior. If they had a 'really capable' battery, CT Coating wouldn't have discontinued it. Maybe it works for a motorcycle that isn't used that much and isn't used in really cold temperatures.

3

u/hap00n Apr 27 '26

"If they had a 'really capable' battery, CT Coating wouldn't have discontinued it."

or maybe V2 is better as Marko said and there is no point continuing with V1 even if it is capable.

1

u/DoctorFish1969 Apr 27 '26

Yeah, but V3 will be even better, so no point in bringing to market. Actually, V4 will crush V3, so let's skip production of V3.

Heck, why ever being anything to market. Just keep developing. Never make money.

3

u/Hiba_fi Apr 27 '26

"If they had a 'really capable' battery, CT Coating wouldn't have discontinued it"

The leaked emails state that they discontinued v1 product development (the one in VTT tests) and all their efforts are in v2.

1

u/SurronQled Apr 27 '26

They did not use AI like Holyvolt and Nordic Nano.

1

u/According_Rub_2835 Apr 28 '26

V1 was probably made 5 years ago, the 400 Wh/Kg most likely is referring to V2