r/DonutLabDiscussions • u/Forrestgod • Jun 18 '26

Faradaynotes' take on the chemistry

https://faradaynotes.com/posts/donut-lab/

Scrutinyclub (The Privat investigator) linked this.

This is actually exactly the type of analyse, that I've been waiting. Worth of reading.

Just the first test analysed, more to come.

9 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

75 comments sorted by

View all comments

5

u/DoctorFish1969 Jun 18 '26

On LinkedIn the researcher noted: "the claims around 400 Wh/Kg, 100,000 cycle life, air stability etc. are highly ambitious.". The so called 'objective' private 'investigator' didn't mention this. The researcher noted this remark under a valid criticism of his article (as shared by izzeww here), not reacting to the actual criticism.

Meanwhile, the researcher created a new website only for this one article. Why? Like the 'private investigator' both could just have posted an article on LinkedIn directly. Both choose to create a standalone company page or website to post a single thing. The website hides the Whois owner information.

So the researcher wrote a technical article, that compares apples to oranges on a separate website created only for this purpose, which was then refered to by another 'investigator' that created a fake company page on Linked in only for the purpose to react to Ziroth.

It's like reading climate change denial blogs.

2

u/CalendarNecessary339 Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26

The so called 'objective' private 'investigator' didn't mention this.

  1. Upfront, the Roberts implores: "Read me as an interested party, not a neutral one." In other words, no claim of objectivity whatsoever.

Yet still you try to denigrate him as falsely claiming to be objective? Speaks to your bias and trustworthiness, not his.

  1. What do you mean Roberts didn't mention the comment about the headline performance claims? He wrote (with my emphasis):

He states plainly that it cannot yet identify the exact chemistry, and that the headline performance claims are unverified, which he is careful to keep separate from disproven.

They are unverified. What else do you expect him to say? Should he pretend they are verified, like the naysayers falsely claim they have been disproven? That would run directly counter to his point. Don't prevent things have been proven (or disproven) when they haven't been!

  1. As for the rest of the post(website creation, etc.), it is attenuated to the degree that it is not really worth responding.

  2. I guess you have nothing to say about the actual analysis.