正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

33,455 次观看 • 2 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

We were first in world for 1 cells swap…but… Is it possible to repair any high-voltage battery (HVB)? In reality—no, not always. The end-of-life for an HVB depends heavily on mileage, aging, cell type, C-rate, and the overall design and lifespan expectations. Repairability varies significantly depending on whether the pack uses pouch, prismatic, blade, or cylindrical cells—and whether the failure occurs early or late in its life. If the battery fails early in its lifecycle, repairs are usually feasible. However, if it fails after reaching its intended lifespan, any repair tends to be more of a temporary “patch” until a replacement pack is sourced. From experience for cellswap: •Blade and some pouch cells are nearly impossible to repair. •Prismatic cells are difficult. •Cylindrical cells are the easiest to repair—depending on the pack design. (* module change not a topic) This is why it’s encouraging that BMW, Hyundai, Mercedes, and Porsche have finally begun adopting cylindrical cell designs, moving away from less reliable pouch cells—albeit a decade too late. For example, a Tesla Model S 100D battery can last up to 600,000km in Model S and 450,000km in Model X. The older 85 kWh pack in the S85 can even reach 600,000 km. However, the same pack in the high-performance P85D tends to degrade around 400,000 km, requiring full replacement due to total deterioration. In summary: Yes, battery repair is possible—but only if the pack is still within its designed service life.

EV Clinic

40,611 次观看 • 1 年前

John Ternus, Apple's SVP of Hardware Engineering, explains why Apple deliberately made the iPhone harder to repair, and why the math says it was worth it: In a conversation with MKBHD, John frames the design challenge by asking you to imagine two extremes: "Sometimes for me I find it helpful to kind of think about the book ends. Like if you imagine a product that never fails, right? That just doesn't fail. And on the other end, a product that maybe isn't very reliable but is super easy to repair." His position is clear: "Product that never fails is obviously better for the customer. It's better for the environment." When pushed on whether infinite repairability and infinite durability have to be mutually exclusive, John acknowledges they aren't always, but explains why the tension is real, using the iPhone battery as an example. Batteries wear out. If you want to extend the life of the product, they need to be replaced. But in the early days of iPhone, one of the most common failures wasn't the battery, it was water: "Where you drop it in the pool or you, you know, spill your drink on it and the unit fails. And so, we've been making strides over all those years to get better and better and better in terms of minimizing those failures." That work led Apple to an IP68 rating, the point where customers fish their phones out of lakes after two weeks and find them still working. But there was a cost to achieving that level of durability: "To get the product there, you've got to design a lot of seals, adhesives, other things to make it perform that way, which makes it a little harder to do that battery repair." That's the deliberate tradeoff. Apple chose tighter seals and stronger adhesives, knowing it would make battery replacement more difficult, because the reliability gains were worth it. John argues the math backs this decision: "It's objectively better for the customer to have that reliability and it's ultimately better for the planet because the failure rates since we got to that point have just dropped. It's plummeted, right? The number of repairs that need to happen and every time you're doing a repair, you're bringing in new materials to replace whatever broke." His conclusion reframes the entire repairability debate: "You can actually do the math and figure out there's a threshold at which if I can make it this durable, then it's better to have it a little bit harder to repair because it's going to net out."

Big Brain Business

385,849 次观看 • 3 个月前

Dylan Patel just mapped out the most important investment theme in AI infrastructure (Save this). "In about two years, solar plus battery will be cheaper than gas." Every new NVIDIA Blackwell rack pulls 120 kilowatts, Rubin Ultra rack pulls 600 kilowatts and the next generation hits a megawatt. The US grid cannot keep up, interconnection queues now run five years in many markets so the entire industry is being forced to solve power from first principles. The solar thesis is already happening. BloombergNEF's 2026 LCOE report, covering 800+ financed projects across 50+ markets puts solar plus 4 hour battery storage at $57 per megawatt-hour. Combined cycle gas turbines hit $102 per megawatt hour, the highest on record, up 16% year over year. In California and parts of Texas, solar plus storage is already cheaper than gas for data center power today and solar panel costs are expected to drop another 30% by 2035. Getting power from the grid into the form chips actually require is an entire industry unto itself and NVIDIA just rewrote the rules. The 800 volt DC transition is the most important infrastructure shift that's happening right now. Today's data centers run on 48 volt DC power delivery, a single next-generation GPU pulls over 2,500 watts and at 48 volts, the current required to power a megawatt rack would melt the copper wiring. The investment thesis breaks into four layers and the first layer is power semiconductors, specifically silicon carbide and gallium nitride. At 800 volts, traditional silicon based IGBTs hit their physical limits. SiC and GaN devices are the mandatory replacement. Infineon estimates $175,000 of semiconductor content per megawatt of AI rack power, versus almost nothing today and by 2030, power semiconductor content per AI cabinet grows from $15,000 to $115,000+. The names here are Infineon ($IFNNY), ON Semiconductor ($ON), Wolfspeed ($WOLF), Navitas ($NVTS), and STMicroelectronics ($STM). The second layer is power management and conversion. Vertiv ($VRT) is NVIDIA's lead architectural collaborator for the 800V transition, building the hardware that converts grid AC to 800V DC and the DC to DC power shelves for ultra dense racks. Eaton ($ETN) and Monolithic Power Systems ($MPWR) round out this layer. The third layer is grid to site infrastructure, GE Vernova ($GEV) builds the heavy electrical equipment that connects utility power to the data center campus. Orders are running at twice the rate of shipments, the classic leading indicator of sustained multi year revenue growth. The fourth layer is behind the meter power generation like your bloom energy because grid interconnection queues run five years, hyperscalers are bypassing the grid entirely, building dedicated gas, solar and battery systems on site. Make sure to follow me Melvin for more opportunities across the AI supply chain.

Melvin

107,871 次观看 • 1 个月前