Ann: March Quarterly Activities and Cashflow Report, page-60

Hi. Neptune's was a simple example so I was building on the simplicity for ease of understanding.

Patents refer to spherical as a component of 'active material' in 'secondary cells' - ie a rechargeable battery.

Patents also state the active material is a layer coated onto a 'current collector'. So in essence we are not referring to this layer as 'flat' or 'cube' like - the layer is more of a thin rectangular prism as I see it - ie the length of the active material layer is far longer than its height.

The film coating of spherical is not the 'glue' - the binder used to make the 'slurry' of active material is - patents refer to this as 'adhesion'. In a lot of the patents they talk about the 'prior art' or the 'background to the invention' - generally. It is here they talk about the current state of play of adhesion in batteries and lack thereof that leads to battery degradation. They also talk about how the wrong binder or too much binder can reduce energy density.

This is the flavour of a lot of patents filed in 2012 to 2014 - methods and procedures for improving adhesion of the 'slurry' with a suitable 'binder' aka glue, that maximizes energy density (total power) without sacrificing adhesion (longevity of battery). Making a thick prism type layer of active material on a current collector will give you heaps of power but the drawback appears to be loss of adhesion due to too much volume expansion during recharge/discharge.

It's a theory Prime. Based on Siberian analysis of what I'm reading in the patents. It is not something I can prove with one url link. I've read hundreds of patents by now and each has been valuable in learning.

But as you said - 'intrigued by your claim that the spheroids are "glued on" to the surface in a battery, or that they need to be.'

Clearly the glue/adhesion concept is not a fallacy that is worthy of being intrigued by and is a very real consideration in making batteries.

I'm not saying my theory is correct and that I am not susceptible to getting it wrong. But I will say that you need to start appreciating that you are as susceptible to being wrong as I could be. Considering that when you wrote your post you did not see why the spheroids 'need to be' glued.

I hope you see why I believe it to be important. I too was 'intrigued' by it when I first started researching it. I still find it intriguing but for very different reasons.

Cheers.