Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

bpetersonlaw t1_j22h3ah wrote

well sort of. They might do so in the future.

"Although not quite there yet, the researchers concluded that quantum-based computational chemistry on the kinds of quantum computers that will be available in the near-term will play “a vital role to find potential materials that can enhance the battery performance and robustness.” While they used a 20-qubit simulator, they suggest a 400-qubit quantum computer (which will soon be available) would be necessary to fully model the Li2Co2O4 and Co2O4 system they considered."

66

pastari t1_j25e8cf wrote

> Ford used a quantum computer

> Although not quite there yet

This is the worst clickbait I've seen all day.

5

bpetersonlaw t1_j25g29m wrote

Yeah, that's what I was thinking too. I don't actually know what "a 20-qubit simulator" is, but I'm confident it didn't find better EV battery materials. I think this was more proof of concept

1

sweetmorty t1_j22y1v1 wrote

https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.07977

Kind of a misleading title. They've only described how to go about using VQE for simulating more complex and useful molecules other than simple benchmarking ones like H2, H2O, and LiH, and what their limitations are. Paper explains all of their methods.

I'm no battery expert but basically, the existing solid state battery simulation algorithm (DFT) has limitations on how well it can describe many body electronic structure systems. This is important for predicting whether or not a battery can keep a steady voltage. Using VQE and entangling more qubits appears to be necessary to better simulate the energy states of LiCoO2 and CoO2 molecules, which are essentially intermediate phases of matter found in batteries which transfer & hold electrical charge.

So why would Ford care about this? Obviously EVs need better batteries. But if you want to speed up your R&D time, modeling & simulation helps narrow down your candidate test materials to manufacture to ones which have the best chance of holding the best charge in simulations. In order to do that better, you want to use faster and more accurate simulation tools. That's where QC comes in. Very interesting research.

19

Zorklis t1_j229ml2 wrote

I mean, that's a good use for such a computer

13

dangil t1_j23k842 wrote

holy shit what a bad misleading title

6

BigBadgooz t1_j22h4t6 wrote

But can they use it to find out why their gas engines just fail after 100k miles.

5

i_am_bromega t1_j22nyzn wrote

Not really a thing for any modern vehicles. It’s pretty common to get 200-300k miles on a well maintained vehicle.

4

macromorgan t1_j22xc76 wrote

Never had a Ford engine just fail after 100k miles. Transmissions, on the other hand… well let’s just say it’s not called a PowerShit transmission for nothing.

Now my GM Terrain; that thing magically developed a hole in the engine block and one of the rocker arms just fell off one day.

4

Remarkable-Dig-1241 t1_j235egx wrote

"Hey GPT3, can you come up with 3 alternatives to cobalt for electric vehicules? Keep it short"

3

SpecialNose9325 t1_j23d8nv wrote

looks like a website that found a way to combine 2 buzz words in the same title. That means nothing. They could be using Google on a quantum computer to find out the materials needed to create a battery. The title is that vague

3

42kyokai t1_j22rgwy wrote

tldr; Ford got a little(lot) of help from ChatGPT.

2

SpecialInviteClub t1_j23tgit wrote

So the Congo? Send in the children with pick axes

0

Sharp-Ad1824 t1_j22hxi1 wrote

Fake news … Ford does not have any brains to tame tech .. they can only tame few folks in US congress

−9