I'm hearing in other chats that this is actually a rehash of a nonsensical recycling attempt done a couple of years ago.

So I want to ask a question. What in this study would throw the HN people off as incorrect or raising a flag? Is terminology being used incorrectly? Is data vs shown photographs not quite matching up with what is being stated? I'm no battery expert, so I'm quite curious as to why I'm hearing that this is fake from people that work directly in the battery industry (and they're not big companies, most of them are individuals providing various services, some in recycling, some in custom manufacturing, some in installation.)

Just like the periodic news about a new study on a method that makes batteries last effectively forever, this is unlikely to be implemented.

This isn't really a viable technology because it requires careful invasive chemical injection into risky cell chemistries. Generally, liquid electrolyte and plastic separator NMC, LFP, and LiPo should be banned for all but hobby uses when far safer solid state cells with ceramic separators exist such as those offered by ProLogium. NMC are extremely dangerous under deflagration, and LFP create huge amounts of colorless and odorless hydrogen gas that has already blown up many improperly engineered buildings that used them and assumed they were "safe". Real solid state electrolyte chemistries tend to have much slower passivation growth than liquid chemistries.

Yup, saw this in a documentary. A bunch of tourists were stranded on a desert island, but this professor had them re-energize them with some coconuts and bananas.

Longest 3 hour tour ever.