--- id: c60-quantized-states-prereg type: prediction title: Pre-Registered — C60 Fullerene Battery Six Quantized States at 0.45 V date_published: 2026-04-02 date_updated: 2026-05-12 project: geometric_battery status: open log_subtype: pre_registration tags: [prediction, c60, fullerene, battery, quantized-states, prereg, falsifiable] author: Jonathan Shelton predicts: - c60-as-geometric-electron-trap see_also: - geometric-battery-c60-fullerene - hpc-032-sphere-family-archimedean --- ## Author notes This is a **pre-registered prediction** for the fullerene-battery hypothesis. The framework predicts C60 should serve as a resonant electron trap with six discrete charge states at 0.45 V step spacing. This entry locks the predicted values *before* experimental synthesis and electrochemical characterization confirms or refutes. ### The prediction A C60-based test cell electrochemically loaded should show: | Predicted property | Predicted value | Tolerance | |---|---|---| | Number of accessible charge states | **6** | exactly 6, not 5 or 7 | | Voltage step between consecutive states | **0.45 V** | ±0.05 V | | Tunneling suppression vs spherical control | **~10⁹×** | order-of-magnitude tolerance | | Charge-state stability (retention time) | **>30 days at 25°C** | empirically testable | | Theoretical energy density (pure C60) | **804 mAh/g** | ±10% | | Operating voltage range | **0 V – 2.7 V** | based on 6 × 0.45 V | ### Confirmation thresholds **Fully confirmed if (all of):** - Empirical cyclic voltammetry shows exactly 6 reduction peaks at step spacing 0.45 ± 0.05 V across the 0–2.7 V window. - Tunneling-suppression measurement (compare C60 with featureless spherical reference) shows ≥10⁸× retention factor. - Charge-state retention exceeds 30 days at room temperature with <5% loss per state. - Cycling stability >10,000 cycles with <2% capacity loss. **Partially confirmed if:** - 5 or 7 reduction peaks observed (vs predicted 6) but spacing matches 0.45 V — the geometric mechanism is real but the cage capacity prediction needs refinement. - Step spacing 0.30–0.40 V or 0.50–0.60 V (within ~20% of predicted) — the mechanism is real but the framework's prediction of cage- diameter-to-step-spacing scaling needs adjustment. - 6 states at correct spacing but tunneling suppression only 10⁵– 10⁷× (vs predicted 10⁹×) — mechanism real but suppression factor was overestimated. **Falsified if (any of):** - Cyclic voltammetry shows continuous reduction (no quantized steps). - Number of steps differs from 6 by more than ±1, and spacing differs from 0.45 V by more than ±0.1 V — geometric prediction has failed in a way the partial-confirmation thresholds don't rescue. - C60 shows no enhanced retention vs spherical control (suppression factor < 10×) — the {5}-fold-retention mechanism fails empirically. - Cycling stability <100 cycles before capacity loss exceeds 10% — would indicate that the "no chemistry" claim is wrong; something is reacting. ### Variants under separate prediction If the C60 prediction confirms, the framework predicts *related but distinct* values for: - **C70 (rugby-ball fullerene):** different state count and spacing due to elongated geometry. The framework predicts 7 states at ~0.38 V spacing (lower-confidence prediction; depends on the framework's mapping of asymmetric-cage geometry to charge capacity). - **Endohedral fullerenes (M@C60, M = Li, Na, K):** modified spacing depending on encapsulated metal's geometric effect on cage interior. Predictions to be filed separately when prepared. The cleanest confirmation comes from C60 specifically; C70 and endohedral variants are second-order tests. ### Why pre-registration matters here Battery performance claims are notoriously susceptible to post-hoc tuning — "we predicted 6 states; we measured 7; but if you count the small extra peak at higher voltage as a single state, we got 7 which is actually consistent with…" etc. The pre-registration locks the prediction at exactly 6 states with 0.45 V spacing. The empirical result either lands in that window or it doesn't. The 804 mAh/g energy-density figure is particularly important to pre-register because energy-density claims in battery research are often inflated by post-hoc accounting. The framework's prediction of 804 mAh/g assumes pure C60 with all 6 states fully addressable in normal-temperature operation. Empirical implementations involving binders, electrolytes, current collectors will give lower practical numbers; the comparison should be against the *pure C60 theoretical* prediction, not the practical-implementation number. ### Status of evaluation - Fabrication of high-purity C60 electrode cells is well-established technology (commercial sources of >99% pure C60 exist). - Electrochemical characterization is standard CV + galvanostatic cycling work in any battery-research lab. - No collaborator has yet run the test against the framework's pre-registered values. The test is *cheap* — a few thousand dollars for a single test cell. The barrier is collaborator capacity, not equipment cost. ## Summary **Pre-registered prediction** for the C60 fullerene-battery hypothesis, filed 2026-04-02. **The framework predicts:** | Property | Predicted value | |---|---| | Charge states | 6 (exactly) | | Voltage step spacing | 0.45 V (±0.05 V) | | Tunneling suppression vs sphere | ~10⁹× | | Charge-state retention | >30 days at 25°C | | Theoretical energy density | 804 mAh/g (pure C60) | | Operating range | 0 – 2.7 V | **Confirmation:** exactly 6 reduction peaks at 0.45 V spacing with >10⁸× tunneling suppression and >10,000-cycle stability. **Falsification:** continuous (non-quantized) reduction, OR steps differing from 6 by more than ±1 AND spacing off by more than ±0.1 V, OR suppression <10× vs spherical control, OR cycling stability <100 cycles. **Related predictions** for C70 (7 states at ~0.38 V) and endohedral M@C60 variants filed separately as second-order tests. **Status: open.** Test is *cheap* (~$1-3K for one cell at any battery-research lab); barrier is collaborator capacity, not equipment. No collaborator has yet run the test against the framework's pre-registered values. **Pre-registration locks** the predicted values; no retroactive adjustment. The result lands where it lands. Particularly important for battery research given the field's history of post-hoc tuning of performance claims.