Author notes — full detail, auditor-facing
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
- Tunneling-suppression measurement (compare C60 with featureless
- Charge-state retention exceeds 30 days at room temperature with
- Cycling stability >10,000 cycles with <2% capacity loss.
step spacing 0.45 ± 0.05 V across the 0–2.7 V window.
spherical reference) shows ≥10⁸× retention factor.
<5% loss per state.
Partially confirmed if:
- 5 or 7 reduction peaks observed (vs predicted 6) but spacing
- Step spacing 0.30–0.40 V or 0.50–0.60 V (within ~20% of predicted)
- 6 states at correct spacing but tunneling suppression only 10⁵–
matches 0.45 V — the geometric mechanism is real but the cage capacity prediction needs refinement.
— the mechanism is real but the framework's prediction of cage- diameter-to-step-spacing scaling needs adjustment.
10⁷× (vs predicted 10⁹×) — mechanism real but suppression factor was overestimated.
Falsified if (any of):
- Cyclic voltammetry shows continuous reduction (no quantized
- Number of steps differs from 6 by more than ±1, and spacing
- C60 shows no enhanced retention vs spherical control
- Cycling stability <100 cycles before capacity loss exceeds 10%
steps).
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.
(suppression factor < 10×) — the {5}-fold-retention mechanism fails empirically.
— 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
- Endohedral fullerenes (M@C60, M = Li, Na, K): modified
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).
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
- Electrochemical characterization is standard CV + galvanostatic
- No collaborator has yet run the test against the framework's
technology (commercial sources of >99% pure C60 exist).
cycling work in any battery-research lab.
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 — reader-facing
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.