An article claiming to be scientific is nothing of the kind, if it does not lay bare the entire state of the art which the article is claimed to be built on. Stating only part of the truth, just the part that matches a narrative makes it nothing more than an advertisement.
This makes it invalid. This is standard PhD research training to know this. The article you quoted is not science, just an advertisement. Propaganda.
You maybe missed I am in process of showing by formal model based systems Engineering techniques how it works, how it all fits together, even simulates in order to be fitted into the bigger picture, which again will simulate, using entirely off the shelf equipment.
These techniques are my specialism, in many years as a Chartered Engineer. Look it up. IEC 15288 is the industry standard. INCOSE is the regulation body.
Parts 1,2,3 are done and published.
Parts 4,5 are in progress.
Its all just standard engineering work, no miracles, no propaganda, just solid Engineering truth, like I've done for many companies like Rolls Royce, who tested their engines with hydrogen.
Cult?
Are Rolls Royce in my cult too?
Actually your accusation there says much more about your own motives than you realise, and actually the real reason you have to deny truth, selling a sales pitch.
BTW I'd love to know how you think you will keep planes, real planes that fly hundreds of people and cargo for thousands of miles, with batteries.
Do you have a model that shows that? I'd love to see it, but I know I won't :)