At the aquarium, dreaming quite strangely
They crossed the stone bridge
While a boxer named Ridge
Sold electric cars rather grandly
Angela's tax papers float
downstream to Berlin
## Analysis of the Hypothesis
This hypothesis connects the Anji Bridge's innovative segmental arch design from the 7th century—which rejected conventional wisdom about semicircular arches being necessary for load transfer with modern EV battery housing engineering. The bridge's key structural principles include a rise-to-span ratio of 0.197 compared to 0.5 for semicircular arches, resulting in 40% material savings, and side arches that reduce total weight by 15.3% while allowing flood water passage.
However, Fisker's bankruptcies (2013 and 2024) were primarily caused by battery supplier failures (A123 Systems), manufacturing issues, software problems, and business model challenges—not structural housing failures requiring arch-inspired solutions.
## Assessment
**1. Is this hypothesis testable or purely speculative?**
The hypothesis is testable but highly speculative. Current EV battery housing research focuses on "high stiffness and effective thermal management whilst being lightweight" through sandwich structures and structural integration, not arch principles. Modern structural batteries use "sandwich panel design, with outer sheets of aluminum or carbon fiber carrying major in-plane and bending loads, while battery cores resist transverse shear and compressive loads"—a fundamentally different load distribution paradigm than arch compression.
**2. What existing research areas intersect with this idea?**
The relevant intersections are minimal. Battery housing research explores "controlled porosity and tailored properties of porous structures" and lattice designs for weight savings, while structural battery integration makes "the pack a load-bearing part of the chassis". However, none apply compressive arch principles to battery enclosures, which primarily experience impact, vibration, and thermal stresses rather than spanning loads.
**3. Key obstacles and required breakthroughs:**
The fundamental obstacle is incompatible physics. Arch structures work by "adjusting to shifts in supports" through compression, but battery housings require protection for "big, heavy, expensive components" from impacts and environmental factors. Battery packs experience crushing, puncture, and thermal loads—not the distributed spanning loads that arch structures optimize for. Additionally, modern designs like Tesla's structural packs prioritize energy density over repairability, making complex arch geometries counterproductive.
This appears to be a genuinely novel idea with no existing research precedent, but the structural requirements are fundamentally mismatched. The hypothesis conflates durability (material longevity) with structural efficiency (load optimization), applying bridge engineering to a completely different mechanical context.
**PLAUSIBILITY: Speculative**