Author Topic: EEVblog #1333 - Nano Diamond Self-Charging Battery DEBUNKED!  (Read 17802 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline timelessbeing

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 926
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #1333 - Nano Diamond Self-Charging Battery DEBUNKED!
« Reply #100 on: October 01, 2020, 04:28:27 pm »
University of Bristol responds to Dave's debunking video.

https://newatlas.com/energy/arkenlight-nuclear-diamond-batteries/


They are working on putting it in pacemakers, but apparently it doesn't scale up.

"The amount of carbon-14 you'd need to power a cell phone would ... require a mass greater than the phone itself."
« Last Edit: October 01, 2020, 04:36:09 pm by timelessbeing »
 
The following users thanked this post: thm_w, sandalcandal

Offline thm_w

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3942
  • Country: ca
  • Non-expert
Re: EEVblog #1333 - Nano Diamond Self-Charging Battery DEBUNKED!
« Reply #101 on: October 01, 2020, 09:39:45 pm »
University of Bristol responds to Dave's debunking video.

https://newatlas.com/energy/arkenlight-nuclear-diamond-batteries/


Quote
The second thing is that this is a major game changer. We now have efficiencies where this becomes commercially relevant. It would still be considered a microbattery, but say for example, 200 microwatts. That's how much energy is needed to power a pacemaker.

Quote
For a single microwatt, we're talking about something 4 mm x 4 mm (0.15 x 0.15 in) in width and length, that's very, very shallow. The size of a fingernail, but thinner. You can mechanically stack these in any number.

Quote
Well, a device that's 10-mm (0.39-in) square, and less than 0.5 mm (0.019 in) in depth, would yield tens of microwatts. The amount of carbon-14 you'd need to power a cell phone would be about the size of a tub of vegetable spread. It can be done, but the physical bounds of carbon-14 diamond would require a mass greater than the phone itself.

So nothing has really changed here.

AA battery = 50x14mm = 2500mm2
4x4x0.5mm claimed 1uW = 8mm2
So theoretically a perfectly packed AA battery would be ~300uW. Which is not bad, but realistically with the supercap and other stuff in there, ~100uW sounds about right.
 

Offline Lord of nothing

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1546
  • Country: at
Re: EEVblog #1333 - Nano Diamond Self-Charging Battery DEBUNKED!
« Reply #102 on: October 01, 2020, 10:50:11 pm »
 :-DD  Well it depend what are you want to do with that energy. A Traditional Smartphone draw a lot of power for sure. There you can replace then but a Pacemaker? Do you want get cut open for a recharge?  :scared:
Made in Japan, destroyed in Sulz im Wienerwald.
 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 13633
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #1333 - Nano Diamond Self-Charging Battery DEBUNKED!
« Reply #103 on: October 02, 2020, 02:05:58 am »
:-DD  Well it depend what are you want to do with that energy. A Traditional Smartphone draw a lot of power for sure. There you can replace then but a Pacemaker? Do you want get cut open for a recharge?  :scared:

It's almost as if you don't know you can charge phones wirelessly these days.
 

Offline Lord of nothing

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1546
  • Country: at
Re: EEVblog #1333 - Nano Diamond Self-Charging Battery DEBUNKED!
« Reply #104 on: October 02, 2020, 09:37:18 am »
Sure I do but when there is a huge power outage like a Hurricane would you like hear a beep who maybe indicate that you should recharge your pacemaker?
Made in Japan, destroyed in Sulz im Wienerwald.
 

Offline srruhl3701

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 8
  • Country: us
Re: EEVblog #1333 - Nano Diamond Self-Charging Battery DEBUNKED!
« Reply #105 on: October 02, 2020, 04:35:01 pm »
https://newatlas.com/energy/arkenlight-nuclear-diamond-batteries/

Looks like NDB has patents issues now. Arkenlight has the diamond patent.
 
The following users thanked this post: Lord of nothing, sandalcandal

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 13633
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #1333 - Nano Diamond Self-Charging Battery DEBUNKED!
« Reply #106 on: October 03, 2020, 02:39:26 am »
Sure I do but when there is a huge power outage like a Hurricane would you like hear a beep who maybe indicate that you should recharge your pacemaker?

They don't actually recharge them AFAIK. The pacemaker is under the skin near the surface and they replace the entire thing every ten years, battery and all.

And (b): Modern pacemakers are passive. They only kick in when they detect your heart going out of rhythm. You can live perfectly without one so long as you don't do anything strenuous like fighting off zombies.
 

Offline winnerwinnerchickendinner

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 11
  • Country: de
Re: EEVblog #1333 - Nano Diamond Self-Charging Battery DEBUNKED!
« Reply #107 on: December 02, 2021, 06:35:32 pm »
NDB was not going to die! I recommend anyone taking a tour of the "new", sleaky NDB website: https://ndb.technology/ Their team has grown quite a bit since last year. Use-cases for their battery listed on their technology page has exploded, with maybe the best example of how stupid this now has become being powering data centers:

Across the world, people rely on data centers to save their important documents and valuable memories to serve them in a trustable way. NDB can provide data centers with power independent from local power sources. In case of interruptions in energy, data centers would continue to power computers.

Recall, a year ago, they claimed this to be a 100 uW betavoltaic cell. That is quite a span one would say...

In this interview, they make some hard promises about a smart watch and all sorts coming within the next 18 months (12 months by now. They are probably totally unaffected by the component crisis). I will keep my popcorn ready!

Meanwhile, all the "ORB" tech companies produced by the same gang of people has quitely disappeared from ze internet. Thank Ohm for the Wayback machine!
https://web.archive.org/web/20191011232613/https://orbep.com/about-us/ceo-statement/

Also, they are now doing blockchain (... like everyone else) with what appears to be an ICO just around the corner: https://ndb.money/auction/
Or, simply tour the NDB City. This company simply does everything: https://ndb.city/


As they are still active, I would fear someone has actually bought into their BS and invested real money in them  :wtf:  |O
« Last Edit: December 02, 2021, 07:06:22 pm by winnerwinnerchickendinner »
 

Offline winnerwinnerchickendinner

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 11
  • Country: de
Re: EEVblog #1333 - Nano Diamond Self-Charging Battery DEBUNKED!
« Reply #108 on: December 02, 2021, 09:03:22 pm »
And just woow, they have recently filed form 1-A with SEC in the US: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001787068/000178706821000004/0001787068-21-000004-index.htm
I claim this is even jucier than their marketing pitch being leaked when Dave made his video.

I realize I am writing and documenting this for my own reference at this point and that none of you are interested in NDB, but I simply can't get off my mind how incredibly dubious this is and the fact that they are apparently getting people with money buying into them. There must simply be Theranos-level of lying going on in meeting with investors...

Update (last, I promise): Hah, I knew it! Provable blatant lies and stealing in their offering to investors https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1787068/000178706821000004/offering.htm. As before, they have big plans for a new office, developed by HOK for them (they have pulled more or less the same before). They offer a set of pictures (like this: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1787068/000178706821000004/offering3.jpg) which is merely stolen directly from here https://lc.zoocdn.com/0d9c70785cda14f8d28bb1a0338838a621f33943.pdf and here https://www.primelocation.com/to-rent/commercial/details/48836006/. As this is now a SEC filing, I wonder what the legalities look like...
« Last Edit: December 02, 2021, 11:08:56 pm by winnerwinnerchickendinner »
 
The following users thanked this post: thm_w, Lord of nothing

Offline Jamal23

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 1
  • Country: in
Re: EEVblog #1333 - Nano Diamond Self-Charging Battery DEBUNKED!
« Reply #109 on: January 19, 2022, 01:49:54 pm »
So after doing some further research it seems that they are infact a legit company, just a bit overboard with the marketing, we must remember that there is a difference between claiming something, and aiming for something, it seems the project just has some pretty big aspirations, they have not stated that they have a working prototype, yet. I have also found out they have patents as well, and their team has recently grown bigger.

Here are some that I found

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2021236067&_cid=P11-KX7B6H-94212-1

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2021247013&_cid=P11-KX7BHC-98534-1

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2021247013&_cid=P11-KYKISW-63621-2

, and the fact that they are listed with the SEC adds more credibility than a lot of other companies at the very least.

For now we can only wait for the prototype.

 

Offline SMB784

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 417
  • Country: us
    • Tequity Surplus
Re: EEVblog #1333 - Nano Diamond Self-Charging Battery DEBUNKED!
« Reply #110 on: January 19, 2022, 10:31:02 pm »
So after doing some further research it seems that they are infact a legit company, just a bit overboard with the marketing, we must remember that there is a difference between claiming something, and aiming for something, it seems the project just has some pretty big aspirations, they have not stated that they have a working prototype, yet. I have also found out they have patents as well, and their team has recently grown bigger.

Here are some that I found

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2021236067&_cid=P11-KX7B6H-94212-1

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2021247013&_cid=P11-KX7BHC-98534-1

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2021247013&_cid=P11-KYKISW-63621-2

, and the fact that they are listed with the SEC adds more credibility than a lot of other companies at the very least.

For now we can only wait for the prototype.

Enron was a legit company with big aspirations and listed with the SEC. Just because a company is an actual company doesn't mean they aren't engaging in fraudulent activity.
 
The following users thanked this post: winnerwinnerchickendinner

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 34550
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: EEVblog #1333 - Nano Diamond Self-Charging Battery DEBUNKED!
« Reply #111 on: January 20, 2022, 07:09:17 am »
So after doing some further research it seems that they are infact a legit company, just a bit overboard with the marketing, we must remember that there is a difference between claiming something, and aiming for something, it seems the project just has some pretty big aspirations, they have not stated that they have a working prototype, yet. I have also found out they have patents as well, and their team has recently grown bigger.

Here are some that I found

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2021236067&_cid=P11-KX7B6H-94212-1

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2021247013&_cid=P11-KX7BHC-98534-1

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2021247013&_cid=P11-KYKISW-63621-2

, and the fact that they are listed with the SEC adds more credibility than a lot of other companies at the very least.

For now we can only wait for the prototype.

First post from a user from India...
 
The following users thanked this post: Lord of nothing, winnerwinnerchickendinner

Offline winnerwinnerchickendinner

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 11
  • Country: de
Re: EEVblog #1333 - Nano Diamond Self-Charging Battery DEBUNKED!
« Reply #112 on: February 08, 2022, 09:41:43 pm »
Well, those are not exactly granted patents Jamal23, but patent applications ;)
From you hand in the patent application to you get a granted patent in any country, the process might take years. Now, if your goal is to scam gullible investors of money, I guess it is very advantageous to say you have patents pending...

As for the links you posted, these are simply PCT applications which seem to all have already been examined by the European Patent Office in the first quarter of 2021. Now, the results from those investigations are not exactly uplifting for NDB:

  • For application “WO2021236067 - NUCLEAR VOLTAIC POWER-SOURCE”, which I guess we could agree is the “core” technology of NDB, the examiner concludes that the invention is not patentable, because it is not new. To quote him directly:
    Quote
    The combination of features of independent claim 1 directed to the power generating cell (i.e. all the features of the claim except for the radiation shield) are already known and anticipated by documents D1-D3 (see V-1).
    For anyone interested, I have posted the names of document D1-D3 below.

    However, the feedback from the examiner gets much worse:
    Quote
    In view of what reported above under 1.2, it is noted that the application dos not disclose any specific example of at least one nuclear power source in which all working parameters (i.e. radioisotope material, diamond layers materials, ohmic and Schottky contacts materials, insulator layer material, radiation shield material) are defined in combination, but it merely provides a long list of alleged possible materials for each of these components (see claims 5, 8, 10, 11-13, 20 and par. 8, 42, 44, 48, 58, 59, 61-64) so that the burden of providing a possible combination of materials allowing to obtain a nuclear power source solving the technical problem is left to the skilled person.

    However, from for example (and at least) D4 and D5 it is apparent that, at the date of filing of the application, no such working nuclear power source had already been produced, not even a prototype using C-14, which seems to be the main stream of research pursued by the applicant according to its website and documents D4 and D5, so that the actual feasibility of such a device is still debated within the scientific and engineering community.

    Other than the combination of parameters mentioned before, from the application it is also not apparent which specific technical features, not already known from the prior art, are needed (i.e. essential) to allow to obtain effects (a)-(d). Additionally, it is as well noted that the application also does not disclose any detail about how the large amount of heat that can be expected to be produced by the device, when considering in particular high power sources for electric vehicles, is dissipated.

    It does not sound like they will have much success in getting a patent in any country based on that.

  • As for application "WO2021247013 - HIGH POROSITY METAL ORGANIC FRAMEWORK COATED WITH ACTIVATED CARBON NANO-ONION FOR AN ELECTRODE", the situation is also very bleak:
    Quote
    [6.1]The vague and imprecise statement in the description on paragraph [0060] implies that the subject-matter for which protection is sought may be different to that defined by the claims, thereby resulting in lack of clarity (Article 6 PCT) when used to interpret them.
    [6.2]   The application does not meet the requirements of Article 6 PCT, because claim 1 is not clear.
    [6.3]   The expressions  "host structure" and "carbon structure" used in claim 1 is vague and unclear and leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers, thereby rendering the definition of the subject-matter of said claim unclear, Article 6 PCT.

To me, these feedbacks sum up exactly what Nima Golsharifi and however many else he has playing along with him, is good at. They produce professionally looking websites and page upon page of technical-sounding language, but when you start to investigate, it is nothing more than copies of real companies (e.g. Arkenlight) or complete and utter bullshit. Now, I do think that much of the people working in NDB also has been tricked into believing Nima and that they work there for a while until they realize that it will go nowhere (or they are tired of working for no pay). Remember, this company has no real office, everybody works remotely. Their claimed presence in Silicon Valley is nothing but a "virtual office" anyone can set up for 144$ a year.

If you follow along on the "Company" page, they are getting close to appoint employee number 200, but with 33 listed employees - such a turnover rate for a high-tech startup company would be just ridiculous and should be a strong indication to anyone that there is no real intention to make anything. Getting investor money, on the other hand, seems to be very important.

Remember, some years ago, the same guy claimed to have been the leader of "Orb Group", an allegedly large conglomerate and incubator, but which is nothing but vanished from the internet now. I suggest looking at their leadership team page in the Wayback Machine - this company too contained real people which probably at some point believed that they were working for a real company. Now, I challenge anyone to find someone who acknowledges to have actually worked at Orb, or that claims any relation to NDB after they have left.

I realize that I am the only one interested, but I would hope some journalist at least would pick up the story, so that at least the much-covered press release they did spurring all of this would be properly debunked.

As for the names on references referencing D1-D3:

D1: BORMASHOV V S ET AL: "High power density nuclear battery prototype based on diamond Schottky diodes", DIAMOND AND RELATED MATERIALS, ELSEVIER SCIENCE PUBLISHERS, vol. 84, 7 March 2018, pages 41-47, XP085596798, ISSN: 0925-9635,
DOI: 10.1016/J.DIAMOND.2018.03.006

D2:  WO 2018/206958 A1 (UNIV BRISTOL) 15 November 2018

D3:  CN 107 749 316 A (HARBIN INST TECHNOLOGY) 2 March 2018 (*)
« Last Edit: February 08, 2022, 09:55:36 pm by winnerwinnerchickendinner »
 
The following users thanked this post: EEVblog

Offline winnerwinnerchickendinner

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 11
  • Country: de
Re: EEVblog #1333 - Nano Diamond Self-Charging Battery DEBUNKED!
« Reply #113 on: February 20, 2022, 10:13:38 am »
After falling deep into the NDB/Orb hole once again (damn patents), I thought I could share the most interesting thing I came across.

A big deal when they released the press release in 2020 was the line "NDB, Inc., creator of the first and only universal, self-charging, proprietary nano diamond battery (NDB) that provides up to thousands of years of charge, today announced completion of two successful Proofs of Concept tests of the NDB battery at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge University." Press release is here. Name-dropping high-end facilities sound advantageous when talking to investors ;)

Now, turns out there indeed was one journalist doing a proper job of fact checking back then. Tim Hunt, a local of Pleasanton (where NDB had their "presence" through a virtual office back then before becoming "Silicon Valley-based") did indeed check, and then followed up with critical questions to Neel Naicker, the back-then CSO. His update can be read here:

Quote
I met with Neel Naicker of San Ramon, the chief strategy officer for NDB. The press release had cited Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory as one of the places that had proven the concept. Naicker said that was an error and should not have been in the press release. I had reached out to the public information office at the lab and they could find no record of any personnel working with NDB or a non-disclosure agreement.

Naicker showed me a signed and redacted non-disclosure agreement with the lab dated in May 2017. He declined to identify lab personnel who had worked with the company and said they have moved on to other potential partners. Following up with a lab spokesman, he was unable to confirm that the lab had a non-disclosure agreement with either NDB or its parent company.

Naicker said the concept had been proven by another organization that he declined to name. He indicated it could be made public in the next two to three months. The company’s push now is to develop a prototype.

I mean, how on earth can one "mistakingly" mention a facility/laboratory not at all involved with validating your tech in a press release? I would really like to know where the legal boundaries are. This sounds like exactly like the stuff Theranos got busted for.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2022, 10:19:21 am by winnerwinnerchickendinner »
 
The following users thanked this post: helius


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf