EEVblog > EEVblog Specific

EEVblog #1333 - Nano Diamond Self-Charging Battery DEBUNKED!

<< < (23/23)

SMB784:

--- Quote from: Jamal23 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.

--- End quote ---

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.

EEVblog:

--- Quote from: Jamal23 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.

--- End quote ---

First post from a user from India...

winnerwinnerchickendinner:
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).
--- End quote ---
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.

--- End quote ---

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.

--- End quote ---

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 (*)

winnerwinnerchickendinner:
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.

--- End quote ---

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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version