Debunker Knocks Nuclear Diamond Battery Concept, 3205
Just a brief word about our last report #3204 New Battery Only Needs Charging Every 1,000 Years.
There has been a so-called debunker of this battery technology. He’s apparently a Brit, however his review itself makes claims up front which he doesn’t support.
Mr. Debunker is pretty arrogant. He dismisses things which he pretends to understand, but probably doesn’t. At least I freely admit I’m not qualified to give a technical assessent of this technology. Mr. Debunker’s reaction is probably similar to that given to a physicist about 500 years ago? His name was Galileo Galilei.
Look, I'm not a physicist. I'm just putting together what I can with what I got. I'll reserve my opinion after BATTERY DAY. In the meantime, there was one comment in that arrogant debunker's YouTube that provided a more reasonable assessment:
“First -- while I appreciate a good logical analysis, your "debunking" introduces several logical fallacies... 1) The size of the DIP -- Anyone who works in electronics knows that the vast majority of the DIP is the case, while the actual working components are much, much smaller... Assuming the producers of this tech are legitimate (which is questionable) and their energy calculations are correct (also questionable) and given the difficulty of acquiring, distilling, and converting radioactive carbon into diamond... it is likely that these first chips contain only a small amount of radioactive material, 2) The efficiency calculation -- I believe that this stems from the first issue. I don't think they currently have the ability to distill pure radioactive carbon from regular carbon. This would explain the 4% efficiency rating. The current chip might only contain 4% radioactive carbon. 3) We already have beta-voltaics -- This is true, but they make use of TRITIUM, a highly unstable and dangerous material that emits GAMMA Radiation... Radioactive carbon is far more abundant and less dangerous to handle. 4) Miniscule Power -- Another friend of mine did the calculations to show the maximum theoretical output for C14 (without doping) to be ~26.4 milli-watts per ounce or 0.93 milliwatt per gram. Lets round that up to one milliwatt. This means you would get 1 Watt/Kg or 1 Kilowatt per ton... 1 Megawatt per thousand tons... 1 Gigawatt per million tons... NOTE This is CONTINUOUS Power for the next 5,700 Years... To build a traditional 1 Gigawatt Nuclear Plant requires 380,000 tons of concrete and 40 tons of steel... This does not include the fuel, moderator, water, or other materials that will be consumed over its 50-year life-cycle, nor does it account for waste storage and disposal. 5) Heat loss -- Current systems already lose much of their power to heat, and we still use them.”
I’m not going to take the story down. Let’s just wait and see what “Battery Day has in store on Sept. 22. If Tesla doesn’t mention this technology, then I’ll assume it’s bogus. Because if it is real, I dion’t think Tesla could afford to have that technology hanging out there completely outside his control. But until then, I’m still going to hope it’s true.
I’m still reporting from just outside the citadel of American freedom. Good day.
|Sensitivity||Normal - Content that is suitable for ages 16 and over|
Warning - This video exceeds your sensitivity preference!
To dismiss this warning and continue to watch the video please click on the button below.
Note - Autoplay has been disabled for this video.
This advertisement has been selected by the BitChute platform.
By purchasing and/or using the linked product you are helping to cover the costs of running BitChute. Without the support of the community this platform will cease to exist.
Registered users can opt-out of receiving advertising via the Interface tab on their Settings page.
To help support BitChute or find out more about our creator monetization policy: