The mention of 14C makes me think this is some sort of analog to the so called beta voltaic battery, which is based in a radioisotope and the harvesting of the emission for generating electricity.

Yes, it is indeed capturing and storing electrons from the 14C decay.

It is an improved version of something that is already existing, it claims 14x times more efficiency than existing beta voltaic devices.

I think we would see much more of these if it weren’t because long lasting power sources are subject to the secrecy of inventions act. Anyone coming up with a sizable version can have it rendered secret due to National security reasons. And this is not my opinion but a fact that has even been deemed as hampering technological development by the FAS.

https://ndb.technology/nano-battery-ndb-design/

FAS on secrecy of inventions:

https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/…0/invention_secrecy_2010/

And a screenshot of the Power supply section of the only known list of inventions that are subject to the secrecy of inventions act, obtained through FOIA:

Quote from JedRothwell

Evidently, this charges the battery from carbon-14 beta emissions. It is similar in concept to a plutonium-238 thermoelectric device (RTG, radioisotope thermoelectric generator). But the company says it is not an RTG. It is more efficient.

This is not a radical idea. It could be very useful indeed. I wonder if it could be used for a pacemaker battery, like the plutonium RTGs in 1970s?

If one takes the claims at face value, this is one of their target markets (pacemakers) but they intend to go up to replacing mobile Lithium ion batteries. Bold intentions. They say they charge a capacitor with the electricity . I can only wonder how much such a battery for a mobile would cost, tho.

They say that they are more efficient than RTGs and also than Beta Voltaics. I have no problem with the claims other than if they will be able to scale it up to the mobile market. These kind of long lasting power sources with relatively low power output have been around for a long time but in niche markets, where the need overcomes the cost. If they are able to pull a mass market application off, as they Want, this will be quite an achievement.

I spent a while reading their claims. The technology for the creation of the body of the battery is an extension of the semiconductor waffle process. It all seems very “plausible”, but they don’t show a prototype albeit they mention one.

The “good part” is that, other than the practical and economical feasibility of reaching the claimed efficiencies (which are theoretical), there would not be anything controversial about this technology so it would be embraced wholeheartedly by investors. Now, practical and economical feasibility is a major hurdle, so I wouldn’t be selling my Tesla stock yet, if I had any.

Quote from fabrice DAVID

Radiovoltaic batteries have been known for a long time. Georges Miley has long studied this field in Urbana.

They are planar diodes, like solar cells, but instead of using the energy of light to form the electron / hole pairs in the junction area, they use the energy of the beta rays.

Our "Diodes Fusions" are inspired by this technology, but we do not use beta rays, but the energy of LENRs, ONCE IT IS CONVERTED BY DOWN-CONVERSION. (It is the device in my hands on the picture)

This is what makes all the difference: indeed beta rays always end up destroying the junction. A team has succeeded in making a little more resistant photovoltaic batteries using a liquid metal electrode. So radiation-induced defects have no effect on this electrode. But the other electrode is a solid semiconductor, and the beta rays eventually destroy it. (Perhaps a liquid semiconductor, wetting a paper, could solve the problem?)

Using diamond is a good idea: it's a good semiconductor, it's very resistant to radiation, you can make diodes with it (as long as you dope the diamond crystal) and you can put carbon 14 in it. The problem with carbon 14 is that we don't have a cheap source. Admittedly, there is a lot of carbon 14 in the graphite blocks of old French and English reactors, but this graphite poses two problems: it is Wignérised and it is pyrophoric (it absorbs oxygen from the air, and then it explodes without warning.) This is why the French and the English do not touch it and leave this problem to the sagacity of future generations. The problem is the same at Hanford, but there is only a few reactors there.

Second, carbon 14 is diluted inside tons of carbon 12 and 13. It is possible to convert gaseous diffusion plants to enrich CO2 into carbon 14, but it will be very expensive. Ditto by ultracentrifugation. If the Iranians say they are going to build an ultracentrifugation plant to enrich CO2, in order to built endless Aladin lamps to light their mosques, you will allow me not to take their word for it ...

But hey, maybe the folks at NBD have found the solution to protect the junction zone of their diodes?

I Want To Beleive.

Display More

Thanks for your insight fabrice DAVID. Much appreciated.

This NBD company is a start up, so it makes a lot of claims, and some of those claims adress where they find the C14, and they say its from "nuclear waste" and it is obtained by a gaseous process that is already existent, according to them.

I spent a good hour reading their website and found it to be surprisingly interesting, yet exactly the amount of inespecific that it should be, for a start up. They seemed to think the source of C14 was the least of their problems, and therefore, Fabrice, your insight on the not so easy matter of recycling the spent graphite rods, is great. That puts a question mark on their enthusiasm.

I think this company has a good idea, and lot of challenges, if they are able to make it, they have a great product. Somehow I think they need billions for getting it to market. They adress all the parts of the problem, tho. Sounds good, but as I said, don't sell you Tesla stock, just yet.