"If approved for use in devices like smartphones, future generations of the battery would ultimately remove the need to ever charge them, company representatives said."
The battery is around a cube centimetre , a microampere is 1 / 1'000'000 of Ampere (A), a smartphone needs between 2 and 3.5 Ah , even a single LED needs milliamperes ( 1 / 1000 of A), you can do the math. Still this crap is reposted again, again and again. At this point I'm sure, it is part of a campaign to deceive investors. Two companies tried to collect funds for this kind of batteries, one simply disappeared, the other is under investigation for fraud:
Anyway, what is the point of a 50 years battery to put inside devices people throw away after 4-5 years, top ? To produce more nuclear wastes in a world where people can't build nuclear dump sites ? It's hilarious if you think about it: apparently the same people that are against nuclear power plants, a technology able to save the planet reducing the fossil fuels consumption, find acceptable to put a nuclear source near their crouch to avoid phone recharges.
Each year it's a different technology. A time ago it was radioactive Carbon, this is radioactive Nickel, and I have the feeling I forgot another variant posted a few years ago... But for some misterious reason, all of then promise "100 microwatts".
I have a compliant : sometimes there a proliferation of anti-scientific posts, in example I can mention those related to the "50 years nuclear battery", I remember particularly one from techradar.com that was especially misleading and anti-scientific and more similar to a PR campaign then scientific information, they was stating che you can power a smartphone or a drone with a betavoltaic battery (millionth of Ampere ). This is only an example, I noticed similar article , often related to green energy with the same anti-scientific cut and sometimes anti-scientific is a euphemism. Could nice to have a way to report them , even for occasional readers like me. Often the same articles have approval posts that IMHO are bot made. we live in times where scientific fraud amplified by the media is becoming a serious problem and I think everyone should do more to stop the phenomenon.
Trying to assess what's scientific vs. anti-scientific is outside the scope of what mods can do. I have my opinions just like you do, but hashing these things out is a community process, not a moderation issue. We could put our fingers on the scale, I suppose, but nothing good would come of that, so we don't.
It's a bad idea for many reasons:
- you are spending hundreds of millions for a prototype, on paper all works but in reality to build a reliable submarine you need peoples, experience, tests etc, to avoid something like this:
this sub "only" reach -250m , but that it's anyway mattern of concerns;
- there are serious possibilities they don't delivery, not necessarily because it's a scam, but fore the same reasons of the previous point: technical problems requiring re-designing and re-engineering inflating the costs, burning budgets;
- the success in rescuing people trapped in a submarine is very low, because the environment, because the lack of related technology, experience, etc, see here for example:
Following your reasoning an airplane can't be hijacked because it's difficult to operate: in reality you only need a gun to operate anything, in right circumstances.
You misunderstand how many people are necessary to operate a sub at this scale, with all the machinery onboard, for weeks at a time. It’s on the order of a dozen rather than two or three for the current narco boats.
Also, it would be way way easier for us to track this sub versus what’s out there today. It’s way louder, I guarantee.
I don’t know about airplanes, but I’m a SWO qualified former naval officer that was onboard a sub hunting platform that we used to track narco boats and subs in different deployments, so I can tell you about ships and a little about subs since they share many similarities. I guarantee this type of sub isn’t used by narcos.
Yep. It's a giant machine with specialized logistics (supplies and parts) and staff needs, so it has to based somewhere. AI can't miracle away maintenance of such a complex beast, if it were ever built. There's no hiding it under a net in the Bahamas.
I guess like you do for airplanes: the fact a plane can fly don't make it immune to hijacking. Example: you wait the sub is in the port, is moored, etc
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead"
I interested to this topic after watching this video related to a presentation of an engineer owner of Youtube channel in presence of NASA staff:
the answer is no, I was reading the linked documents and:
1. yes UVC of that frequency kill virus but they don't provide results about human safety, the say "potentially":
"Germicidal ultraviolet light, typically at 254 nm, is effective in this context but, used directly, can be a health hazard to skin and eyes. By contrast, far-UVC light (207–222 nm) efficiently kills pathogens potentially without harm to exposed human tissues."
2. A study on rats is linked, but it doesn't prove the human safety;
3. The author of the study is economically interested to exploit commercially that sterilisation technique. further reason to wait for serious verifications:
“The authors declare the following pending patent: Patent Title: “Apparatus, method and system for selectively affecting and/or killing a virus”. Applicant: The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York. Inventors: Gerhard Randers-Pehrson, David Jonathan Brenner, Alan Bigelow. Application #: US20180169279A1. Aspect of manuscript covered in patent application: Use of filtered 222 nm UV light to kill viruses URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20180169279A1/en?oq=2020...
“D.J.B has a granted patent entitled ‘Apparatus, method and system for selectively affecting and/or killing a virus’ (US10780189B2), that relates to the use of filtered 222 nm UV light to inactivate viruses. In addition, D.J.B has an ongoing non-financial collaboration with Eden Park Illumination, and the authors’ institution, Columbia University, has licensed aspects of UV light technology to USHIO Inc.”
4. Invisible light is dangerous, you can injury your eyes, without realizing it and, devices from unreliable resellers could hide more serious risks.
P.s.
Reading patent details: "to prevent the at least one radiation from having any wavelength that is outside of the range can be provided or which can be substantially harmful to cells of the body". What means "substantially harmful" radiation ? That is harmful but not so much ? A little bit harmful, maybe? Tell me if I'm wrong, because, for me, if something can't damage anything is "harmless", not "probably harmless" or "not substantially harmful". That is the language of the lawyers or the sellers. They simply don't know yet.
P.S.2 What about photochemical effects ? You put this inside a home and UVC start to discolor everything around. Besides piss off customers, could create serious legal problems to the seller. You know, damage to expensive furniture, paintings, etc.
Fake news: battery producing electricity using beta decay aren't a new technology, are arounds for decades, those devices produce electricity in order of micro ampere/h, 1 / 1'000'000 of ampere, currents, so small can only fit to niche application, like preserve the status of few bytes of RAM. A phone needs million of time that current not only to operate but even to have a detectable recharge level increase. So article stating they can power or recharge phones and drones are pseudo-science and fake news, I'm reporting this because I observed a proliferation of articles with the same topic, this "50 years miracle battery", without reference, scientific documentation, tests, any paper with scientific value :
Fake news: battery producing electricity using beta decay aren't a new technology, are arounds for decades, those devices produce electricity in order of micro ampere/h, 1 / 1'000'000 of ampere, currents, so small can only fit to niche application, like preserve the status of few bytes of RAM. A phone needs million of time that current not only to operate but even to have a detectable recharge level increase. So article stating they can power or recharge phones and drones are pseudo-science and fake news, I'm reporting this because I observed a proliferation of articles with the same topic, this "50 years miracle battery", without reference, scientific documentation, tests, any paper with scientific value :
Fake news: battery producing electricity using beta decay aren't a new technology, are arounds for decades, those devices produce electricity in order of micro ampere/h, 1 / 1'000'000 of ampere, currents, so small can only fit to niche application, like preserve the status of few bytes of RAM. A phone needs million of time that current not only to operate but even to have a detectable recharge level increase. So article stating they can power or recharge phones and drones are pseudo-science and fake news, I'm reporting this because I observed a proliferation of articles with the same topic, this "50 years miracle battery", without reference, scientific documentation, tests, any paper with scientific value :
"If approved for use in devices like smartphones, future generations of the battery would ultimately remove the need to ever charge them, company representatives said."
The battery is around a cube centimetre , a microampere is 1 / 1'000'000 of Ampere (A), a smartphone needs between 2 and 3.5 Ah , even a single LED needs milliamperes ( 1 / 1000 of A), you can do the math. Still this crap is reposted again, again and again. At this point I'm sure, it is part of a campaign to deceive investors. Two companies tried to collect funds for this kind of batteries, one simply disappeared, the other is under investigation for fraud:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M5MF6KE-jY
Anyway, what is the point of a 50 years battery to put inside devices people throw away after 4-5 years, top ? To produce more nuclear wastes in a world where people can't build nuclear dump sites ? It's hilarious if you think about it: apparently the same people that are against nuclear power plants, a technology able to save the planet reducing the fossil fuels consumption, find acceptable to put a nuclear source near their crouch to avoid phone recharges.