God(&gods)( in the material world, but also) in the world of Idea(l)s(, and probably other worlds inaccessible to humans as well) :

with a 1W battery planned for 2025

I don’t know if you have the answer but, if i understood correctly, such 1W “battery”/generator would produce/refill 24Wh every day ?
If we put 10.000 BV100 in parallel(, to obtain 1W at the same 3V), that’d theoretically be 10 000 * 1125mm^3 = 1,125.10^7 mm^3 = 11L for 24Wh and 110L for 240Wh filled per day ? Ah well, w/e 🤷‍♂️. (edit : thanks for your answers though !)

It’d be very interesting to think of an hybrid system in which the betavoltaic cells are coupled with lithium batteries to give them some kind of natural regeneration over time(, a phone or computer could recover go from (50, or 20, or )0 to 100% overnight/‘when it’s not used’)

This current model only gives 8.64 joules per day, but that’s because 86400 is the number of seconds in a day, so if i divide 8.64 per 86400 i obtain 10^-4 W(, P=E/Δt), and the official/rounded number is 100μW.
Its volume is 1125mm^3 (15*15*5mm)

So, to drive 100km in an hour(, without the need to take into account accelerations for now), we’d need 100*200W=20kWh, or 2.10^4 Wh.
Most electric cars would only enable 4 hours at this rate with an 80kWh battery, but since this nuclear “battery” needs to be able to deliver 24h a day, we’d need 24 * 2.10^4 = 4,8.10^5 Wh

Hence, if we need 4,8.10^5 Wh and we have 100.10^-6 Wh for 1,125.10^3 mm^3 , a rule of three would give us 4,8.10^5 * 1,125.10^3 / 100.10^-6 mm^3 , that’s 5,4.10^12 mm^3 , which is indeed 5400m^3 and not realistic.

Even a 200Wh computer would still need 54m^3 , and a 10Wh phone would need 2,7m^3 , the size of a car.

If the output was mutliplied by a thousand(, 100mW instead of 100μW,) then it’d be 2,7dm^3 , the size of a bottle and still a bit too big for a phone, but a “free” energy for 50 years, and if i’m keeping the thought above of an hybridation as a self-regenerative battery it’d refill 240Wh every day(, 24*10Wh,) but that’s only if the output was multiplied by a thousand, which is unlikely.

Thank you very much for the correction, i didn’t know that.

I wonder if i haven’t made a mistake somewhere though, does it make sense that i’m obtaining 100μW by using seconds, and then comparing it with Wh ? If i had to multiply by 3600 before making this rule of three then that would change the conclusion.
8,64J/day would give 0,36J/h = 0,36Wh ? And would also give 100μJ/s = 100μW ?
I.d.k. anymore, but if i’m right this time then we’d need a 75cL bottle to refill 240Wh every day(, and for electric cars only 75L to refill 24kWh). I wouldn’t be surprised if i made mistakes elsewhere so tell me what you think.

You’re probably right but(, the energy density being a hundred times better than hydrocarbons, we’d roughly need the space for 6 months of fuel(, 50 years divided by 100), and) if your only argument is knowing how to get rid of the excess heat then i can hardly see that as more than a moderate security hazard towards users removing the protection(, and it could even generate money by connecting it to something while unused !)

Furthermore if this technology encounters enough success then we’ll probably find a way to have an impact on the rapidity of the reaction chain, as we do with nuclear reactors, but on a microscopic level, perhaps with a material that can emit the equivalent of carbon atoms, i.d.k., it doesn’t seem impossible.

But yeah, once again you’re probably right, we’ll see 🤷‍♂️

Oh yeah, i wouldn’t advise anyone to take this breakthrough as a promise for the future(, as someone who used to read futurism.com i’m well aware of that).

But i could counter your objections if you’re interested :

• it can already be done currently : David Hahn built a nuclear reactor with the radioactive material extracted from clock hands. The nickel-63 is already present elsewhere(, armour plating, boat propeller shafts, …), as well as many other radioactive materials ;
• but it’s probably not feasible : A stronger argument is that the radioactive material is composed of a layer only 2µm thick, in between two layers of diamond, i don’t know enough about the subject to confirm or deny that such extraction would be too difficult/expensive ;
• and even if it were other materials would be a better choice : Finally, at first sight and in my ignorant opinion, i don’t think it’d add much to a bomb, it seems like it’d only infect people in the vicinity, and is only described in the first scenario here(, see the article titled “Terrorism: Nuclear and Biological Terrorism”), which considers it more useful for polluting water reserves for instance, contrary to ^137 Ce, ^131 I, ^32 P, or ^67 Ga. It’d be cheaper/easier and possibly more effective to steal such materials from hospitals rather than extracting it from batteries.

You’d probably have to drill through more than a few of them to have enough radioactivity leaking, at this point the number of people dying because of their stress testing would probably be equivalent to those dying because of chemical batteries explosion. It’d be up to the authorities to estimate the risks correctly and, as you said, we’ll see how much a battery made to last 50 years will cost.

Since it’s already in use for decades with pacemakers i don’t think that the radiation is that hard to stop, no need for inches of lead.

And i could have said that it’s not a completely novel technology, i used “commercial” in the sense that it’s apparently destined for the general public instead of specialised fields, the wiki article says that :

We’ll have to see the price before finding such batteries in the supermarket though.

As for reliability, the articles say that another advantage is that it doesn’t ignite nor explode, but i suppose that something could happen if you drill through it.

SABC News as well(, not western channels though) : https://youtube.com/@sabcdigitalnews?si=NJVpLshupTA-SkI-

👍

The u.s.a. was already condemned in the case of Nicaragua and nothing changed and nobody knows that, in the very improbable offchance that Israel was condemned, they would just act like Russia when the International Court of Justice ordered them to leave Ukraine.
Let’s say that our medias talk about this improbable success and, even more improbable, support the ICJ and condemn Israel, everyone would just forget a month later. Sure, there’s nothing to lose by trying, but not much to gain either, it’s not the beginning of an effective solution, it’ll be the exact same shit as before.
And the ICJ wouldn’t even need to be considered the bad guy, the contradiction wouldn’t raise an eyebrow, but let’s say i’m wrong, have an hope in this if you want.

edit : That’s an exaggeration, those who hate Israel won’t forget such judgment and would remind us when they got the chance, that’s the difference i’m seeing, so you’re right to say that it’s not nothing to be able to label them officially as genocidal, it’d add a new argument/insult of choice.

That’s ~two every three years :

Somalia needs some support with Somaliland, and https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Biden-Approves-Redeployment-of-US-Troops-to-Somalia-20220517-0003.html

Jamaica doesn’t give any certainty either : https://globalvoices.org/2023/10/30/jamaicans-express-disappointment-over-their-countrys-no-show-un-gaza-vote/

And i don’t think Brazil would want to expose themselves as much as South Africa did(, nor China for that matter), more to lose than to gain, that’s justice. Bolivia probably only supported the case because Luis Arce has forbidden Evo Morales from being reelected and is trying to show that ~‘he’s not a traitor to the movement’ despite that.
Let’s say that they have a chance if you want though, it doesn’t matter because that’s not what would make a change, do they only have the option of a full-scale war with unknown consequences to do what’s right ? We’re just supposed to watch and then it’ll be as if nothing ever happened, ok.

They were already finally accepted by Iraq, Iran, and everyone else more than 20 years ago, but instead of giving back the illegally occupied territories to the palestinians they considered that such proposal was dishonest and would come back to bite them, that finally being recognised for the first time since 1948 wasn’t worth it. If even such proposal is rejected then (pro-)palestinians aren’t left with any other choice than fighting them, they unequivocally refused the most reasonable peace offer, because they believe that they’re strong enough to give up on impartiality(, still a unilateral gain for them and a unilateral loss for palestinians/arabs). They could have been recognised but refused. Here.

https://twitter.com/SamaanAshrawi/status/1742644725469909284

If the evidence was fabricated or spun in order to try and smear them for being pro-Palestine, then that’s a different story.

Manipulations aren’t always easy to prove, but it’s not the case here.
This article cites that tweet as the first accusation, we’ll both agree that there’s nothing serious here.
The other news articles are written by journalists who don’t have time for a proper investigation, as is usual in our modern times, instead of losing a day or a week on a piece they gather the different existing claims and begin the next article(, quicker&cheaper&‘easier to read’).
And even if the examples were a hundred times more numerous she’s only borrowing turns of phrases, not acting as if the ideas originated from her, researchers are synthetizing much more than creating anyway, her thesis very likely added something new if it was accepted, but she probably also gave the state of the art of the subject she would end up teaching, borrowing turns of phrases should never be considered as shocking, even if she recognised herself that she should have used quotation marks here as she did in all the other cases(, and would have obtained the exact same consideration for her thesis(/theses), who already contain hundreds of citations anyway).
In my opinion, accusations of plagiarism should start when the original creator end up losing money, but she didn’t gain anything by forgetting some quotation marks(, even if it amount to one quotation mark unused for every ten used, which is far from being the case here), it’s politically motivated and kinda sad that nobody is surprised anymore.
B.t.w., her thesis defended the oppressed, not the powerful, it counts.

(edit : i’m glad that she modified her thesis/theses afterwards to cite the authors she took her turns of phrases from though because that’s what should be done, especially if she never cited these papers once(, unlikely))

I haven’t checked, but the accusations seems to have really started after the 5th of December, no ?

A majority of the links are from the u.n.(, o.c.h.a. included,) though(, but yep, some of them are from twitter or newspapers and could eventually ‘have been directly replaced by an archive link’/‘be deleted afterwards’).

Such accusations appeared after the hearings a.f.a.i.k., and i don’t much except this paragraph included in the article refuting the accusations :

Yeah, a buzzword with legal implications, Myanmar’s rebels are terrorists, good for them.

Ok(, and as a note the data stopped the 7th of November), sorry for my last comment and thanks for the chat.
And, personally, i could envision our governments and medias pressuring Israel to stop its senseless murders(, the israeli goal goes beyond vengeance), just that all of our medias are always aligned with the foreign policy of our government.

It’s not peaking, but even if it was you should obviously know better(, unless Israel switch sides in which case our hate will appear overnight).

Merry Christmas.

Non-western medias wouldn’t be taken into account anyway.

But yeah, this war seems to be a bit more criticised than the previous ones(, a.f.a.i.k., i’ve only began to look into our wars for the last years), perhaps because it’s a unilateral massacre, and our previous wars were also likely criticised in their time by some “prestigious” newspapers, but accepted because it doesn’t change anything anyway, 🤷‍♂️, there’s no “anti-system” journalist in the mainstream medias.
And let’s keep in mind that, beyond our tangible material support, our overall media coverage will continue to look like this :