Watch the language.

It's a university press release. It may not meet expectations. The science may be faulty. They could be utterly incompetent.

But a con implies wilful behaviour on the part of the University of Bristol to deceive people.

> It's a university press release.

Which are often trying to actively deceive people, implying that tiny iterations are new fields, and that devices are orders of magnitude more effective than they are. I'm comfortable calling this press release deceptive.

I stand by my characterization: it sounds like a con, using the same hyperventilated language. It makes superficially-reasonable-but-quite-wrong claims (diamond will shield from radiation). It avoids important order-of-magnitude problems (the theoretical power generated is insignificant for almost all uses). All its missing is the hook - the link to "How can I invest?"