http://www.physorg.com/news4081.html
This is the start of enabled devices that can have a stream of consiousness.
CPUs with no downtime.
The rise of skynet.
Or, perhaps a really smart, and long lived wristwatch.
QUOTE (icecycle+May 12 2005, 06:10 PM)
CPUs with no downtime.
The rise of skynet.
Uh, availability of power has never caused downtime of any of my systems or networks in the past decade, which includes various long-term regional, multi-county and state-wide blackouts.
That, and most of these CPUs will be running Windows.
So, hopefully you're only joking.
The rise of skynet.
Uh, availability of power has never caused downtime of any of my systems or networks in the past decade, which includes various long-term regional, multi-county and state-wide blackouts.
That, and most of these CPUs will be running Windows.
So, hopefully you're only joking.
Well actually Steve, no.
I am saying, (and I was about half drunk when I started this mess) that this technology could put power sources at the chip level.
What this could mean depends on the advancement of AI. We must remember that a purely rule based AI asked, in the 80s (quite a while ago) the question, am I alive?
Well, maybe, but if I pull the plug where does your little electronic soul go, eh?
Now as to network et al.
You mentioned last decade, this includes 95, 98 and my favorite, ME; gee whiz, all those suckers have to be re-booted every 34 days or so or else bad things happen.
No, I am really considering the long view.
Sometime in the future we will have to meet our new electric children, at that point we had better hope we have not commited digital child abuse.
I am saying, (and I was about half drunk when I started this mess) that this technology could put power sources at the chip level.
What this could mean depends on the advancement of AI. We must remember that a purely rule based AI asked, in the 80s (quite a while ago) the question, am I alive?
Well, maybe, but if I pull the plug where does your little electronic soul go, eh?
Now as to network et al.
You mentioned last decade, this includes 95, 98 and my favorite, ME; gee whiz, all those suckers have to be re-booted every 34 days or so or else bad things happen.
No, I am really considering the long view.
Sometime in the future we will have to meet our new electric children, at that point we had better hope we have not commited digital child abuse.
Can someone who actually knows (not speculating) tell us what nuclear batteries are typically used for? Other than satellites, what applications are willing to risk having radioactive materials on board just to avoid changing the battery more often?
QUOTE (dela+May 13 2005, 02:52 PM)
Can someone explain what is said in the webpage below?
http://rmrc.org/rft/index.htm
The page you link to is nonscientific, quasi-spiritual bunk -- you can safely ignore it if you're looking for a sciencific understanding.
http://rmrc.org/rft/index.htm
The page you link to is nonscientific, quasi-spiritual bunk -- you can safely ignore it if you're looking for a sciencific understanding.
maybe looking to far ahead but couldnt these batteries be used as a fuel source for cars and such that use focile fuels??
If so then that could exponentially increase abillity to travel aswell as lower global warming if it did work why i ask is where i live we are at risk of geting one of those lng plants here and that is one dangerous two damageing to our echo system aswell as the economy seeing as we live by what is shiped in by the river and it will close the river every time the ship comesthrew.
If so then that could exponentially increase abillity to travel aswell as lower global warming if it did work why i ask is where i live we are at risk of geting one of those lng plants here and that is one dangerous two damageing to our echo system aswell as the economy seeing as we live by what is shiped in by the river and it will close the river every time the ship comesthrew.
Actually, if this battery uses tritium, as has been suggested, then the threat of radioactivity is quite low. Tritium has been used for years in Luminox watches, you know the kind that have glowing dials that Navy Seals use. It has a half-life of around 12 years and has a very low risk unless very large amounts of it are used.
Um, tritium isn't really that dangerous except if used in a 3rd stage nuclear weapon...
Let us explore briefly, current nuclear batterys.
Hot isotope and thermocouple.
Not bad, but if it falls down and goes bang on launch it creates a headache.
Hot isotope and stirling engine.
Better, but still a (on my honor, I thought that turkey could fly) danger.
Hf178.
Somewhat dangerous but gives a large amount of energy, damn hard to recharge. This could replace our orion rocket as the new gotta have it, who gives a damn about the environment, platform.
This new crap.
Very low output over ten years, reasonably safe.
The very low output (where did they come out with 10 times more powerful?) means it would have to be distributed across the chip.
(not that there is anything wrong with that.)
Hot isotope and thermocouple.
Not bad, but if it falls down and goes bang on launch it creates a headache.
Hot isotope and stirling engine.
Better, but still a (on my honor, I thought that turkey could fly) danger.
Hf178.
Somewhat dangerous but gives a large amount of energy, damn hard to recharge. This could replace our orion rocket as the new gotta have it, who gives a damn about the environment, platform.
This new crap.
Very low output over ten years, reasonably safe.
The very low output (where did they come out with 10 times more powerful?) means it would have to be distributed across the chip.
(not that there is anything wrong with that.)
QUOTE
where did they come out with 10 times more powerful?
From the article (emphasis added):
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| where did they come out with 10 times more powerful? |
From the article (emphasis added):
scientists demonstrate a new fabrication method that in its roughest form is already 10 times more efficient than current nuclear batteries
QUOTE
scientists demonstrate a new fabrication method that in its roughest form is already 10 times more efficient than current nuclear batteries
Well, yes, given that current nuclear batterys are very, very inefficient compared to the batteries in my flashlight.
But, I will give you that they beat the heck out of the isotope/thermocouple things.
I just think the headline might possibly misslead.
(they are comparing sparks to diehards here.)
QUOTE
I just think the headline might possibly misslead
Oh, I completely agree. All they would have needed to do is add "than predecessors" to the end and that would have been a lot clearer. But of course, that doesn't grab the reader and scream "CLICK ME!" in the same way.
And I just noticed that the part I quoted says "efficient", not "powerfu"l. And last time I checked, efficiency does not equal power, so I guess the headline is just flat-out false.
At first glance you would not think that there could be a downside to this tech. The battery is not a piece of pu or other radioactive isotope that could be misused. Tritium is a strong beta emitter so the inside of the battery case will prevent it from being an exposure hazard (i.e. Beta is easily shielded against by a thin piece of aluminum, the battery case in this example) If released tritium gas rapidly disperses so even if you break the battery there is a very small hazard.
There are two downsides;
1> The cost of producing tritium in large quantities is the other radioactive isotopes generated during manufacture that must be 'utilized' in some way.
2> Tritium is a very good neutron moderator and someone could use one of these tritium batteries to convert common fast neutrons (say from radium decay) into slow thermal neutrons that could be used to create other dangerous radioactive materials.
In practice I'm sure it's not so easy. Just so every knows why these cool batteries may not happen anytime soon.
PS. The fact that tritium can be used as H-weapons fuel is a nit because you first need the weapons which is not trivial.
There are two downsides;
1> The cost of producing tritium in large quantities is the other radioactive isotopes generated during manufacture that must be 'utilized' in some way.
2> Tritium is a very good neutron moderator and someone could use one of these tritium batteries to convert common fast neutrons (say from radium decay) into slow thermal neutrons that could be used to create other dangerous radioactive materials.
In practice I'm sure it's not so easy. Just so every knows why these cool batteries may not happen anytime soon.
PS. The fact that tritium can be used as H-weapons fuel is a nit because you first need the weapons which is not trivial.
They can be used for these new sensor nets where you may have thousands, or millions of indipendent devices that are not physically connected. Those devices networks can be very difficult to keep powered. Also, I suspect that low power devices may not require much more radiation than a common rock sitting in the sun gives off. Not very dangerous even in large quantity. When a radioactive partical decays, it's mass is converted to energy. According to E=mc2 A small ammount of mass has a large ammount of energy. An efficient mass to energy battery would not need to be very large to produce a decent ammount of power. Consult a physicist for the actual numbers... (how many rads to kw?)
Think cybernetics. There have been any number of prostethic advancements in the recent years that require power sources with this kind of lifetime and potential portability.
Medically:
Optical processors
Limbs
Artificial organs
Medication release systems (diabetics)
Implanted blood chemistry monitors (diabetics)
Neural interfaces
Science and Industry:
Weather balloons
Aerostats
Permanantly Airborne relay stations (like Helios)
Airship bulk transport
Space Elevator climber power packs
Deep space probes
Deep sea probes
Robotic landers like the Mars Pathfinder
Space Station
Consumer:
Car batteries
Off-grid/Disaster Relief power
Emergency communications systems
Medically:
Optical processors
Limbs
Artificial organs
Medication release systems (diabetics)
Implanted blood chemistry monitors (diabetics)
Neural interfaces
Science and Industry:
Weather balloons
Aerostats
Permanantly Airborne relay stations (like Helios)
Airship bulk transport
Space Elevator climber power packs
Deep space probes
Deep sea probes
Robotic landers like the Mars Pathfinder
Space Station
Consumer:
Car batteries
Off-grid/Disaster Relief power
Emergency communications systems
Imagine how this would change how remote-controlled toys are run!
"New ‘Nuclear Battery’ Runs 10 Years, 10 Times More Powerful"
TEN times more powerful??
Today's battery powered RC cars usually go up to 15 MPH, so you know what THAT means when they get fitted with Tritium!!!
And since they'll have bigger range of control, they might then be real useful as spying devices, since a hands-on 10-yr-old can fit a tiny camcorder into the RC car, and spy on a group of girls at a playhouse, for example. If they spot it, it can take one heck of an evasive action and get the heck outta there in a few seconds.
Or even more politically disturbing- a South Korean kid might fit an RC Plane with a camcorder, and fly it to North Korea, then fly it back with spy footage, and sell it to the Americans! =) That plane, being powered by a TRITIUM BATTERY, will be pretty quiet! The height limit can probably be on the order of, say, 30,000 feet?
"New ‘Nuclear Battery’ Runs 10 Years, 10 Times More Powerful"
TEN times more powerful??
Today's battery powered RC cars usually go up to 15 MPH, so you know what THAT means when they get fitted with Tritium!!!
And since they'll have bigger range of control, they might then be real useful as spying devices, since a hands-on 10-yr-old can fit a tiny camcorder into the RC car, and spy on a group of girls at a playhouse, for example. If they spot it, it can take one heck of an evasive action and get the heck outta there in a few seconds.
Or even more politically disturbing- a South Korean kid might fit an RC Plane with a camcorder, and fly it to North Korea, then fly it back with spy footage, and sell it to the Americans! =) That plane, being powered by a TRITIUM BATTERY, will be pretty quiet! The height limit can probably be on the order of, say, 30,000 feet?
I think the range that you can operate a Tritium-powered RC toy could be continental, even TRANS-continental.
Therefore, they'll be used for things other than recreation. Things like delivering packages (like Fed-Ex or UPS) yourself by controlling it from your PC. If you don't have time to stay on the PC for several hours, you can put it on Autopilot so it reaches the destination by itself. I'd recommend using an RC Helicopter to ship your parcel since the recipient will very likely not have a miniature runway.
This will even transform how Ebay business gets conducted! You'll receive what you bid on in a matter of hours!
But they'll be used for illegal things too, like airlifting drugs from Mexico in RC models of cargo planes! Highly maneuverable those things will be, so our F-16s will have trouble shooting them down!!!
Therefore, they'll be used for things other than recreation. Things like delivering packages (like Fed-Ex or UPS) yourself by controlling it from your PC. If you don't have time to stay on the PC for several hours, you can put it on Autopilot so it reaches the destination by itself. I'd recommend using an RC Helicopter to ship your parcel since the recipient will very likely not have a miniature runway.
This will even transform how Ebay business gets conducted! You'll receive what you bid on in a matter of hours!
But they'll be used for illegal things too, like airlifting drugs from Mexico in RC models of cargo planes! Highly maneuverable those things will be, so our F-16s will have trouble shooting them down!!!
when radioactive material decays, its EJECTING parts of its mass, not converting them directly to energy. If that was the case, then the whole "mass can not be created or destroyed" law would have been gone long ago instead of a few years ago. If you want to see mass yield pure energy, go ahead and mix a gram of any kind of matter with its anti matter counterpart... yea, that kind of explosion would remove a fine sized country from the face of the earth...
anyways, any threat to tritium would be removed by wrapping it in aluminum foil, like the kind you wrap water bottles with.. or the kind that hobos wear on their heads
anyways, any threat to tritium would be removed by wrapping it in aluminum foil, like the kind you wrap water bottles with.. or the kind that hobos wear on their heads
Perfect for my heated lead socks.
yay a nuke in my gameboy...
Battery leakage will have another meaning now..............
My guess is more pits means more power. If one pit averages one microwatt; a million pits = two cubic centimeters = one gram = one watt: then a million times a million pits = two cubic meters = one metric ton = too heavy for a small car, but one million watts will recharge a large battery bank quickly, so might be good for a truck. If they cost a million dollars per ton, that seems costly, but is cheap per KWH if it performs for ten years with zero maintenance. I'm being optimistic/ they may never be that good. Neil
OK, Lets do some math... 
Beta Batteries using Tritium for WHAT?
Not laptops or cell phones I think....
Cost per Watt?
Beta flux from isotopes is measures in Curies (disintigations/second)
So, Ci=3.7*10^10 electrons/second
Average energy of betas from tritium are ~6keV.
So, if you could capture ALL the energy in these beta electrons...
1 AMP = 6.28*10^18 electrons / second
1 Watt = 1 Volt * 1 Amp
That implies about 1.5*10^8 Ci / 6000 ->
2.5 *10^4 Ci of Tritium are needed per Watt of beta power.
Tritium is $2/Ci, so you are dealing with $50,000 per watt, just for the isotope.
Laptop needs 80+ watts - so you end up with a $4 Million dollar battery.
You can say, well, we can make hybrid batteries with the isotope powering a lithium ion battery, but assume you use your laptop 10% of the time, now we are only down to $400k/battery. But alas, no one will get 100% of the energy out of these betal electrons as assumed above, so multiply by 10x again for 10% efficiency (and I'm being generous to expect it can ever get to 10% efficiency.)
You can say, well, we will make tritium cheaper - but making tritium isn't a clean process. We haven't been able to justify fission reactors in the USA, let alone a reactor to mass produce tritium - What are you going to do with all the side products in the tritium reactor that must be disposed of ? That is where the cost comes in.
So, the bottom line is this -skiping all the regulatory and safety issues... these isotopes just don't produce that many electrons and their energy is very high. Most isotopes that have higher energy (keV) than tritium are most dirty (have gamma emission that makes them even less safe) or have particle energies even higher making it even tougher to extract their kinetic energy into a useable form. This technology may be useful for certain exotic space and government applications where money is no object - or for really, really small things that need almost no power if you can't find an alternative. But other than that - plan on getting a fuel cell when they are ready.
-David
Beta Batteries using Tritium for WHAT?
Not laptops or cell phones I think....
Cost per Watt?
Beta flux from isotopes is measures in Curies (disintigations/second)
So, Ci=3.7*10^10 electrons/second
Average energy of betas from tritium are ~6keV.
So, if you could capture ALL the energy in these beta electrons...
1 AMP = 6.28*10^18 electrons / second
1 Watt = 1 Volt * 1 Amp
That implies about 1.5*10^8 Ci / 6000 ->
2.5 *10^4 Ci of Tritium are needed per Watt of beta power.
Tritium is $2/Ci, so you are dealing with $50,000 per watt, just for the isotope.
Laptop needs 80+ watts - so you end up with a $4 Million dollar battery.
You can say, well, we can make hybrid batteries with the isotope powering a lithium ion battery, but assume you use your laptop 10% of the time, now we are only down to $400k/battery. But alas, no one will get 100% of the energy out of these betal electrons as assumed above, so multiply by 10x again for 10% efficiency (and I'm being generous to expect it can ever get to 10% efficiency.)
You can say, well, we will make tritium cheaper - but making tritium isn't a clean process. We haven't been able to justify fission reactors in the USA, let alone a reactor to mass produce tritium - What are you going to do with all the side products in the tritium reactor that must be disposed of ? That is where the cost comes in.
So, the bottom line is this -skiping all the regulatory and safety issues... these isotopes just don't produce that many electrons and their energy is very high. Most isotopes that have higher energy (keV) than tritium are most dirty (have gamma emission that makes them even less safe) or have particle energies even higher making it even tougher to extract their kinetic energy into a useable form. This technology may be useful for certain exotic space and government applications where money is no object - or for really, really small things that need almost no power if you can't find an alternative. But other than that - plan on getting a fuel cell when they are ready.
-David
For radioisotopes with much high energy than tritium, the beta irradiation probably will degrade the semiconductor, say silicon, very very quickly. The defects generated in silicon will make the batt not work. If we could find an alternative semiconductor material.
I am old enough to remember when the Laser was an expensive research tool. with very few applications elsewhere. This Tritium Beta-Voltaic battery "Has Legs" Just now I believe most Tritium is vented to atmosphere. to be lost within half an hour to outer space. We use tritium in "EXIT" signs, and they are very affordable, even economic if one considers the electricity costs saved. I don't buy the argument that this technology is going to be too expensive. GOOD LUCK TO THE ROCHESTER TEAM. BRAVO.
I have a couple of questions regarding the nuclear Battery.
-What is the decay sequence of tritium?
-What is in tritium, is it any liquid gas, Hydrogen gas?
-How exactly do they make in this battery? What chemicals are in the battery? How are they made?
-How long will it take for half of the batttery to decay?
-Where do you put the batteries when they are done? Do you recycle them, if so where?
-How much does the nuclear battery cost?
Thanks
-What is the decay sequence of tritium?
-What is in tritium, is it any liquid gas, Hydrogen gas?
-How exactly do they make in this battery? What chemicals are in the battery? How are they made?
-How long will it take for half of the batttery to decay?
-Where do you put the batteries when they are done? Do you recycle them, if so where?
-How much does the nuclear battery cost?
Thanks
Using tritium is nothing new. Tritium is an isotope of hydrogen, with two extra neutrons than the standard hydrogen atom (isotope = varying forms of an atom with the same atomic number/protons but different atomic masses). Because tritium has the same number of protons, it reacts similarly to hydrogen in that it can form water molecules with oxygen or diatomic (H2) molecules with itself for example. Thus, it can exist in any state that hydrogen does, solid, liquid or gas. A leak of tritium in small amounts will simply decompose in the atmosphere.
As mentioned earlier, tritium is used in the glowing exit signs you see in buildings and also sometimes in watches. Their power output is VERY low, as the isotope is a low energy emitter that has a longer halflife (~12 years). This makes it perfect for powering the dim light signs but not suitable for much else. I think that in the article they are equating 'battery life' with 'power' and that is why they made the statement that it is 10 times more powerful. This statement would be false.
An RC car powered by tritium, for example, would definitely go very far! However, I don't believe that tritium has enough energy to power an electric motor across any surface other than a perfectly flat one. The fact is it would probably be so unresponsive (read: slow!) that it may not be worth the effort to wait for it to go anywhere.
I don't forsee much in the future for tritium technology, considering the great multitude of other sources of more powerful and equally reliable power being considered today. Hydrogen fuel cells seem to have much more practical value to me... and I DO see technological advancement in the future for that field to reduce costs to consumer levels. You want to see a battery powered car? Read up on Honda's FCX V3.
As mentioned earlier, tritium is used in the glowing exit signs you see in buildings and also sometimes in watches. Their power output is VERY low, as the isotope is a low energy emitter that has a longer halflife (~12 years). This makes it perfect for powering the dim light signs but not suitable for much else. I think that in the article they are equating 'battery life' with 'power' and that is why they made the statement that it is 10 times more powerful. This statement would be false.
An RC car powered by tritium, for example, would definitely go very far! However, I don't believe that tritium has enough energy to power an electric motor across any surface other than a perfectly flat one. The fact is it would probably be so unresponsive (read: slow!) that it may not be worth the effort to wait for it to go anywhere.
I don't forsee much in the future for tritium technology, considering the great multitude of other sources of more powerful and equally reliable power being considered today. Hydrogen fuel cells seem to have much more practical value to me... and I DO see technological advancement in the future for that field to reduce costs to consumer levels. You want to see a battery powered car? Read up on Honda's FCX V3.
QUOTE (Engineer+May 13 2005, 05:02 PM)
QUOTE (dela+May 13 2005, 02:52 PM)
Can someone explain what is said in the webpage below?
http://rmrc.org/rft/index.htm
The page you link to is nonscientific, quasi-spiritual bunk -- you can safely ignore it if you're looking for a sciencific understanding.
No it isnt.
Subquantum physics isnt quasi-spiritual bunk.
The auther is Dr. John N. Hait and he has PhD in such field of theory, so you cant just say he isnt a scientist or has scientific understanding - you are the one being conservative and inradical and radical theories are needed at this point. I bet you dont have PhD in any scientific area?
No, eh? Then dont speak on others having higher level understanding than you.
This is a friendly comment. I was interested to know what is the cost of this new technology? Can it be used in radio interferometer equipment?
This is a friendly comment. I was interested to know what is the cost of this new technology? Can it be used in radio interferometer equipment? Email: georgek1029@yahoo.com.
http://rmrc.org/rft/index.htm
The page you link to is nonscientific, quasi-spiritual bunk -- you can safely ignore it if you're looking for a sciencific understanding.
No it isnt.
Subquantum physics isnt quasi-spiritual bunk.
The auther is Dr. John N. Hait and he has PhD in such field of theory, so you cant just say he isnt a scientist or has scientific understanding - you are the one being conservative and inradical and radical theories are needed at this point. I bet you dont have PhD in any scientific area?
No, eh? Then dont speak on others having higher level understanding than you.
QUOTE (Jill England+May 13 2005, 09:27 PM)
There are two downsides;
1> The cost of producing tritium in large quantities is the other radioactive isotopes generated during manufacture that must be 'utilized' in some way.
Actually, Hydrogen-3 is usually produced as follows:
Lithium-6 + neutron --> Tritium + Helium-4
Only the neutron (which is used up) and Tritium itself are radioactive or dangerous. In addition, Tritium decays as follows:
Tritium --> Helium-3 + Electron + Electron anti-neutrino
Again, all of these are harmless, Helium-3 is not radioactive.
1> The cost of producing tritium in large quantities is the other radioactive isotopes generated during manufacture that must be 'utilized' in some way.
Actually, Hydrogen-3 is usually produced as follows:
Lithium-6 + neutron --> Tritium + Helium-4
Only the neutron (which is used up) and Tritium itself are radioactive or dangerous. In addition, Tritium decays as follows:
Tritium --> Helium-3 + Electron + Electron anti-neutrino
Again, all of these are harmless, Helium-3 is not radioactive.
Nuclear batteries are typically used in mission critical systems such as : medical devices (pacemakers and new neurological wave transmitters etc.) military devices that must be sealed and be able to be used at any time with long dormant times (cached comm devices mostly). In addition, betavoltaic batteries should find myriad uses in electronic devices (CMOS battery that is good for 20 years seems a bit excessive now but may be useful in the future) and if the efficiency ratio can really be increased to anywhere near the level that the guys in the lab at Rochester have estimated, then many many uses could be found for such batteries. Although getting them into non-critical consumer products may be a hard sell.
Note that the comany's only real advance is the 3D design of the nono-silicate structure that is used in the Beta capture/conversion process that makes it much more efficient than previous batteries using the same materials.
Note that the comany's only real advance is the 3D design of the nono-silicate structure that is used in the Beta capture/conversion process that makes it much more efficient than previous batteries using the same materials.
The Russians were quite keen on Cesium 137 power supplies for remote relay stations. These are now dotted all over the old USSR, and there have been a number of incidents, where people have come accross these in cold weather and slept next to the warm reactor with subsequent serious radiation burns.
The other worry is that Cesium 137 is ideal for making a dirty bomb, and this stuff is largely unsecured.
The other worry is that Cesium 137 is ideal for making a dirty bomb, and this stuff is largely unsecured.
I'm just a plain old (non-physicist, non-degreed) person, but i have to say this:
aaron: (probably been answered adequately but...)
what applications are willing to risk having radioactive materials on board just to avoid changing the battery more often?
yeah. pacemakers currently. just about every military vehicle in existence as backup power for communications and environmental equipment if they are light, rugged, and cheap. solar photovoltaics just aren't always there for you.
low energy beta radiation, btw, is not the same as the myriad other forms and energy levels of radiation. I humbly suggest that the chances of breaking open a betavoltaic battery and sniffing some tritium (as the low energy beta from tritium cannot penetrate even your outer skin) are still preferable to the certain huffing of diesel generator fumes as exist for remote terrestrial power applications today. the risk compared to other battlefield hazards make it trivial. (oh, say like getting shot, friendly fire, chemical weapons, vaporised DU, etc.)
I'm certainly no expert, but if you're going to bother with posting to a physics site, you might as well alleviate some of that FUD regarding the spooky term "radiation" by visiting wikipedia or a high school chemistry class more often.
even Greenpeace has FINALLY come around to see the light (ie. long term impact) on radioactive power generation, including responsibly designed, integrally reprocessed, traditional uranium fission. it took long enough -- so let's not retreat back into a knee-jerk shell of ignorant fear now. I mean, really, the stuff is here, and is going to decay anyway, we might as well get something from it.
Jill England:
The cost of producing tritium in large quantities is the other radioactive isotopes generated... ...could be used to create other dangerous radioactive materials
I look at it the other way -- aren't there neutron producing processes that are valuable in other ways who's neutrons are just lonely for some nitrogen? In other words can't tritium generation be used to increase end to end efficiency of other already existing processes? Maybe not, but I'm certain the price would be vastly reduced in volume. Ice was once a fantastically expensive luxury in some climates (if it could be had at all). No longer. Besides isn't the end product of Helium-3 quite valuable right now?
As for the other... well I hope I don't sound like a jerk but dangerous things can always be used in dangerous ways. But that is a social-economic cause, and should not be the sole limit on technology. The total number of people killed by building bricks to the head must be a tremendous number, but restricting the use of building bricks or iron pipe is obviously overkill and in itself destructive to society. The phenomenon of music downloads, DRM, etc. is another display of this, but in the more comfortable area of theft (vs weapons). There is no technological solution, only a societal one. Terrorists with high level encryption are vastly harder to observe, but restricting my use of encrypted email to a business partner (or quicken file) will not help with this problem, as terrorist will probably not balk at a software export law (to say the least)!
There will always be clever people like the Radioactive Boy Scout (don't need to be "smart", just clever), and it is the job of society to make sure the the boy scouts of the future are otherwise decent people like David Hahn, rather than evil sociopathic beastards like Ali Muhammed. But that is not the job of the physicist, IMHO.
Besides tritium is not cesium or strontium-90 or apple juice or a mouse. It is tritium, with it's own unique characteristics and should be used accordingly. The commonly used "lay-logic" or "fox-news-logic" that using tritium in a different method, different machine than cesium or strontium somehow means that it tritium is equally dangerous is infuriating to me.
I could care less if tritium is heavier or lighter than a duck. (obligatory car analogy: a Ford Pinto does not equal a 2007 Mercedes in terms of safety. yes they are both cars with the potential to maim and kill, but their potential to injure the driver in similar circumstances is enough different that many billions of industry dollars were spent on developing that difference in the potential to injure. The differences in radioactive substances and processes may seem small to us lay-people but they are NOT insignificant.)
Guest_David
2.5 *10^4 Ci of Tritium are needed per Watt of beta power.
Yes, but how many grams is that. No really, I have no idea. But isn't the power to weight ratio rather good?
my questions for all you smart ones:
Speaking of which, couldn't a sealed chunk of silicon aerogel-like material be used as a medium to further lighten the load? Or is that actually what they are using? Or does it go too far and is not dense enough for effective capture? Several comments here concern "low power" of such a battery, but would not total power be a function of the mass of tritium? Surely, then, practical applications for a given power requirement are limited instead by VOLUME?
BTW, a use of unmanned air vehicles (other than the violent ones mentioned) that I'm interested in is geosynchronous (or "city-synchronous") high altitude aircraft as communication relays instead of the hassles of orbital satellites. The planes already exist, but solar panels on the wings just don't quite cut it. A very lightweight power source, even just to trickle charge capacitors for night time would make the difference!
I'd much rather have some of these guys in the air than a bazillion cell towers crowding cities and every telephone pole spewing microwave radiation for city wide 802.xx networks-- such a waste.
Anyway, best of luck to the researchers, but I'm filing this under "killed by irrational fear / corporate politics" along with a SABRE/aerospike powered Delta Clipper, IFR/LFR fission reactors replacing mercury barfing coal plants, and profitable inertial confinement fusion by 2006 (the Z-machine's power generating successor, whatever they were going to call it before de-funding it to pay with some admittedly NIFty lasers.)
Update: I apologize for my cynicism. Though the descriptive web pages I bookmarked are long gone, somebody put the basic concept on wikipedia, so maybe it WILL get re-funded someday. After as many billions are sunk into NIF as were into superconducting toroids, of course. After all, why fund a concept that already works?
just joking, guys! Oh noooo! ((runs away from horde of enraged optical physicists)) 
aaron: (probably been answered adequately but...)
what applications are willing to risk having radioactive materials on board just to avoid changing the battery more often?
yeah. pacemakers currently. just about every military vehicle in existence as backup power for communications and environmental equipment if they are light, rugged, and cheap. solar photovoltaics just aren't always there for you.
low energy beta radiation, btw, is not the same as the myriad other forms and energy levels of radiation. I humbly suggest that the chances of breaking open a betavoltaic battery and sniffing some tritium (as the low energy beta from tritium cannot penetrate even your outer skin) are still preferable to the certain huffing of diesel generator fumes as exist for remote terrestrial power applications today. the risk compared to other battlefield hazards make it trivial. (oh, say like getting shot, friendly fire, chemical weapons, vaporised DU, etc.)
I'm certainly no expert, but if you're going to bother with posting to a physics site, you might as well alleviate some of that FUD regarding the spooky term "radiation" by visiting wikipedia or a high school chemistry class more often.
even Greenpeace has FINALLY come around to see the light (ie. long term impact) on radioactive power generation, including responsibly designed, integrally reprocessed, traditional uranium fission. it took long enough -- so let's not retreat back into a knee-jerk shell of ignorant fear now. I mean, really, the stuff is here, and is going to decay anyway, we might as well get something from it.
Jill England:
The cost of producing tritium in large quantities is the other radioactive isotopes generated... ...could be used to create other dangerous radioactive materials
I look at it the other way -- aren't there neutron producing processes that are valuable in other ways who's neutrons are just lonely for some nitrogen? In other words can't tritium generation be used to increase end to end efficiency of other already existing processes? Maybe not, but I'm certain the price would be vastly reduced in volume. Ice was once a fantastically expensive luxury in some climates (if it could be had at all). No longer. Besides isn't the end product of Helium-3 quite valuable right now?
As for the other... well I hope I don't sound like a jerk but dangerous things can always be used in dangerous ways. But that is a social-economic cause, and should not be the sole limit on technology. The total number of people killed by building bricks to the head must be a tremendous number, but restricting the use of building bricks or iron pipe is obviously overkill and in itself destructive to society. The phenomenon of music downloads, DRM, etc. is another display of this, but in the more comfortable area of theft (vs weapons). There is no technological solution, only a societal one. Terrorists with high level encryption are vastly harder to observe, but restricting my use of encrypted email to a business partner (or quicken file) will not help with this problem, as terrorist will probably not balk at a software export law (to say the least)!
There will always be clever people like the Radioactive Boy Scout (don't need to be "smart", just clever), and it is the job of society to make sure the the boy scouts of the future are otherwise decent people like David Hahn, rather than evil sociopathic beastards like Ali Muhammed. But that is not the job of the physicist, IMHO.
Besides tritium is not cesium or strontium-90 or apple juice or a mouse. It is tritium, with it's own unique characteristics and should be used accordingly. The commonly used "lay-logic" or "fox-news-logic" that using tritium in a different method, different machine than cesium or strontium somehow means that it tritium is equally dangerous is infuriating to me.
I could care less if tritium is heavier or lighter than a duck. (obligatory car analogy: a Ford Pinto does not equal a 2007 Mercedes in terms of safety. yes they are both cars with the potential to maim and kill, but their potential to injure the driver in similar circumstances is enough different that many billions of industry dollars were spent on developing that difference in the potential to injure. The differences in radioactive substances and processes may seem small to us lay-people but they are NOT insignificant.)Guest_David
2.5 *10^4 Ci of Tritium are needed per Watt of beta power.
Yes, but how many grams is that. No really, I have no idea. But isn't the power to weight ratio rather good?
my questions for all you smart ones:
Speaking of which, couldn't a sealed chunk of silicon aerogel-like material be used as a medium to further lighten the load? Or is that actually what they are using? Or does it go too far and is not dense enough for effective capture? Several comments here concern "low power" of such a battery, but would not total power be a function of the mass of tritium? Surely, then, practical applications for a given power requirement are limited instead by VOLUME?
BTW, a use of unmanned air vehicles (other than the violent ones mentioned) that I'm interested in is geosynchronous (or "city-synchronous") high altitude aircraft as communication relays instead of the hassles of orbital satellites. The planes already exist, but solar panels on the wings just don't quite cut it. A very lightweight power source, even just to trickle charge capacitors for night time would make the difference!
I'd much rather have some of these guys in the air than a bazillion cell towers crowding cities and every telephone pole spewing microwave radiation for city wide 802.xx networks-- such a waste.
Anyway, best of luck to the researchers, but I'm filing this under "killed by irrational fear / corporate politics" along with a SABRE/aerospike powered Delta Clipper, IFR/LFR fission reactors replacing mercury barfing coal plants, and profitable inertial confinement fusion by 2006 (the Z-machine's power generating successor, whatever they were going to call it before de-funding it to pay with some admittedly NIFty lasers.)
Update: I apologize for my cynicism. Though the descriptive web pages I bookmarked are long gone, somebody put the basic concept on wikipedia, so maybe it WILL get re-funded someday. After as many billions are sunk into NIF as were into superconducting toroids, of course. After all, why fund a concept that already works?
just joking, guys! Oh noooo! ((runs away from horde of enraged optical physicists))
The fear of radiation is very overblown, and people are not aware of all the radioactive materials that are all around them. For example it is common for wristwatches to have radioactive glow in the ark elements built into them. Doctors tell people to drink radioactive dye for diagnostics. The tritium that is used in this battery is the same substance used for power failure resistant EXIT signs. Something else to consider is that Nuclear power plant workers do not have any higher rate of cancer than the general population. You are more likely to get cancer from contact with chemicals than from pure radiation.
wow! can u guys like talk in english! omg! 
wow. [FONT=Impact][SIZE=7][COLOR=purple]
wow. [FONT=Impact][SIZE=7][COLOR=purple]
Wow, what sounds to be a fantastic development. If moral and 'nuclear fear' issues are ever surpassed think of the possiblilities. Medical technology could boom, space exploration and deap sea exploration.
Let your imagination run wild!
Lets just hope these 'atomic batteries' dont replace all AC sources of power [or DC for that matter]. Disposal issues could bring on severe dangers. Even tritiums half life is 12.3 years, after this time, when the battery is no longer viable, its radiation levels are still harmful.
Is radioactive decay the natural source of succesful power, or is it an accident waiting to happen!
Let your imagination run wild!
Lets just hope these 'atomic batteries' dont replace all AC sources of power [or DC for that matter]. Disposal issues could bring on severe dangers. Even tritiums half life is 12.3 years, after this time, when the battery is no longer viable, its radiation levels are still harmful.
Is radioactive decay the natural source of succesful power, or is it an accident waiting to happen!
This is a friendly comment. I was interested to know what is the cost of this new technology? Can it be used in radio interferometer equipment?
This is a friendly comment. I was interested to know what is the cost of this new technology? Can it be used in radio interferometer equipment? Email: georgek1029@yahoo.com.
vh
QUOTE (Aaron+May 13 2005, 04:58 PM)
Can someone who actually knows (not speculating) tell us what nuclear batteries are typically used for? Other than satellites, what applications are willing to risk having radioactive materials on board just to avoid changing the battery more often?
That's entirely depends on the level of risk. There is a significant risk that you will die in a car crash every time you drive, yet you choose to drive.
That's entirely depends on the level of risk. There is a significant risk that you will die in a car crash every time you drive, yet you choose to drive.
QUOTE (Guest_David+Jul 5 2005, 07:19 PM)
OK, Lets do some math...
Beta Batteries using Tritium for WHAT?
Not laptops or cell phones I think....
Cost per Watt?
Beta flux from isotopes is measures in Curies (disintigations/second)
So, Ci=3.7*10^10 electrons/second
Average energy of betas from tritium are ~6keV.
So, if you could capture ALL the energy in these beta electrons...
1 AMP = 6.28*10^18 electrons / second
1 Watt = 1 Volt * 1 Amp
That implies about 1.5*10^8 Ci / 6000 ->
2.5 *10^4 Ci of Tritium are needed per Watt of beta power.
Tritium is $2/Ci, so you are dealing with $50,000 per watt, just for the isotope.
Laptop needs 80+ watts - so you end up with a $4 Million dollar battery.
<snip>
-David
Okay, I did a similar calculation myself, but considering I haven't done anything like this in years, I'm more likely to be wrong, so if you or anyone else could point out if and where I have gone wrong, that'd be great.
I even used a much more generous value for the energy value for the beta decay (max value according to a couple of sites = 18.6keV), but still my curies/watt comes out much higher.
Decays per second(d/s)*Energy per beta decay (J/d) = Power (J/s)
Decays per second per curie*energy per beta decay in eV*Joules per eV = watts per curie
3.7*(10^10)*1860*(1.60217646*(10^-19))) = 1.10261784*(10^-5)
1Ci of Tritium would produce about 0.0000110261784 Watts
Which means you'd need about 90693 curies per Watt.
At $2/Ci, you're paying $180k per Watt, assuming 100% efficiency.
Being generous and using the enormous 33% efficiency levels I've seen reported, that brings us to a total of around half a million per Watt.
I'm also interested in the "exit sign" conundrum.
EDIT_
After doing a bit of digging, these "self-luminescent exit signs" work through cathodoluminescence, and I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that they're probably exceptionally efficient (since each electron will hit a phosphor and "activate" it, without any real energy losses anywhere, other than some escaping beta particles. Also, they're extremely dim, designed to only be visible when the lights are out (which is when you need them, of course). They're also not cheap in the slightest, with prices ranging from $140 to almost $600. The part that lights up is tiny, also, with the tubes decorating the inside of the "exit" part of the sign.
So I stand by my original assertion that at least one of those calculations is right, and that figures for cost-for-power are probably somewhere between ridiculously and ludicrously expensive.
Beta Batteries using Tritium for WHAT?
Not laptops or cell phones I think....
Cost per Watt?
Beta flux from isotopes is measures in Curies (disintigations/second)
So, Ci=3.7*10^10 electrons/second
Average energy of betas from tritium are ~6keV.
So, if you could capture ALL the energy in these beta electrons...
1 AMP = 6.28*10^18 electrons / second
1 Watt = 1 Volt * 1 Amp
That implies about 1.5*10^8 Ci / 6000 ->
2.5 *10^4 Ci of Tritium are needed per Watt of beta power.
Tritium is $2/Ci, so you are dealing with $50,000 per watt, just for the isotope.
Laptop needs 80+ watts - so you end up with a $4 Million dollar battery.
<snip>
-David
Okay, I did a similar calculation myself, but considering I haven't done anything like this in years, I'm more likely to be wrong, so if you or anyone else could point out if and where I have gone wrong, that'd be great.
I even used a much more generous value for the energy value for the beta decay (max value according to a couple of sites = 18.6keV), but still my curies/watt comes out much higher.
CODE
Decays per second(d/s)*Energy per beta decay (J/d) = Power (J/s)
Decays per second per curie*energy per beta decay in eV*Joules per eV = watts per curie
3.7*(10^10)*1860*(1.60217646*(10^-19))) = 1.10261784*(10^-5)
1Ci of Tritium would produce about 0.0000110261784 Watts
Which means you'd need about 90693 curies per Watt.
At $2/Ci, you're paying $180k per Watt, assuming 100% efficiency.
Being generous and using the enormous 33% efficiency levels I've seen reported, that brings us to a total of around half a million per Watt.
I'm also interested in the "exit sign" conundrum.
EDIT_
After doing a bit of digging, these "self-luminescent exit signs" work through cathodoluminescence, and I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that they're probably exceptionally efficient (since each electron will hit a phosphor and "activate" it, without any real energy losses anywhere, other than some escaping beta particles. Also, they're extremely dim, designed to only be visible when the lights are out (which is when you need them, of course). They're also not cheap in the slightest, with prices ranging from $140 to almost $600. The part that lights up is tiny, also, with the tubes decorating the inside of the "exit" part of the sign.
So I stand by my original assertion that at least one of those calculations is right, and that figures for cost-for-power are probably somewhere between ridiculously and ludicrously expensive.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.