‘Diamond-age’ of power generation as nuclear batteries developed(bristol.ac.uk)
bristol.ac.uk
‘Diamond-age’ of power generation as nuclear batteries developed
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2016/november/diamond-power.html
183 comments
> My favorite "invention" of that form is the water heater "booster" ball
This sounds super cool! what happens if people e.g. go on vacation for 3 months? would it explode the heater or melt through the ball..?
do you have any other links/info about it you can give me? I'm super curious about it. I googled moderately but I only found some seemingly unrelated things[1]
[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/02/22/nasa-a-nu...
This sounds super cool! what happens if people e.g. go on vacation for 3 months? would it explode the heater or melt through the ball..?
do you have any other links/info about it you can give me? I'm super curious about it. I googled moderately but I only found some seemingly unrelated things[1]
[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/02/22/nasa-a-nu...
On vacation, presumably you would use a water heater that allowed for recirculating in cold water if it got over temp, presumably you could even open a radiator loop for that. The goal is to have something that is thermally stable sitting out in the open air and still can warm water to a usefully warm temperature.
There was a discussion of this sort of thing in the papers on the pebble bed reactor (that reactor uses encased fuel "pebbles" and one question came up with what you do with the "used up" ones.) It has come up off and on both at conferences and in discussion forums.
There was a discussion of this sort of thing in the papers on the pebble bed reactor (that reactor uses encased fuel "pebbles" and one question came up with what you do with the "used up" ones.) It has come up off and on both at conferences and in discussion forums.
if there's any water left in that water heater after a couple hours and it didnt explode from vapor overpressure, you'll painfully die of acute radiation sickness.
that's the best case scenario.
that's the best case scenario.
You over estimate the decay heat in a kg of spent fuel. According to here [1], a 1GW (1000MW) plant uses 100 Metric tons of fuel, so 1 kg is responsible for 1G/100K or 10Kwatts and the decay heat of spent fuel is .1% of its nominal power level so 10K * .001 or 10 watts. If you dump 10 watts into your water heater it will get hotter and depending on the heat insulation of the tank it might even get to boiling. Although typically I would expect a tank to lose close to 10W into the ambient air once the water was at temperature.
[1] http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/hlwaste.htm
[1] http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/hlwaste.htm
No argument, though it's hard to envision a scenario where [1] is not a predetermined eventuality for any setup that would be laughably inadequate or economically impractical.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_units_4,_5...
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_units_4,_5...
It doesn't follow, fuel (whether spent or not), is density and dissipation question. Each kg of fuel is generating heat, so more fuel in a smaller space means more heat in a smaller space. Fukishima's spent fuel ponds had both spent and fresh fuel in them (reactor 4 was undergoing maintenance) and there was a lot of it. Spread that fuel out across say a hectare pool of water that is 5 meters deep and it stays out of trouble.
One disposal plan called for mixing the fuel with silica to create glass bricks. By spreading the fuel mixture to a density that was low enough to allow the ambient air to cool it, the bricks are shelf stable for thousands of years and not a radiation hazard (less of a risk than even natural uranium deposits you might come across).
Many disposal plans were like this, encapsulate the spent fuel into a container that withstands (and blocks) the radiation while conducting enough heat to avoid changing the properties of the material over the lifetime of its storage. Glass and austenitic stainless are both good candidates for that material.
One disposal plan called for mixing the fuel with silica to create glass bricks. By spreading the fuel mixture to a density that was low enough to allow the ambient air to cool it, the bricks are shelf stable for thousands of years and not a radiation hazard (less of a risk than even natural uranium deposits you might come across).
Many disposal plans were like this, encapsulate the spent fuel into a container that withstands (and blocks) the radiation while conducting enough heat to avoid changing the properties of the material over the lifetime of its storage. Glass and austenitic stainless are both good candidates for that material.
This does not really change the conversation.
The fact that spent nuclear fuel must be kept in water at all until it is sufficiently decayed to be put into dry storage still safely away from humans means it is by definition not fail safe. Water evaporates and if you lose the ability to dissipate heat or absorb ionizing radiation, "you're in deep shit" would be a colossal understatement. How comfortable would you be that something on your property or in your home is one water outage or tank failure away from irradiating your family and probably a bunch of your neighbors. I imagine the hazmat team won't be happy to be invited to your housewarming either.
If it requires cooling or radiation-blocking-immersion to be safe, it absolutely has to be monitored by trained personnel 24x7 who can also immediately and reliably take necessary measures when something goes wrong. Anything less than this is a non-starter. Nuclear reactors work because they centralize risk to where it can be managed by a team of knowledgeable people; A 1GW reactor does not have the same risk profile as 1000 dispersed 1MW reactors.
The fact that spent nuclear fuel must be kept in water at all until it is sufficiently decayed to be put into dry storage still safely away from humans means it is by definition not fail safe. Water evaporates and if you lose the ability to dissipate heat or absorb ionizing radiation, "you're in deep shit" would be a colossal understatement. How comfortable would you be that something on your property or in your home is one water outage or tank failure away from irradiating your family and probably a bunch of your neighbors. I imagine the hazmat team won't be happy to be invited to your housewarming either.
If it requires cooling or radiation-blocking-immersion to be safe, it absolutely has to be monitored by trained personnel 24x7 who can also immediately and reliably take necessary measures when something goes wrong. Anything less than this is a non-starter. Nuclear reactors work because they centralize risk to where it can be managed by a team of knowledgeable people; A 1GW reactor does not have the same risk profile as 1000 dispersed 1MW reactors.
But that was my point, spent fuel doesn't have to be kept in water at all, if it is sufficiently dispersed. Take a spent fuel assembly remove each of the fuel rods and lay them down on the ground and you're done caveat two things, one they emit alpha, beta, and some gamma radiation and two they warm their surroundings. So there always exists a solution to the equation of heat generated over time = heat absorbed by ambient air keep the total temperature rise below that of the safe temperature of the cladding.
If you lay a spent rod out on the ground in the air, it may glow (would depend on the amount of material in a single rod) and you wouldn't want to approach it without protection (again more material more radiation) but it would be fine.
The reason people put these things in water is two fold, one is that water is a great transporter of heat and you can generate almost an arbitrary amount of heat in a small space if you have enough water flow to carry it away (ask any highend gamer PC aficionado :-)) and water absorbs neutrons, which if they were not caught and hit another fissile atom nearby slowly enough might spit it, or a non-fissile atom might become an unstable nucleotide (which is going to eventually emit an alpha or beta particle)
If the material is clad in a neutron opaque material and can transfer the latent heat to the surrounding atmosphere or fluid at a rate that keeps the system temperature under the breakdown temperature of the containment, then it will be stable "forever".
Yes, it takes a year or two for the short lived nucleotides in a fuel rod pulled from a reactor to decay, but once it has, you can safely store this stuff.
In terms of why we haven't, most of the issues around storing high level nuclear waste arise because third parties do not want to encapsulate permanently this material, because doing so would make it uneconomical to recover. And in that calculus they know its "easier" to reprocess spent fuel for bomb grade uranium and plutonium than it is to build a breeder reactor to make it.
If you lay a spent rod out on the ground in the air, it may glow (would depend on the amount of material in a single rod) and you wouldn't want to approach it without protection (again more material more radiation) but it would be fine.
The reason people put these things in water is two fold, one is that water is a great transporter of heat and you can generate almost an arbitrary amount of heat in a small space if you have enough water flow to carry it away (ask any highend gamer PC aficionado :-)) and water absorbs neutrons, which if they were not caught and hit another fissile atom nearby slowly enough might spit it, or a non-fissile atom might become an unstable nucleotide (which is going to eventually emit an alpha or beta particle)
If the material is clad in a neutron opaque material and can transfer the latent heat to the surrounding atmosphere or fluid at a rate that keeps the system temperature under the breakdown temperature of the containment, then it will be stable "forever".
Yes, it takes a year or two for the short lived nucleotides in a fuel rod pulled from a reactor to decay, but once it has, you can safely store this stuff.
In terms of why we haven't, most of the issues around storing high level nuclear waste arise because third parties do not want to encapsulate permanently this material, because doing so would make it uneconomical to recover. And in that calculus they know its "easier" to reprocess spent fuel for bomb grade uranium and plutonium than it is to build a breeder reactor to make it.
> it might even get to boiling
if it can boil water, can't it be used to generate electricity? What makes it "spent"?
if it can boil water, can't it be used to generate electricity? What makes it "spent"?
You could, but it would be less than 10W of electricity, so not enough to power a lightbulb. The water tank is insulated, so the water just heats up slowly until it reaches boiling point. That doesn't mean it's a powerful heat source.
Ah I see, so it's about the rate of heating more than the amount of heat it can potentially generate. That makes sense, thanks.
So basically if you use up all the hot water in your shower you are going to be in hot water!
I don't think the energy output is linear like that, don't you need to account for cross-sectional area?
This sounds like something out of "Chemicals I won't work with."
yeah, also fun: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core
Interesting read. Can someone explain why they were performing these experiments in blue jeans and shirts?
It was the 1940's and nuclear material safety wasn't as critical an issue as it is now.
I'd hope there would be only alpha and betta emitters on the ball. Who would ever transport neutron and gamma radiation out of confinement?
I would also hope it would be dimensioned for radiation cooling when over 100°C.
Still wouldn't want people to have those at home anywhere near me. But it's mostly because of misuse, not because of operational dangers.
I would also hope it would be dimensioned for radiation cooling when over 100°C.
Still wouldn't want people to have those at home anywhere near me. But it's mostly because of misuse, not because of operational dangers.
Slow neutrons aren't so bad. May as well get used to them, as they will be around for a while.
I like the idea of having to type 6 numbers (yes those numbers!) into a computer to release the pressure.
er... which numbers? can someone expand on this?
4 8 15 16 23 and 42
Lost. Old TV show. Netflix maybe?
I think he means the 000000 that the USAF set the password to for launching the LGM-30 Minuteman ICBM. For expediency, apparently.
Wow, that hit me right in the feeling-old-shin. I gave up on it between season 2 and 3, thinking I'd get back to it sometime. Didn't realize it's become an "old TV show", but I suppose you're right.
You really consider a TV programme that ran from 2004 to 2010 old?
I'm the old dude (42) who works in a team with a bunch of milennials. It is humbling and bizarre to realize that they were kids when 9/11 happened, when Lost ran, when George W. Bush was president, when Java 5 was released, Ruby on Rails became trendy, all events that occurred when I was already old and even having kids.
Ugh
Ugh
"That's amazing! I've got the same combination on my luggage!"
I think I might start buying lotto tickets with those numbers.
By law, all water heaters need a regulator pressure valve. (Before this federal requirement; some people had rocket in their garage. Middle of the night a water heater would go through the roof, if the homeowner was lucky.). In this case, I would want four regulators, on my nuclear hydronic heater.
laws have to ruin all the fun. hopefully there aren't any pesky laws preventing spent nuclear fuel from being used for DIY residential heating.
Yeah, we should definitely let the free market determine the natural safety appetite of citizens ;)
[deleted]
Presumably these are doped diamond semiconductors trapping the electrons as they ping off the C14. Although I'm not sure why they'd need to be diamond, specifically.
Wow, the heater booster is great. Instead of paying for the disposal of your nuclear waste, you get people to pay you to buy it! /s
> water heater "booster" ball
I would not use beta decay for that though because it is ionizing. Alpha decay is a far better choice, and also more energetic typically, and easier to harness for heat.
I would not use beta decay for that though because it is ionizing. Alpha decay is a far better choice, and also more energetic typically, and easier to harness for heat.
Diamonds have been used to detect ionizing radiation for a very long time, and it looks like they've now figured out a way to harness that to generate a very small current.
Here's a general explanation for how the detectors work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_detector
Here's some more info about using diamond as a netron detector: http://www.npl.co.uk/upload/pdf/091104_nuc_galbiati.pdf
Here's a general explanation for how the detectors work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_detector
Here's some more info about using diamond as a netron detector: http://www.npl.co.uk/upload/pdf/091104_nuc_galbiati.pdf
Hah! Use those "booster" balls in a thermo-electric generator and string them along a conductive tether hung from an ocean platform. Beam power up to your space-based microwave routing constellation for delivery worldwide. ;-)
Edit: Add/lengthen tethers until the economics work out.
Edit: Add/lengthen tethers until the economics work out.
use those booster balls to liquefy the ice on mars, We'll colonize mars!!!
I can see that they are emphasizing on the #DiamondBattery hashtag so that general public will be hooked and share it more, but why haven't they given any hints (mildly technical) to the capabilities of the battery?
// A team of physicists and chemists from the University of Bristol have grown a man-made diamond that, when placed in a radioactive field, is able to generate a small electrical current.//
When I read the "small electrical current", the physicist in me was naturally assuming a very small current of the order of pico to nano amperes (without being conservative) - essentially useless. Metrics like the half life of the battery doesn't make any sense at all if the power or current rating is not specified. Current rating is something you could trust, that it will end up as a viable product.
This would appeal more if they can give a direct link to their research paper.
// A team of physicists and chemists from the University of Bristol have grown a man-made diamond that, when placed in a radioactive field, is able to generate a small electrical current.//
When I read the "small electrical current", the physicist in me was naturally assuming a very small current of the order of pico to nano amperes (without being conservative) - essentially useless. Metrics like the half life of the battery doesn't make any sense at all if the power or current rating is not specified. Current rating is something you could trust, that it will end up as a viable product.
This would appeal more if they can give a direct link to their research paper.
Current off the shelf betavoltaic batteries produce 50-350 nA @ 2.4v. I don't expect them to be producing much more than that.
They state 15 Joule/day per gram, this gives 0.000174W
Is that an idiom, or are they really "off the shelf" and not specially built for every space probe?
They are "off the shelf" in that you can give them a call and in 6 weeks have one. I suspect they obtain and load the nuclear material for your order, but the rest of the device is stocked as it involves custom semiconductors which have fairly large minimum orders.
These are the class of battery that would replace the CMOS battery in something that can never lose power to its RAM, rather than the much more powerful RTGs that space probes use.
These are the class of battery that would replace the CMOS battery in something that can never lose power to its RAM, rather than the much more powerful RTGs that space probes use.
Part of a spectrum from MEMs through pacemaker batteries, Cassini-style RTG, pebble-bed reactors, up to massive GE/Siemens style LWRs. It's a remarkably scalable tech, both up- and down- scale.
CityLabs manufactures specific product lines that aren't special-built.[1] The price is still "contact us" but they are purchaseable and I've heard of a few popping up on marketplaces before.
[1] - http://www.citylabs.net/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wr...
[1] - http://www.citylabs.net/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wr...
This will sound like neckbeard cynicism, but I actually mean this and in a positive way:
"There are so many possible uses that we’re asking the public to come up with suggestions of how they would utilise this technology by using #diamondbattery.”
It's cool how they're engaging the public in their research in this way. Of course it's a transparent ploy to get social media mentions, but scientists of all sorts (and I kind of am one myself) would do themselves a favor by doing more to get the general public to know about their/our work. This particular thing 'feels' sort of slimy (to me at least, but I suspect to others on this site as well), but I think that's a bad reflex on my part, and that easy, low-friction things like giving people an opening to send a quick tweet or FB post reaches a different audience than having a stand at the 'open science fair' or having a lecture open to the general public; those tend to self-select in the audience they attract, to put it mildly.
"There are so many possible uses that we’re asking the public to come up with suggestions of how they would utilise this technology by using #diamondbattery.”
It's cool how they're engaging the public in their research in this way. Of course it's a transparent ploy to get social media mentions, but scientists of all sorts (and I kind of am one myself) would do themselves a favor by doing more to get the general public to know about their/our work. This particular thing 'feels' sort of slimy (to me at least, but I suspect to others on this site as well), but I think that's a bad reflex on my part, and that easy, low-friction things like giving people an opening to send a quick tweet or FB post reaches a different audience than having a stand at the 'open science fair' or having a lecture open to the general public; those tend to self-select in the audience they attract, to put it mildly.
> This particular thing 'feels' sort of slimy
I was just coming here to talk about how inaccurate the title was. It implies (or leads people to believe) that "nuclear batteries" are something new. Or at least, that's what they want readers thinking. They're not even close to new. They're decades old. They're aboard the Voyager probes (which is why they're still working, 30 years later) and they're powering the Curiosity rover on Mars. Hell, there was even a nuclear battery powered automobile made by Ford I believe (the "Nucleon") as proof of concept. This was in the 1950s.
The new thing here, is the fact that they can run the batteries with nuclear waste.
I was just coming here to talk about how inaccurate the title was. It implies (or leads people to believe) that "nuclear batteries" are something new. Or at least, that's what they want readers thinking. They're not even close to new. They're decades old. They're aboard the Voyager probes (which is why they're still working, 30 years later) and they're powering the Curiosity rover on Mars. Hell, there was even a nuclear battery powered automobile made by Ford I believe (the "Nucleon") as proof of concept. This was in the 1950s.
The new thing here, is the fact that they can run the batteries with nuclear waste.
Voyager I and II and Curiosity are powered with radioisotope thermoelectric generators [1], which are nothing like this proposal.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_ge...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_ge...
> Voyager I and II and Curiosity are powered with radioisotope thermoelectric generators
AKA a nuclear battery... That's how they're referred to by just about everyone.
AKA a nuclear battery... That's how they're referred to by just about everyone.
The Ford Nucleon was a styling exercise and was never intended to have a working prototype.
The concept itself didn't use a nuclear battery, it was designed around a miniaturized nuclear reactor which powered the car using a steam turbine.
The concept itself didn't use a nuclear battery, it was designed around a miniaturized nuclear reactor which powered the car using a steam turbine.
I knew about the nuclear batteries in space, but isn't the new thing here the miniaturization and safety?
> Carbon-14 was chosen as a source material because it emits a short-range radiation, which is quickly absorbed by any solid material. This would make it dangerous to ingest or touch with your naked skin, but safely held within diamond, no short-range radiation can escape. In fact, diamond is the hardest substance known to man, there is literally nothing we could use that could offer more protection.
That sounds really promising to me. And I wonder if there is some more optimal lattice structure, or some way to scale it up and produce enough energy to power a smartphone.
> Carbon-14 was chosen as a source material because it emits a short-range radiation, which is quickly absorbed by any solid material. This would make it dangerous to ingest or touch with your naked skin, but safely held within diamond, no short-range radiation can escape. In fact, diamond is the hardest substance known to man, there is literally nothing we could use that could offer more protection.
That sounds really promising to me. And I wonder if there is some more optimal lattice structure, or some way to scale it up and produce enough energy to power a smartphone.
Going back to Ludwik Fleck I'd argue that it makes a lot of sense for a thought collective to bridge the gap between the esoteric and exoteric circle more often. Social media seems like a natural choice in this day and age.
> In fact, diamond is the hardest substance known to man, there is literally nothing we could use that could offer more protection.
With such nonsense it is hard to believe the rest of the article. Heat a diamond and it will burn releasing CO2 into the air, smash it with a hammer and it will burst in million parts. Small particles and gasses are very easy to ingest.
With such nonsense it is hard to believe the rest of the article. Heat a diamond and it will burn releasing CO2 into the air, smash it with a hammer and it will burst in million parts. Small particles and gasses are very easy to ingest.
> Heat a diamond and it will burn releasing CO2 into the air
I bet you have never tried that.
Heat a diamond enough (what it a lot), and it will turn into graphite (layer by layer), a substance usually used for heat protection since is one of the solid materials we have around that survive the hightest temperatures.
Also, hit it with a big enough hammer, and yes, it will smash. It will also press a dent on your hammer.
I bet you have never tried that.
Heat a diamond enough (what it a lot), and it will turn into graphite (layer by layer), a substance usually used for heat protection since is one of the solid materials we have around that survive the hightest temperatures.
Also, hit it with a big enough hammer, and yes, it will smash. It will also press a dent on your hammer.
A material can be "hard" but also be brittle. Diamond is one of these substances. You don't need a large hammer to crack or destroy one. Ask any jeweler.
Diamond has perfect cleavage in four directions.
If you want a mineral that you can really pound on without it breaking, you want nephrite. The Maori made war clubs out of it. Bring a diamond to a nephrite fight, and you're going to end up in the stewpot.
If you need hardness and toughness, corundum is what you want.
If you want a mineral that you can really pound on without it breaking, you want nephrite. The Maori made war clubs out of it. Bring a diamond to a nephrite fight, and you're going to end up in the stewpot.
If you need hardness and toughness, corundum is what you want.
This is what makes me think it's probably going to be used in pacemakers / satellites, rather than phones. Imagine the Galaxy Note 7 fiasco with radioactive isotopes.
Tesla has this problem too. They shield the underside of the car now, but imagine if you accidentally punctured the diamond. It'd likely shatter and spread radioactive material everywhere.
It could be awesome in non-touchable contexts though.
Tesla has this problem too. They shield the underside of the car now, but imagine if you accidentally punctured the diamond. It'd likely shatter and spread radioactive material everywhere.
It could be awesome in non-touchable contexts though.
Also there are materials harder than diamond: mineral lonsdaleite, wurtzite boron nitride, aggregated carbon nanorods.
Sounds cool. One annoying bit of breathless (and brainless) enthusiasm stuck out though: "In fact, diamond is the hardest substance known to man, there is literally nothing we could use that could offer more protection."
While diamonds are extremely hard, they are brittle, and shatter relatively easily.
While diamonds are extremely hard, they are brittle, and shatter relatively easily.
Exactly. Not forgetting that radiation protection has nothing to do with the hardness of the casing. Lead is nowhere near hard and is one of the most used materials to shield from radiations.
Maybe it's my lack of imagination or not having English as a native language, but how can something be "hard" and at the same time shatter easily?
EDIT: nvm found the answer via Google
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-diamond-hard-yet-brittle
EDIT: nvm found the answer via Google
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-diamond-hard-yet-brittle
Even better:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardness
I read an enlightening discussion on HN a few months back about "hardness". I was under the impression professional scientists/researchers do not use the generic terms "hard" or "hardness". Outside of marketing, I presume they would employ concise measurements like ductility, elastic stiffness, plasticity, strain, strength, toughness, viscoelasticity, and viscosity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardness
I read an enlightening discussion on HN a few months back about "hardness". I was under the impression professional scientists/researchers do not use the generic terms "hard" or "hardness". Outside of marketing, I presume they would employ concise measurements like ductility, elastic stiffness, plasticity, strain, strength, toughness, viscoelasticity, and viscosity.
Relatively, but don't most electronics shatter much more easily? In a traumatic event that shatters my embedded diamond-powered pacemaker, isn't the squishy rest of me much worse off already?
From #diamondbattery tweets: https://twitter.com/search?q=%23diamondbattery
Could be used in underground seismic monitors https://twitter.com/Keminoes/status/803297734694465541
Car keys that require batteries. If we don't have a spare battery with us and our keys die, we're stranded. MP3 players, too https://twitter.com/tysongeisler/status/803438384052129796
To power a low-power-mode Arduino for gas detection (CO, CO2, Low O2, etc), fire detection, radiation detection, etc. https://twitter.com/noalear/status/803389146433626112
Could diamond batteries be used to power medical nanobots? https://twitter.com/weirbe/status/803418222972125184
Power clothes that contain sensors, as well as clothes that electrically regulate the temperature. https://twitter.com/CIMCloudOne/status/803440800759574528
how about in cell phones to give a little charge to the battery while the phone is not in use. https://twitter.com/W_Haas/status/803352403512872961
Is there the potential to power watches as a fair amount of waste is generated from depleted watch batteries each year. https://twitter.com/Merrett72/status/803297788163289088
Could be used in underground seismic monitors https://twitter.com/Keminoes/status/803297734694465541
Car keys that require batteries. If we don't have a spare battery with us and our keys die, we're stranded. MP3 players, too https://twitter.com/tysongeisler/status/803438384052129796
To power a low-power-mode Arduino for gas detection (CO, CO2, Low O2, etc), fire detection, radiation detection, etc. https://twitter.com/noalear/status/803389146433626112
Could diamond batteries be used to power medical nanobots? https://twitter.com/weirbe/status/803418222972125184
Power clothes that contain sensors, as well as clothes that electrically regulate the temperature. https://twitter.com/CIMCloudOne/status/803440800759574528
how about in cell phones to give a little charge to the battery while the phone is not in use. https://twitter.com/W_Haas/status/803352403512872961
Is there the potential to power watches as a fair amount of waste is generated from depleted watch batteries each year. https://twitter.com/Merrett72/status/803297788163289088
> To power a low-power-mode Arduino for gas detection (CO, CO2, Low O2, etc), fire detection, radiation detection, etc. https://twitter.com/noalear/status/803389146433626112
Except you wouldn't use an Arduino; AVR processors are notorious power hogs when you start counting the milli (and micro) watts. Run-of-the-mill TI MSP430 microcontrollers, aside from being arguably more powerful and better designed at similar price points, consume less than 1 microamp in idle mode.
Except you wouldn't use an Arduino; AVR processors are notorious power hogs when you start counting the milli (and micro) watts. Run-of-the-mill TI MSP430 microcontrollers, aside from being arguably more powerful and better designed at similar price points, consume less than 1 microamp in idle mode.
> AVR processors are notorious power hogs
> MSP430 microcontrollers ... consume less than 1 microamp in idle mode.
As someone who's done extremely low-power development on both platforms, this is an extremely disingenuous comparison. Of course MSP430s consume very little current in idle mode. So do AVRs. People just don't usually run them at low frequencies or in idle mode, because Arduino is targeted at novice users, not people who know how to do low-level power management.
I've been running an ATTiny off the same pair of AA batteries, blinking an LED for 50ms every 5 seconds for 4 years. Just turn all peripherals off, maximum clock prescaler division, sleep mode with wake on watchdog interrupt. There's functionally no way to get better performance out of an MSP430 in real-world applications.
While I prefer the MSP430 instruction set, beyond that there's no obvious all-around advantage over the AVR family.
> MSP430 microcontrollers ... consume less than 1 microamp in idle mode.
As someone who's done extremely low-power development on both platforms, this is an extremely disingenuous comparison. Of course MSP430s consume very little current in idle mode. So do AVRs. People just don't usually run them at low frequencies or in idle mode, because Arduino is targeted at novice users, not people who know how to do low-level power management.
I've been running an ATTiny off the same pair of AA batteries, blinking an LED for 50ms every 5 seconds for 4 years. Just turn all peripherals off, maximum clock prescaler division, sleep mode with wake on watchdog interrupt. There's functionally no way to get better performance out of an MSP430 in real-world applications.
While I prefer the MSP430 instruction set, beyond that there's no obvious all-around advantage over the AVR family.
Just to back this point up, I have an atmel 328p (auduino duo) thats been running on single tiny solar panel, and 5 farads of super capacitor for about 4 years.
It transmits a temperature reading every 30 seconds over rfm12b radio.
(obviously the panel keeps the charge topped up, but it easily lasts through the night and a very cloudy day. It even works indoors. )
It transmits a temperature reading every 30 seconds over rfm12b radio.
(obviously the panel keeps the charge topped up, but it easily lasts through the night and a very cloudy day. It even works indoors. )
>I've been running an ATTiny off the same pair of AA batteries, blinking an LED for 50ms every 5 seconds for 4 years.
Is this just for fun or is it part of a larger project?
Is this just for fun or is it part of a larger project?
For fun. My parents wanted a fake security system with a blinking light at their house to ward off burglars, so I soldered an LED and a resistor to an ATTiny and then soldered on a double AA pack. It's still going off the first set of batteries.
I've used both. The MSP430 has a few advantages over the AVR family when it comes to low power.
1) There are specific low power designs. They use lower voltages, which allows you to squeeze more energy out of each battery, and they use non-volatile RAM.
2) There are a lot of MSP430 variants, and they have integrated all sorts of features that would have to be external on an AVR series microcontroller. E.g., a real time clock, or an LCD driver.
3) The MSP430 series has variants with almost any quantity of digital or analog IO you could wish for. This means you can directly connect the MSP430 to things that you would need a breakout board for on an AVR.
So even if the AVR series and the MSP series are on relatively equal ground when it comes to power per clock (which they aren't), the MSP430 is a much better chip for low power draw.
1) There are specific low power designs. They use lower voltages, which allows you to squeeze more energy out of each battery, and they use non-volatile RAM.
2) There are a lot of MSP430 variants, and they have integrated all sorts of features that would have to be external on an AVR series microcontroller. E.g., a real time clock, or an LCD driver.
3) The MSP430 series has variants with almost any quantity of digital or analog IO you could wish for. This means you can directly connect the MSP430 to things that you would need a breakout board for on an AVR.
So even if the AVR series and the MSP series are on relatively equal ground when it comes to power per clock (which they aren't), the MSP430 is a much better chip for low power draw.
Thread a few weeks ago on the MSP430:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12952100
tl;dr (I hunted up the datasheets); they'll run (i.e. processing numbers, not idling) at 120 µA/MHz, which is miniscule. However, there are some new ARM-Thumb designs which will run at 35 µA/MHz:
http://www.atmel.com/products/microcontrollers/arm/sam-l.asp...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12952100
tl;dr (I hunted up the datasheets); they'll run (i.e. processing numbers, not idling) at 120 µA/MHz, which is miniscule. However, there are some new ARM-Thumb designs which will run at 35 µA/MHz:
http://www.atmel.com/products/microcontrollers/arm/sam-l.asp...
> maximum clock prescaler division
How do you calculate the tradeoff between the low power of a lower clock frequency and the shorter active time with a higher clock frequency?
How do you calculate the tradeoff between the low power of a lower clock frequency and the shorter active time with a higher clock frequency?
If you're computation bound, unless you have a very current-limited power supply, you can just max out the clock when you wake up and turn it back down before sleeping.
In my case I had to be awake for some time anyway, so I just used the lowest clock frequency I could.
In my case I had to be awake for some time anyway, so I just used the lowest clock frequency I could.
> Car keys that require batteries. If we don't have a spare battery with us and our keys die, we're stranded.
There was a great solution for this in use for over a hundred years.
There was a great solution for this in use for over a hundred years.
My 2006 has a workable solution as well that doesn't require a traditional key, there's a slot you can put your key fob in to start the car even if the battery in it is dead (only option on trims sold without the Smart Key System) and the driver door has a mechanical lock that can be opened with a key hidden in the fob.
Keyless entry and ignition is a great convenience, especially for my wife since she can keep the fob buried in her bag - and it makes it easy for me to put my daughter in the car without trying to wrangle the fob out of my pocket to unlock the door. But it floors me that so many manufacturers just ignore the use-case where the battery in the fob is dead...
Keyless entry and ignition is a great convenience, especially for my wife since she can keep the fob buried in her bag - and it makes it easy for me to put my daughter in the car without trying to wrangle the fob out of my pocket to unlock the door. But it floors me that so many manufacturers just ignore the use-case where the battery in the fob is dead...
But do they, though? I'm thinking it's just a matter of actually reading the owner's manual.
For instance: there's a key hidden in the fob of my Nissan Leaf that is able to mechanically unlock the driver door, same as your 2006. To start the car, you place it against the "start" button. I'm assuming there's some inductive trickery going on.
Anyway, I'd be surprised if our cars (2006 and 2015) were the exception, rather than the rule.
For instance: there's a key hidden in the fob of my Nissan Leaf that is able to mechanically unlock the driver door, same as your 2006. To start the car, you place it against the "start" button. I'm assuming there's some inductive trickery going on.
Anyway, I'd be surprised if our cars (2006 and 2015) were the exception, rather than the rule.
We're on our third keyless entry car. The 2014 Chevy Volt was the worst, but they all had that feature. I had to read the manual to find the trick, but you:
* Open up the compartment on top of the center of the dashboard
* Take out the rubber liner on the bottom of the compartment
* Pop the mechanical key out of the fob
* Poke the mechanical key into an unlabeled hole in the bottom of the above compartment
And bingo, your car will start.
The Kia Sorrento we have with a keyless system is much more sane: The center panel has a really obvious place to push the whole keyfob in, and it will start with a dead fob battery.
The Toyota Prius we used to own also had keyless, and also had a place to insert the whole keyfob to start the car when the battery died. And it was also pretty obvious (and labeled).
It's only the Chevy Volt where it was an absolute mystery what you're supposed to do (unless you read the manual). I don't think I would have ever guessed that you should disassemble the compartment on top of the dashboard and stick the key into an unlabeled hole. Would have been afraid of shorting something out.
* Open up the compartment on top of the center of the dashboard
* Take out the rubber liner on the bottom of the compartment
* Pop the mechanical key out of the fob
* Poke the mechanical key into an unlabeled hole in the bottom of the above compartment
And bingo, your car will start.
The Kia Sorrento we have with a keyless system is much more sane: The center panel has a really obvious place to push the whole keyfob in, and it will start with a dead fob battery.
The Toyota Prius we used to own also had keyless, and also had a place to insert the whole keyfob to start the car when the battery died. And it was also pretty obvious (and labeled).
It's only the Chevy Volt where it was an absolute mystery what you're supposed to do (unless you read the manual). I don't think I would have ever guessed that you should disassemble the compartment on top of the dashboard and stick the key into an unlabeled hole. Would have been afraid of shorting something out.
On my Ford Fusion, it apparently has a passive RFID chip in the key fob in case the battery dies, and the reader is in the bottom of the cup holder. And a hidden key inside the fob, that you can use to pry off a plastic shroud on the door handle to get access to a hidden cylinder lock on the door.
By the time this technology is out there, car keys would be obsolete. You would nt own a car.
> But do they, though? I'm thinking it's just a matter of actually reading the owner's manual.
It's in the glove box...
It's in the glove box...
I have a 2012 Lexus that actually tells you "place key on start button" if it thinks the key battery is dead.
I have a 2010 Prius with keyless entry and start - you just need the key in your pocket or bag. It may sound a bit gimicky, but I really like it. No more hunting for the key, I just leave it in my ruck sack.
If the battery dies there is a hidden key in the fob that can be used to unlock the drivers door. To start the car you can hold the fob on the 'Start' button - there is an RFID chip inside which is read.
If the battery dies there is a hidden key in the fob that can be used to unlock the drivers door. To start the car you can hold the fob on the 'Start' button - there is an RFID chip inside which is read.
What? I had a 2004 BMW that would charge the key battery through induction when you had it in the ignition and the car was running. Battery never died in 10 years owning the car. How have things gotten worse since then?
Key doesn't go in the ignition, kind of hard to charge a battery if it's floating in a purse or pocket.
That's my point, why would I ever buy keyless entry/start? Of all the things that bother me with car ownership I never felt burdened by having to put a key in the ignition. That's the best part!
The only appealing thing to me would be that keyless entry/start usually comes with remote start, which in the northern climates would be nice.
But I'm with you as far as having a physical key goes. Never have I thought, "man, this key stuff is just so tough!" especially since every other door in my life still uses a mechanical key which would likely be attached to the remote key fob. When I get home and turn off the car I'm going to need those keys in my hand anyway to get in my house.
But I'm with you as far as having a physical key goes. Never have I thought, "man, this key stuff is just so tough!" especially since every other door in my life still uses a mechanical key which would likely be attached to the remote key fob. When I get home and turn off the car I'm going to need those keys in my hand anyway to get in my house.
Depends on how you start your car I guess.
My car is also a BMW product, but it was a big toggle switch on bottom of the dashboard for Engine on/off. Pulses red when it's ready to start.
My car is also a BMW product, but it was a big toggle switch on bottom of the dashboard for Engine on/off. Pulses red when it's ready to start.
A tablet computer that does not need external power would be nice. Even using this in an e-book reader with an e-ink display would be great.
A wireless mesh network that needs no external power for emergency communications would also be nice. Just imagine being able to place nodes on utility poles and not having to worry about paying for electricity.
A wireless mesh network that needs no external power for emergency communications would also be nice. Just imagine being able to place nodes on utility poles and not having to worry about paying for electricity.
[deleted]
This is no diamond-age. These devices are all well and good, but think of the scales involved. To generate enough power to do something like power a home, let alone a vehicle, we are going to need kilos of this stuff. Kilos of diamond. It's also going to get rather hot. That is the point.
Using numbers from patch_collector: 1 x 50watt lightbulb / 0.0013 Watts/gram = 38Kg = 83lbs of diamond per bulb.
Diamonds are far from indestructible. They shatter. More importantly, they burn. We don't see it very often but put enough of them together, add heat and electricity, and you better hope there isn't any oxygen nearby. Imagine a couple pounds of these things, on fire, pumping out radioactive carbon dioxide. At least when uranium burns it produces something heavy that can be filtered. Filtering radioactive CO2 would be a nightmare. These things will never find there way into any consumer product.
Using numbers from patch_collector: 1 x 50watt lightbulb / 0.0013 Watts/gram = 38Kg = 83lbs of diamond per bulb.
Diamonds are far from indestructible. They shatter. More importantly, they burn. We don't see it very often but put enough of them together, add heat and electricity, and you better hope there isn't any oxygen nearby. Imagine a couple pounds of these things, on fire, pumping out radioactive carbon dioxide. At least when uranium burns it produces something heavy that can be filtered. Filtering radioactive CO2 would be a nightmare. These things will never find there way into any consumer product.
IMO alumina is a much better choice. Ruby age instead of diamond.
At what temperature does Diamond burn?
Diamons will burn at 690°C in pure oxygen. Houses burn at around 590°C. Maybe if you rupture an O₂ tank in a house fire right next to the diamond battery you could pull it off.
I wouldn't worry about small diamond batteries. There is already 1 part per trillion carbon 14 in you. The odd telemetry battery that gets caught in an oxygen fire isn't going to shift the scales much.
I wouldn't worry about small diamond batteries. There is already 1 part per trillion carbon 14 in you. The odd telemetry battery that gets caught in an oxygen fire isn't going to shift the scales much.
Trash incineration is around 1000 degree Celsius. People already now throw batteries in household trash when they shouldn't.
A pure oxygen atmosphere is pushing it too much, isn't it?
Anything you have at home, except for the concrete walls and glass will burn in less than 0°C in a pure oxygen atmosphere. A pure O2 tank in a house would be a serious cause of concern.
Anything you have at home, except for the concrete walls and glass will burn in less than 0°C in a pure oxygen atmosphere. A pure O2 tank in a house would be a serious cause of concern.
It depends on their size. I've only seen experiments with relatively large crystals. They won't sustain a flame without pure O2. But like steal wool, a fine diamond dust might be another matter (the industrial synthetic stuff I assume the OP would involve).
If civilization ever falls, future generations would think using crystals for energy must have been a fairy tale.
Enter Laputa.
Haha this sounds straight out of Asimov's Foundation novels where a civilization was driven to innovate miniaturized nuclear power.
Wasn't the Earth in Asimov's Foundation radioactive and unhabitable? Having that blue glow at the horizon (ionizing radiation-induced luminescence?).
The Earth was made radioactive due to a plot by the Spacers.
On the other hand, the Foundation - the civilization using miniature nuclear reactors - is happening many millennial later and far away from Earth.
So the "miniature nuclear tech" and "radioactive Earth" aren't related in the plot.
On the other hand, the Foundation - the civilization using miniature nuclear reactors - is happening many millennial later and far away from Earth.
So the "miniature nuclear tech" and "radioactive Earth" aren't related in the plot.
I was going to say that you're probably thinking of Trantor, the imperial capital, and that the earth was protected by R Daneel Olivaw and his "descendants", but now I just want to wave the nerd flag and link Wikipedia, because you're right about the radioactive but (apparently) wrong about the habitability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_(Foundation_universe)
You win this round, sir.
Edit: What petre was referring to was that the eponymous Foundation was deliberately founded on a world poor in radioactives (and other metals), so that they'd be forced to make the most out of what they had, resulting in extremely small, low power equipment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_(Foundation_universe)
You win this round, sir.
Edit: What petre was referring to was that the eponymous Foundation was deliberately founded on a world poor in radioactives (and other metals), so that they'd be forced to make the most out of what they had, resulting in extremely small, low power equipment.
What I was thinking as well
Does anyone have details? Like what is the nominal voltage, power density, etc?
Here's the best I can find, from Eikka's comment on Phys.org:
"Carbon-14 has a mean decay energy of 49 keV or 7.85e-15 Joules and activity of 165e+9 bq/g which gives you a power output of 0.0013 Watts per gram.
So a gram-sized lump of carbon-14 - about half a teaspoon - assuming perfect conversion, will produce 1.3 Milliwatts, or about 1/20th of what it takes to light up a common red indicator LED."
http://phys.org/news/2016-11-diamond-age-power-nuclear-batte...
"Carbon-14 has a mean decay energy of 49 keV or 7.85e-15 Joules and activity of 165e+9 bq/g which gives you a power output of 0.0013 Watts per gram.
So a gram-sized lump of carbon-14 - about half a teaspoon - assuming perfect conversion, will produce 1.3 Milliwatts, or about 1/20th of what it takes to light up a common red indicator LED."
http://phys.org/news/2016-11-diamond-age-power-nuclear-batte...
"assuming perfect conversion" is important. It seems unlikely that the conversion is 100% efficient. It may for example only be 1% efficient, so you may need to multiply all power and weight estimates by 100.
Assuming linear scalability, size that up to a 100kg power source, and you've got enough power to run radio repeaters that could outlast civilization.
Some microcontrollers use under 0.2 watts, which would be 153 grams of this material. So there are at least some potential applications. If you combined that with a bistable LCD display, could you make a clock/thermometer/whatever that would run almost indefinitely (until the Carbon-14 ran out, that is)?
0.0013 Watts per gram would be about 1 kilowatt per ton.
If there were enough of this stuff and it would be easy enough to manufacture, maybe slabs could be installed under peoples' houses as the foundation. How much heat does it take to make a diamond? Would Americium be a more practical source of radioactivity, considering how much infrastructure is already in place for smoke detectors? I'm not really sure what they mean by "radioactive field", there are several different modes of radioactive decay (gamma, beta, alpha). Carbon-14 undergoes beta decay so I assume this is the only decay mode that will work. That would make sense since beta minus decay creates an electron. Americium undergoes alpha decay so if that's how this works, Americium would be no good.
This could be used to make ever-luminescent things like road signs or something. Very interesting.
If there were enough of this stuff and it would be easy enough to manufacture, maybe slabs could be installed under peoples' houses as the foundation. How much heat does it take to make a diamond? Would Americium be a more practical source of radioactivity, considering how much infrastructure is already in place for smoke detectors? I'm not really sure what they mean by "radioactive field", there are several different modes of radioactive decay (gamma, beta, alpha). Carbon-14 undergoes beta decay so I assume this is the only decay mode that will work. That would make sense since beta minus decay creates an electron. Americium undergoes alpha decay so if that's how this works, Americium would be no good.
This could be used to make ever-luminescent things like road signs or something. Very interesting.
That would actually be perfect for long range interstellar probes. A constant source of energy for thousands of years, even that small, would propel a craft to reasonably high speeds. Give a spacecraft a few pounds and you'd have something really great.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_ge...
(Because it's relevant, not as agreement or disagreement with any particular point.)
(Because it's relevant, not as agreement or disagreement with any particular point.)
So given that, assume you put an array of batteries together, what is the formula for Batteries of qty=N allowing a range of Z AU comm ability to earth / current-AU-distance == distance-from-earth before we will not be even able to receive said comms...??
So how far can they get on N batteries before we cant hear them?
Is there such a thing as "solar-syncronous" and "galactic-syncronous" orbit such that we can deploy a TON of little relays that would speed up comms to each probe to the Earth?
I.E. we have however many in a sphere around the solar system, then at some AU distance out, that the extending probes can contact more efficiently?
Assume that the little diamond batts can only reliably transfer a signal by AU/.00X - then we need to create grids of these little guys at AU/.00X intervals to relay the signals within the power capabilities of the probes...
or is this a stupid thing to say?
---
This begs the questions; what is the best method/technology for sending messages between sensors through space?
We can still hear the Voyagers, how long do their signals take to get here? How much data do they send? How long will their batteries last? How far until they go dark? (they are already like 34 times as far from us as we are from Jupiter.)
How well could these little batteries power the new EM/ION drive: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-fut...
How much power does that need?
So how far can they get on N batteries before we cant hear them?
Is there such a thing as "solar-syncronous" and "galactic-syncronous" orbit such that we can deploy a TON of little relays that would speed up comms to each probe to the Earth?
I.E. we have however many in a sphere around the solar system, then at some AU distance out, that the extending probes can contact more efficiently?
Assume that the little diamond batts can only reliably transfer a signal by AU/.00X - then we need to create grids of these little guys at AU/.00X intervals to relay the signals within the power capabilities of the probes...
or is this a stupid thing to say?
---
This begs the questions; what is the best method/technology for sending messages between sensors through space?
We can still hear the Voyagers, how long do their signals take to get here? How much data do they send? How long will their batteries last? How far until they go dark? (they are already like 34 times as far from us as we are from Jupiter.)
How well could these little batteries power the new EM/ION drive: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-fut...
How much power does that need?
If you put a radio at ~10X the distance of Pluto, you can use the sun as a gravitational lens, and communicate with another star using milliwatts of power:
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=10123
You're still bound by the speed of light, unfortunately.
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=10123
You're still bound by the speed of light, unfortunately.
There are far far far better choices for long range interstellar probes. In particular you want a material with much better power density.
The type of decay used by this device (beta decay) is one of the least energetic types.
The type of decay used by this device (beta decay) is one of the least energetic types.
But if it's for interstellar probes, we could use just carbon-14 and keep the diamond...? Unless we're wrapping it in a diamond to protect the electronics.
The diamond is the carbon-14.
I would love to place my comment in a block of coal right now and then set the coal on fire.
would that be a block of C-14 coal? Dirty power! Dirty bomb!
It may be 1/20 of what it takes to light a LED, but it's 100 times what it takes to power a watch. A watch that lasts 5,000 years between batteries sounds attractive.
There are an lot of things you can do with 15 joule per day budget. Being able to do it using an failsafe energy that lasts for millennia using a would be amazing. We could literally blanket the planet with sensors that never die.
There are an lot of things you can do with 15 joule per day budget. Being able to do it using an failsafe energy that lasts for millennia using a would be amazing. We could literally blanket the planet with sensors that never die.
radioisomer batteries would provide much much higher power densities, but they're currently more of a theoretical thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_isomer#Applications
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_isomer#Applications
Even if this is true I think this is such a public safety hazard, that the authorities will never allow its public adoption.
Just think in terms of domestic terrorism and dirty bombs. Exploding a few such batteries would release radioactive powder, which is a quite dangerous if inhaled, and cleaning it up is very difficult.
Just think in terms of domestic terrorism and dirty bombs. Exploding a few such batteries would release radioactive powder, which is a quite dangerous if inhaled, and cleaning it up is very difficult.
C14 isn't much good for a dirty bomb. It's too light. You'd probably need to be actually caught in the explosion to stand a risk of inhaling enough to be problematic, and at that point you've got other things to worry about.
Yeah, even forgetting dirty bombs, spent fuel rods emit a huge amount of gamma radiation and need to be actively cooled in huge pools. Also, they can't be handled directly. If you came within a meter of unshielded fuel rod you would be dead within 5 mintues
You don't even need to think in those terms: just think in terms of some idiot who doesn't bother properly recycling the things. If they're not safe in that circumstance, then they're a potential safety hazard, much as at the very least, say, lead-acid batteries are.
WOW. I always expected that we would see mobile phones that lasted for days or weeks before needing to be recharged. I never once considered the idea that we may have mobile phones and laptops that NEVER need to be recharged during our lifetime. That is an incredible thought.
I wonder how hard it will be to convince people to put nuclear batteries in their pocket. Many people are still afraid of microwave ovens.
I wonder how hard it will be to convince people to put nuclear batteries in their pocket. Many people are still afraid of microwave ovens.
It does sound incredible, but I don't think most people would be down with carrying nuclear waste in their pockets.
Many of us already carry around lithium ion batteries in our pockets, and I think these nuclear batteries could be far less dangerous. Phones can explode without warning, and bending or piercing a battery can cause huge explosions and fires. You'd have to try really hard to shatter these diamonds, and they would probably have some lead lining.
Sure, it's easy to say that as an engineer since we deal with facts and data, but the general public is anywhere from wary to extremely scared of anything "nuclear."
I'm not sure if this will lead to a new revolutionary battery.
But I'll say this, the man/woman who creates a company that builds a new revolutionary battery that will keep your laptop humming for a week; will be very rich. Probably the next richest person on earth.
But I'll say this, the man/woman who creates a company that builds a new revolutionary battery that will keep your laptop humming for a week; will be very rich. Probably the next richest person on earth.
Putting that much power density on your lap is kinda scary. It's like carrying a slab of C4. Imagine if the galaxy note incident happen again but with a much much higher power density battery which can go kaboom.
How would a C14 slab would go kaboom? Its only role is to give radiation which is transformed into heat or electricity.
I don't expect any explosive parts here.
I don't expect any explosive parts here.
I was talking about a high capacity battery that can power a laptop for a week, not the nuclear battery from the article.
Doubt it. Look at the evolution of mobile phones: they went from staying alive for a week to needing a charge overnight. People gripe around the margins, but in general seem OK with that.
It would be a major thing for car batteries - lighter batteries with longer charge means you get more range from two factors - less stuff to move and more capacity to do it.
> A team of physicists and chemists from the University of Bristol have grown a man-made diamond that, when placed in a radioactive field, is able to generate a small electrical current.
So, they are replacing the thermocouples as used in RTGs with this diamond-like stuff? And low radioactivity sources (as opposed to plutonium)? That would indeed be revolutionary if it worked.
So, they are replacing the thermocouples as used in RTGs with this diamond-like stuff? And low radioactivity sources (as opposed to plutonium)? That would indeed be revolutionary if it worked.
It'll work fine, but the problem with low radioactivity sources is that they are also low energy sources. So you need a lot of material.
Suspicious: sounds like a con, in every breathless undocumented wild claim.
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. 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.
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?"
Every few years there's a proposal for a new nuclear battery. This was the last one:
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/190555-this-nuclear-batt...
The problem is none of these approaches solve the disposal problem or the dirty bomb problem. You can buy 1,000 of these and build a dangerous device that would require serious clean-up and, obviously, can hurt a lot of people.
So, this will never be in a smartphone or laptop, but perhaps power industrial items that can't be practically charged often like remote robots or sensors. Or applications in space to replace aging, expensive, and heavy RTG's.
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/190555-this-nuclear-batt...
The problem is none of these approaches solve the disposal problem or the dirty bomb problem. You can buy 1,000 of these and build a dangerous device that would require serious clean-up and, obviously, can hurt a lot of people.
So, this will never be in a smartphone or laptop, but perhaps power industrial items that can't be practically charged often like remote robots or sensors. Or applications in space to replace aging, expensive, and heavy RTG's.
> You can buy 1,000 of these and build a dangerous device that would require serious clean-up and, obviously, can hurt a lot of people.
Or you can buy $1,000 worth of lithium batteries and try to build a breeder reactor in your back yard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn
Oh no, I didn't know he passed away only a few months ago. And that's very sad to read about the rest of his life.
Or you can buy $1,000 worth of lithium batteries and try to build a breeder reactor in your back yard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn
Oh no, I didn't know he passed away only a few months ago. And that's very sad to read about the rest of his life.
The lithuim is just used to purify the thorium he illegally acquired. I don't think your comparison really works here.
It doesn't even have to be a dirty bomb. You just need someone who is overly curious and then you've got a Radioactive Boy Scout situation.
> diamond is the hardest substance known to man, there is literally nothing we could use that could offer more protection
Weird, I was under the assumption that density (and other more exoteric chemical properties) shielded from radioactivity, not hardness. /s
Weird, I was under the assumption that density (and other more exoteric chemical properties) shielded from radioactivity, not hardness. /s
Maybe they meant protection of the containment itself.
> Obvious applications would be [...] high-altitude drones
This made me wonder about the funding for this research, but then I found that Dr. T Scott is involved with[0]:
> Radiation Mapping Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
> Following the events at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, the Interface Analysis Centre has been developing an unmanned aerial system capable of mapping radiation in regions inaccessible to humans.
[0]: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/physics/research/iac/casestudies/
This made me wonder about the funding for this research, but then I found that Dr. T Scott is involved with[0]:
> Radiation Mapping Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
> Following the events at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, the Interface Analysis Centre has been developing an unmanned aerial system capable of mapping radiation in regions inaccessible to humans.
[0]: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/physics/research/iac/casestudies/
Normally with nuclear power you use the heat generated to drive a heat engine of some sort with strict limits on the theoretical efficiency. But many pulse fusion designs look at using the momentum of emitted charged particles directly through their interaction with magnetic fields at far higher efficiency than could be achieved with the energy going through a heat stage. Carbon-14 emits only beta particles which are, of course, all negatively charged. I wonder if they've managed to turn those into a very high voltage, very low current continuous source directly?
IMO the headline here isn't the minimally powered batteries, it's that this is a potential solution to the (very) secure storage of nuclear waste. In the US, for example, the proposal to store essentially all of our nuclear waste at one site (Yucca Mountain in Nevada) is a truly terrible idea that would create the world's most coveted terrorist target. Encapsulating the waste in small diamond shells that could be distributed among several sites seems like an ideal solution if they can get it to work at scale.
Why would anyone attack that facility? Its extremely easy to secure - If you somehow neutralize everyone protecting it you still wont get in and out with any meaningful amount of material before a military response comes in and removes your ability to actually do anything.
Note that Yucca Mountain doesn't just have piles of fissile material - all the waste is in the same concrete capsules they arrived in. The ones that need a crane to be moved[1][2].
You could argue that these will fail before we know what to do with them and that they will leak radioactive material over time, but that still wouldn't make it a good terrorist target.
[1] https://www.nwmo.ca/en/Canadas-Plan/Canadas-Used-Nuclear-Fue...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage
NOTE: Sources don't say that you cant move these without cranes, they just say that these are larger than a person and made of steel and reinforced concrete so I thought it would be a safe assumption these are a pain to move.
Note that Yucca Mountain doesn't just have piles of fissile material - all the waste is in the same concrete capsules they arrived in. The ones that need a crane to be moved[1][2].
You could argue that these will fail before we know what to do with them and that they will leak radioactive material over time, but that still wouldn't make it a good terrorist target.
[1] https://www.nwmo.ca/en/Canadas-Plan/Canadas-Used-Nuclear-Fue...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage
NOTE: Sources don't say that you cant move these without cranes, they just say that these are larger than a person and made of steel and reinforced concrete so I thought it would be a safe assumption these are a pain to move.
So if someone bombed that facility with large conventional weapons, or detonated a low-yield nuclear device there, the casks wouldn't leak?
At this point you are talking about blowing up part of a mountain and if someone can do that you are already in trouble.
I would also make them big enough to be movable only by crane. It's cost effective and secure enough to deter potential looters.
I think you are misunderstanding the tech in question. This doesn't work on all radioactive waste, just the graphite (which admittedly is a decent portion of it). You'd still want secure facilities to store what you haven't recycled.
I won't claim to know much about this, but the article claims that the graphite works because it emits "short-range radiation", which I'm assuming refers to the carbon-14 emitting beta radiation.
Depleted Uranium and the stuff that comes out of depleted uranium (which I think would account for most of the spent fuel in the United States) emits beta and even shorter alpha radiation. Does that mean that the concept could work with depleted uranium?
Depleted Uranium and the stuff that comes out of depleted uranium (which I think would account for most of the spent fuel in the United States) emits beta and even shorter alpha radiation. Does that mean that the concept could work with depleted uranium?
What do you think about this documentary re: Finland storing waste in their version of Yucca:
>This film explores the question of preparing the site so that it is not disturbed for 100,000 years, even though no structure in human history has stayed standing for such a long period. "Every day, the world over, large amounts of high-level radioactive waste created by nuclear power plants are placed in interim storage, which is vulnerable to natural disasters, man-made disasters, and societal changes. In Finland, the world’s first permanent repository is being hewn out of solid rock – a huge system of underground tunnels – that must last the entire period the waste remains hazardous: 100,000 years."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Into_Eternity_(film)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ3dT7xcMgU
>This film explores the question of preparing the site so that it is not disturbed for 100,000 years, even though no structure in human history has stayed standing for such a long period. "Every day, the world over, large amounts of high-level radioactive waste created by nuclear power plants are placed in interim storage, which is vulnerable to natural disasters, man-made disasters, and societal changes. In Finland, the world’s first permanent repository is being hewn out of solid rock – a huge system of underground tunnels – that must last the entire period the waste remains hazardous: 100,000 years."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Into_Eternity_(film)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ3dT7xcMgU
> it's that this is a potential solution to the (very) secure storage of nuclear waste.
This only works with nuclear materials that decay via beta decay - which is a rare kind of decay.
The "bad" stuff decays in other ways, which are not usable in this device.
If you goal was dealing with nuclear waste then nuclear reprocessing is the solution.
This only works with nuclear materials that decay via beta decay - which is a rare kind of decay.
The "bad" stuff decays in other ways, which are not usable in this device.
If you goal was dealing with nuclear waste then nuclear reprocessing is the solution.
(Note this math is a thought experiment ... completely off the cuff and utter non-sense.)
Based on their numbers:
AA is about 700J/g @ 20g gives about 14000J and a 24 hour drain gives us 580J/hour.
DiamondBattery is about 15J/day or ~0.5J/hour
Ignoring voltage issues (among other things), we come to 1.1kg of DiamondBattery being able to supply something that would drain their 20g AA in 24 hours.
The math here is complete off the cuff non-sense, but an extra kg or so here is not unreasonable for some fixed applications ...
Based on their numbers:
AA is about 700J/g @ 20g gives about 14000J and a 24 hour drain gives us 580J/hour.
DiamondBattery is about 15J/day or ~0.5J/hour
Ignoring voltage issues (among other things), we come to 1.1kg of DiamondBattery being able to supply something that would drain their 20g AA in 24 hours.
The math here is complete off the cuff non-sense, but an extra kg or so here is not unreasonable for some fixed applications ...
This is a little disheartening in terms of robotics. For a non-trivial robot with a handful of 12V motors and a decent workload, I imagine this would add tens of lbs compared to only a handful of ounces using lithium. Of course, those tens of lbs means more power needed to push the robot and you quickly hit the laws of diminishing returns.
Of course, we're talking about less than first-gen tech here as well.
The part where they list "airplanes" as something it could potentially power was where it became silly... that's gonna be a lot of spent fuel rod mass.
Given that Bristol researchers did not explain the physics behind their diamond battery we can only speculate but considering some recent developments we can make some good guesses.
It probably functions similar to a betavolatic cell. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betavoltaic_device)
In a typical configuration you have a P-N semiconductor junction placed next to beta emitter. The beta particles impact the PN junction and create electron-hole pairs that are pulled apart by the junction to produce a current.
The use of diamond seems like a could be a significant innovation: 1) Carbon-14 is an efficient beta emitter and could make op part of all of the diamond material. 2) Diamond has a wide band-gap which is necessary for high efficiency conversion to electricity. 3) Has strong resistance to radiation damage.
In one configuration the diamond would be layered on top of a silicon P-N junction so it works like a conventional betavoltaic device. (see: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2013/ph241/harrison2/)
A recent patent shows that diamond is a very efficient moderator for injecting electrons into the junction. (see https://www.google.com/patents/US9064610)
Considering that diamond is itself a semiconductor we could also do away with the silicon. For example diamond is being considered for highly efficient photovoltaic cells. (see: http://exploration.vanderbilt.edu/news/news_diamond.htm)
It is also being considered for production of next-gen schottky diodes. (see: http://www10.edacafe.com/nbc/articles/view_article.php?artic...)
The diamond could be stacked next to a conducting metal to create a Skottky barrier which is a type of P-N junction. The beta particles would excite the electrons with enough energy to push them over the barrier and create a current. (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schottky_barrier)
It probably functions similar to a betavolatic cell. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betavoltaic_device)
In a typical configuration you have a P-N semiconductor junction placed next to beta emitter. The beta particles impact the PN junction and create electron-hole pairs that are pulled apart by the junction to produce a current.
The use of diamond seems like a could be a significant innovation: 1) Carbon-14 is an efficient beta emitter and could make op part of all of the diamond material. 2) Diamond has a wide band-gap which is necessary for high efficiency conversion to electricity. 3) Has strong resistance to radiation damage.
In one configuration the diamond would be layered on top of a silicon P-N junction so it works like a conventional betavoltaic device. (see: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2013/ph241/harrison2/)
A recent patent shows that diamond is a very efficient moderator for injecting electrons into the junction. (see https://www.google.com/patents/US9064610)
Considering that diamond is itself a semiconductor we could also do away with the silicon. For example diamond is being considered for highly efficient photovoltaic cells. (see: http://exploration.vanderbilt.edu/news/news_diamond.htm)
It is also being considered for production of next-gen schottky diodes. (see: http://www10.edacafe.com/nbc/articles/view_article.php?artic...)
The diamond could be stacked next to a conducting metal to create a Skottky barrier which is a type of P-N junction. The beta particles would excite the electrons with enough energy to push them over the barrier and create a current. (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schottky_barrier)
Would anyone care to explain how this works? The crystalline structure of the diamond and the directionality of the radiation source doesn't give me a clear idea about where to add terminals to this battery.
in a diamond battery what serves as anode and cathode, how do you connect wires to a diamond?
this diamond making process would be quite hazardous.
I wonder if they should just create a layer of diamonds and and sandwich that between C14 rather than try and rely just or those diamonds to power spacecraft (would save having to develop the non-radioactive diamond layer).
would a standard diamond also do that trick, I don't see why a radioactive diamond would be different if it is in the presence of C14?
this diamond making process would be quite hazardous.
I wonder if they should just create a layer of diamonds and and sandwich that between C14 rather than try and rely just or those diamonds to power spacecraft (would save having to develop the non-radioactive diamond layer).
would a standard diamond also do that trick, I don't see why a radioactive diamond would be different if it is in the presence of C14?
There are diamond LEDs so this is solved problem, I think by adding very specific impurities.
Damn. I was hopeful if used gamma radiation. That would have been truly revolutionary.
10:1 odds that this is just a use of the photoelectric effect with a clever dielectric. Based on the press-release description, it is probably not a radiothermal generator (like that used in deep space probes).
1) Have an ionizing radiation source.
2) Get a robust dielectric, with metal plates on both sides of it. Call the plate near the radiation source the cathode and the far one the anode.
3) As the ionizing radiation impacts one side of the cell, the released electron travels only a short distance through the cell. Ideally, the first interaction is with a cathode and the far side an anode, imparting a negative potential to it.
4) A potential difference now exists between the far-side anode and the near-side cathode, from which you can draw current.
Strictly speaking, this is a more like a capacitor which is trickle-charged by the radiation field rather than a battery. There is a design tradeoff between thickness of the metal and dielectric layers in that the initial and final ionizing interaction must be of a (cathode/dielectric -> anode) or (cathode -> dielectric/anode) to get any energy out of it. Ideally, the dielectric has an extremely small cross-section for interaction with whatever the ionizing radiation source is, while the metal plates interact very strongly. However, there will always be some losses due to internal ionization of the dielectric itself. I'm not sure how you would build an effective multi-layer structure, either.
Is this preferable to an RTG? Almost certainly not. The vast majority of the radiation energy in an ionizing photoelectric-effect cell is still released as heat. Very little energy can be captured this way, so it is quite inefficient in terms of energy produced relative to the radiation emitted. You can extract some more electric work by pre-charging the cell such that the freed electron is slowed in part by the electric field gradient, but in practice the bulk of the energy is still lost as heat.
Sea story time! The internal electric field within the dielectric will produce some weird mechanical stresses, too. When my ship's reactor plant went through a refueling overhaul one of the things they replaced was the reactor compartment windows. There are a couple of leaded glass windows that allow Mk. 1 eyeball inspection of the reactor compartment during operation. They are quite thick, electrically insulating, and they build up a large internal electric field along with internal stresses. Standard maintenance was to replace them well before the stress could fracture the glass.
So... could the press release be ...excessively breathless? My guess is a qualified "probably". The physics behind the photoelectric effect are well known and understood. Diamond is special in part because it has a fantastically high dielectric breakdown strength. So, you can extract more work out of the ionized electrons by supporting a very high potential gradient between the anode and cathode, which could be seen as a breakthrough for this type of energy conversion device. BUT it also would enable a new generation of high-density ultra-capacitors. The energy density in a capacitor is limited (in part) by the breakdown strength of the dielectric, since the stored energy is a volume integral of the squared electric field strength. Since ultracaps are technologically much easier to commercialize, and much more investor-friendly than anything involving an ionizing radiation source, but that isn't what the press release points to, I think it is likely to be ... exaggerated.
I could also be wrong, and we'll soon have a new generation of ultracaps!
1) Have an ionizing radiation source.
2) Get a robust dielectric, with metal plates on both sides of it. Call the plate near the radiation source the cathode and the far one the anode.
3) As the ionizing radiation impacts one side of the cell, the released electron travels only a short distance through the cell. Ideally, the first interaction is with a cathode and the far side an anode, imparting a negative potential to it.
4) A potential difference now exists between the far-side anode and the near-side cathode, from which you can draw current.
Strictly speaking, this is a more like a capacitor which is trickle-charged by the radiation field rather than a battery. There is a design tradeoff between thickness of the metal and dielectric layers in that the initial and final ionizing interaction must be of a (cathode/dielectric -> anode) or (cathode -> dielectric/anode) to get any energy out of it. Ideally, the dielectric has an extremely small cross-section for interaction with whatever the ionizing radiation source is, while the metal plates interact very strongly. However, there will always be some losses due to internal ionization of the dielectric itself. I'm not sure how you would build an effective multi-layer structure, either.
Is this preferable to an RTG? Almost certainly not. The vast majority of the radiation energy in an ionizing photoelectric-effect cell is still released as heat. Very little energy can be captured this way, so it is quite inefficient in terms of energy produced relative to the radiation emitted. You can extract some more electric work by pre-charging the cell such that the freed electron is slowed in part by the electric field gradient, but in practice the bulk of the energy is still lost as heat.
Sea story time! The internal electric field within the dielectric will produce some weird mechanical stresses, too. When my ship's reactor plant went through a refueling overhaul one of the things they replaced was the reactor compartment windows. There are a couple of leaded glass windows that allow Mk. 1 eyeball inspection of the reactor compartment during operation. They are quite thick, electrically insulating, and they build up a large internal electric field along with internal stresses. Standard maintenance was to replace them well before the stress could fracture the glass.
So... could the press release be ...excessively breathless? My guess is a qualified "probably". The physics behind the photoelectric effect are well known and understood. Diamond is special in part because it has a fantastically high dielectric breakdown strength. So, you can extract more work out of the ionized electrons by supporting a very high potential gradient between the anode and cathode, which could be seen as a breakthrough for this type of energy conversion device. BUT it also would enable a new generation of high-density ultra-capacitors. The energy density in a capacitor is limited (in part) by the breakdown strength of the dielectric, since the stored energy is a volume integral of the squared electric field strength. Since ultracaps are technologically much easier to commercialize, and much more investor-friendly than anything involving an ionizing radiation source, but that isn't what the press release points to, I think it is likely to be ... exaggerated.
I could also be wrong, and we'll soon have a new generation of ultracaps!
mm, I remember from a lecture that 'nuclear waste' is actually a label used by the nuclear industry but non all of them can be disposed, some by products can be used as a base atomic weapons.
So all countries with nuclear power plants have to return/control the 'nuclear waste'.
So all countries with nuclear power plants have to return/control the 'nuclear waste'.
Dilithium crystals, anyone?
My favorite "invention" of that form is the water heater "booster" ball. Basically you take a kilogram of spent fuel rod, encase it in a austenitic stainless steel ball, and suspend that bad boy in the center of your water heater holding tank. Hot water for the next 500 years without using gas or electricity :-).