- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
The world’s first nuclear-powered battery, which uses a radioactive isotope embedded in a diamond, could power small devices for thousands of years, scientists say.
The nuclear battery uses the reaction of a diamond placed close to a radioactive source to spontaneously produce electricity, scientists at the University of Bristol in the U.K. explained in a Dec. 4 statement. No motion — neither linear nor rotational — is required. That means no energy is needed to move a magnet through a coil or to turn an armature within a magnetic field to produce electric current, as is required in conventional power sources.
The diamond battery harvests fast-moving electrons excited by radiation, similar to how solar power uses photovoltaic cells to convert photons into electricity, the scientists said.
You must log in or register to comment.
It would be cool if they could make pacemakers with these.
What irks me is that neither the article nor the press information of the university linked within the article mentions how much power one can draw from such a battery. They only mention that it could be used for RFID like devices, which is not exactly a precise information.
15 Joules per 1g batteries over 24 hours. So around 0.416 watthours split linearly over 24 hours for a 100 g battery.
The figure in the article was per gram of Carbon-14, which is only one ingredient of the battery, so I’d imagine that the 15J/24h is for a much larger assembly. It might have a better energy density than an RTG, but that’s already a low bar.
Yall are thinking about personal computers.
How about diffused led light markings on every road, vehicle, in every public building. Motion and other sensors build in so they are only active when someone is near.
I hate current street lamps, super bright and on all night.
Give us *aesthetic and bring back dark nightsky.
The dark nightsky is one of the most beautiful things in the world!
Aesthetic, no?
they don’t mention size but it sounds like the kind of thing asimov had in the foundation series books (I have not seen the series).
Jesus no. Its bad enough trying to recycle a lead acid or lithium battery.
Where the fuck am I going to safely recycle nuclear waste embedded in a diamond?!?
Leave that to future generations, as it will still deliver half its original power in 5000 years.
It lasts 1000 years. Your great great grand children would never have to worry about this.
How do you know I won’t live that long? With thousand year power sources anything is possible.
Maybe in 1000 years we can just toss it out of the spaceship
Yo this makes me think of the long lasting nuclear powered gadgets in the Foundation books
Or how every time you enter some ancient ruins on some game, EVERYTHING is still working despite not having seen a person in a millenia
walk up to abandoned building in STALKER 2
30+ years after Chernobyl
the lights are on
…
enter dangerous bunker overridden by monsters in STALKER 2
someone locked up the bunker to contain the monsters, been like that for 10 years
find fresh sausage and bread in a locker
I can get a sausage from Lidl that claims it’s safe to eat for two years with no refrigeration, so by lowering my standards to the levels of someone who’d go into a bunker like that, I could probably make the claim out was fresh after a decade.
Fresh!? Blyat!
These sausages have been seasoned by Chernobyl, blin!
Best seasoning in the zone, Stalgar! Puts hair on your tumors!
And torches are lit
's nuclear fire
Well yeah they perfected those nuclear diamond batteries
Meanwhile, Apple and Samsung are probably actively trying to sweep this under the digital rug. They can’t have devices out there that last more than 2, maybe 3 years…
Unfortunately, the tech won’t work for a high-power device like a smartphone. Last I read, these produce energy on the milliwatt scale.
They’ll be incredibly useful for things like weather sensors and the like.
From the article:
A single nuclear-diamond battery containing 1 gram [0.04 ounce] of carbon-14 could deliver 15 joules of electricity per day. For comparison, a standard alkaline AA battery, which weighs about 20 grams [0.7 ounces], has an energy-storage rating of 700 joules per gram. It delivers more power than the nuclear-diamond battery would in the short term, but it would be exhausted within 24 hours.
It seems that even a 100 gram nuclear-diamond battery would not be able to sustain a modern smartphone.
My calculations might be off, but it seems even a highly optimized low powered smartphone (say 10 watthours for 24 hours under regular use) would need x25 lower power consumption to work with a 100 g nuclear-diamond battery. And you would likely still need an additional battery of some sort (which would need to be replaced) to handle peaks (don’t think modern smartphones can function under ~420 mwatt peak max).
I’m gonna drop an addendum…
A wristwatch should be able to at bare minimum last at least 24 hours (you know, like a full day), before it needs recharge.
Apple Watch is like the absolute worst example of this, it has an expected battery life of around 18 hours. It doesn’t even function as a proper watch if it can’t even last 24 hours.
My watch (not my first merry go round with dumb watches), can at least perform their intended timekeeping function for 5 to 10 years, depending on how often you use the backlight button.
Sometimes dumb tech is nice, I don’t wanna talk to my watch anyways, it’s just there to tell time…
Who uses something for 24 hours straight? 18 hours is a full day of use. How many need this things to run through the night too and how many resources would be wasted actually making it that way?
Ever heard of the alarm function on a watch?
Yeah, some of us use the alarm, it’s kinda nice when the watch can at least have a few days charge, in case something comes up and I’m out of town longer than expected and didn’t bring my charger.
Given that the technology for clocks and watches that last upwards of a decade on a single battery has been around for quite a while, I don’t feel I should be bothered having to recharge my watch every day. Besides, smart watches just happen to be yet another tracking device.
I’m actually a fan of simple dumb watches and clocks that can last a long time, or basically indefinitely. Or just amazing clocks in general…
Atmos Clock (Powered by atmospheric pressure changes): https://youtube.com/watch?v=Jzl8HutWvw0
Automatic Self Winding Watch: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZiubuxAAsXE
Solar Powered Watches: https://youtube.com/watch?v=oHxyp_0rW5M
Lego Mangle Rack Clock: https://youtube.com/watch?v=GUdlSYC1cCE
Digital Sundial: https://youtube.com/watch?v=wrsje5It_UU
Of course you don’t have to watch any of those videos if you don’t care to, but if you have any appreciation for awesome timekeeping devices, you’ll probably find all those videos rather interesting.
Edit: This happens to be my current watch, a Casio WS-1300H. Mine has a custom modified spiked wrist band…
https://youtube.com/watch?v=WVAO4_AfPEY
https://lemmy.world/post/22860120
Happy Holidays!
Comparing the runtime of a simple watch to a smart watch is a bit odd. Obviously you need next to no energy to run a simple clock, technology has been at that point since many decades. But for something with an actual screen, that does a ton of computing and has to connect to other devices… we are not there yet. If you reduce the requirements you get some days of runtime with some still smart-ish watches.
But if you really want the watch from Apple… Just bring the charger? That is really not a big deal. The same way phones used to last days when all they did was wait for a call, but now they do not and people understand that.
There are plenty of smartwatches that can last several days. The Apple watch is just bad in that regard.
I already said that.
Gotcha, understood.
Still, why is it that an Apple watch can’t even last 24 hours without needing a recharge, when I’m literally wearing a Casio designed to last 10 fucking years on a single button cell battery (that ain’t even rechargeable no less)?
The Apple Watch can easily last over 24 hours if you only use it as a watch and nothing else. The 18 hour estimate Apple provides is if you use all the features throughout the day such as exercise tracking, notifications, quick replying to messages, etc. If anything the 18 hour number is under selling the battery life.
Okay, fair enough. I’m still just not a fan of having to regularly recharge a watch.
To be fair, a standard (non-smart) watch uses a fraction of power compared to an Apple Watch which is still essentially a iPhone.
With that said, I have a Samsung watch, and though I charge it daily, it could probably last up to 3 days, so I don’t know what Apple is doing.
Yet!
Imagine having your vibrator never run out of power, even on the go.
“RRRRTTTTTRRRRRRTTTTTTTRRRRRRRTTTTTT”
FUCK IT WON’T STOP THE BUTTON IS BROKEN!
Is that the tesseract?
