h a l f b a k e r yi v n i n seeks n e t o
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Imagine a thin sheet made of a beta-emitter, and a thin sheet of copper, with a thin, wide carbon mesh in between as an insulator. put another carbon mesh on top of this "sandwich" and roll it up. It would look like a carbon-mesh swiss roll, but it would be basically a battery that would be as long-lasting
and powervul as the half-life and energy-level of your beta-emitter.
Nickel-63 has a half-life of 100 years, but it has a maximum energy level of only 0.067 Mev. That's not going to do at all. Doing some digging, I found that the two best beta-emitter sources would be either Strontium-90 with a half-life of 29 years and an energy level of 0.546 Mev, or Technetium-99 with a half-life of 212, 000 years and an energy level of 0.292 Mev.
Of course, studying uses of these sources led me to stumble onto Paul Brown's work, so I knew someone else had a similar notion. He used Strontium-90 which produced MORE than enough energy, but its half-life would be within most anyone's lifetime. Using Technetium-99, a battery could be made, that if as efficient as Paul Brown's battery, would produce perhaps 2/3 the power, but would practically never run out. Direct conversion of beta radiation to electricity is possible, as proven my the Cornell students, so why not harness it? Cliff notes: instead of a conventional sandwich, try a "wrap", and focus on beta particle
Wikipedia: Atomic Batteries
http://en.wikipedia...wiki/Atomic_battery
Is this the kind of thing you're thinking of [Jsebesta]? [zen_tom, Sep 16 2009]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
What's the idea? Nuclear batteries powered by radioactive decay? If so, then they're already in active use in various space-craft, probes etc. I think they're generally known as "Atomic Batteries". |
|
| |
Sort of. Most "Atomic" batteries are actually a thermopile, using the decay heat of an isotope as the energy source. Beta-capture is a known technology, but not without its problems. |
|
| |
When the primary isotope decays, it doesn't necessarily become stable (unless the daughter isotope is lead). It may subsequently emit further energetic particles or gamma radiation. Alphas are a problem because they lead to a slow but steady accumulation of helium within the device (Whic means venting). Gammas are not good because they demand heavy shielding. |
|
| |
Fine for deep-space probes and the like but you're not going to be popping a few of them in your Maglite or iPod any day soon .... |
|
| |
Science isn't just an energy, it's a specific process, used to allow all sorts of things to work; photographic printers, mobile phones, the internet......and many other devices. |
|
| |
Good point, but what generates this science energy? I've taken apart loads of stuff and most of the time the only sort of energy I can find being supplied is lousy old electricity. |
|
| |
Ahem. CLASS....did anyone say "hello" to Jsebesta? He's new
here, I think. It looks like this is kinda baked, but still a good
ish idea, so have a [+] from me. |
|
| |
see betavoltaics in link (not mine) Hello. |
|
| |
// what generates this science energy? // |
|
| |
Apparently, women can use it to cause blindness. -- science energy, not smoke. |
|
| |
Hello everyone. It is true I am new at this. I have been very curious on how batteries can be made to last a lifetime. I am also concerned about the nuclear waste that is currently being stored away. I do not want to create more nuclear waste. I wanted to find out if we can use the existing nuclear waste to help build batteries. Given the work of Cornell students along with Paul Brown, as well as possible others, can we create such a Battery using the beta radiation off of nuclear waste. Any thoughts? |
|
| |
Sorry. Hello [JseBesta] *waves* |
|
| |
Shouldn't that be "half-lifetime" in this context ? |
|
| |
P.S. your tag cloud is showing. |
|
| |
I've talked to a friend a Laurence berkeley lab about
commercializing space batteries, more or less, and it's
technically doable, but legally and commercially tough, if not
impossible. Croissant for a good halfbaked idea. Welcome! |
|
| |
I've talked to a friend a Laurence berkeley lab about
commercializing space batteries, more or less, and it's
technically doable, but legally and commercially tough, if not
impossible. Croissant for a good halfbaked idea. Welcome! |
|
| |
I've talked to a friend a Laurence berkeley lab about
commercializing space batteries, more or less, and it's
technically doable, but legally and commercially tough, if not
impossible. Croissant for a good halfbaked idea. Welcome! |
|
| |
I think you are right, [UnaBubba]. As to the idea, [Jsebesta]: It all hinges on whether Paul Brown was right, and it sure does not look that way; If the magic acceleration does not work as advertised, it si just another atomic battery, with all the security and peak-power problems attached. |
|
| |
[Jsebesta], welcome to the halfbakery. Will you please use some paragraph breaks so your idea is easier to read? J |
|
| |
ust hit [Enter] twice every so often and I'll be happy. |
|
| |