Scrutable

Found on the Scrutineers FaceBook page: a self charging battery that draws its power from nuclear waste:

https://newatlas.com/energy/nano-diamon ... VG0tZdInGM

I has me doubts but I'm not an electronic engineer so I don't know what's possible and what isn't.


I suspect the nuclear waste bit (RADIATION!!!) will make it a hard sell even if it works.

And why the f.ck do techno-nerds feel the need to boast of "disrupting" industries? When did this become a thing?

JQH wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 27, 2020 7:52 am

Found on the Scrutineers FaceBook page: a self charging battery that draws its power from nuclear waste:

https://newatlas.com/energy/nano-diamon ... VG0tZdInGM

I has me doubts but I'm not an electronic engineer so I don't know what's possible and what isn't.


I suspect the nuclear waste bit (RADIATION!!!) will make it a hard sell even if it works.

And why the f.ck do techno-nerds feel the need to boast of "disrupting" industries? When did this become a thing?

I’m sure there was a story on these lines last year, or maybe earlier this year, from the University of Bristol.

What, https://www.bristol.ac.uk/cabot/what-we ... batteries/ ?

shpalman wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 27, 2020 8:52 am

What, https://www.bristol.ac.uk/cabot/what-we ... batteries/ ?

Compare "The actual amount of carbon-14 in each battery has yet to be decided but one battery, containing 1g of carbon-14, would deliver 15 Joules per day. This is less than an AA battery" with "Its NAnO-diAMoND BaTTeRIes WilL aBsOLUtely uPEND thE eNErGY equAtion, actiNg LiKE tIny nUcLear geNeRAtOrs. THEY wiLl BLOW any EneRgy denSITy coMPARison OUT Of ThE Water"

Typically California tech spin-off b.llsh.t. It will be two years away for the next 20 years.

1 g of 14C seems like quite a lot of radioisotope in one place, if you fancy handling this thing in any practical setting.

My literally back of the envelope calculation is that C14 produces ~1mW/g

So to power a car you'd need about 40 tonnes of the stuff.

Clearly the claims being made are somewhere on the spectrum between techno=b.llsh.t and outright fraud. Certainly will be the latter if they start seeking investors.

shpalman wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 27, 2020 11:36 am

shpalman wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 27, 2020 8:52 am

What, https://www.bristol.ac.uk/cabot/what-we ... batteries/ ?

Compare "The actual amount of carbon-14 in each battery has yet to be decided but one battery, containing 1g of carbon-14, would deliver 15 Joules per day. This is less than an AA battery" with "Its NAnO-diAMoND BaTTeRIes WilL aBsOLUtely uPEND thE eNErGY equAtion, actiNg LiKE tIny nUcLear geNeRAtOrs. THEY wiLl BLOW any EneRgy denSITy coMPARison OUT Of ThE Water"

Typically California tech spin-off b.llsh.t. It will be two years away for the next 20 years.

2017 then. Time flies. Anyway, yes I remember it being touted as an ideal way to power satellites and things that don’t necessarily need much power but are really hard to recharge/replace the batteries in. Not for cars where neither of those things are true.

Be OK for an everlasting quartz watch.

Grumble wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 27, 2020 6:14 pm

shpalman wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 27, 2020 11:36 am

shpalman wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 27, 2020 8:52 am

What, https://www.bristol.ac.uk/cabot/what-we ... batteries/ ?

Compare "The actual amount of carbon-14 in each battery has yet to be decided but one battery, containing 1g of carbon-14, would deliver 15 Joules per day. This is less than an AA battery" with "Its NAnO-diAMoND BaTTeRIes WilL aBsOLUtely uPEND thE eNErGY equAtion, actiNg LiKE tIny nUcLear geNeRAtOrs. THEY wiLl BLOW any EneRgy denSITy coMPARison OUT Of ThE Water"

Typically California tech spin-off b.llsh.t. It will be two years away for the next 20 years.

2017 then. Time flies. Anyway, yes I remember it being touted as an ideal way to power satellites and things that don’t necessarily need much power but are really hard to recharge/replace the batteries in...

... and which are too far from the sun for solar power to be viable, for example the Galileo mission to Jupiter converted the heat generated by radioactive decay of plutonium into electricity via the thermoelectric effect.

Thermoelectric generation is spectacularly inefficient in almost all cases (hence the desire to generate electron-hole pairs in a semiconductor directly as in a solar cell*) although in space you may be able to radiatively cool the cold side to quite a low temperature.

Juno went to Jupiter with solar panels.

* - solar cells also get less efficient as the intensity of light drops, since photogenerated carriers are more likely to get trapped at defects whereas in the case of high intensity illumination the defects get saturated. This is why "concentrator" cells are a thing - they focus a large area of sunlight onto a smaller area of cell.

Has anyone actually demonstrated bipolar transistors in diamond yet? I can find reference to field effect transistors on a diamond substrate, but I don't think that is what is required here.

Boustrophedon wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 28, 2020 9:24 pm

Has anyone actually demonstrated bipolar transistors in diamond yet? I can find reference to field effect transistors on a diamond substrate, but I don't think that is what is required here.

Diamond bipolar junction transistor device with phosphorus-doped diamond base layer https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 351200129X

Ultraviolet Emission from a Diamond pn Junction https://science.sciencemag.org/content/292/5523/1899

Thanks, all I could find were descriptions of their advantages, in the future tense.

CVD diamond for radiation detection devices https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 3500005549

Single crystal CVD diamond membranes for betavoltaic cells https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4954013 (and of course look through the citing articles)

Grumble wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 27, 2020 6:14 pm

2017 then. Time flies. Anyway, yes I remember it being touted as an ideal way to power satellites and things that don’t necessarily need much power but are really hard to recharge/replace the batteries in. Not for cars where neither of those things are true.

A few years ago, some over-enthusiastic middle-ranking doctors were trying to tell me that I might need a pacemaker. (Fortunately, I got one of the final-year med students to talk to the consultant cardiologist, who told the MRDs to f.ck off.) While googling to see what delights awaited me, I found that if you have one of those things, they have to cut you open again every so many years to change the batteries. If they could make one that lasts 50 years it would save a lot of hassle.

sTeamTraen wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 29, 2020 12:21 pm

Grumble wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 27, 2020 6:14 pm

2017 then. Time flies. Anyway, yes I remember it being touted as an ideal way to power satellites and things that don’t necessarily need much power but are really hard to recharge/replace the batteries in. Not for cars where neither of those things are true.

A few years ago, some over-enthusiastic middle-ranking doctors were trying to tell me that I might need a pacemaker. (Fortunately, I got one of the final-year med students to talk to the consultant cardiologist, who told the MRDs to f.ck off.) While googling to see what delights awaited me, I found that if you have one of those things, they have to cut you open again every so many years to change the batteries. If they could make one that lasts 50 years it would save a lot of hassle.

The palladium-based arc reactor was demonstrated to have negative health effects.

shpalman wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 29, 2020 12:36 pm

The palladium-based arc reactor was demonstrated to have negative health effects.

Like most jokes based on filmed entertainment of the past 20 years, this whooshed right over my head until I googled.

sTeamTraen wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 29, 2020 12:21 pm

Grumble wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 27, 2020 6:14 pm

2017 then. Time flies. Anyway, yes I remember it being touted as an ideal way to power satellites and things that don’t necessarily need much power but are really hard to recharge/replace the batteries in. Not for cars where neither of those things are true.

A few years ago, some over-enthusiastic middle-ranking doctors were trying to tell me that I might need a pacemaker. (Fortunately, I got one of the final-year med students to talk to the consultant cardiologist, who told the MRDs to f.ck off.) While googling to see what delights awaited me, I found that if you have one of those things, they have to cut you open again every so many years to change the batteries. If they could make one that lasts 50 years it would save a lot of hassle.

Couldn't they use some sort of induction charging system?

Or fit a USB socket between a couple of ribs? Could use it to down load data, upgrade firmware and so on too.

Aitch wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 29, 2020 4:59 pm

sTeamTraen wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 29, 2020 12:21 pm

Grumble wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 27, 2020 6:14 pm

2017 then. Time flies. Anyway, yes I remember it being touted as an ideal way to power satellites and things that don’t necessarily need much power but are really hard to recharge/replace the batteries in. Not for cars where neither of those things are true.

A few years ago, some over-enthusiastic middle-ranking doctors were trying to tell me that I might need a pacemaker. (Fortunately, I got one of the final-year med students to talk to the consultant cardiologist, who told the MRDs to f.ck off.) While googling to see what delights awaited me, I found that if you have one of those things, they have to cut you open again every so many years to change the batteries. If they could make one that lasts 50 years it would save a lot of hassle.

Couldn't they use some sort of induction charging system?

Or fit a USB socket between a couple of ribs? Could use it to down load data, upgrade firmware and so on too.

What could possibly go wrong?

https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m102

jimbob wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 29, 2020 5:38 pm

Aitch wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 29, 2020 4:59 pm

sTeamTraen wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 29, 2020 12:21 pm

A few years ago, some over-enthusiastic middle-ranking doctors were trying to tell me that I might need a pacemaker. (Fortunately, I got one of the final-year med students to talk to the consultant cardiologist, who told the MRDs to f.ck off.) While googling to see what delights awaited me, I found that if you have one of those things, they have to cut you open again every so many years to change the batteries. If they could make one that lasts 50 years it would save a lot of hassle.

Couldn't they use some sort of induction charging system?

Or fit a USB socket between a couple of ribs? Could use it to down load data, upgrade firmware and so on too.

What could possibly go wrong?

https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m102

Ah, but that's using wi-fi, I suggested USB. Much more secure.

Wireless charging ones have been trialed. As well as one powered by the patient's heart beat.

dyqik wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 29, 2020 7:43 pm

Wireless charging ones have been trialed. As well as one powered by the patient's heart beat.

Did they work?

Aitch wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 30, 2020 8:26 am

dyqik wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 29, 2020 7:43 pm

Wireless charging ones have been trialed. As well as one powered by the patient's heart beat.

Did they work?

Don't know. I suggest you google for the papers.