[–] Glory_Beckons 2 points 32 points (+34|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Wow, that article is a mess of buzzwords with no real substance.

These things have extremely low output power and would not be useful in for any conventional applications. The main use case would probably be keeping satellites or probes alive for a very long time. They could not be used for cell phones, laptops or (as the image suggests) cars.

Calling them batteries is a bit misleading. It would be more fitting to call them miniature betavoltaic nuclear generators. They convert radioactive decay into electrical output.

These promise a significant improvement over previous "batteries" of this kind (which have been around since the 70s), but you're not likely to ever encounter one in daily life.

[–] AltUserMe 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Batteries that generate nuclear energy have cropped up once or twice in the past. They would pretty much be a dream come true. Producing a small amount of energy, the same amount as a regular battery, basically indefinitely. Unfortunately they cannot be disposed of, when they need to be disposed of, with normal waste.

It's impossible to expect niggers to dispose of anything properly therefore such a thing will never be available to the public.

[–] MemeDropAcct ago 

In Asimov's universe, everything is run by such "Atomic Batteries", going all the way to back to his first stuff like The Caves of Steel and such.

[–] thachunk 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Have an upgoat my friend. You see it. 100uw output

[–] vastrightwing 1 point 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

This uses radioactive material (likely carbon-14) to emit beta particles into a semiconductor junction, much like a solar panel. Rather than using natural sun photons, this device uses radioactive carbon-14.

Essentially, your device will contain a radioactive source. Nice!

[–] Anomalia 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

And it is laughable low power - 100uW or even less... and ... this product is already on the market for over 20 years. See City Labs Tritium Battery.

[–] vastrightwing 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I was re-reading the article and I realized the whole thing is laughable: the device is no more a battery than a solar panel is. No one calls a solar panel a battery. It's a radio active power source plus a semiconductor device. It creates energy even when there is no demand. It would actually make sense to add a battery to the device to store energy like a charger.

You would need to scale thousands of these devices together to generate enough energy to be useful.

[–] VoatIsRunByJews 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

In 10 years 1 mW is all you'll need to power a computer.

[–] VoatIsRunByJews 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The wacky thing about C14? 99% of nitrogen is N14 which will take up a neutron (at any incident energy - the exception to the norm) and create C14. In nature these neutrons come from "shattered" or spallated nuclei in the upper atmosphere, or here they come from graphite irradiated for many years by uranium in a nuclear power plant.

If someone figured out a relatively cheap neutron emitter with high flux, they could produce large amounts of C14 from N14. An example is bombarding beryllium with gamma rays to create two helium atoms and a neutron. Perhaps there is another unknown physics that allows you to shake a neutron off of certain abundant isotopes at a lower activation energy barrier.

Then you could place this neutron emitter in a pool of liquid nitrogen and wait some amount of time for large amounts of C14 to be made.

You need a flux that is around today's reactors if you want this to take years, and a flux around todays spallation facilities (crashing GeV protons into mercury/titanium) if you want it to take days.

[–] Anomalia 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Cheap neutron emitter is called Fission Reactor and we have lots of them.

[–] zyxzevn 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Debunked by EEVblog.

It is just a weak version of nuclear decay batteries that have been used for ages.

[–] MaunaLoona 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Golsharifi said that the development of the first NDB commercial prototype battery is currently underway and will be available later this year.

In other words they don't even have a prototype yet.

[–] downvoatmachine 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I've been to a university battery chemistry lab and they pretty much just cycle the crap out of watch batteries.... even when they find something good it does not necessarily scale up well.

[–] drhitler 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

this is why they need to kill most of the population with the vaccine they will also have the audacity to tell us its for a better world after we are dying too and most of them will escape to NZ hence all why its all been locked down so much over any corona.

they can probably just get bots to do most of the work and have them run on limitless energy now, so a huge chunk of the population is going to be made obsolete

[–] Morbo ago 

This "battery" only puts out 200 microWatts of energy. They don't even have a prototype of it yet so this is all marketing hype to get funding. There isn't any limitless energy here so your theory isn't very sound.

[–] drhitler ago 

bigger batterys are just lots of smaller ones linked up and if they refine this technique they could potentially get more and more power.

[–] TauCeti ago  (edited ago)

The article really doesn't provide much information.

Yes, using carbon-14 by itself won't provide much power density at all. But NDB plans to blend radioisotopes, some of which have shorter half-lives and more energetic emissions than carbon-14. That could enable a much higher power output, even if the battery life is reduced from 28,000 years to 100 years.

The problem I can see here is that diamond oxidizes (burns) readily, which would release all the carbon-14 into the air as radioactive C02. Not something you'd want a whiff of. Applications would have to be limited to the miltiary and space I think.

[–] AntiMason ago 

Looks like bullshit.

load more comments ▼ (6 remaining)