Nuclear Batteries

Unknown Error In The Submission by the_mad_poster · 2004-09-27 11:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

Oh goody. Now all the uninformed environmental saviours of humanity can all hear the word "nu-cu-lar" and start jumping up and down and spasming.

I can't wait until this comes out. I'd be afraid to push the technology for fear that some moron would try to regulate it into oblivion or ban it outright just because it uses a nuclear energy source.

Never mind the incredible jump in effeciency to reduce used landfill space. Never mind the chemicals that are in current solutions, what with the fact that they're highly dangerous and all. This is NUCLEAR people! Fear it!

Maybe I'm just being pessimistic... but I fear that legitimate, useful technologies like this will be blown away by wannabe "do gooders" before they get a chance to really prove just how much better a solution they are both environmentally and economically.

--
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!

Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 12:06 · Score: 5, Informative

Yup, you're right. If you even read the article, it says that the thin layer of dead skin on your body is enough shielding.

The emitted particles only travel 25 micrometers (!) once they hit humans.

They just need a good PR department to call it something benign. Maybe PATRIOT batteries?
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by nocomment · 2004-09-27 12:12 · Score: 5, Funny

just think you can power your iPod with a nuclear battery, and listen to it with all FOUR of your newly formed ears! Portable 3-d stereo baby! ;-)

--
/* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
/* http://allyourbasearebelongto.us */
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by KarmaMB84 · 2004-09-27 12:15 · Score: 1

The layer of dead skin blocks it outright. The radiation can only travel 25 micrometers through most liquids.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by LBArrettAnderson · 2004-09-27 12:18 · Score: 1

It takes 4 years for all those 57000 whatevers to come out. I doubt that's very powerful for anything. I believe they are aiming at long term stuff like airbags and such.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by bobhagopian · 2004-09-27 12:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

Amen. 99% of anti-nuclear activists don't have a clue what they're talking about. I fondly remember the massive protests when hospitals debuted nuclear magnetic resonance imaging (NMRI). Never mind that the nuclear part of NMRI had nothing to do with nuclear reactions, the mere inclusion of the word was enough to spark large-scale protests. (At least until some guy had the clever idea of dropping the N from NMRI.)

Anyway, take from that history lesson what you will. Is nuclear energy perfect? No. Is it better than any other energy source out there (with the possible exception of wind)? Yes.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Waffle+Iron · 2004-09-27 12:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

Any alpha emitter is stopped by the skin. That's not the problem.
The problem is if and when the contents of the battery get mixed into anything that you ingest, including air, water and food. This could happen by discarding the battery where eventually it corrodes and releases its contents, incinerating the battery, or intentional tampering and dispersal or poisoning by evildoers(tm).
Ingesting alpha emitters can create a serious cancer risk. Once they're inside you, the particles only need to travel a few microns before they hit some critical part of a cell.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by AKAImBatman · 2004-09-27 12:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

Is it better than any other energy source out there (with the possible exception of wind)? Yes.

The part that I think people have a hard time understanding is this: large amounts of energy is dangerous.

There's no ifs, ands, or buts about it. If you're generating megawatts of power, you're using something that could kill a lot of people. The only difference between nuclear materials and convential chemicals is that nuclear allows us to get more power for less materials. We could achieve explosions of similar magnitudes with TNT, but who wants to be hauling around hundreds of tons of TNT when a bomb only a few tons in size will do the same thing?

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by DoubleD · 2004-09-27 12:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

The problem is if and when the contents of the battery get mixed into anything that you ingest, including air, water and food. This could happen by discarding the battery where eventually it corrodes and releases its contents, incinerating the battery, or intentional tampering and dispersal or poisoning by evildoers(tm).

As opposed to alkaline batteries which are perfectly safe to break, drink, or eat.

So there is a risk, what else is new, there are many other dangerous, nasty, evil chemicals and products that we safely use each day without killing ourselves. Careful design and suitable precautions can do wonders.

--
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep in order to gain what he cannot lose."
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by BlueTooth · 2004-09-27 12:53 · Score: 1

MRIs are nuclear? Holy crap! I think I feel some cancer comming on. Who can I sue?

--
SPAM
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Aglassis · 2004-09-27 13:03 · Score: 4, Informative

You said: " The layer of dead skin blocks it outright. The radiation can only travel 25 micrometers through most liquids."

This is correct, but misleading. An alpha particle (a helium nucleus) has a charge of +2e. This makes it difficult to travel through dense matter as it will quickly loose its kinetic energy (typically about 5 MeV range--normal matter on Earth has about 0.025 eV) by being scattered by electrons in the absorbing material (note that chargeless particles like neutrons or neutrinos have very large ranges in matter). Therefore, it's energy will be dispersed throughout the matter that slowed it down. For living cells this amount of energy is enough to kill the cell or cause some reaction that will cause the cell to mutate (where it may survive on mitosis or die). Obviously this is not a concern for dead cells.

If the alpha emitter is volatile or made into a dust, it can be inhaled. In this case, your respiratory system is affected. Additionally if it is ingested, your gastrointestinal system is affected. So obviously the greatest concern in the design of this battery is how its containment prevents it from being released. Logically if the alpha particle can't penetrate your dead skin cells, it won't penetrate a thin containment shield. If the containment breaks down and particles are easily disolved in water or break up and become dust easy, there is more concern about the safety of this device.

--
Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by mOdQuArK! · 2004-09-27 13:04 · Score: 1

Well, unless you breath particles of it somehow. There's no dead skin in your lungs (unless you're a heavy smoker).
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-27 13:11 · Score: 0

You are an ideological antienvironmentalist. Before anyone even raises even the faintest environmental caution, after generations of damage by nuclear pollution, you are attacking those of us who not only live on this planet like you, but also want to live here healthy. Just look at the mercury pollution from manufacturing chemical batteries for the kind of industrial practice that will substitute radioactive pollution for relatively benign mercury. Don't you think it's worth considering the costs of the new tech *before* it's too late to do it right?

--
--
make install -not war
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 13:12 · Score: 0

The only difference between nuclear materials and convential chemicals is that nuclear allows us to get more power for less materials.

Er yeah... other than those radiation particle thingies constantly being emitted, but we will just gloss over that.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-27 13:13 · Score: 1

What about the concentrated radioactive waste where they manufacture the radioactive batteries? Why lie about the radioactivity? Do you like poison?

--
--
make install -not war
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by visgoth · 2004-09-27 13:19 · Score: 1

Don't call it nuclear power, call it Decaying Heavy Element power.

--
My patience is infinite, my time is not.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 13:24 · Score: 0

You are an ideological antienvironmentalist. Before anyone even raises even the faintest environmental caution, after generations of damage by nuclear pollution, you are attacking those of us who not only live on this planet like you, but also want to live here healthy. Just look at the mercury pollution from manufacturing chemical batteries for the kind of industrial practice that will substitute radioactive pollution for relatively benign mercury. Don't you think it's worth considering the costs of the new tech *before* it's too late to do it right?

No. The grandparent is tired of knee-jerk environmentalist responses to everything related to nuclear energy of any kind. I am too. I'm always amused by people who are completely spooked by the slightest bit of man-made radiation, but still ride in airplanes, go to Denver, lay in tanning beds, cook with microwaves...
Go take a f***ing physics class and please stay off your mom's computer until you get a D- or better. Thanks.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Aglassis · 2004-09-27 13:30 · Score: 1

You said: "Amen. 99% of anti-nuclear activists don't have a clue what they're talking about."

I'm not a anti-nuclear activist. In fact, you would probably say the opposite about me, but I am very suprised by the activities listed in the article. A simple thumb rule in radiation studies is that a 1 Curie point source at 1 meter gives a dose rate of 1 rem/hr. For point sources, the levels will follow an inverse square law. For a 1 milli-Curie source listed in the article a *significant* dose could be recieved if ingested. If you assume that the thumb rule holds for nickel-63, everything in 25 micrometers would receive a dose rate of 1.6 million rem/hr. Obviously the thumb rule has to break down (because at 0 meters the dose is infinite), but a significant dose will still be received at the penetration distance nonetheless. Most people in the nuclear industry are worried about hundreds of pico-Curie sources, and the ones listed in the article are fairly large (but obviously tiny compared to spent fuel).

--
Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 13:38 · Score: 0

I fondly remember the massive protests when hospitals debuted nuclear magnetic resonance imaging (NMRI).
Time to call a bushism. Where did you see this? I do not recall ever seeing anybody protest NMRI. I find it hard to belive that you saw even 1 person protesting.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-27 13:40 · Score: 0

Learn about pollution first, before spouting bullshit that helps kill us for your SF dreams. BTW, my physics education was first rate, which is why I understand entropy. You should stick to marketing.

--
--
make install -not war
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 13:41 · Score: 0

which is not taken into account with coal fired power plants.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by DNS-and-BIND · 2004-09-27 13:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

And you're a fundamentalist environmentalist with a superiority complex.
Relatively *benign* mercury? Hg, the toxic liquid metal?

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by gcaseye6677 · 2004-09-27 13:48 · Score: 1

Won't somebody pleeeze think of the children!
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 13:53 · Score: 0

Once they start using coal for batteries, we'll start taking that into account, OK?
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Squarepusher · 2004-09-27 13:54 · Score: 1

I could practically weep for the truth of your words. :*(
I tell ya what though; As soon as these things are being produced by a company with stock on the market, I'ma buy the hell out of it. Mostly because I like to think that such amazingly necessary technology would be embraced. I fear it may turn out as you say though...at least in the beginning. *sigh*

--
Every hour wounds. The last one kills.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 13:57 · Score: 0

A dust-sized speck of an alkaline battery is quite harmless if ingested.
A dust-sized speck of an alpha-emitter, stuck in your lung, will irradiate the surrounding hundred cells or so for months or years. If you're lucky, the cells will just die. If you're not, you get lung cancer.
No speck of regular battery material carries that risk.
PS: the article actually talks about beta emitters, which aren't quite as bad. But I still wouldn't want some in my lungs.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by zrail · 2004-09-27 13:59 · Score: 0, Troll

YHBT. YHL. HAND.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 14:01 · Score: 0

Heh, if that ever happened it would still put out no radiation, meanwhile, burning coal puts millions of tons of radiation into the atmosphere.

/dad works sensor systems at a coal fired plant
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Free_Meson · 2004-09-27 14:10 · Score: 2, Informative

If you assume that the thumb rule holds for nickel-63, everything in 25 micrometers would receive a dose rate of 1.6 million rem/hr. Obviously the thumb rule has to break down (because at 0 meters the dose is infinite), but a significant dose will still be received at the penetration distance nonetheless.
Nickel by itself is a pretty bad substance for people, at least in its pure form. Some ridiculous portion of the population would have a severe allergic reaction to pure nickel (I forget the exact number, I think it's around 5% of the population). A "terrorist" or polluter or evil-doer or whatever would likely do more damage with Nickel powder than would occur from the availability of Ni63 through this battery.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Oligonicella · 2004-09-27 14:11 · Score: 1

So you're going to what, crush the battery into dust and snort it?

Please use a little more intelligent scenario.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-27 14:25 · Score: 0

No, I live in the environment, which keeps getting polluted, behind the Pollyanna talk of safety. Mercury, though poisonous (as I stated when I introduced it to this discussion), is *less* poisonous than radioactive materials like they're considering for these batteries. Yes, *less* poisonous is still poisonous - that's what it's like in the real world, outside your quaint little binary opposites.

--
--
make install -not war
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Deliveranc3 · 2004-09-27 14:30 · Score: 1

Well you need a nuclear reactor to produce the radioactive isotopes you need.

My mom has to budget the damn things.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by jrockway · 2004-09-27 14:32 · Score: 1

Think about why it's called "magnetic resonance imaging" for consumers, and "nuclear magnetic resonance" for scientists :) Nuclear is just plain scary.

--
My other car is first.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by ArbitraryConstant · 2004-09-27 14:32 · Score: 3, Informative

Coal contains significant amounts of Thorium and Uranium. Burning it releases large quantities of these into the environment.

Thorium and Uranium are both in the multiple billions of years. They'll still be there when the Earth is a scorched cinder circling a long dead star.

Tritium (one of the isotopes they discussed using) has a half life of 12 years. Most of it will decay to helium and the helium will blow away in the solar wind within your lifetime.

--
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 15:30 · Score: 1, Insightful

If some bozo burns the battery in a fire, it is very possible that radioactive soot particles will get inhaled.
The stupid scenario is assuming that the battery is always going to be handled properly.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by cooley · 2004-09-27 15:33 · Score: 1

Sweet, finally smokers have the advantage!

Muhahahahaha! :)

--
Just then the floating disembodied head of Colonel Sanders started yelling Everything You Know Is Wrong!-Weird Al
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by carlos92 · 2004-09-27 15:37 · Score: 4, Informative

But this won't explode. It stores a lot of energy, but the POWER (energy/time) is very low. It's not like the wall outlet, which can give large amounts of energy in a very short time.
The article says that it could be used to trickle charge rechargeable batteries. Think of it as a battery "helper".
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by fsterman · 2004-09-27 15:38 · Score: 2, Funny

No, that has too much bad press. Freedom Batteries.

--
Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 15:42 · Score: 0

Its always amusing to hear someone assert that syntax and semantics are more important than the concepts conveyed. This attitude is common among PHBs that need me to make Powerpoint presentations for them. They always want their presentation to look stunning. When I ask them if it conveys meaning, they assert (like you might) that the main point of the presentation is to impress, not convey meaning (i.e. make them look good to a shallow minded individual).

On a side note, literacy has less to do with getting the spelling right than with understanding the meaning. By your definition, MS Word is more literate than almost every person on the planet because it will always get the spelling correct (even if it converts 'attenaution' to 'attention').
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by karnal · 2004-09-27 16:08 · Score: 1

Dead skin?

That'd be one heck of a mutation of the lung. Dried up black lung, maybe... :)

--
Karnal
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by uberdave · 2004-09-27 16:11 · Score: 0, Offtopic

When a cue ball strikes the other balls at the start of a pool game, does it not loose its kinetic energy upon them.

--
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 16:18 · Score: 0

Doc Ruby: Learn about pollution first, before spouting bullshit that helps kill us for your SF dreams. BTW, my physics education was first rate, which is why I understand entropy. You should stick to marketing.
I'm confused. What does entropy have to do with the current discussion? Are you talking about the inefficiency in recharging the batteries? I don't think they can be recharged. It's been a long time since I've had thermo 101 (at Marketing University), but I can't figure out the 2nd law application here. Did you mean enthalpy? That would be more appropriate here, but still kinda out of place without compressible matter.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by jshine · 2004-09-27 16:34 · Score: 2, Informative

There's actually a fundamental difference between the behavior of a reactor (moderated critical) and a bomb (fast super-critical). The reactor cannot behave like a bomb because the critical-mass required is different for the two designs -- especially considering how poorly enriched reactor fuel is. You'd have to have a huge core and yank the control rods out insaneley fast. I doubt it could be done with any reactors now in existance.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by boy_afraid · 2004-09-27 16:37 · Score: 0

Is it better than any other energy source out there (with the possible exception of wind)? Yes.

You mean, all these years when I was a kid and I had one of those spinning wheel fan-blades that I would stike out of the window of the car while riding it in I had the best energy source there is?!
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Christopher+Thomas · 2004-09-27 16:39 · Score: 1

No, I live in the environment, which keeps getting polluted, behind the Pollyanna talk of safety. Mercury, though poisonous (as I stated when I introduced it to this discussion), is *less* poisonous than radioactive materials like they're considering for these batteries.

Look up the MSDSs for nickel 63, and, oh, let's say "methyl mercury". You will be enlightened.

Here's another hint. Look up how much radon you're inhaling from natural sources, especially if you spend any time at all below ground level. That gives you a rather enlightening ballpark figure for the "natural" background for ingested/inhaled radioactives. If the cumulative doses you're talking about from other sources aren't very substantially larger, the claimed effects won't be statistically significant.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 17:14 · Score: 0

It is always amusing to see someone attempt to defend their weaknesses by portraying them as strengths. To put it bluntly, my illiterate fool, you can hardly expect people to take you seriously, as an educated peer, if you are too lazy to even bother using proper spelling and grammar in your writings. Besides, learning the proper usages for words like "lose" vs. "loose" are skills that most of us learned back in elementary school.

I might also point out that your so-called "PHB" =IS= in a higher position than yourself, both in responsibilities and in wage status. That alone should speak volumes to you, underling.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by TGK · 2004-09-27 17:15 · Score: 1

In other news, Tom Ridge has locked himself in his office with a Geiger counter and a shotgun.

--
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Ohreally_factor · 2004-09-27 18:16 · Score: 1

But what amounts of the tritium or the isotope of nickel could be tampered with and weaponized? The amounts discussed in the article are extremely tiny.

Sure, this could be unsafe if someone tampered with a battery and ingested the material, or caused another to ingest the material. But there are many household materials already that have this danger.

I would guess that the amount of materials needed to contruct a dirty bomb or poison a reservoir is great, and could not be effectively or efficiently accumulated by removing from these batteries. Tell me if I'm wrong, it's just a guess.

--
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Ohreally_factor · 2004-09-27 18:22 · Score: 1

Have you ever noticed that Tom Ridge only drinks distilled water or rain water, Mandrake?

Have you ever seen a terrorist drink water, Mandrake? They drink vodka!

http://imdb.com/title/tt0057012/

--
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Tim+C · 2004-09-27 19:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well, I agree with you, but this made me wince:

99% of anti-nuclear activists don't have a clue what they're talking about.

Unless you can cite a source for a statistic, it's best not to use one - this one especially looks made up.

I don't remember protests over (N)MRI, but I do remember being taught about it at university, and the lecturer explaining that MRI used to be called NMRI, but people didn't like the user of the word "nuclear".

People can be stupid; over here in the UK, we had a massive outcry against paedophiles a couple of years back. Protests in the streets, people being hounded from their homes - including a paediarician. The ignorant mob saw the "paed" bit at the start and leapt to entirely the wrong conclusion; morons.

So, my points:

a) don't make up statistics, it only detracts from your argument
b) people can be fucking stupid
c) offtopic, but mob/vigilante justice is a really, really bad idea

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by ultranova · 2004-09-27 19:42 · Score: 1

A dust-sized speck of an alpha-emitter, stuck in your lung, will irradiate the surrounding hundred cells or so for months or years. If you're lucky, the cells will just die. If you're not, you get lung cancer.

No speck of regular battery material carries that risk.

Actually, each lungfull of air you breath is likely to contain numerous carsinogens (cancer-causing chemicals). It is kinda foolish to worry about a speck of low-active radioactive matter encased in steel casing, when the traffick in the nearby street is releasing a constant cloud of highly toxic cancer-inducing gas to the air.

Besides, radioactive materials are already used in fire alarms, and there doesn't seem to be any ill effects...

And of course, you could make the battery out of solid radioactive matter, making it rather hard to inhale. Didn't read the article, so I wouldn't know if this is the case here.

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2004-09-27 20:49 · Score: 1

Here's a link about relatively benign mercury:
http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/seahome/merc ury/src/mi namata.htm
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by surprise_audit · 2004-09-27 21:05 · Score: 1

In one of the devices the radioactive source is a 4-square-millimeter thin film of nickel-63. According to the article, it's a beta-emitter, not an alpha-emitter, though I suppose the authors of the article could be hallucinating... Anyway, snide remarks aside, they say that the beta particles travel a maximum of 21 m in silicon before disintegrating so provided the thing is fairly solid and has a 21 m silicon wrapper around it, it ought to be safe.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 21:20 · Score: 0

As opposed to alkaline batteries which are perfectly safe to break, drink, or eat.

Bad example, alkalines aren't that bad, which is why they're still around. Ni-Cads on the other hand are being rapidly phased out since the added cadmium leakage from landfills (recycling never really did work) getting into the environment isn't really worth the benefit (for general use), given the options.

I'm not sure adding beta/alpha emitters into the environment is a step in the right direction. I suspect (but haven't done the research) that the heavy metal characteristics alone would be enough to tip the scales against. To my mind radio active materials belong in nuclear reactors.

P.S. And I'm from northern Europe, so that tired old 'coal' line won't work. We use almost no fosil fuels for electricity production; it's all pretty much hydro and nuclear. And quite frankly we wish you'd (and everybody else) stop doing it as well.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 21:49 · Score: 0

The emitted particles only travel 25 micrometers (!) once they hit humans.
Producing X-rays along the way, actually. And that travels right through you. It's not an immediate threat but I wouldn't want that kind of battaries too close to my body for longer periods of time.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by AaronGTurner · 2004-09-27 23:50 · Score: 1

"So there is a risk, what else is new, there are many other dangerous, nasty, evil chemicals and products that we safely use each day without killing ourselves. Careful design and suitable precautions can do wonders."

You also have to be careful you don't fall into the trap of saying "There is dangerous stuff out there so it doesn't matter if we introduce more dangerous stuff".

You have to do a cost-benefit analysis of anything new to ensure that the benefits of replacing existing systems outweight the potential costs, and it has to include all benefits (i.e. costs of the current system) as well as all costs of the new system.

Current battery technology can be harmful, which is an argument to (a) not use batteries where possible and/or (b) use rechargeables where it is appropriate (i.e. where the number of uses you get out of it outweighs the additional toxicity of rechargeables.

Environmentalists seem to be happy to use rechargeables despite the fact that per-battery disposal they are more polluting as on the basis of toxicity per hour of use they are less polluting. If nuclear batteries offer additional benefit of this kind over and above rechargeables then they are worth promoting.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Minna+Kirai · 2004-09-28 00:01 · Score: 1

that's what it's like in the real world, outside your quaint little binary opposites

Ha! "Quaint binary opposites"! That's like saying that because Debian packages might concievably have a version conflict with an Ubuntu package, that they are "binary incompatible", and "you can't mix them in a single install".
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Stephen+H-B · 2004-09-28 00:13 · Score: 2, Informative

Look up the MSDSs for nickel 63, and, oh, let's say "methyl mercury". You will be enlightened.
Sorry to contradict you, but pure mercury and methyl-mercury are two quite different things. At the uni where I study, if we break a thermometer it's "lock the drawer and clean up later". If 1/2mL of methyl mercury was spilt, we would evacuate the building and send in the HAZCHEM team. Mercury alkyls are nasty shit, messing with DNA, cellular functions, etc. Dimethyl-mercury is so toxic that a few drops on your hand will probably kill you.
Note that I actually agree with your point that these batteries are not as "OMG, it's radioactive! we're all dead!" as some would have us believe, I just had to correct a minor misrepresentation.

--
Sick of WoW? Try the thinking man's MMORPG: EVE Online
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by mausmalone · 2004-09-28 00:33 · Score: 1

The emitted particles only travel 25 micrometers (!) once they hit humans.
And think... if it was in a watch, for example, you could put a small strip of lead inside the device right behind the generator. Not only is the radiation benign, most of it can be blocked for those paranoid people.

--
-=-=-=-=-=
I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-28 01:01 · Score: 0

"you can power your iPod with a nuclear battery"

So then it would last for 8 hours instead of 4? ;)
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by cluckshot · 2004-09-28 01:19 · Score: 1

How about the Alpha emitter potassium that every cell requires to live?

--
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by TheClassic · 2004-09-28 01:59 · Score: 1

Oh great, so all of my dead skins cells are going to absorb radiation and come to life and mutate me into some kind of horrible monster.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Friggo · 2004-09-28 02:12 · Score: 1

I hope that you made a typo in your post and that it should say that the beta-particles traveled 21 micrometers in silicon as the article said, and not 21 meters that you posted. The article also mentions that you don't need to use nickel-63, that is a beta-emitter and also expensive, but that you can use for example tritum, which is a alpha-emitter and inexpensive.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by surprise_audit · 2004-09-28 04:02 · Score: 1

Hah! Wretched cut'n'paste!! I copied that from the article, including the symbol for micro-. Guess that got filtered out, even though it showed up in the preview... I searched the text for both alpha and beta and only came up with beta. Dunno - maybe I spelled it wrong. It's been a long night... :)
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-28 04:11 · Score: 1

Inevitable entropy in the manufacturing process means byproducts, and usually pollution. Pollution was bad enough when batteries were made of poisonous mercury, but switching to large scale production of radioactive batteries in everything will paint the world like a radium dial.

--
--
make install -not war
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-28 04:17 · Score: 1

Is anyone in this thread actually paying attention? I'm not talking about the threat from the tiny radioactive doses in the proposed batteries. I'm talking about the threat from the larger, concentrated doses of pollution resulting from the manufacturing. The waste is always swept under the rug, in radioactive, and other manufacturing, industries. With this one, the lumps are much more toxic.

I talk about pollution, and I'm met with cries of "the batteries aren't that radioactive". You are all blinded by your desperate need to have your radioactivity. You don't even realize you're not responding to the complaints of the waste. Instead, you're constructing arguments for how some versions of traditional poisons could possibly be more dangerous than people expect. Your minds are made up, and won't be confused by distracting facts.

--
--
make install -not war
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Christopher+Thomas · 2004-09-28 04:19 · Score: 1

Sorry to contradict you, but pure mercury and methyl-mercury are two quite different things. At the uni where I study, if we break a thermometer it's "lock the drawer and clean up later". If 1/2mL of methyl mercury was spilt, we would evacuate the building and send in the HAZCHEM team.

I realize that, which is precisely why I used it as an example instead of elemental mercury. There's this bizzare perception that nuclear materials are more toxic than anything chemical, which is very demonstrably not the case :).

But we already agree on that.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-28 04:25 · Score: 1

Thank you for documenting how deadly mercury pollution can be. Consider that many of these fish don't actually die from their accumulated mercury poisoning, and are eaten by humans, or are ground to meal for animals which humans eat, concentrating it more by the time it's deposited in the human population. Then consider that these radioactive batteries will generate more poisonous pollution. How will that feel when it's accumulating in your thyroid or pancreas? Or some novel means of polluting your body? Mercury is poisonous enough to really threaten us, and has proven how we poison ourselves when manufacturing our batteries. When the even more poisonous radioactive chemicals are pumping into our food, we'll be even worse off. That's the flip side to "relatively benign mercury": relatively malignant radioactivity.

--
--
make install -not war
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-28 04:33 · Score: 1

Yes, you're trapped in your black/white logic, no matter which thread you scan. Some conditions are meaningful in a gradient, some gradients only matter if they're 100%. The real world has many lessons like these. To learn them you must be able to listen.

--
--
make install -not war
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Christopher+Thomas · 2004-09-28 06:32 · Score: 1

Is anyone in this thread actually paying attention? I'm not talking about the threat from the tiny radioactive doses in the proposed batteries. I'm talking about the threat from the larger, concentrated doses of pollution resulting from the manufacturing.

As compared to the massive amounts of lead, cadmium, and other goodies we're getting cycled through the system as a result of manufacturing chemical batteries? And the massive amount of radioactive crud that ends up in our atmosphere from the coal burned to recharge the NiCds?

These radiothermal batteries aren't intended for consumers. They're intended for long-term monitoring devices, like scientific instruments and black boxes in cars. There are much, much better controls on disposal for this kind of thing than for consumer goods.

Waste during manufacturing, you say? Apparently you aren't familiar with the hoops that have to be jumped through to get permission to manufacture anything that involves handling radioactive materials. You are watched like a hawk, and have to take *extremely* elaborate precautions to guarantee that materials won't get released during manufacture, even if accidents occur in the facility.

I talk about pollution, and I'm met with cries of "the batteries aren't that radioactive".

You apparently haven't been following all of the pollution-related threads attached to this article. Please do so.

Instead, you're constructing arguments for how some versions of traditional poisons could possibly be more dangerous than people expect.

You railed about Ni63 being far more toxic than mercury. I pointed out how exceedingly nasty mercury can be. I hope you've found this informative. Now troll elsewhere.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by William+Tanksley · 2004-09-28 07:00 · Score: 1

You are all blinded by your desperate need to have your radioactivity.

I MUST have this .sig quote.

-Billy
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-28 08:17 · Score: 1

Yeah, yeah: they're "intended" for something allowable by corporations, which don't have intentions. Then production is scaled up, and we've got more radioactive pollution that we do already, which is worse. There's a reason for those "hoops": radioactivity is very dangerous, and corporations pollute unless carefully prevented. Let's not ignore the history of failure as this new technology is rolled out.

--
--
make install -not war
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-28 08:32 · Score: 1

I hereby release it under the GPL :).

--
--
make install -not war
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by eofpi · 2004-09-28 09:23 · Score: 1

Considering that radioisotopes occur in everything, it would take an awful lot of nuclear batteries to get enough material to significantly affect the radioactivity of a reservoir or city's atmosphere.

--
Y'know, you blow up one sun and suddenly everyone expects you to walk on water.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Christopher+Thomas · 2004-09-28 10:29 · Score: 1

But what amounts of the tritium or the isotope of nickel could be tampered with and weaponized?

These are useless as direct weapons, as they're not fissile. They could conceivably be used as poisons, but there are chemical poisons that are a lot easier to come by and a lot worse.

I'd worry more about pollution problems during their life cycle. These problems are manageable, but have to be recognized in order to be managed.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Christopher+Thomas · 2004-09-28 10:35 · Score: 1

I'm not sure adding beta/alpha emitters into the environment is a step in the right direction. I suspect (but haven't done the research) that the heavy metal characteristics alone would be enough to tip the scales against. To my mind radio active materials belong in nuclear reactors.

Neither nickel nor hydrogen (of which tritium is an isotope) are heavy metals. Last I heard a fair amount of currency was nickel-based, and hydrogen is pretty hard to avoid with a water-based biology. Tritium will be mildly chemically toxic due to slightly different electronic structure than hydrogen, but this would only be relevant if you drank a few litres of tritiated water (at which point chemical toxicity would be the least of your concerns).
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Zirnike · 2004-09-28 12:20 · Score: 1

I'm alergic to nickel. Makes it really hard to find glasses... unless you get titanium frames, the bows tend to be nickel. Even my old SS glasses cause problems. My skin turns green and rots any metal in contact with it.

--
I'm not shy, I'm stalking my prey
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-28 12:31 · Score: 0

I think I'm going with Christopher Thomas here..

Doc Ruby, you seem to be missing what I see as CT's point. I will attempt to explain it as I see it.

You have two equivalent items here: (1) standard chemical batteries & (2) the new nuclear batteries. Both have similar lifecycles: (A) an industrial stage where they are created, (B) a lifetime stage where they are consumed, and (C) a EOL stage where they are disposed. Now both types are made from nasty stuff. It doesn't really matter whether you die from Cadmium poisoning or Nickel-63 poisioning/exposure, when you're dead you're dead.

I believe CT's point is that with all the controls on radioactive isotopes throughout the whole lifecycle, they are - overall - safer than the current chemical types which have much looser regulations. All 3 stages of the lifecycle would likely have controls. You can't just purchase radioactive isotopes and store them in a box somewhere. You have to have safety and security procedures & processes in place in order to be federally licenced so that you could manufacture these batteries. The battery casing would need to meet specific standards. And, specific requirements for disposal would need to be enforced.

Have you ever thrown a regular battery away? Do you know that that is not the correct disposal method? Do you understand then, that you are a part of the very problem you are describing? Yet for some reason you appear more fearful of these new batteries. Is it simply because the idea "nuclear" is attached?

My belief is that these will be SAFER to produce due to the greater federal regulations & oversight involved with the manufacture & use of radioactive isotopes. And, I believe that they will be just as safe to use as regular batteries. Disposal is my biggest concern. We haven't been able regulate the disposal of regular batteries, so I don't see how we will regulate the disposal of these. Also, regulation of the disposal of current radioactive devices is iffy at best. Smoke detectors containing Americium still end up in landfills. The Tritium in gun sights, watches, emergency lights also ends up in landfills. And don't forget the Thorium in lantern mantles.

On the other hand, with all that improper disposal going on today, I have yet to see any real science showing problems due to it. The amounts used are small (milligrams), the half-lifes are short (only 138 days for Po-210), they are pretty well diluted with tons of other garbage, and they are isolated in landfills.

Here are some comparisons you may find interesting:
isotope use radioactivity of mass typically used (Ci = Curies) type of radioactivity half-life Americium-241 smoke detectors 1-5 uCi alpha decay 430 years Hydrogen-3 (Tritium) emergency lights (old style, glow-in-the-dark) 8-10 Ci (much smaller amounts in gun sights & watches) nuclear battery 1-10 mCi beta decay 12 years Thorium-232 lantern mantles 0.027-0.065 uCi alpha decay 14 billion years Nickel-63 nuclear battery 1-10 mCi beta decay 96 years Polonium-210 nuclear battery 50 Ci (approx calc) alpha decay 138 days Plutonium-239 nuclear reactor / nuclear bomb [varies] 0.063 Ci/g alpha decay 24000 years Uranium-235 nuclear reactor / nuclear bomb [varies] 0.0000022 Ci/g alpha decay 700 million years
If Americium, Tritium & Thorium are OK for commercial use, why not Nickel? Now I fully agree with the concept of NOT using radio-isotopes if we have other materials that can take their place. Thus we are phasing out the use of Thorium in lantern mantles and the large quantities of Tritium in emergency lighting. But it is my belief that we have a valid use for these 'nuclear batteries.' At this point we have no other feasible solution. The only other technology near ready for commercial use would be miniature fuel cells powered by methanol/ethanol. However they have their drawbacks too. Such as attempting to miniaturize a tank of ethanol to run a gadget for months at a time. (which is what these nuclear batteries are designed for.)

rho
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-28 13:07 · Score: 1

Have you ever thrown a regular battery away? Do you know that that is not the correct disposal method?
[...]
Disposal is my biggest concern. We haven't been able regulate the disposal of regular batteries, so I don't see how we will regulate the disposal of these. Also, regulation of the disposal of current radioactive devices is iffy at best.

That's what I'm talking about. The "disposal", the entire lifecycle of the products apart from their short usage phase, lets their poisonous content accumulate in our environment: food, water, landscape. Regualtion of consumer disposal of the used-up products will not be controllable.

Smoke detectors containing Americium still end up in landfills. The Tritium in gun sights, watches, emergency lights also ends up in landfills. And don't forget the Thorium in lantern mantles.

These are consumer products that are also disposed, which are accumulating in the environment. These new devices will be much more popular, and globally consumed. So our exposure to them will scale up accordingly. And the increased manufacturing, especially global, will not get the same regulation as the original wave, when the public was paying closer attention. Especially if people, even nerds, ignore the danger. The idea is not to "stop progress". It's to be realistic about the costs, rather than the armchair industrialists in these discussions overreacting to "environmentalists" by ignoring their concerns.

--
--
make install -not war
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-28 14:28 · Score: 0

hmmm, well from your response I think we agree on the "facts" but maybe have different outlooks from there.

If I've understood you right, you agree the current situation w/chemical batteries is a mess. [Pollution during manufacture & disposal.] And you agree that the situation w/nuclear batteries is unlikely to be any better (you believe it might even be worse.) So your conclusion is that we shouldn't proceed with this because it will just create more pollution.

Whereas, my opionion (and I believe CT's) is that since this is no better or worse than the current situation (and we believe it might be slightly better due to greater awareness & Federal regulations during manufacture), that we should go for it in order to gain the technological advantages of the new batteries.

These advantages include other factors that can influence this balance but which haven't been discussed yet. Such as the possible trade-off of one nuclear battery possible replacing several chemical batteries. [Think LIFETIME here.] The article stated that one of their Nickel-63 batteries could run a MEMS device for "decades." How many Li ion batteries would that replace? Or... [Think MASS here.] The article mentioned 10 mg of Po-210 generating 50 mW for over 4 months. Which would be easier to handle, or easier on the environment: 10mg Po-210, or the mass from the equivalent (power-wise) Nickel/Cadmium batteries? [I'm researching this now to see how many standard NiCads would be needed to equal this.] Polonium-210 is very dangerous (highly radioactive), yet it's half-life is only 138 days. That means that it would take only 4 years to "decay" (<1% left.) That might even qualify it as "biodegradable", huh?

Without detailed product information about the nuclear battery we cannot reasonably factor these in. However, I believe that these would be strong "pro" factors.

rho
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Ohreally_factor · 2004-09-28 14:55 · Score: 1

Thanks. By weaponized, I meant as the "dirty" component of a dirty bomb, since it's plain they aren't the right material for nuclear fission. (I did RTFA!)

But much of what I've read since I posted this leads me to agree with you that the pollution problems are the most worrisome.

--
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-28 14:57 · Score: 0

Thanks.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Christopher+Thomas · 2004-09-28 15:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Whereas, my opionion (and I believe CT's) is that since this is no better or worse than the current situation (and we believe it might be slightly better due to greater awareness & Federal regulations during manufacture), that we should go for it in order to gain the technological advantages of the new batteries.

I actually think that putting radioisotope-based power sources in the hands of consumers is not a good idea, because of the disposal problem. The existing controls on radioactive waste will, fortunately, ensure that this won't be done. What I expect to happen instead is more or less what the original article proposes - use of radioisotope power sources in specialized applications (like automobile black boxes and long-term sensors) where you _can_ control the lifecycle. I don't think that we'll see many problems on the _manufacturing_ side of things, because of the controls (in North America especially, as having a radiological accident there is a financial and liability nightmare).

For consumers, fuel-cell based technologies should provide more than enough power to satisfy intermediate-term needs and emerging applications. They're a little fussier, but have far less stigma attached, and their disposal problems are no worse than those of batteries.

My objection to Doc Ruby's posts is that they're semi-coherent rants that are guilty of exactly the crime he accuses others of - endorsing an extremist position without being swayed my mere facts (in this case, the fact that radioisotope waste isn't any deadlier than chemical waste, in the scenarios being discussed).
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Christopher+Thomas · 2004-09-28 15:42 · Score: 1

Thanks. By weaponized, I meant as the "dirty" component of a dirty bomb, since it's plain they aren't the right material for nuclear fission.

I'm kind of puzzled by the popularity of "dirty bomb" threats with the media of late, as it's very difficult to actually make that big a mess with them (due to scarcity of materials, unless you're carting out a wheelbarrel-load of spent fuel rods, in which case you're dead before you can do anything). There are quite a number of very interesting agents that could be tipped into a city's water supply that would do far worse damage before they were detected.

Hopefully, the people in charge of security realize this too, and are just keeping quiet.

But much of what I've read since I posted this leads me to agree with you that the pollution problems are the most worrisome.

It's kind of ironic, actually - I'm arguing both sides of the waste problem at once in this section :). I'm trying to convince some people that it exists, while trying to convince one very zealous individual that it really isn't that much worse than the chemical waste problem.

It'll be interesting to see what actually ends up getting done with these power sources. The article raised a number of interesting possibilities.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-28 15:45 · Score: 0, Troll

My rants are completely coherent. It's taken this thread a long time to return to the point I originally made: the radioactive battery industry will be a worse pollution problem than the mercury ones - because of the pollution from the industry, not because the batteries themselves will be harmful. I expect that the current controls will prohibit the economics of scale desired by the manufacturers, and will be changed. Complacency about the pollution will contribute to that reduction in safety. These issues are important, with direct impact on our lives and health, so I have no problem with ranting about them. Any loss of coherence is in the receiver.

--
--
make install -not war
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-28 17:00 · Score: 0

Tritium decays to helium-3 via Beta decay, not alpha decay.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-28 17:11 · Score: 0

I fondly remember the massive protests when hospitals debuted nuclear magnetic resonance imaging (NMRI).
Where was this? I don't believe you.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-28 18:00 · Score: 0

I actually think that putting radioisotope-based power sources in the hands of consumers is not a good idea, because of the disposal problem.
Oh, goodness yes! I wholeheartedly agree with you. We're not talking about replacing D-cells or laptop batteries with these. These are for micro-miniature devices. And I worry about more than disposal there - remember the Radioactive Boyscout? [shudder]

FYI, if my math is correct that 10 mg of Po-210 is the equivalent of 120 NiCd AA-cells [1.2 V @ 1000 mAh].

1.2 V * 1000 mAh = 1200 mWh
50 mW * 4 month = 50 mW * 2880 hr = 144000 mWh
144000 mWh / 1200 mWh = 120

rho
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by Ohreally_factor · 2004-09-28 21:58 · Score: 1

It's kind of ironic, actually - I'm arguing both sides of the waste problem at once in this section :). I'm trying to convince some people that it exists, while trying to convince one very zealous individual that it really isn't that much worse than the chemical waste problem.

That wouldn't be Doc you're trying to convince, would it? =)

--
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Re:Unknown Error In The Submission by webhat · 2004-09-30 17:28 · Score: 1

I think you might have forgotten the disclamer.
Unless you really want me to swallow the alkaline battery I have in my mouth.

--
'I am become Shiva, destroyer of worlds'

Is that a nuclear meltdown in your pocket? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 11:59 · Score: 5, Funny

Or are you just happy to see me?

Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 11:59 · Score: 0

just stick with the radio shack ones.

Wow... by larley · 2004-09-27 11:59 · Score: 5, Funny

Imagine going to the store to buy some new Plutonium-Cadmium batteries?

Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 12:03 · Score: 1, Funny

so what's the battery half-life of these?
Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 12:05 · Score: 2, Funny

I sure would like to see Homer whittling nuclear batteries into Triple As :)
Re:Wow... by nocomment · 2004-09-27 12:10 · Score: 2, Funny

great, I just got over my Alkaline addiction. I had to go to double-A. Now this?

--
/* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
/* http://allyourbasearebelongto.us */
Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 12:13 · Score: 1, Funny

Marty McFly : Doc, you don't just walk into a store and buy plutonium... did you rip that off?

Dr. Emmett Brown : Shhhhhh. Of course. From a group of Libyan nationalists. They wanted me to build them a bomb, so I took their plutonium and in turn, gave them a shiny bomb-casing filled with used pinball machine parts.

(from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088763/quotes)
Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 12:18 · Score: 0

Uh, Plutonium and Cadmium might not play very well together;)

Trust me.
Re:Wow... by ginotech · 2004-09-27 12:35 · Score: 1

you stole that from Last Comic Standing. SHAME!
Re:Wow... by Billy+the+Mountain · 2004-09-27 13:34 · Score: 1

Imagine going to the store to buy some new Plutonium-Cadmium batteries?
Yep and they're PuCd, pronounced "Pewcads."

BTM

--
That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
Re:Wow... by AJWM · 2004-09-27 14:13 · Score: 1

Looks to me more like PuCd would be pronounced "puked".

--
-- Alastair
Re:Wow... by tepples · 2004-09-28 03:05 · Score: 1

so what's the battery half-life of these?

Before or after the source code was stolen?
Re:Wow... by nocomment · 2004-09-28 12:35 · Score: 1

hehe great to see another fan. That guy is hysterical. :-) Carrot Top was on top of his game that night.

--
/* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
/* http://allyourbasearebelongto.us */

Sweet! by halo1982 · 2004-09-27 12:00 · Score: 5, Funny

Yet another thing to lower my dwindling sperm count! Awesome!

Re:Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 12:07 · Score: 0

Your blow up girl friend is source number 1... what are the other sources?
Re:Sweet! by Kenja · 2004-09-27 12:13 · Score: 1

"Yet another thing to lower my dwindling sperm count!"
While this is not allways true with diferent counting systems, in this case there is no number lower then zero.

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Re:Sweet! by nocomment · 2004-09-27 12:14 · Score: 1

I got 4 kids, where can I get me some of these batteries? Now if they would only release nuclear mountain dew.

--
/* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
/* http://allyourbasearebelongto.us */
Re:Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 12:15 · Score: 0

Wooohoo! Radioactive batteries + cellphone in my pocket means no vasectomy for me! In your face Dr. Snip!
Re:Sweet! by NanoGator · 2004-09-27 12:22 · Score: 1

"Yet another thing to lower my dwindling sperm count! Awesome!"

Well in your case that'd be sorta like it rotting your appendix away.

--
"Derp de derp."
Re:Sweet! by BlueTooth · 2004-09-27 12:57 · Score: 1

Now if they would only release nuclear mountain dew.

Yeah, about that Mountain dew...maybe there is something you should know about that. Mountain Dew is actually radioa*(@#$ NO CARRIER

--
SPAM
Re:Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-29 01:48 · Score: 0

Yet another thing to lower my dwindling sperm count! Awesome!

Well, who here on Slashdot needs sperm after all?

but... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 12:00 · Score: 0

What happens when they blow up?

Re:but... by MasterDater · 2004-09-27 12:02 · Score: 1

You grow another head..
Re:but... by AKAImBatman · 2004-09-27 12:06 · Score: 5, Informative

What happens when they blow up?

They're not explosive. Most nuclear batteries use a radioisotope that's already "burned". i.e. Pu-238 oxide is used in RTGs so that there's no chance of it burning. It still emits plenty of radiation once it's chemically stable, so the only thing you have to worry about are rednecks who think it's funny to melt down the batteries and mix them with paint for glow-in-the-dark wallpaper. Even then, I rather doubt it will have much effect on them.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:but... by theparanoidcynic · 2004-09-27 12:15 · Score: 1

Why worry? Do we really need rednecks anyway? Let Darwin do his job.

--
Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 12:19 · Score: 0

and call him violent ed.
Re:but... by lachlan76 · 2004-09-27 12:23 · Score: 1

o the only thing you have to worry about are rednecks who think it's funny to melt down the batteries and mix them with paint for glow-in-the-dark wallpaper

Might I suggest mixing a small amount of C4 in to stop this?
Re:but... by hamisht · 2004-09-27 12:32 · Score: 1

the only thing you have to worry about are rednecks who think it's funny to melt down the batteries and mix them with paint for glow-in-the-dark wallpaper. Even then, I rather doubt it will have much effect on them
Could I perhaps suggest "Even then, I rather doubt it will have much extra effect on them".
Re:but... by starman97 · 2004-09-27 12:34 · Score: 1

But you dont want to live downwind of the idiot who burns them in their garbage, or eat food grown in the fields where the smoke settles.

Or drink from the aquifer overwhich these have been dumped like so many car batteries.

--
Starman97@Gmail.com (bring it on spammers)
Re:but... by AKAImBatman · 2004-09-27 12:41 · Score: 3, Informative

I wouldn't worry about that too much. Manufacturers would tend to be smart enough to choose materials that are not water soluble. In addition, they'd probably melt the materials inside a block of non-reactive metal to make sure the materials stay in a solid form.

As long as the materials are treated with respect by the manufacturer, consumers shouldn't have too much to worry about. Even if the manufacturer DOES screw up, it's doubtful that so little material could cause much of a problem. You might be interested in this link. :-)

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:but... by uberdave · 2004-09-27 15:10 · Score: 1

Are you trying to encourage them? "Hey Clem, watch this explode when I throw it on the fire."

--
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
Re:but... by famebait · 2004-09-27 23:26 · Score: 1

In addition, they'd probably melt the materials inside a block of non-reactive metal to make sure the materials stay in a solid form.

If regulatons would let them get away with plastic? Shyeah, right.

--
sudo ergo sum
Re:but... by lachlan76 · 2004-09-28 00:00 · Score: 1

IIRC, C4 doesn't explode without a detonator

New addition to the Patriot Act? by lothar97 · 2004-09-27 12:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

...tracking how many people buy batteries, especially at Costco. A terrorist could walk in, buy several thousand cases of nuclear batteries, and have a dirty bomb by sundown.

--

Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by YankeeInExile · 2004-09-27 12:06 · Score: 5, Interesting

For all the good a few millicuries of Ni63 or tirtium would do, Mr. Terrorist would be better off buying bricks and throwing them at his target.

--
How does the Slashdot Effect happen given that no slashdotters ever RTFA?
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by phlegmofdiscontent · 2004-09-27 12:09 · Score: 4, Informative

Or he could buy several thousand smoke detectors today, which also contain radioisotopes (americium, I believe) for about the same price and have even more radioactive material. What's your point?
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 12:10 · Score: 0

Worse yet, we have enough people wrongly disposing of their batteries mixed in with regular landfill-bound trash. Imagine that problem compounded with "nuclear waste."
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by Charcharodon · 2004-09-27 12:15 · Score: 1

That wouldn't happen, you can't even buy cold medicine in quanities without getting the harry eyeball just in case you might want to start your own meth lab.
There are far easier ways of getting dangerous materials than something as painfully obvious as that.
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by drinkypoo · 2004-09-27 12:15 · Score: 1

Costco already won't let you buy some pharmaceutical products at the same time, because of the belief that you might make some other kind of drug from it.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by lachlan76 · 2004-09-27 12:18 · Score: 1

They track fertiliser purchases, to try to stop terrorists from using ANFO bombs....why would this be any different?
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by I7D · 2004-09-27 12:19 · Score: 1

I agree, big flying bricks full of fuel.

--
Neil is that you? Yeah yeah, it's me... Neil...
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by irokitt · 2004-09-27 12:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yeah, Americium Oxide. And lantern mantles contain Thorium. So It's possible to make dirty bombs anyway. I'd worry more about someone buying large quantities of fertilizer.

--
If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by AKAImBatman · 2004-09-27 12:24 · Score: 1

Don't forget about Uranium-laced false teeth!

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 12:44 · Score: 0

Mod parent as redundant/off topic/moronic/waste of bandwidth/something awful.

They go on at length about RTGs in the article.

He even brags about NRTFA, sheesh.
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by Cyno01 · 2004-09-27 12:44 · Score: 1

You already have to give your adress and phone number at radio shack to buy batteries...

--
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by aXis100 · 2004-09-27 12:47 · Score: 1

I would think that this sort of battery would have to be a radioactive thermo-generator (RTG) which works by taking the heat generated from radioactive decay and turning it directly into electricity.

You are wrong. Perhaps you should have RTFA.

This article is discussing very small batteries (milliwatts capability) for powering miniature electronics and MEMS devices. The energy is generated by conversion to mechanical power then electrical (eg via piezoelectric cantilevers).
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by susano_otter · 2004-09-27 12:52 · Score: 1

Others have already ripped you for NRFA, which you richly deserve, in this case.

Here's something else to remember in the future: Posting on Slashdot does not automatically make you smarter than the smarty men who come up with the ideas in the first place. Whether it's NASA's space probe design, new ideas for nuclear batteries, or innovations in lingerie design, ask yourself this: Is it really possible that the experts in this field have overlooked the simple and obvious problems that occurred to such a useless amateur as myself?

The answer is always "no".

--
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 13:19 · Score: 1, Funny

but I read an aweful lot....
That's awsome.
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by wiggles · 2004-09-27 13:36 · Score: 1

My concern isn't when a terrorist gets just one of these batteries, but when he buys them by the truckload, strips out the plastic covering, combines the radioactive material into about 500lbs of the stuff, and turns it into a dirty bomb.

Anyone here know if this is possible or not?
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by Artifakt · 2004-09-27 14:05 · Score: 1

"Is it really possible that the experts in this field have overlooked the simple and obvious problems that occurred to such a useless amateur as myself?

The answer is always "no"."

Oh come on. If that was true, then the experts who banned recycling spent fuel to keep enriched plutonium out of the hands of terrorists knew that there would be the 'simple' and 'obvious' problem that all that unrecycled waste could be used to make dirty bombs by terrorists too technically inept to make real nukes. Remember, the U.S. ban was proposed by a number of people with expert credentials, and even signed into law by the only president we have that was a graduate of the Nuclear Navy program, and could actually claim to be an expert himself. The first people to mention the dirty bomb risk appear to all be SF authors without physics degrees, and so technically not experts.

I don't support any new technology because some expert assures me he has considered all the risks and benefits, I support some because those same experts haven't done any better in the past, and so the old technologies aren't any better balanced to our needs, so we need some new ones even wit hsome risks. This looks to be a possibly effective new technology IF certain conditions are met. To know this for sure enough to take those words like "possibly" and "if" out takes more than blindly trusting the experts, it takes reading up on it enough to count as one of the experts yourself. (Starting with this article as you and others point out, but by no means ending there).
You were doing fine in reccomending the poster both learn a little humility, and RTFA, but let's not take it to "the answer is always".

--
Who is John Cabal?
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by b-baggins · 2004-09-27 14:09 · Score: 1

Because we all know that buying several thousand cases of nuclear batteries is not suspicious at all.

--
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by devilspgd · 2004-09-27 14:25 · Score: 1

Are you serious?

Do they stop you from buying those drugs at the till? Can you just go back and buy the "other" drug 15 minutes down the road?

Do they follow you to stop you from going to another drug store after you leave Costco?

--
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by devilspgd · 2004-09-27 14:34 · Score: 1

Not only that, but I'm sure these "smarty men" have PHBs just like the rest of us, and their PHB would catch any idiot design flaws that the "smarty" folks happened to miss.

--
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by Aussie · 2004-09-27 14:57 · Score: 1

Or he could buy several thousand smoke detectors today

Like the radioactive boy scout ?
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by susano_otter · 2004-09-27 14:58 · Score: 1

Your point that SF writers sometimes come up with useful ideas is well taken. I agree.

This is totally irrelevant to my point, howver. My point being that the problems attendant upon developing nuclear batteries (or space probes, or lingerie) are not going to be correctly identified or solved by an amateur posting on Slashdot.

People who know enough about the subject to contribute meaningfully to such a discussion are either industry experts, or successful entrepeneurs, or both.

And look, you're doing it, too! I commend you on your skill at oversimplifying the problem of nuclear waste material, but I doubt it's a problem so simple that it could be summarized along with all it's tradeoffs, conflicting goals, irrational fears, complicated physical and economic problems, and nearly sixty years of advancement in the state of the art and the vicissitudes of world affairs.

Not to mention such considerations as the allegation that "dirty" bombs are overrated as a threat; or that if it weren't for a constant parade of NIMBY asshats, all this at-risk waste material might by now be safely stored somewhere secure and out of reach.

By all means, let us discuss nuclear waste recycling policy. But such a discussion is a far cry from "I haven't read the article, but I'm pretty sure it can't work, no matter what the experts actually studying the problem say (not that I'd know what the experts say, since I haven't read the article).

--
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by drinkypoo · 2004-09-27 15:12 · Score: 1

Yes I am serious. You can, I am sure, just go back - from what I understand it only flags the purchases when they appear in the same transaction. I think we all know the answer to question 3. Like all methods intended to limit drug activity, this is totally pointless, but we see this sort of thing all the time. For example, the OTC drug "mini-thins" is no longer sold in California - there are assorted other mini-thins brand product but the original is no longer sold here because it was supposedly too easy to make into speed.

Well, not really speed - they are/were psuedoephedrine and guaifensin. The former is a stimulant and is essentially the same (in your system) as methamphetamine. The latter is an expectorant. Put together, they were a very effective allergy medication. However, due to the war on drugs, I can no longer get them. You can buy exactly the same thing all over the place, but the pills are larger - they have more crap in them to make them harder to make into "drugs". They're also much more expensive. Thanks, war on drugs!

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by ikkonoishi · 2004-09-27 15:23 · Score: 1

It would be more dangerous to by nails and use them as a shrapnel grenade.
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by devilspgd · 2004-09-27 15:27 · Score: 1

It's one thing to cease selling something completely, but to stop selling it with something else is just nuts.

*sigh*

Does Costco require memberships in the states, or is that unique to Canada?

--
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by Canadian_Daemon · 2004-09-27 15:28 · Score: 0

Too soon.
But fucking funny!

--
This sig is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 15:30 · Score: 0

probably, but why couldn't you do this with lithium ion or nickel cadium material? i'm sure they're highly flamable and combustable. oh, but you'd look a little funny going to all the walmarts and buying every single battery they have.
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 15:37 · Score: 0

Possible....

Assuming each battery contains 10mg of radioactive substance and they needed 250kg of fuel, at $4 per 4pack of AAs, that's $25,000,000.

But that's assuming that each battery carries 10mg.
I'm sure later down the road they'll take it down to 1mg of fuel per battery or less.

And we wouldn't have this whole problem about worrying about terrorists if we didn't go around and piss off the entire world anyway.
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by fsterman · 2004-09-27 16:00 · Score: 1

They have been doing that here for years. There are certain limits to how much things like matches you can buy, since you can get the sulphur out of them etc. Buy too much and they call the cops.

--
Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by Walt+Dismal · 2004-09-27 16:24 · Score: 1

The answer is 'yes'. For years NASA has deliberately ignored my new invention, the Weasel Spleen battery. It's environmentally friendly. Yet they refuse to answer my letters. In case some scientist is reading this and wants to license it, come to Chicken Run Trailer Estates, Arkansas, and ask for "Bubba Q". Or look for the trailer surrounded by dead weasels.
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by drinkypoo · 2004-09-27 16:33 · Score: 1

They do require memberships. Requiring a membership allows an organization to operate as a private club rather than as an ordinary retailer and from what I understands changes the laws under which they operate considerably.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by cakefool · 2004-09-27 17:39 · Score: 1

I'd worry more about someone buying large quantities of fertilizer

Because all the bad press about the trifids was true?
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by devilspgd · 2004-09-27 18:45 · Score: 1

Okay that's just dumb. It makes me want to buy a lot of matches...

--
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by Ohreally_factor · 2004-09-27 18:46 · Score: 1

I'd worry more about someone buying large quantities of fertilizer.

Why are you worried about those who will vote for Bush this November? Isn't that unpatriotic?

--
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by devilspgd · 2004-09-27 19:19 · Score: 1

Okay I thought so -- Same reason as they provide in Canada.

In this case, isn't it irresponsible for them to fail to block subsequent purchases of similar drugs on the same membership card?

--
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by drinkypoo · 2004-09-28 02:10 · Score: 1

Given that it won't make a bit of difference, I don' think it's irresponsible at all :P

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by devilspgd · 2004-09-28 02:39 · Score: 1

My understanding is that in most cases an ineffective "security" procedure puts you in a more legally liable position having no policy at all.

However, IANAL, nor am I an American, so I've never really looked into US law to understand the ins and outs of that understanding (or whether I'm completely on crack)

--
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by drinkypoo · 2004-09-28 03:24 · Score: 1

Yes, you basically must show that you made an effort. However, given that the whole system is computerized and they know what ID number is making a purchase in the case of each and every transaction, IMO they should either have to do it right, or not do it at all...

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by Artifakt · 2004-09-28 07:27 · Score: 1

You're the one using words like always. You're the one who makes another blanket assertion here:

"People who know enough about the subject to contribute meaningfully to such a discussion are either industry experts, or successful entrepeneurs, or both."

What, no one who doesn't fit the industry's definition of expert or who has lots of money is to be allowed the privledge of being treated as though he has a brain? (Or maybe you're using "successful enterprenures" in the sense that they are willing to study the matter properly before they invest, and to put their money where their mouth is afterwards, which I grant you is a much better test for whether their opinion might be worth something, but still not really infalliable).

There's one person here using these categorical "always"'s and implicit nevers, and there's one person here talking about oversimplifying. Trouble is, that one person is you in both cases.

How did I oversimplify anything? I didn't try to discuss the whole issue of nuclear proliferation, I pointed out that a number of experts didn't discuss the risks that it turns out resulted (at least in part) from their plan to ban breeder/spent fuel recycling related technologies, and a number of non-experts did.
That's pretty much a simple, almost monolithic fact (I can think of a couple of conditions and limitations if we were to discuss it in detail, so I won't claim it's always, universally true, but to go into them would make an already long post huge - If you want to present examples of experts who did mention something, or to haggle over whether someone like Tom Clancy should be counted as an expert instead of an outsider, or something like that, then you'd better resign yourself to taking 10 posts each to say what either of us has tried to say in one. I'd argue that I'm not oversimplifying, there, I'm stuck with the limitations of the medium, just as you are).
I presented that fact as a single counterexample that, in this case, proves your too generallzed assertion has to be restticted to stay within the facts.
If you say "There are no black swans", and I produce one, that isn't an oversimplification, it's a counter-proof by example, and you would be better off adjusting your claim to "Black swans are very rare, the vast majority are of other colors."
Now, if you'd said that it was unlikely an amateur, posting on /. would shed more light than heat on a tecnical issue, and it got increasingly unlikely when they obviously didn't even read the (fine) article, and even more unlikely when they weren't presenting any facts to support their holding a particular opinion,(or words to that effect), I would have gladly agreed with you without such reservations. You're just taking your counterclaim too far.

Where we differ is, I believe that out of hundreds of such things as /. posts, a few good ideas will likely emerge, not zero good ideas. Some person, who is not an expert in a given field, will possibly have knowledge of some apparently unrelated area, and will make an intuitive leap and achieve a new synthesis of ideas. With dozens or hundreds of forums, magazine and newspaper coverage of the new technology as it develops, and an open political system, the odds of that increase to near certanty.
I also believe that experts aren't infallible, and that closed door planning, dissmissing the opinions of non-experts as NEVER worth considering, and a general top-down social control strategy all make the chance the experts will screw up higher and higher.

--
Who is John Cabal?
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by cha0saddddddd · 2004-09-28 13:29 · Score: 1

heh...make your own C10H15NO(ephedrine) by way of a reductive amination of L-phenylacetylcarbitol.....its NOT hard. if you can brew your own beer you can biosynth it. problem is that is REALLY easy to reduce it to C10H15N.thats why your pills are expensive.do the geek thing and make it yourself =)
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by cha0saddddddd · 2004-09-28 13:34 · Score: 1

since you can get the sulphur out of them etc naw...phosphorus...with elemental iodine creates an environment that will strip an oxegen off ephedrine. would take SOOOOOOOO many strikers to make any appreciable ammount. (B.T.W. not a meth cook just a geek with chem background)
Re:New addition to the Patriot Act? by MechaStreisand · 2004-09-28 15:55 · Score: 1

I thought that the reason they require a membership was that memberships are their main source of profit, since they sell everything at cost... Or is that just a myth? It's what my friends tell me, but I've never been sure.

--
Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.

Yes, thats right... by infonick · 2004-09-27 12:01 · Score: 1

I have an electric Delorean... rather a Neuclear-Powered electric Delorean!

--

You are confusing me with someone who cares.

Re:Yes, thats right... by Charcharodon · 2004-09-27 12:18 · Score: 1

"I'm sure plutonium is available on every corner drugstore in the future, but this is 1955 and it's a little hard to come by."
"Will that be AA or AAA's sir?"
Re:Yes, thats right... by NanoGator · 2004-09-27 12:24 · Score: 1

"I have an electric Delorean... rather a Neuclear-Powered electric Delorean!"

You'd be a lot cooler to us if you'd take off that damn life preserver.

--
"Derp de derp."

Thanks, Energizer, for the Full Cavity Body Search by ThatsNotFunny · 2004-09-27 12:01 · Score: 5, Funny

You thought you had problems going through airport security before!

--
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello

Its worked before by pagercam2 · 2004-09-27 12:01 · Score: 0, Redundant

Old news,"Fantastic Voyage" had this years ago!!!

Glow in the dark Toys by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 12:02 · Score: 0

can now take on a whole new meaning

Re:Glow in the dark Toys by WindBourne · 2004-09-27 13:41 · Score: 1

Don't laugh. When I was kid, the glow in the dark WERE radioactive and with a great deal more radiation than what we are talking about here. Rather glad that they are gone. While I do not mind radioactive products, they do not belong in kids toys.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

laptops by Audent · 2004-09-27 12:02 · Score: 1

Great news! Now combine these babies with the oldie worldie fuel cells for laptops and you'll REALLY have fun at the airport check-in desk.

hehehehehe.

--
I am a leaf on the wind

Well I'll be damned by AKAImBatman · 2004-09-27 12:02 · Score: 5, Informative

I've been harping on the idea of using nuclear batteries in cell phones and laptops for the past year or so. To date I've been called a variety of names for it, the least of which is "crazy". Yet here we are. Researchers are SERIOUSLY talking about using radioisotopes as power sources!

In case anyone is wondering how these work, the idea is that the radiation from a small amount of radioactive material (NOT fissable material!) is captured and converted into electricity or other forms of energy. There is very little radiation emitted by these devices, because the radiation IS the power! Letting it escape would be poor economy.

NASA has used these sorts of devices in spacecraft for 40+ years, starting with the Apollo missions. NASA's earlier designs produced about 75 watts utilizing a few pounds of Plutonium-238. Pu-238 was an excellent choice because it is useless for bombs, and has a short half-life (~80 years). With the public finally calming down about nuclear technology, NASA is now developing a more efficient device called an SRG. These devices get about 55 Watts per 600 grams of PU-238. This is way more efficient than current RTGs, like the ones used on Apollo.

The primary downsides to Nuclear Batteries is that they are expensive and they don't scale. They are expensive because the nuclear materials are very rare and expensive to process. If we started using these materials in massive quantities, it's a certainty that the prices would drop. They are not scalable, because the amount of materials required means that a few hundred watts is the largest device one could construct with a reasonable size, weight, and expense.

As for anyone who's worried about dirty bombs, I suggest you read this and this. The threat has been greatly overstated, and is actually less effective than a regular bomb. The real problem is the issue of keeping the materials out of landfills. Even today, there's a big problem with Lead, Cadium, and other dangerous materials ending up in landfills. Radioisotopes wouldn't be much worse, but there is an upper limit on how much you want to add to the sub-soil.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade

Re:Well I'll be damned by otis+wildflower · 2004-09-27 12:10 · Score: 3, Funny

The primary downsides to Nuclear Batteries is that they are expensive and they don't scale.

They're also not rechargable :p
Re:Well I'll be damned by cdn-programmer · 2004-09-27 12:11 · Score: 1

55 watts eh? Seems I read the P4 from Intel radiates something like 73 watts!!!

I always knew the P4 was a dog power wise - but its nice to know that the nuclear battery you talk about is too small to run it!!! haha.
Re:Well I'll be damned by AKAImBatman · 2004-09-27 12:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

Ummm... considering that their useful lifetime is about 5-10 years, I wouldn't worry about it.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:Well I'll be damned by chris_mahan · 2004-09-27 12:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

They don't need to be. If the battery is rated: "Power to 2160", how many times will you need to recharge it in your lifetime?

--
"Piter, too, is dead."
Re:Well I'll be damned by AKAImBatman · 2004-09-27 12:16 · Score: 5, Informative

In all seriousness, there are larger RTGs. The Cassini probe started off with a few kilowatts of power at its disposal. Over time that has dropped, but the probe still has a significant amount of power to pull from. According to Wikipedia, the craft will still be producing ~628 watts at the end of its 11 year mission.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:Well I'll be damned by wkitchen · 2004-09-27 12:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

The real problem is the issue of keeping the materials out of landfills.
I think the way to deal with that is to make them artificially valuable. Pay a deposit at the time of purchase, get a refund for turning one in. Make it large enough to be attractive, but small enough that the cost add isn't prohibitive. Say $10. That would be enough to discourage many from throwing them away, and if many throw them out anyway, you'd have people searching the trash with geiger counters to make a few bucks. Like bottle deposits, but bigger.
Re:Well I'll be damned by discontinuity · 2004-09-27 12:40 · Score: 3, Informative

The primary downsides to Nuclear Batteries is that they are expensive and they don't scale. They are expensive because the nuclear materials are very rare and expensive to process. If we started using these materials in massive quantities, it's a certainty that the prices would drop. They are not scalable, because the amount of materials required means that a few hundred watts is the largest device one could construct with a reasonable size, weight, and expense.
Actually, the point of this article is batteries that scale *down* rather than up. One of the stumbling blocks for miniturized mechanics (MEMS,e tc.) has been the lack of a comparably sized power source. Sure, you can have MEMS accelerometers powered off of your car battery (to sense when to deploy your airbags). But if you want to sever the tether and keep things at a micro scale, you must scale the power to that scale.
Also worth noting, the batteries mentioned in the article actually operate on a different principle than RTGs. The T in RTG stands for "thermoelectric." The article talks about generating power using peizioelectrics. See the figure (http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeatur e/sep04/0904nucf1.html).
There also is an interesting sidebar comparing the amount of radioisotope needed for such batteries to current commercial applications in which radioisotopes are used (http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeatur e/sep04/0904nucsb1.html). Individual devices sound tame enough, but I think the real problem will be disposal - especially when everyone has one in their cell phone.
Re:Well I'll be damned by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 12:42 · Score: 0

Even today, there's a big problem with Lead, Cadium, and other dangerous materials ending up in landfills. Radioisotopes wouldn't be much worse, but there is an upper limit on how much you want to add to the sub-soil.

When your [dog|kid] eats a gram of plutonium, it is far more toxic than eating an equivalent gram of lead, cadmium, or other non-radioactive heavy metal.

Needless to say, putting plutonium into our landfills where it may eventually work its way down to the water table is a Bad Idea(tm).
Re:Well I'll be damned by AKAImBatman · 2004-09-27 12:47 · Score: 1

Agreed. But the idea I've been presenting to people is to actually lease the batteries. At least initially, they'd be VERY expensive. If they were leased to people who could afford it, the costs could be spread over time, and severe penalties could be written into the contract for non-return of the device. Even if the device is broken, it needs to be returned.

The actual mechanics would be the cheap part. The radioisotopes would cost thousands of dollars per device. As time goes on, the devices would be remanufactured with inert materials replaced, and the price would slowly drop.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:Well I'll be damned by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 12:51 · Score: 0

Why would it matter that Ni63 with a half-life of a few hundred days get into the soil? After a few years, its no longer radioactive.
Re:Well I'll be damned by AKAImBatman · 2004-09-27 12:51 · Score: 1, Insightful

When your [dog|kid] eats a gram of plutonium, it is far more toxic than eating an equivalent gram of lead, cadmium, or other non-radioactive heavy metal.

Have you been listening to Nader again? You might want to read this.

Ingestion is rarely a problem with Plutonium. The vector of most concern is inhalation. Thankfully, this isn't much of a problem as it takes SEVERE force to powderize plutonium. Basically, someone would have to intend to powderize it. And if they did powderize it, they're most likely to kill themselves rather than anyone else. Once dispersed, there wouldn't be sufficient quantities in the air for someone to get cancer from.

Read the first link on dirty bombs in my original post for more info.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:Well I'll be damned by sndtech · 2004-09-27 13:03 · Score: 1

ok first off RTFA its nothing like an RTG. second look at the danmed pictures if you're too lazy to read, they look like they would be quite easy to scale to human size and you could jump on them for power instaed of nasty nuclear power...run for it bos my cell phone's gonna blow.. its not fissionable material so dont worry about that...ever
Re:Well I'll be damned by bob+beta · 2004-09-27 13:09 · Score: 1

That just means the battery will be completely forgotten, while absolutlely essential, by the time it expires.

Believe me, thats how things work. . .

--
"What's the frequency Kenneth?"
Re:Well I'll be damned by radtea · 2004-09-27 13:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

A couple of nW per mCi is going to have pretty limited usefulness. Even if they boost the conversion efficiency substantially (4% at the moment, so the max is 25 times) they're still talking about a miniscule amount of power for a non-miniscule amount of radioactivity.

IAANP, and I've handled mCi sources, and treated them with considerable respect. Even pure beta-emiters like 63Ni (60-odd keV endpoint) generate significant flux of x-rays due to shake-off electrons and bremmstralung (fairly negligable). A mCi pure-beta source is going to be about the limit before you get significant levels of difficult-to-shield radiation from these effects.

The k-shell x-rays from 63Ni (or rather, 63Cu, the decay product) are just under 9 keV, which can be shielded with a bit of lead, but enough that you're talking about a battery that is mostly shielding. You very rapidly burn the size advantage.

And then there's the disposal issue--these things will wind up in landfills, just like every other radioactive source. For example, a typical (micro-curie) calibration source is aluminum-encased and about the size of quarter. I once had a student put one in his pocket, walk out of the lab, and almost spend the source in a vending machine. There is no reasonable protection against stupidity of that nature. And there's so much of it about.

So while I think these things are potentially great for certain remote sensing applications, I don't expect to see one in my cell phone or lap-top any time soon now. If we were able to make a cell phone or laptop that could run comfortably on a mCi source, it would be able to run almost forever on a conventional battery, so the advantage of a radioactive battery is not at all clear.

--Tom

--
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Re:Well I'll be damned by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 13:26 · Score: 1, Informative

I am a former officer in the USN, stood many an engineering watch, and have some background with radiation protocol. I also am about as far from a Nader fan as you can get.

Anyhow, ingestion is rarely a problem with plutonium because plutonium is rare.

The article you linked is nearly worthless because nowhere does it describe what amount the plutonium was, nor the isotope (which is critical for knowing what type of particle emissions we're talking about).

Plutonium Isotopes

In particular, note the inverse relationship between half-life and specific activity. Shorter half-life = more particles emitted.

That means it is actually far safer to ingest a small quantity of bomb-grade Pu-239 than it is to ingest "depleted" Pu-238, which is what would most likely be used in the batteries referred to in this article, if plutonium were used at all.
Re:Well I'll be damned by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 13:47 · Score: 0

"As for anyone who's worried about dirty bombs, I suggest you read this and this. The threat has been greatly overstated, and is actually less effective than a regular bomb."

Yes. But the immediate public panic and longer-term economic disruption that would result during cleanup doesn't scale.

"The real problem is the issue of keeping the materials out of landfills. Even today, there's a big problem with Lead, Cadium, and other dangerous materials ending up in landfills. Radioisotopes wouldn't be much worse, but there is an upper limit on how much you want to add to the sub-soil."

Yes. A good example are the radioactive sources used in some fire alarms and other devices. They aren't *supposed* to be dumped in a regular landfill, but they often are.

And, disappointly, the article does not address the disposal issue at all. It is a significant omission given the way that ordinary chemical batteries are often treated.
Re:Well I'll be damned by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 13:47 · Score: 0

All the same, the government stopped using small nuclear batteries in military applications quite some time ago due to concerns over leaving bits of fisable material around. Of course, it sounds like we're talking a lot less material than we were in my day.
Re:Well I'll be damned by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 13:57 · Score: 0

I think if your kid could find a gram of plutonium the fact that he could even find A WHOLE GRAM is more serious than him eating it.

For other hazards, this link is helpful
Re:Well I'll be damned by vandan · 2004-09-27 14:06 · Score: 0

Have you been listening to Nader again?

Yes I have, actually. And if more people listened to him & voted for him, the US would be in a MUCH better long-term position.

And if they did powderize it, they're most likely to kill themselves rather than anyone else. Once dispersed, there wouldn't be sufficient quantities in the air for someone to get cancer from.

You misunderstand how cancer forms. It only takes ONE strand of DNA to be damaged by ONE alpha particle and you have cancer. Most radiation passes right through the body without colliding with anything ( matter is mostly 'empty' space ). It is a very rare occasion indeed when an alpha particle will actually hit something. When it does, however, you are in trouble, ie you have cancer. Whether it develops further or is killed off by your immune system ( or simply dies ) is anyone's guess after that. But it is a myth that you require a certain amount of radiation for it to be dangerous. ANY amount is dangerous. Bigger amounts are more dangerous. So it is quite arbitrary where you draw the line and say "this much is safe, and this much is dangerous".
Re:Well I'll be damned by dvdeug · 2004-09-27 14:19 · Score: 1

Most radiation passes right through the body without colliding with anything ( matter is mostly 'empty' space ). It is a very rare occasion indeed when an alpha particle will actually hit something.

Huh? An alpha particle is pretty big, and will very rarely pass through a body. In fact, that's why they're of as little concern as they are; they'll rarely make it through your clothes or the outer layer of exposed skin.

So it is quite arbitrary where you draw the line and say "this much is safe, and this much is dangerous".

How dangerous is a flight of stairs? How about an elevator? Both of them present non-negligable hazards. It's always arbitrary where you draw the line, but that doesn't mean you take away everything sharp and make us live in small padded rooms for our safety. You've got to weigh the risks and the advantages.
Re:Well I'll be damned by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 15:32 · Score: 0

Wow, you must be a genius for comming up with this brilliant idea... No one could have thought of taking one of our main energy sources and shrinking it down....

oh wait, these people have actually BUILT a nuclear battery, and obviously have been "talking" about it for much more than a few years....
Re:Well I'll be damned by afidel · 2004-09-27 15:56 · Score: 1

Dude if one strand of DNA being damaged were enough to cause cancer higher organisms would have never evolved. DNA is highly self repairing and the vast majority of cells that have sufficient damage to cause mutations are destroyed due to self regulation. Without constant exposure to large amounts of carcinogens the vast vast majority of people will not develop cancer. Most cancers are caused by smoking and suntanning, people who avoid those activities are fairly unlikely to develop cancer.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:Well I'll be damned by Christopher+Thomas · 2004-09-27 16:45 · Score: 1

In case anyone is wondering how these work, the idea is that the radiation from a small amount of radioactive material (NOT fissable material!) is captured and converted into electricity or other forms of energy. There is very little radiation emitted by these devices, because the radiation IS the power! Letting it escape would be poor economy.

The problem is contamination concerns during fabrication and as a result of accidents in the field as the devices are used, and especially due to disposal. Any single battery's radioactives won't make that big a mess, but it adds up. Look at how much fun we're having with all of the cadmium floating around from NiCd batteries.

Recycling and taking proper care can reduce or remove the problem, but the fundamental issue is that over the counter batteries are being put in the hands of people who just don't care very much about being responsible even when they know what they should be doing. A battery capable of generating useful amounts of power needs a _lot_ more radioactive material than a smoke detector, and has correspondingly larger waste concerns.
Re:Well I'll be damned by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 17:54 · Score: 0

NASA has used these sorts of devices in spacecraft for 40+ years

And there are a great many people on the planet that have a radioactive souvenir in their body, thanks to one satellite that broke up during launch.
Re:Well I'll be damned by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 18:12 · Score: 0

That just means the battery will be completely forgotten, while absolutlely essential, by the time it expires.

No, that means you won't be able to open the battery compartment to replace it. If you still need the device to work when the battery dies, you're screwed.
Re:Well I'll be damned by geekoid · 2004-09-27 18:18 · Score: 1

Half-life of 138 days. So the same battry used to power a cell phone that was tossed into a landfill would be poisonious far after a cell phone with one of these.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Well I'll be damned by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 18:28 · Score: 0

It is a very rare occasion indeed when an alpha particle will actually hit something. When it does, however, you are in trouble, ie you have cancer.

Much wrongness here. First, alpha particles are very likely to hit something. Yeah, matter is mostly empty space, but there's a lot of it, in many layers. And alpha particles are relatively large, slow moving, and charged. (gammas, OTOH, are likely to pass right through.)

Secondly, you'll only get cancer if it strikes the right place on the right molecule. Most of the places where radiation damage can occur will either cause the cell to die or nothing. Cancer is not just any damaged cell, it's a very specific cell disorder.

But it is a myth that you require a certain amount of radiation for it to be dangerous. ANY amount is dangerous. Bigger amounts are more dangerous. So it is quite arbitrary where you draw the line and say "this much is safe, and this much is dangerous".

It's not a myth, it's statistics. Yes, one radioactive particle could give you cancer, but it's extremely unlikely. Nothing is certain in reality, it's all probabilities. If you don't set some arbitrary limit you can't function. (Ever heard of "background radiation"?)
Re:Well I'll be damned by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 21:13 · Score: 0

Conventional scientist cannot explain where this energy comes from; it emits a lot more radiation than just from the 'splitting' atoms. Some theorists believe it comes from vacuum and any point in vacuum would contain an unexhaustive amount of energy that could feed the world.

Quite interesting stuff.

It's a shame conventional scientists do not even look at these theories only because they are not based on the (ugly) quantum or string theorie.
Re:Well I'll be damned by vandan · 2004-09-27 22:44 · Score: 1

Yes I know. Re-read my post. I said:

Whether it develops further or is killed off by your immune system ( or simply dies ) is anyone's guess after that.

which implies that DNA damage along doesn't cause cancer to develop . And no I didn't go into details about how the body deals with damaged DNA, but yes I'm aware that it does.
Re:Well I'll be damned by MacGod · 2004-09-28 01:37 · Score: 1

There is very little radiation emitted by these devices, because the radiation IS the power! Letting it escape would be poor economy.

I've often wondered about this in regards to nuclear fission plants. It always seemed to me that using fission simply to heat water into steam, and use that steam to turn turbines seemed like a big waste (geek analogy: it would be like having a DVI port on your computer, then attaching a DVI-to-VGA converter, a VGA cord and a VGA-to-DVI converter into an LCD).

It always seemd to me that if we could figure out some way to just directly capture the energy released by the fission process, we'd be much better off.

--
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one " -Albert Einstein
Re:Well I'll be damned by angel'o'sphere · 2004-09-28 01:51 · Score: 1

The nuclear power NASA is using in their probes is THERMAL. Heat to current converters (basicly just two different metals like a bimetal attached to each otehr create a voltage if heated at one end) are used to generate electric power from that.

Probably you should read the article, its very interesting and they use several completely different ways like the old clumpsy NASA generators.

angel'o'sphere

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:Well I'll be damned by AKAImBatman · 2004-09-28 02:41 · Score: 1

I'm well aware of this method. The idea here is to create an electrostatic charge that causes attraction of the piezoelectric cantilever, producing power. Such a design would only produce enough power for a MEMS type device. If they want to power cell phones, they're going to need to do it in the thermal range. I'm still trying to figure out how feasible it is to produce a tiny SRG for a cell phone. :-) At the very least, pelters are very small and could easily fit in a phone.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:Well I'll be damned by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-28 02:46 · Score: 0

Well, IAMANUCLEARP - and I'm deeply disappointed the above post was modded up to +5 Informative.
Mods -- simply because a poster employs units, terms and chemical symbols you don't understand doesn't make the content of the post viable.
I'm recalled of the numerous instances of intentially jibberish papers making the cut in peer review - reasons stated are similar to what's on display here: the review board was unfamilar with both the intimacies of mathematics and the subtle nuances of what are highly complex and involved subjects.
Wholly disappointing.
Re:Well I'll be damned by ajs318 · 2004-09-28 03:36 · Score: 1

It only takes ONE strand of DNA to be damaged by ONE alpha particle and you have cancer
Not quite. DNA contains what can only be described as checksums -- it's highly tolerant of errors. Remember, things in the natural world have to be tolerant! One or two wrong atoms here or there are transparently corrected next time the cell reproduces itself. The only way you will get cancer is if the modified variant is viable in its own right {or auto-corrects most readily to a viable form which is not the same as the original} and the cells with the new DNA have a chance to reproduce to a certain critical level before they get stomped by the body's own immune system.

As an aside, this probably is where biodiversity came from in the first place: while the Earth was young and life was beginning to form, there almost certainly would have been much more radioactive material around to mutate DNA.

Ever heard of Prometheus? That myth was almost certainly based on reality: at some moment in prehistory, one of the new hairless upright ape-like beings pulled a burning stick from a lightning-blasted tree, and lived to tell the tale. Can you imagine what would have happened if today's "too dangerous" mentality had been around in those times?

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Re:Well I'll be damned by random_static · 2004-09-28 05:24 · Score: 1

IAANP, and I've handled mCi sources, and treated them with considerable respect. Even pure beta-emiters like 63Ni (60-odd keV endpoint) generate significant flux of x-rays due to shake-off electrons and bremmstralung (fairly negligable).

IYAANP, how come you'd misspell "bremsstrahlung"?
Re:Well I'll be damned by AKAImBatman · 2004-09-28 05:54 · Score: 1

Maybe someone made a mistake, but according to webelements, Ni63 has a half-life of 100 years. With that half-life, the material would be considered moderately radioactive.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:Well I'll be damned by Mr.Sharpy · 2004-09-29 04:12 · Score: 1

Your danger of getting cancer is many, many times greater due to chemical carcinogens than from the kinds and amounts of radiation most people are exposed to during their lifetimes. If you want to focus and worry about something causing cancer, I suggest you look closer at what we are eating than what is beaming in from the heavens and your surroundings.

As an aside, your comment that the poster in this thread should be more critical of papers demonstrates your unwillingness to look at view points other than your own. The paper the poster referenced was from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. That is hardly a flaky source of information, and it does indeed conclude that irradiated study group did in fact have a much much lower cancer mortality rate than the general population. It suggests that some radiation can actually be beneficial, and that current standards should be revaluated for their appropriateness. You suggested that the poster be more critical of papers he reads, but I suggest that you be more open minded of opposing view points.
Re:Well I'll be damned by TeraCo · 2004-10-04 15:58 · Score: 1

KEEP RUBBING THE BEE

--
Not Meta-modding due to apathy.

I'd give em to my kids by NotQuiteReal · 2004-09-27 12:03 · Score: 0

From the article ...a radioisotope like nickel-63 or tritium, for example, contains enough energy to power a MEMS device for decades, and to do it safely. The particles these isotopes emit, unlike more energetic particles released by other radioactive materials, are blocked by the layer of dead skin that covers our bodies. They penetrate no more than 25 micrometers in most solids or liquids, so in a battery they could safely be contained by a simple plastic package

Sounds good to me.

--
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.

It's hopeless by Chrispy1000000+the+2 · 2004-09-27 12:03 · Score: 1, Insightful

You know how ever safe they make it, the enviro-freaks will think *radiation, oh no, it will kill us all*, until it is banned. And once it is banned, it will *never* be unbanned. It's terribly sad to see good sience go to waste.

--
Sig

Re:It's hopeless by Chrispy1000000+the+2 · 2004-09-27 12:12 · Score: 0

Aw fish and chips.
*science

--
Sig
Re:It's hopeless by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 12:28 · Score: 0

Aw fish and chips.

Butters?

bring it by spirit_fingers · 2004-09-27 12:04 · Score: 0

My mitoclorians can beat your micro nukes. Sucka.

Re:bring it by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 12:53 · Score: 0

Some information for you

teeny by ianmalcm · 2004-09-27 12:05 · Score: 5, Funny

I nominate this story for shortest posted news item on /.

Re:teeny by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 12:20 · Score: 0

Obviously, the guy who posted this was running his laptop with a prototype battery...
Re:teeny by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 19:51 · Score: 0

Yeah. It just sucks that we have to read the article to find out what it's about /Esben

Someone who knows their physics please tell me why by Illserve · 2004-09-27 12:06 · Score: 1

Some kind of reverse Peltier gizmo can't be used to create a solid-state nuclear battery?

Or does it just not work this way?

NOT IDEAL FOR by kanna · 2004-09-27 12:06 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Mastrubators... Why? Do you like babies? Want to have father them with only two legs?

Energizer Bunnies... they keep going and going oh, wait.

Nevermind.

finally by kongit · 2004-09-27 12:06 · Score: 1

now if I get stranded on a deserted isle with only my ipod equipped with its super-nuclear battery I will always have music to listen to; at least until my ears rot off from radiation exposure.

Re:finally by Null537 · 2004-09-27 12:17 · Score: 1

You'll never have to turn on the backlight, it'll always have a pretty glow to it.

Why bring an ipod when you can bring a laptop with one of the new batteries, so instead of your ear falling off, well...you know.

Radioactivity is our friend! ... apparently... by sandfish · 2004-09-27 12:07 · Score: 0, Troll

"and maybe your cellphone, too"

That's funny... so we'll just shove some more radioactive material in something that's already proven radioactive. Show it to be safe... then I might be comfortable with something like this.

Re:Radioactivity is our friend! ... apparently... by phlegmofdiscontent · 2004-09-27 12:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

Since when are cellphones radioactive?
Re:Radioactivity is our friend! ... apparently... by Naffer · 2004-09-27 12:23 · Score: 1

Well, you can buy cell phones on ebay.
Ebay has "radioactive" as a google adword.
Thus, cell phones must be radioactive!
Re:Radioactivity is our friend! ... apparently... by sandfish · 2004-09-27 13:53 · Score: 0

I knew people would be confused about that... noticed I should have re-worded that after I submitted it. Cell phones emit radiation.

Great for Happy Meals by SomeoneGotMyNick · 2004-09-27 12:08 · Score: 1

Not only will the battery operated toys make noise and blink FOREVER, but entire meals can be prepackaged by the morning crew to self cook by lunchtime.

These are already in use for some applications by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 12:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

If you've ever used a night sight you're using Tritium, of course. They are amazingly bright and they last for years. This article talks about using tritium. It has many advantages: it's very safe (the radiation doesn't penetrate skin) and very energetic. I've wondered why we don't see more tritium-powered devices. Maybe we will see them soon.

Re:These are already in use for some applications by AKAImBatman · 2004-09-27 12:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

Have you seen the cost for a gram of Tritium?! That's why it's not used more.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:These are already in use for some applications by Inda · 2004-09-27 21:12 · Score: 1

"28. Revenue losses should be below $10 million per year based on the fact that tritium sold for between $13,000 and $26,000 per gram in the 1980s."

Dude, that info is a bit (25 years) out of date.

--
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
Re:These are already in use for some applications by AKAImBatman · 2004-09-28 00:21 · Score: 1

While it's ten years old, the prices haven't changed much at all. Americanium, for example, has not dropped in price *at all* despite its heavy use in smoke alarms.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade

In other news.... by FlimFlamboyant · 2004-09-27 12:08 · Score: 5, Funny

Authorities in Chicago, Illinois have ordered the evacuation of the north shore after an iPod meltdown.

--
But God demonstrates his love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us - (Romans 5:8)

Re:gmail by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 12:09 · Score: 0

Don't click on the parent's links. (Look at the url, not the link text. It's a redirect.)

Cool stuff but.... by maokh · 2004-09-27 12:09 · Score: 1

While the idea isn't new, its great to see some active work on this again. Computer/device technology is completely outpacing battery technology, and its about time.

Its gonna take a lot of batteries to grind down before you would have any usable material for a dirty bomb, but I suspect that a lot of undereducated hippies will be protesting the usage of such marvels, and it will never see the light of day.

Oh well, we can dream!

Re:Cool stuff but.... by the_denman · 2004-09-27 12:24 · Score: 3, Interesting

Its gonna take a lot of batteries to grind down before you would have any usable material for a dirty bomb,
Never doubt the steps some will go through to get radioactive stuff, I am reminded of David Han, "the radioactive boy scout" who tried to make a breader reactor with lantern mantels and smoke alarm parts (as well as many other things). While he didn't get his goal compleated, he got a heck of a lot closer then he should have.

Not radioactively powered but a trickle charge by planckscale · 2004-09-27 12:10 · Score: 5, Funny

It looks like this mostly a development into boosting the charge of an otherwise ordinary Li battery. If it keeps my cell battery charged for over a month as opposed to every 4 days than I could care less if my ear mutates into a chicken wing.

" Once these challenges are overcome, a promising use for nuclear microbatteries would be in handheld devices like cellphones and PDAs. As mentioned above, the nuclear units could trickle charge into conventional batteries. Our one-cantilever system generated pulses with a peak power of 100 milliwatts; with many more cantilevers, and by using the energy of pulses over periods of hours, a nuclear battery would be able to inject a significant amount of current into the handheld's battery.

How much that current could increase the device's operation time depends on many factors. For a cellphone used for hours every day or for a power-hungry PDA, the nuclear energy boost won't help much. But for a cellphone used two or three times a day for a few minutes, it could mean the difference between recharging the phone every week or so and recharging it once a month."

--
Namaste

Re:Not radioactively powered but a trickle charge by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 14:07 · Score: 0

Could you get a higher trickle charge from a photo-voltaic cell?
I had a solar-powered watch in the '80s with a battery that lasted 7 years. The lost the watch before I needed to replace the battery.
Re:Not radioactively powered but a trickle charge by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 18:30 · Score: 0

Could you get a higher trickle charge from a photo-voltaic cell?

Not if you keep it in your pocket.
Re:Not radioactively powered but a trickle charge by Twinbee · 2004-09-28 08:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sorry, but this one always irritates me.

Should be: "Could'NT care less". It's only 3 extra characters!

Read:
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/care.html

--
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc

Re:Someone who knows their physics please tell me by AKAImBatman · 2004-09-27 12:10 · Score: 4, Informative

Some kind of reverse Peltier gizmo can't be used to create a solid-state nuclear battery?

Congratulations, you've just described an RTG.

You know, they used to use these things in pacemakers before Chernobyl happened. After Chernobyl, everyone got scared about "nuclear" anything. Now dead batteries in a pacemaker are a very real concern, whereas they used to be good until you were dead from other causes.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade

no nuke batteries needed by bani · 2004-09-27 12:12 · Score: 1

just buy a couple thousand cases of smoke detectors and take out the americium-241.

How about macro-battaries? by multi-flavor-geek · 2004-09-27 12:13 · Score: 1, Interesting

I think that these battaries could be a great alternative for electric cars and other things that the science fiction world has promised us, if we couls make a battarie capable of producing 7,000 watts, with a capaciter storage bank so we could then draw 14kw for up to 15 seconds then I could replace the engine in my truck with a 10hp electric, boostable to 20hp for short periods of acceleration without much trouble, and since it is a truck I could handle having the battary weight in at as amuch as 800-1200 lbs and still have the truck be functional. Although ideally 20hp motor, 14kw continous, 28kw peak, and it wouldn't accelerate like one of those old VW diesel trucks coming home from the lumberyard. I do suppose that teh cost factor would make these far more expensive then running gasoline, at least in the short term, so I suppose that I will avoid holding my breath until later.

--
Like arts? Like cheesy little Indie mags? Check out www.artwerkmag.com, and don't laugh at the bad coding please.

Re:How about macro-battaries? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 12:16 · Score: 0

AOL or ESL?
Re:How about macro-battaries? by multi-flavor-geek · 2004-09-27 12:27 · Score: 0

neither, thank you very much, type in teh dark actually, and don't care that much about spelling anyway, it's the content that matters, not the imperfections in the presentation.

--
Like arts? Like cheesy little Indie mags? Check out www.artwerkmag.com, and don't laugh at the bad coding please.
Re:How about macro-battaries? by multi-flavor-geek · 2004-09-27 13:11 · Score: 1

The average vehicle only equires about 7-8 hp to maintain highway speed, and that includes running all of the little toys you are using inside the vehicle as well! If you strip that crap out, with the exception of what is required by law, a 10hp/7kw draw on the batteries should allow you to maintain 60 mph, I do have to admit that your 0-60 mph time may end up being a minute or 4 unless you happen to get a beneficial tailwind or convienantly placed hill.

--
Like arts? Like cheesy little Indie mags? Check out www.artwerkmag.com, and don't laugh at the bad coding please.
Re:How about macro-battaries? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 17:50 · Score: 0

I think you misspelled "motherfuckers".

I'll believe it when I see it. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 12:13 · Score: 0

www.tinaja.com/

One of the great hardware hackers of all time is Don Lancaster. I've followed his columns in various electronics magazines over the years and one of his pet subjects is inventing. One of the things that he points out is as follows: If people have been trying hard to create something for a long time, your chances of success are minimal.

People have been working on small nuclear power sources for the last fifty years. The problem has always been that anything that creates a useful amount of power contains a dangerous amount of radioactive material. We worked on a portable system to power beacons in remote locations in the 1970s. The stopper was that although we could have created something that was safe and economical, we couldn't guarantee that the local population wouldn't vandalize the device and remove the radioactive material.

Its not new- radioactive Uranium in plane stablize by iMaple · 2004-09-27 12:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

This is slightly off topic but also relevant looking at the other posts which seem to be concerned abt the radioactive thing.

I dont know if many people know that Boeing used radioactive Uranium in the 747 -100 in the stablizer (or somewhere else .. I am not very sure). They wanted something with density and tungsten alloy (which they use now) was more expensive than U238 which was the wasted byproduct of power stations. They took care to sheild it and it had lots of warnings abt it being radioactive and ensuring that the sheild was undamaged.

So the point its not very unusual to use radioactive materials and nor very dangerous as long as they are properly marked.

Re:Someone who knows their physics please tell me by Illserve · 2004-09-27 12:15 · Score: 1

So why are these people mucking about with their miniaturization technology?

Seems a perfectly scalable device already exists.

But I don't want a battery... by RobsterCraw · 2004-09-27 12:15 · Score: 1

Well Thata all fine and dandy but when can I get my nuclear fireworks. This regualr black powder ani't quite doing it for me anymore. What?! no Nuke Fireworks?! Then where the hell am I supposed to get my fix? Next thing you know their gonna ban my A-Bombs out-right. What?! BANNED Already?! Mine are Pre Ban anyway. I can keep em.

Re:But I don't want a battery... by ajs318 · 2004-09-28 03:51 · Score: 1

Absolutely! The Second Amendment says you are allowed to keep and bear arms, it doesn't say what kind of arms. If they'll ever let me in the USA, I'm buying me some radioactive fragmentation grenades ..... for duck hunting, of course.

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!

RTFA, NASA's RTGs do that by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 12:15 · Score: 0

The radiation heats up one extreme of a metalbar and the electrons move to the other end. It is called Seebeck effect.

Don't they already... by NeuroManson · 2004-09-27 12:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

Use batteries like this in pacemakers?

--
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!

Re:Don't they already... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 12:24 · Score: 0

Similar, yes. And NASA uses them as well (as did the Soviets in some of their satellites, IIRC).
Re:Don't they already... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 13:20 · Score: 0

Oh great, so now we have to worry about terrorists ripping out people's nuclear powered hearts.
Re:Don't they already... by Xaoswolf · 2004-09-27 13:50 · Score: 1

Would they possibly screw with a pacemaker?
I'm not an expert on the things, but I do know that a microwave can cause problems.

--
Xaotik Designs
Re:Don't they already... by Eric+S.+Smith · 2004-09-28 07:37 · Score: 1

Different kinds of radiation, and it's not meant to escape the battery in any case.

--
Mind the Gap

Re:Its not new- radioactive Uranium in plane stabl by iMaple · 2004-09-27 12:18 · Score: 2, Informative

The U238 wasnt used in the stabilizer but as a counter weight. Check out the google results

Re:Someone who knows their physics please tell me by AKAImBatman · 2004-09-27 12:19 · Score: 1

They're trying to power MEMS devices at the moment. Cell phones and laptops are still a ways away.

Honestly, I think the military should begin developing portable SRGs. One of the biggest problems with their current "future-soldier" concepts (read: A guy with a monocle and a computer) is battery life and weight. An SRG would be smaller, and would probably outlast just about any mission the Generals can think up.

Can anyone else think of a misssion that would exhaust 5-10 years worth of power? ;-)

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade

Doest the IEEE Spectrum still have rubber keys? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 12:19 · Score: 0

Wont the little rubber keys heat up if the Spectrum is powered by nuclear batteries?

How do you keep from burning your two finger tips?

"My Child Swallowed WHAT?" (a rant 8-) by IBitOBear · 2004-09-27 12:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yumm... in other news, liability law enters a whole new realm of stupid.

Most of the proles have been blisfully un-aware of the use of "nuclear bateries" (etc) in our space program. In those cases it was mostly a exercise in thermeonics, which is perhaps slightly different than this "documented" breakthrough, or maybe not, but there you go.

How out-of-the-public-mind is this? Google for thermeonics. Two entires. No wonder there isn't any funding.

Meanwhile, particle-in electron-out technologies are not all that radical. Things like the solar panels are based on this sort of thing.

So we have an announcement that what we can do big we may be able to do to nanotech scales. How new, how fresh...

But there will be hue, and there will be cry, and much gnashing of teeth will come across the land as those who cannot understand take umberage from the words of those who check facts. "That is radio active! We must not have it. Now give me some of that cadmium enriched tap water the government says is good for softening over-strong bones..."

So great technology, but we can't even get decent breeder reactors in this country. We arn't smart or "brave" enough, or perhaps we have had so many less-than-trustworthy "officilas" that we know we dare not let the usefully dangerous things near our lives. Leave the cutting edge nuclear research to the cowardly French...

So summon NIMBY and marvel as our lawyers stamp this technology, and any other technology that sounds even vaguly provocative, out in the persuit of the great god "what about our children?"

Apparently they don't deserve to survive because their PARENTS can't take the simple responsibility to to keep their kids from eating the computer... 8-)

So yea, great advance in science, all the benefits will be lost to the litigous masses. What is the point of a 1 millimeter chip if it has to wear a ten-inch warning label?

You just wait and see... 8-)

[For those who missed the subject line, this was a RANT... get a clue before you take me to task... 8-)]

--
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press

Re:"My Child Swallowed WHAT?" (a rant 8-) by topynate · 2004-09-27 12:29 · Score: 5, Informative

Google for thermeonics. Two entires.
Spell it right - thermionics. You get over 5K. And if you add up the results for googling different sub-fields I bet you get way more.
Re:"My Child Swallowed WHAT?" (a rant 8-) by 3waygeek · 2004-09-27 12:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

Google for thermeonics. Two entires. No wonder there isn't any funding.

Perhaps if you spelled it correctly, you'd find more entries.

Terrorists! by jhealy · 2004-09-27 12:20 · Score: 1

Don't let them fool you! They say they want to use nuclear power for innocent purposes, but the IEEE plan on making nuclear weapons! They are part of an axis of evil that includes Intel and Microsoft. We must inspect their offices!!!

where are the 90s when we need them?

Random thought here... by The+Master+Control+P · 2004-09-27 12:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

Would it be possible to use something that undergoes Alpha decay (say, Radium or Polonium), and convert it's moving charged particles directly into electric?

In short, you take a small amount of the radioactive substance and wrap all but one face in a lead shield, only allowing alpha particles out one face. Place a wire coil around that face, voila... moving charge (alpha particle) induces voltage and current in a conductor (coil). Insulate the coil, and draw power off it's ends. Place a little endpoint for the alpha particles to hit that's grounded to the radium/lead sample, so it can recombine into helium.

Sounds good... can someone with more physics knowledge than I poke my idea full of holes? What kind of coupling efficiency/energy output/conversion efficiency/helium generation could one expect?

Re:Random thought here... by The+Master+Control+P · 2004-09-27 12:25 · Score: 1

Oh yeah... When the hippies start getting all foamy at the mouth, tell them it's a fusion reactor... After all, it makes helium and electric, and fusion is a Good Thing.
Re:Random thought here... by cybercuzco · 2004-09-27 12:59 · Score: 2, Informative

RTFA, that should clear up your questions.

--
Re:Random thought here... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 13:01 · Score: 0

Would it be possible to use something that undergoes Alpha decay (say, Radium or Polonium), and convert it's moving charged particles directly into electric?

Yup. That's called "direct conversion". It also works with beta emitters (like Tritium).
Re:Random thought here... by jerometremblay · 2004-09-27 13:03 · Score: 2, Informative

A similar principle is used by Focus fusion reactors. It is basically a reverse particle accelerator.

"A focus fusion reactor would produce electricity very differently. The energy from fusion reactions is released mainly in the form of a high energy pulsed beam of helium nuclei. Since the nuclei are electrically charged, this beam is already an electric current. All that is needed is to capture this electric energy into an electric circuit. This can be done by allowing the pulsed beam to generate electric currents in a series of coils as it passes through them. This is much the same way that a transformer works, stepping electric power down from the high voltage of a transmission line to the low voltage used in homes and factories. It is also like a particle accelerator run in reverse. Such an electrical transformation can be highly efficient, probably around 70%."
Re:Random thought here... by Quantum+Jim · 2004-09-27 16:11 · Score: 4, Informative

In short, you take a small amount of the radioactive substance and wrap all but one face in a lead shield, only allowing alpha particles out one face.

One possible problem, to form a narrow alpha-particle beam for small devices, a small slit or hole has to be used. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle shows that the range of (normalized) highly probable momenta will be large since the range in location is small. This means that some particles will be fast and some will be slow; however, the actual event is hard to predict.

Since kinetic energy is proportional to the momentum (squared), your device will produce energy in hard-to-predict spirts. You can calculate an average energy; however, that applies only after a large number of particles go through your device. That's one reason why these kind of devices work well as trickle-chargers yet poorly as generators.

Another problem is that you lose 5/6th of the particles from the device, or more. This is because the probability of a radioactive atom emitting a particle in a specific direction is relatively uniform. However, only one face of the material is unshielded to the device. So particles most will hit the shielded face. One one face, 5/6th of the total area, will have a flux out.

Place a wire coil around that face, voila... moving charge (alpha particle) induces voltage and current in a conductor (coil). Insulate the coil, and draw power off it's ends.

When you extract energy from the particle's kinetic energy, it will slow down. When it does, it will emitt electromagnetic energy, breaking it furthermore. All this energy is not converted into electrical energy in your device.

In the article, two methods are getting energy were tried. In the first device, the scientiests use a material that emitts beta particles - electrons - and injected them directly into a pn-junction of a semiconductor device. Normal semiconductor devices (i.e. diodes) work by moving electrons to unfilled energy levels in one substance (p-material) from filled energy levels in another substance (n-material). Moving electrons means a current forms.

This is usually induced by thermal or EM energy. In this case, the radioactive element emitts electrons directly into the semiconductor. The imbalance causes a current to form through the junction. This can be miniaturized well. It also is not as sensitive to the direction that beta particles are emitted as your device.

The second device uses a (really small!) lever attached to a piezoelectric material. Piezoelectric crystals produce electric current when stressed or vibrating. (The reverse is also true; hense why the crystal in your digital watch creates the ticks for the clocks.) The lever gets hit by - and absorbs - beta particles emitted from the radioactive element. Since beta particles are charged, the lever aquires a negative charge and the element aquires a positive charge. This pulls the lever toward the radioactive element. When they get close, electron tunnel over the gap and return their charge to the radioactive element. Once uncharged, the lever spings back to its origional position. The movement of the lever causes the piezoelectric material to generate current.

This things scientists and engineers create are truely fascinating! (...to me at least!)

--
It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do.
- Jerome Klapka Jerome
Re:Random thought here... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 16:41 · Score: 0

I have a PhD in particle physics, and I say your idea is fucked.
Re:Random thought here... by uberdave · 2004-09-27 17:28 · Score: 1

Instead of a wire, you use a PN junction (for example, a solar cell). Yes, you can do that.

--
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
Re:Random thought here... by hab136 · 2004-09-28 02:12 · Score: 1

Another problem is that you lose 5/6th of the particles from the device, or more. This is because the probability of a radioactive atom emitting a particle in a specific direction is relatively uniform. However, only one face of the material is unshielded to the device. So particles most will hit the shielded face. One one face, 5/6th of the total area, will have a flux out.
The obvious solution, at least to me, is to put coils on all the faces instead of just one. I think the original poster was just trying to simplify things.
Re:Random thought here... by Quantum+Jim · 2004-09-28 16:58 · Score: 1

That would work; however, how easy would it be combining those signals together (compared with the already compicated analysis of erratic signals from any small-scale radioactive battery)?

--
It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do.
- Jerome Klapka Jerome
Re:Random thought here... by hab136 · 2004-09-29 03:14 · Score: 1

That would work; however, how easy would it be combining those signals together (compared with the already compicated analysis of erratic signals from any small-scale radioactive battery)?
Since we're not trying to transfer information ("signals") but rather just pump electricity out, no problem at all. Think about this: what if you had multiple radioactive sources, with one coil on each, versus one radioactive source, with 6 coils? How would you combine the electical output? Connect the positive to the positive, the negative to the negative. :) Seriously, taking erratic electrical sources, storing them in a battery, and using the battery as constant voltage is done all the time - just look at solar cell arrays. I'm not saying it's easy, but it is an already solved problem.
Re:Random thought here... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-29 06:43 · Score: 0

I tend to think of any complicated electrical voltage or current function as a signal. The mathematics are virually the same.

You just can't connect six small coils together. First of all, there is no positive or negative polarity to a coil producing current through electromagnetic induction. The electrical voltage produced from any one particle will probably be simular to a damped sinusoid. Trickle-charging from one coil to a battery is easy; however, trickling many to a battery requries modifying the signal (i.e. voltage function) so there is little deconstructive interference for maximum power transfer and minimum reactive power production. (Reactive power is the "imaginary" component of power produced; although various circuit elements produce or consume it, this power can't be measured or used for practical applications). The article itself talks about rectification. At the scale we are talking about, electrical devices behave in drastically different ways than their ideal. So this is not a conceptually easy circuit to engineer.

Another problem with the coil concept - that I failed to mention in my post - involves charged alpha particles or beta particles gathering on the coils themselves. As I said above, the range of momenta can't be predicted. Well, neither can the particle's trajectories be determined exactly. many will hit the coils themselves, giving them a charge. Not only will this negatively affect their electrical performance (i.e. shielding), it will drive the emitted charged radiation away from them, reducing power by even more. I expect the power-half-life of this kind of trickle charger to be much less than the radioactive element's half-life.

It is still a good thought experiement, though. You ask interesting questions too.
Re:Random thought here... by Quantum+Jim · 2004-09-29 06:45 · Score: 1

That was me - The computer temperory logged me out. :-(

--
It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do.
- Jerome Klapka Jerome
Re:Random thought here... by hab136 · 2004-09-29 07:57 · Score: 1

I tend to think of any complicated electrical voltage or current function as a signal. The mathematics are virually the same.
And perhaps that's the problem.. I'm not an EE, so I can't decide if you're making up words ala Star Trek 'particle of the week' or you're just way over my head. Think grease monkey who can fix a car vs. a mechanical engineer.
However, you mention that there is no positive or negative polarity to a coil producing current through electromagnetic induction which greatly confuses me. In my understanding, there's two types of electricity: DC and AC. If you're saying this is AC, well, slap a diode on it, and now it's DC with a + and - side. (You can use two diodes and make two DC circuits, where one is off when the other is on, but I'm trying not to complicate things)
Anyways, so now you have a DC circuit that flips on and off erraticly. Add a capacitor in there to store up the charge until it's a useful amount, then discharge the capacitor to charge your conventional battery. With several coils, they feed into their own capacitors, which then feed into another larger one, which then feed the battery.
I can't speak to the other problems (like charged particles gathering on the coils), I'm just saying that if you can get electricity out of a device, even erratic AC, you can turn it into a semi-stable DC current for charging a battery.
Re:Random thought here... by Quantum+Jim · 2004-09-29 13:55 · Score: 1

I'm not an EE, so I can't decide if you're making up words ala Star Trek 'particle of the week' or you're just way over my head.

See my profile. :-) What's your education?

However, you mention that there is no positive or negative polarity to a coil producing current through electromagnetic induction which greatly confuses me. In my understanding, there's two types of electricity: DC and AC. If you're saying this is AC, well, slap a diode on it, and now it's DC with a + and - side.

Don't think in terms of AC and DC. Think in terms of periodic, constant, and aperiodic voltages and currents as functions of time. You can have an entire DC signal that is still periodic (e.g. V(t)=A*sin(w*t)+B, when A
The problem with semiconductor devices at really small scales is that they don't act nearly ideal. Classically, diodes - when biased correctly - only allow current to travel one direction through them, and caps only allow periodic signals to travel through them. However, at small scales diodes can 'leak' and a "virtual cap" forms across the np junction. This can occur with high frequency fluctuations in the signal.

Another "gotcha" with diodes is that it takes four, with two forward biased and two reverse bieased at any one time, to rectify an AC signal into a DC signal (not a constant signal, just everything above a threshold). You have to use two diodes for each half of the signal, else you end up losing the other half! Classically, diodes generally drop the voltage by .7V each, so the instantious output voltage is at least 1.4V less than the input voltage.

Anyways, so now you have a DC circuit that flips on and off erraticly. Add a capacitor in there to store up the charge until it's a useful amount, then discharge the capacitor to charge your conventional battery. With several coils, they feed into their own capacitors, which then feed into another larger one, which then feed the battery.

That's how a conventional power supply works. The problem, is that most large-capacity caps don't discharge or charge quickly, and quickly responding caps don't hold a lot of charge. It takes a lot of engineering to make an efficient design.

I'm not saying that the proposed device wouldn't work. I'm just saying it probably isn't as efficient or scale as well as other methods.

--
It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do.
- Jerome Klapka Jerome
Re:Random thought here... by hab136 · 2004-09-29 17:18 · Score: 1

See my profile. :-) What's your education?
As stated, not an EE. :) I'm a computer guy (not surprising here), so college was Computer Science. After school I wound up specializing in Information Security, mostly for large coroporate behemoths. Yes, I am Dilbert. I know layers 2-7 inside and out. But over layer 1 (physical) is a big sign that says "Here Be Scary Dragons". I keep saying someday I'll take some courses on electricity, because I love things like robots, home automation, and general physicalcomputer interfaces, but it hasn't happened yet. Maybe some of the fascination I hold for those things is that they're so mysterious to me, and I'd almost hate to ruin that!
The closest to EE work I've done is sandwiching an optoisolator into a (one-way) serial line between two devices (because the computer was running off wall current, and the device off a car battery, and it *really* didn't like being directly connected). I had no idea what I was doing, but I did eventually get it to work.
I'm not saying that the proposed device wouldn't work. I'm just saying it probably isn't as efficient or scale as well as other methods.
Ah, and that's all I was saying. That's all I can say, really! Questions on efficiency, reliability, etc. - that's what we hire EEs for. :)
I did read your whole post, and actually understood this one, I think.
It has been a very interesting discussion. That's one thing I love about the Internet - it brings you into people, and more importantly, ideas, that you would normally never come across.

I call FUD by sciguy125 · 2004-09-27 12:23 · Score: 0

There's some FUD here. I suspect that the general population will have a problem with it. People fear all things nuclear.

Another issue is that there is some uncertainty in the life of this "battery." I'm not a scientist, but my understanding is that a half-life is the amount of time it takes for half of the material to decay. That means that there is a 50/50 chance of a particular particle decaying in one half-life. So, there is only a high probability of this stuff breaking down in a certain time. Is the sample small enough for some of them to completely die before the end of it's expected life?

I also doubt that it will be widely used any time soon. People will be afraid of them. There will probalby also be some legal issues with production and disposal of the devices. Particularly in this post 9/11 America.

--
GE/S/P a- e++ y-- r-- s:++ d+ h! X+++ t++ C+ P+ L++ E W++ w M-- V? PS+ P+

Re:I call FUD by NichG · 2004-09-27 12:33 · Score: 1

For a random decay process occuring on N objects, the deviation in number decayed over some amount of time goes as sqrt(N), so if you look at the ratio of the deviation to the number, you get a relative deviation that goes as 1/sqrt(N). For something like this, with N=10^20, that means for something with a projected halflife of 1 year, the 1-sigma deviation in that halflife is going to be about 3 milliseconds. So I wouldn't worry about it too much.
Re:I call FUD by TiggertheMad · 2004-09-27 12:43 · Score: 1

That means that there is a 50/50 chance of a particular particle decaying in one half-life. So, there is only a high probability of this stuff breaking down in a certain time. Is the sample small enough for some of them to completely die before the end of it's expected life?

Any given particle will decay at a 'random' time, but there are so many particles that because you are sampling a large set, it becomes statistically deterministic.

--

HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!

Back to the Future by logic+hack · 2004-09-27 12:23 · Score: 0

Looks like Doc Brown's prediction of plutonium being available at every corner drugstore just took one step towards reality.

Maybe PATRIOT batteries? by Tailhook · 2004-09-27 12:25 · Score: 1, Insightful

Maybe PATRIOT batteries?

No, no, no. Earth Batteries (tm). Packaging; green. Lots of green.

--
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!

Re:Maybe PATRIOT batteries? by Lord+Prox · 2004-09-27 12:33 · Score: 2, Funny

No, no, no. Earth Batteries (tm). Packaging; green. Lots of green.

Day glo green?
Chernobyl green?
Glow in the dark green?
Puke green?
I can see lots of ways the whole green thing might not work out in our favor on this one.

Mabey they can bring back the "duck and cover" turtle from the 50's with an eco friendly spin from Madison Ave. to enlighten the youth of today.

This post is an attempt at humor. Any resemblance to a troll is purely coincidental
Re:Maybe PATRIOT batteries? by scum-e-bag · 2004-09-27 16:41 · Score: 1

Please MOD the parent up. This post is INSIGHTFUL.

--
Does it go on forever?
Re:Maybe PATRIOT batteries? by Lindril · 2004-09-27 22:26 · Score: 2, Funny

Soylent green.

Two questions by desplesda · 2004-09-27 12:26 · Score: 0, Offtopic

One, is it feasible for nuclear energy to replace fossil fuel energy within a generation or two, given a currently softened (well, sort of) public opinion of it? (NOOCLAR! BAD!@`)

Two, if we were to run out of oil Right Now and we had the energy problem licked with the Magic of Technology, would it possible (more importantly, economical) to make enough plastic for, say, a computer with non-oil plastic?

Nothing new by Reality+Master+101 · 2004-09-27 12:27 · Score: 1

They had Nuclear Powered Limbs way back in 1974! I specifically remember Steve hacking his nuclear battery out of his arm! :)

--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.

Throwing Bricks... by TiggertheMad · 2004-09-27 12:30 · Score: 5, Funny

NEWS CAMERA FOCUSES ON GROUP OF BEARDED MEN WEARING DIRTY CAMOFLAGE JUMPSUITS. THEY ARE STANDING BEYOUND A FENCE AT THE END OF AN AIRPORT RUNWAY.

REPORTER: Thanks, Dan. I am here at the end of runway 4, where we are seeing a shift in Al-Queda's tactics today. They seem to be employing some sort of revolutionary new tactic...

CAMERA SHOWS A TERRORIST HEAVE A BRICK IN THE AIR AS A JET TAKES OFF, ROARING OVERHEAD. THE BRICK FLYS ABOUT 20 FEET UP, BEFORE FALLING TO THE GROUND NEXT TO THE VISIBLY UPSET TERRORIST.

Reporter: Back to you, Dan.

--

HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!

Nuclear Waste by nurb432 · 2004-09-27 12:30 · Score: 1

NASA has been building nuclear batteries for decades on deep space missions.

We could use waste product from reactors to power smaller versions for home use.

No, it would not be as efficient as using 'fresh' fuel , but its WASTE.. so its still cheap power for the masses..

And if you build them small enough, they are safe... It would change the very way we live.. 'free' nearly unlmited portable electric power for everyone..

I've been advocating this for years, but I don't expect to see it, due to the hold 'big oil' has on this country... ( hell the world.. )

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Re:Nuclear Waste by The+Master+Control+P · 2004-09-27 12:41 · Score: 1

NASA has been building nuclear batteries for decades on deep space missions.

>> The radiothermal generators you refer to required kilograms of Plutonium, and were the size of washing machines.

We could use waste product from reactors to power smaller versions for home use.

>> The waste from nuclear reactors generates, among many other things, a great deal of gamma radiation, which can only be stopped by ~3 feet of lead. The materials they are working with generate alpha and beta particles, which can be stopped by a sheet of paper and a half-inch piece of wood respectively.

No, it would not be as efficient as using 'fresh' fuel , but its WASTE.. so its still cheap power for the masses..

>> It also generates penetrating high-energy radiation.

And if you build them small enough, they are safe... It would change the very way we live.. 'free' nearly unlmited portable electric power for everyone..

>> There is a reason that NASA's radiothermal generators are the size of a washing machine: They rely on a temperature difference between the ends to generate an electric potential. The smaller it gets, the lower the temperature of the heat source to begin with and the greater the problem of heat conductivity. Moreover, as they get smaller they make less power. You will still need a certain amount of waste to generate X amount of power, and that amount is gauranteed to generate an unacceptable amount of gamma rays.

I've been advocating this for years, but I don't expect to see it, due to the hold 'big oil' has on this country... ( hell the world.. )

>> Whatever :)
Re:Nuclear Waste by adisakp · 2004-09-27 12:45 · Score: 1

What's to keep you from dumping a nuclear battery into the trash and generating "real" nuclear waste? Dangerous stuff -- the type that can leak and poison groundwater for example.

How many consumers dump their rechargeables in the trash already rather than properly "recycling" or "disposing" them.

1952 called... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 12:30 · Score: 0

They want their new technologies back.

A Distinctly One-Sided Piece by dgallina · 2004-09-27 12:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's an interesting article, but it's ultimately a sales pitch for the researcher's efforts and commercialization. There's a distinct lack of balanced information, peer-review, or opposing opinion in the source article.

It's tough to have an intelligent discussion on the safety of the proposed designs when we're only seeing one side of this story.....

"radioactive Uranium" by The+Master+Control+P · 2004-09-27 12:31 · Score: 1

What other kind is there :)
Unless you can modify the Strong Nuclear Force, in which case I want blueprints...

Oh my god! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 12:34 · Score: 0

Shut down home depot!!!!

Fucia alert!!

What to stop us from... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 12:34 · Score: 0

Using radioactive waste (that is going to be around and radioactive several times the length of recorded history) in large-scale but removed from civilization and guarded by the government batteries?

I mean, if we are going to have the stuff lying around anyway we may as well have it generating electricity for the next million years or so.

*shrug*

Use it as a mobile (cell) phone battery by Mag7 · 2004-09-27 12:35 · Score: 1

and it gives a whole new meaning to "talking your ear off"

HOLY PISS! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 12:35 · Score: 0

For example, with 10 milligrams of polonium-210 (contained in about 1 cubic millimeter), a nuclear microbattery could produce 50 milliwatts of electric power for more than four months (the half-life of polonium-210 is 138 days).

Of course, there's a voltage "limit" to the devices; that 50 milliwatts isn't generated by 4000volts and .0000125amps. But if it's 1.3volts at 38milliamps, that's totally awesome.

My only question is how easy is it to "synthesize" the material? Can we use any of the nuclear waste we are currently disposing of instead of reusing? Instead of binding it in glass (which makes it nearly un-extractable), I'd rather we use it in laptops and headphones and mp3 players.

Of course, some could run down to Walmart and buy 10,000 and make a "dirty" bomb with them. So Walmart would have to ban those batteries like they banned their generic psuedoephedrine (Sudafed; use to make methamphetamine). But you could always just run over to Target, instead, and buy your nuklear battereze there.

It sounds like a good risk to take. It would be incredible to see them manage 16% efficiency out of them.

Re:Someone who knows their physics please tell me by morcheeba · 2004-09-27 12:35 · Score: 1

... until you were dead from other causes.

Like stomach or lung cancer? ;-)

No, seriously, if I ever need a pace maker, I'll ask for a nuclear one. The main attraction would be that I could justify an "ATOMIC MAN!!" tattoo on my chest, so when I'm 80 and walking on the beach, I'll amaze little kids. (plus, the ink will help cover the scars)

--
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets

Great, the ultimate appliance by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 12:37 · Score: 0

A nuclear battery powered microwave which sterilizes the food at the same time and has a built-in smoke detector for burnt food.

Is this really something the public can accept? by StateOfTheUnion · 2004-09-27 12:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Remember all the worry about children swallowing small watch batteries several years ago (leading to battery compartments on nearly all young children's toys requiring a screwdriver or other device to open)? Now we can worry about our children swallowing nuclear batteries . . .

Seriously, the technology is interesting, but if we can't even convince the general public to permit isolated quantities of nuclear material in bunkers that can withstand the impact of a 737, a containment history that very nearly 100%, and with failsafe systems that are now nearly impossible to circumvent, then how can we convince this same uneducated public to adopt nuclear batteries?

If you told the general public that smoke detectors have a radioactive isotope, how many of them would throw them away?

Re:Its not new- radioactive Uranium in plane stabl by sadomikeyism · 2004-09-27 12:37 · Score: 1

spent Uranium has been processed so all the useful radioactive isotopes have been removed. Engineers like it cause it is heavier than lead, not as malleable, so it doesn't wear and/or deform as easily. It is used as ballast. That is all. Get over it.

--
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves

Stick to the dilithium crystals... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 12:40 · Score: 0

and try not to meltdown your warp core...

Don't be silly! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 12:43 · Score: 0

I'm sure George Bush has very sensible wallpaper!

great....instead of nails... by MoFoQ · 2004-09-27 12:43 · Score: 0, Troll

instead of nails and screws laced with rat poisons, terrorists will soon be able to use nuke batteries.

of course, it doesn't mean that the terrorists can't lace those nuke batteries with rat poison (an anti-coagulant).

I still think fuel cells are safer.
Hell, a methane fuel cell would be ideal especially when Cowboy Neal eats burritos or have one too many baked potatoes.

Re:great....instead of nails... by MoFoQ · 2004-09-28 12:50 · Score: 1

now that concerns me more than terrorists getting access to nuclear materials and almost as bad as those who say "AVP" is a good movie.

Doc, all we need is some plutonium... by MagicDude · 2004-09-27 12:44 · Score: 5, Funny

I'm sure in 1985, plutonium is available at every corner drugstore, but in 1955 it's a little hard to come by!

Re:Doc, all we need is some plutonium... by Joey+Vegetables · 2004-09-28 09:23 · Score: 1

I'm sure in 1985, plutonium is available at every corner drugstore, but in 1955 it's a little hard to come by!

Not if they invent a nuclear-powered vibrator!

--

Nonaggression works!

I used to have a nuclear wristwatch by SiliconEntity · 2004-09-27 12:45 · Score: 1

20 years ago I had a wristwatch whose glow was powered by radioactive tritium (Hydrogen-3). As the tritium decayed the nuclear particles struck fluorescent materials behind the watch digits and produced a nice glow. It was really bright, too, and I could use it as a makeshift flashlight to illuminate keyholes and such. The main problem was that there was no way to turn it off, it always glowed and was sometimes a bit of a nuisance in movies and other dark places.

This new thing sounds great, a nuclear powered buzzer using piezoelectric materials to produce electrical pulses. They need to improve the efficiency so it can work with something that has a half life measured in years rather than a few months, so you never have to change batteries.

Re:I used to have a nuclear wristwatch by surprise_audit · 2004-09-27 22:58 · Score: 1

My physics teacher in school had a radium dial wristwatch that was more active than the "safe" radiation sources he kept in a big lead box, locked away in an under-stairs cupboard. And yes, the cupboard had a big radiation warning sign on it.
However, neither the sources nor his watch were as active as one of the standard reagents in the organic chemistry lab upstairs. IIRC, it was a bottle of uranyl acetate - acetate of uranium. I don't remember what test it was used for, but it just sat on an open shelf in the classroom, waiting to be picked up and used.

Obligatory Back To The Future Quote by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 12:45 · Score: 1, Funny

Dr. Emmett Brown : I'm sure in 1985, plutonium is available at every corner drugstore, but in 1955 it's a little hard to come by!

Pedantic gripe by Michael+Woodhams · 2004-09-27 12:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

From the fine article: "As you reduce the size of such a battery, the amount of stored energy goes down exponentially. Reduce each side of a cubic battery by a factor of 10 and you reduce the volume--and therefore the energy you can store--by a factor of 1000."

No, the amount of stored energy goes down polynomially (specifically, cubically), dammit! Must even science articles abuse the word "exponentially"?

--
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.

Re:Pedantic gripe by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 13:18 · Score: 0

I get that mistake from my physics students all the time. Their reasoning? "The function has an exponent in it" (in this case, 3).
Re:Pedantic gripe by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 14:58 · Score: 0

Wow, that's dumb. Hopefully you tell them that all polynomial terms have exponents in them (sometimes 0 or 1).
Re:Pedantic gripe by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 17:37 · Score: 0

Damn! If energy scaled down exponentially, it would scale up exponentially: If two batteries provided twice as much energy as one, then ten would provide not ten times, but 1024 times as much.
Re:Pedantic gripe by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 17:41 · Score: 0

Indeed.
Re:Pedantic gripe by geekoid · 2004-09-27 18:11 · Score: 1

" Must even science articles abuse the word "exponentially"?"

Yes! and exponentially so!

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Pedantic gripe by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 18:33 · Score: 0

Um.. there are gmail accounts out the wazoo avaliable for anyone to take. Why would I give you something worth quite a lot for something that is probably worth a few pennies?
Re:Pedantic gripe by dabadab · 2004-09-27 20:56 · Score: 1

And even moire, in reality, the relation seems to be linear as a 3D object's size is its volume.

--
Real life is overrated.
Re:Pedantic gripe by soulsteal · 2004-09-28 01:44 · Score: 1

Last time I was in math class, cubically was x^3 - the 3 being an exponent. Exponentially is valid in the context used, but not precise.

Cheers.
Re:Pedantic gripe by Michael+Woodhams · 2004-09-28 09:43 · Score: 1

No, it is not valid. "Exponentially" means something like 3^x, not like x^3.

Claiming they are the same is like claiming cows are carnivores, because they one of the participants in an animal-eats-animal relationship.

--
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.

Not a battery by belg4mit · 2004-09-27 12:47 · Score: 1

Batteries (electrochemical cells) are chemical

--
Were that I say, pancakes?

Re:Not a battery by AndrewHowe · 2004-09-27 13:23 · Score: 1

Not necessarily. A battery is just a bunch of similar things. In the context of electricity, it's a bunch of cells. The cells can be anything you like, as long as they do the job, but that's not important. The only way it could be "not a battery" is if there's only one cell... But most people say "battery" when they should say "cell"... Good luck trying to change that!

a mobile phone with nuclear battery. by Exter-C · 2004-09-27 12:47 · Score: 1

Nothing quiet like getting radiated by your mobile nad your battery. You could get some free kemo.

Oh yeah?! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 12:47 · Score: 0

Well the jerk store called, and they're running out of you!

Re:Oh yeah?! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 12:51 · Score: 0

So what? You're their best seller!
Re:Oh yeah?! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 12:53 · Score: 0

Oh Yeah?! Well I slept with your wife!
Re:Oh yeah?! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 13:39 · Score: 0

Oh yeah? I'm your dad!
Re:Oh yeah?! by jpmkm · 2004-09-27 14:16 · Score: 2, Funny

His wife is in a coma.

Wow-battery life by loid_void · 2004-09-27 12:51 · Score: 1

Not hours, not days, but years before I have to replace the battery on my power book. Yes!

--
Anyone seen my jagged little pill?

It has probably been pointed out by sydres · 2004-09-27 12:52 · Score: 1

but radioisotope powered batteries have been around for years used in some pacemakers and hearing aids plus it has been well known for the last fifty or so years that a thermalcouple surounded by radioactive material generates small currents. a large scale containable implementation of this principal may be a good "recycling" option for radioactive waste.

Radioctive batteries used for Pluto mission by DotDotSlasher · 2004-09-27 12:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

My brother tells me about radioactive batteries used in space, specifically the Pluto probe due to go up in 2006 and arrive 2015.
More battery details here and here and here.
There's less and less solar power available as you move away from the Sun (which was abundant on the Mercury trip). Plus, you need power for 10+ years. Where do I get that battery? From nuclear material, of course. The battery is the last thing to go into the spaceship, and you do lots of testing without it. And you make sure all the materials in the spacecraft can function with a reasonably radioactive source (near the top, as I recall).
He told me all this because I didn't know that the pilot light in a gas heater heats a piece of metal which provides enough voltage to drive the thermostat (hey bro, why doesn't the water heater have an electric plug?) Radioactive materials are mixed with ceramics to keep a reasonably constant amount of heat. The voltage comes from the heat. Wow, appliance technology moved into the space program.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2004-09-27 12:55 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Want some Tritium? It's already started... by Chordonblue · 2004-09-27 12:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

Check this out:

Here:

http://www.firebox.com/?dir=firebox&action=produ ct &pid=6

or Here:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ca te gory=4783&item=5521655837&rd=1#ebayphotohostin g

These are Trasers. The bright light comes from a radioactive source - in this case Tritium gas. This reacts with the inside of the glass, lined with phosphor. All this and a 10 year lifespan.

Pretty neat. Not that you are allowed to OWN one in the U.S. yet, but the military's had them for quite a while.

--
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."

Re:Want some Tritium? It's already started... by mindstrm · 2004-09-27 14:09 · Score: 2, Informative

Traser watches are commonplace.... they are in no way banned in the US.

I would imagine a tritium gas light over a certian size would fall under some regulation.. but a small traser poses far less health risk than, say, a AA battery does.

Tritium has a half-life of 12.5 years... meaning your tritium gas lights will still be quite visible 25 years later.

Google for Luminox.

Tritium is a low level beta emitter... which means it produces electrons, and not very high energy ones. Very easy to contain.. the only health risk to tritium is if it is ingested.
Re:Want some Tritium? It's already started... by afidel · 2004-09-27 15:50 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure their banned in the U.S. Every european site I have found them for sale at has specifically said that they will not mail them to the U.S. And it's been that way since before 9/11 so it's not some new anti-terrorism law.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:Want some Tritium? It's already started... by The+Flying+Guy · 2004-09-27 16:28 · Score: 1

That is because international shipping companies do not like having to figure out if a given radioactive material is legal to import in the US, you can quite happily buy them in the US afaik, (or for me in the UK) but the shipping is a pain in the rear end
Re:Want some Tritium? It's already started... by AKAImBatman · 2004-09-28 02:55 · Score: 1

Try the watches section here. They've got a wide selection of Tritium watches.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:Want some Tritium? It's already started... by mindstrm · 2004-09-28 07:04 · Score: 1

That doesn't sound right.. I've seen tritium watches for sale that ship to the US all over the place.. even the linked site in the parent post says they ship to the US.

Further, there is really on reason to ban tritium unless it's in high concentrations (military insturmentation often uses more dangerous leveles for brighter lights, for instance...). Or.. large quantities (I do mean large.. tritium is used to boost nuclear weapons yield)

Tritium is the most expensive commercially available substance by mass.

All of these sites are in the US or ship to the US

http://www.cabelas.com/products/Cpod0003392.jsp

http://www.firebox.com/?dir=firebox&action=produ ct &pid=6

http://search.ebay.com/traser_W0QQsokeywordredir ec tZ1QQfromZR8

Nuclear Shmanuclear by Mulletproof · 2004-09-27 12:55 · Score: 0

Nuclear batteries?! Do you realize what would happen if one of these melted down??!???? They'd contaminate your bedroom for the next two billion years!

--
You need a FREE iPod Nano

I'm sick of this hate speech. by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2004-09-27 12:57 · Score: 1

the only thing you have to worry about are rednecks who think it's funny to melt down the batteries and mix them with paint for glow-in-the-dark wallpaper.

What do you have against rural workers of white or mixed white/indian/miscelaneous descent that you insist on characterizing them as stupid?

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way

Re:I'm sick of this hate speech. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 13:45 · Score: 0

What do you have against rural workers of white or mixed white/indian/miscelaneous descent that you insist on characterizing them as rednecks?
Re:I'm sick of this hate speech. by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2004-09-28 13:54 · Score: 1

What do you have against rural workers of white or mixed white/indian/miscelaneous descent that you insist on characterizing them as rednecks?

You misunderstand.

"Redneck" is the canonical name for such people - used by them, not just by those deriding them. It refers both to the tendency of a short-haired person working outdoors to get a sunburned neck and to the significant fraction of them with American Indian heritage.

It is NOT a perjorative. It is the name of an identifiable ethnic group. Like "southern blacks", "hispanics", "easterners", or "dead white males".

Using it in a perjorative fashion IS an ethnic slur.

Just imagine if AKAImBatman had said:

It still emits plenty of radiation once it's chemically stable, so the only thing you have to worry about are Jews who think it's funny to melt down the batteries and mix them with paint for glow-in-the-dark wallpaper. Even then, I rather doubt it will have much effect on them.
How would a Jew feel about that?

Rednecks feel much the same.

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way

Re:Its not new- radioactive Uranium in plane stabl by iMaple · 2004-09-27 12:58 · Score: 1

The point was that its still radioactive.

my bad... "thermionics".... by IBitOBear · 2004-09-27 13:00 · Score: 1

Blast, foiled by english voul sounds again batman... 8-)

Mia Culpa....

There *still* isn't enough funding for Thermionics research, and what there is, is *way* too clasified.

Other than that... was I wrong? 8-)

--
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press

Re:my bad... "thermionics".... by ByteSlicer · 2004-09-27 21:53 · Score: 1

And again, Robin. "Mia Culpa" is a girl's name, "Mea culpa" is latin for "my fault"...

Just like FOUNDATION novels by Hao+Wu · 2004-09-27 13:00 · Score: 0

This is much like Isaic Assimov idea about miniturization danger of technology. If one man has large power source (like a Nuclear battery), then one could power fantastic devices capable of great deeds. Such a man would be virtualy Indestructible.

--
I suggest you read Slashdot

Re:Just like FOUNDATION novels by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 13:44 · Score: 0

"If one man has large power source (like a Nuclear battery), then one could power fantastic devices capable of great deeds. Such a man would be virtualy Indestructible."

YEY! My 0.05 Watt battery makes me SUPERMAN!

R. Buckminster Fuller by loid_void · 2004-09-27 13:00 · Score: 1

and has a short half-life (~80 years)

and I believe it was R. (Bucky) Buckminster Fuller who said something to the effect that, "it's all carbon 12 in the end, give or take a few million years." Or was it 14?

--
Anyone seen my jagged little pill?

A Large battery size is important. by muntumbomoklik · 2004-09-27 13:05 · Score: 0

People already lose their tiny cellphones too often. I say we make batteries even bigger so I don't lose my damn gadget down the crack of a bus seat. Maybe we can switch to car sized lead-acid batteries for cellphones?

One isn't new, the other may be. by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2004-09-27 13:06 · Score: 1

They described two "new" inventions.

One amounts to putting a charged particle source (beta or alpha) close to, on, within, or sandwitched between one or more large diode junctions (read "solar cell") and using the cascade of electron-hole pairs created by the charged particles for power just like the ones created by absorbing solar photons.

This hack has been around since at least the '60s. (I always wondered why TI didn't put one in the tritium can of their tritium-dial watch.)

The other is a piezoelectric "tuning fork" cantelever with a radioactive source on it, making it "ring" and generate power from recoil. (I've never seen that one before.)

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way

pollution by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-27 13:06 · Score: 0, Flamebait

The pollution from 20th Century chemistry is already poisoning us. One of the biggest concerns as Hurricane Ivan swept towards New Orleans was the devastation from "Chemical Alley" up the Mississippi flushing down the river. Now we'll get radioactive manufacturing, too. And that's just in the US, where generations of activists have held on to minimal standards.

--

--
make install -not war

Irradiation by LadyVirharper · 2004-09-27 13:07 · Score: 2, Informative

I bet the consumer reaction would be similar to how I recall people reacting to Irradiated foods in biology class (link for the use of it). Here's a link against the use of it.

It is cool and it works by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 13:08 · Score: 1, Informative

Being at Cornell and working next to Amit Lal's group I have seen this thing actually work. It is definitely one of the coolest idea using MEMS. In the beginning I was concerned about radioactivity etc too, but the levels of radiation are way too low.

Original news http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/02/11.7.02/t iny_battery.html

Amit Lal's homepage: http://sonicmems.ece.cornell.edu/amit/

Nuclear Batteries? by darthtrevino · 2004-09-27 13:10 · Score: 1

I mean sure, you get alot of bang for your buck..but then your pet turtles will learn ninjitsu...

Great!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 13:11 · Score: 0

We'll be able to find them in the dark!

Two Words. Mouse Batteries. by Poppageorgio · 2004-09-27 13:13 · Score: 1

I'm sitting here reading this article, and the darn mouse batteries died, sending me on a mad scramble for some unused piece of electronics that hasn't already been pilfered to feed the hungry mouse gods. God, what I wouldn't do for a mouse who's batteries never died. (Re-chargable ain't gonna cut it).

--
Me fail English? That's unpossible!

Re:Two Words. Mouse Batteries. by Cprossu · 2004-09-27 15:21 · Score: 1

hmmmm I guess that would make playing "Half-Life" more realistic.... now the question is are you referring to a pet mouse or a computer mouse? if it's a real mouse, i dont think they can fit an RTG inside one easily, if it's a real mouse, there is a real life sollution that has been around ever since mouses were invented- use a CORDED MOUSE! =D

Easy by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 13:14 · Score: 0

If the media publishes panicky stories about the nuclear batteries, it's all over. Once Fox news gets it's hands on something, that product will never see the light of day.

Remember that the primary reason for the fear of attacks against nuclear powerplants originated from the media, trying to stir up a frenzy of fear. Normal people wouldn't think of something like that, and most people would realize the stupidity of such an idea.

In the end, it's up to the media whether this product enters common usage or not. I personally would be very interested to see how this product would perform in real life. Since I am a paranoid bastard I'd like to see some independent tests done on the batteries to ensure that they are safe before I begin using it.

Re:Someone who knows their physics please tell me by HermanAB · 2004-09-27 13:18 · Score: 1

Pacemaker batteries are actually reused, because they are horribly expensive and last multiple lifetimes. You can donate your pacemaker and it will be cleaned and re-used for someone else.

--
Oh well, what the hell...

The biggest issues I see... by Cprossu · 2004-09-27 13:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

The issues I personally see are
1) manufacturing the battery-in order for there to be a small source of radioisotope in somthing there has to be a big source of it the manufacturer spilts up...
this means safety becomes a concern, especially for people who manufacture them - not to mention the low level waste that will be created from the machines directly involved with manufacturing(ei getting irradiated) Now a good counter to that may be that we've been doing that with smoke detectors for years without problem (Americium 241 for those who want to know) so why should we have a problem with batteries? (in which I would then say that Am241 is a alpha particle(a high speed helium atom) emmiter rather than a beta emitter(a high speed electron and a neutrino) like the tin proposed in the batteries may be different to work with manufacture-wise
also
2) the other thing is what if a large shipment of these batteries happens to be involved in a fire [for reality, lets say a wholesaler's truck is the one in question {ei costco, sam's club}, so the quantity of batteries is fairly large]---that means the F.D. is dealing with ultimatly a HAZMAT fire....While burning sulfuric acid is bad, i think that burning radioactive tin would still be worse healthwise....

also
they mention that this form of tin decays into beta particles, I just know if there was a weak space in the shielding of the batteries it wouldn't be me who would be at risk, but rather my cell phone or pda-ever see what even insignificant background radiation does to electronics? (hint it is the same way they are harnessing power from the beta particles-through silicon electron displacement)

so for now as far as regular battery life extenders go, ill stick with a solar pannel glued to my hat thank you.

for a humerous note to a fairly large post, also as i saw the phrase "nickel-plutonium" battery laid out-please humor us with what isotope you are gona use ;) (remember if you use Pu280 like in RTG's then you A) have to shield it....ALOT, B) somehow minitureize it, and C) have to take the form of energy(heat) and harness it to the most efficiency that you can(as the more energy you take away, the less the overall compound heat is-which you also have to deal with getting rid of [I wouldnt want to burn myself on my PDA now would I? =D ]

There is significant environmental impact to this by xenophrak · 2004-09-27 13:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

Here's the rub with this type of technology: you can't guarantee that people will recycle these things and they won't get destroyed and leech into the environment.

I know that I recycle my Ni-Cd and Li-Ion batteries, but there are those that just chuck them in the trash. Most of the time, they are just incinerated, releaseing cadmium and other nasties into the atmosphere. Indeed, most incinerators have radiation detectors to stop the incidental incineration of radioactive material, but I'm not sure that I trust that everything works as planned.

Also, how many times have you seen batteries discarded and run over by cars in the street. Granted, most of these cells would be perminantly affixed to the device that they are powering, but you know corporations, anything to make a buck. I would give it max 10 years before you start seeing universal Po-AA cells that power legacy devices.

The other problem with using a radioactive source for your power is that if it does escape its confines, then it can easily become ingested. The largest potential risk from this exposure comes from alpha-emitters. They may be blocked by microlayers of dead skin, but if you swallow them they uptake and make residence in your soft tissue or bone and continue to irradiate local tissue for as long as they're active.

I personally would veto this technology, it's hard enough to stop smoke detectors from going in landfills already, do we really need to put more nuclear material into the water supply?

As an option, I would still like to see better solid hydrogen encapsulation for fuel cells. We already have capacity enough to generate a significant amount of hydrogen from plants like Solar 2 in the California desert.

--
Contrary to popular belief, life is not a bitch. It is far far worse.

Re:Its not new- radioactive Uranium in plane stabl by sadomikeyism · 2004-09-27 13:22 · Score: 1

The point is, no, it isn't. 238 is stable. It's 235 that is unstable... U238 makes up 99+% of all uranium in existence. It is very stable: i.e. it's half live is 4.46 billion years, longer than the planet Earth has existed. While yes, technically it does release an extremely SMALL amount of radiation (as ALL elements do) the long half life means that this level is extremely small, far less than the carbon-14 in your bones. You get more radiation from the exhaust of the Honda in front of you in traffic. You get more radiation from playing with a glow in the dark frisbee. You get more radiation from digging in your garden. Grow up, and, BTW, U238's radiation is all alpha particles.....

For the purposely ignorant, its the gammas that hurt.

--
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves

Interesting concept by Large+Bogon+Collider · 2004-09-27 13:25 · Score: 1

Funny thing is that I have thought about designing one years ago. However, the fact that these batteries are very high voltage (can be 100's of volts), very low current batteries limited their appeal to me. I still wonder how efficient they can be at powering small devices, which are usually run on very little voltage.

Tritium is a good source, as can be any beta or alpha emitter with a short half-life and if its decay products are not radioactive.

good concept, but... by recharged95 · 2004-09-27 13:27 · Score: 1

Kill 2 birds with 1 stone! I guess I can now get that brain tumor removed and be notified that my bill is passed due.

Seriously, what is the net energy produced? The 'bang for the buck', i.e. true cost? Haven't researched it yet, but nickel-63, tritium, or polonium-210 sounds like they would require complex and inefficient processes to create the 'raw fuel' need to make these devices to work. So the net gained energy maybe moot. It's a neat experiment & I'm sure they learned a lot, but the feasiblity (from a scientific, economic, environmental, social, technical perspective) is still a question. That's why I think bio-related processes wins hands down, they are more efficient, yet powerful enough. Heck, bio-energy processes have survived the last few million years, but of course more complex to understand and research. It would be a good fit to apply this article's concept to bio-based raw materials.

Maybe not for laptop batteries by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 13:28 · Score: 0

Right, guys?

Re:There is significant environmental impact to th by xenophrak · 2004-09-27 13:33 · Score: 1

Sorry to reply to my own post, but I was also thinking that if they choose a beta-emitter as a power source, you also have to worry about sheilding more due to beta-emission and xray emissions from beta strikes to copper or other metals commonly found in electronics.

That would mean that the whole electronic assembly might have to be shielded.

I am really starting to dislike this idea.

--
Contrary to popular belief, life is not a bitch. It is far far worse.

I wonder what creative dangers might evolve? by erroneus · 2004-09-27 13:36 · Score: 1

Could we make bombs?

Can we get cancer?

I'm all for advanced power sources. We need stuff that can power our lightsabers, phasers, and other wonders that have yet to be invented.

Oh noes, the anarchy! by stormyotaku · 2004-09-27 13:37 · Score: 1

I can just imagine some teenager getting bored one night and trying to cut one open. Next day, BAM! Charged with terrorism and held in jail indefinitely ;P

Remember the Bloom County... by erwin · 2004-09-27 13:38 · Score: 2, Funny

At the Science fair. Oliver has build a nuclear bomb as his project...

Teacher - "And where did you get the fissionable material?"
Oliver - "I scraped the luminous paint off 10,000 old watch dials"
Teacher (turning quickly and clapping hands) - "Class! Fire Drill!"

(and yes, I know the fuel mentioned in the article can't go critical. It's just a friggin' joke).

Re:Its not new- radioactive Uranium in plane stabl by sexecutioner · 2004-09-27 13:39 · Score: 1

Good post, however, and I guess I'm nit picking here, but:

"The point is, no, it isn't. 238 is stable."

You then correct yourself later by saying that it has a long half life. It is not stable, it does decay (Pb is the heaviest true stable element) but does so very slowly.

"For the purposly ignorant, its the gammas that hurt."

Sorry, but alpha particles will kill you too. However, you generally have to eat the material that's emitting them. This was the alpha particles can really get in close for some wild DNA busting action. Beta particles will also kill you, but you need to eat that as well. Radiation exposure is a very complex beast, based on all the probabilities involved, you will still get people contracting cancers after low-level radiation exposure. Was it the radiation? Or were they going to get cancer anyway? See, it's not so simple to say what is safe and what isn't.

Volta was a Johnny-Come-Lately by GMFTatsujin · 2004-09-27 13:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

Acidic batteries in ancient Baghdad: http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_11.htm

The Persians may not have known why batteries worked, but it appears that they knew how to make them.

Re:Its not new- radioactive Uranium in plane stabl by sadomikeyism · 2004-09-27 13:48 · Score: 1

Any radiation you've got to eat to die from, the person eating it deserves it (well, thats a bit simplistic, but like I said, for the willfully ignorant...). Evolution in action. Keeripes.... I ain't their momma. They can wipe their own behinds, can't they?

Got sick of seeing this ignorant bogosity when Michio Kaku was protesting the launch of the Cassini cause it has RTGs on it. Gimme a freakin break. You got more chance of gettin hit by an asteroid.

--
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves

And the winner is... by The+Meshback · 2004-09-27 13:48 · Score: 1, Funny

And the winner of the 2004 Slashdot award for the shortest, most concise and to the point article summary goes to...(opens envelope)...Anonymous Reader.

*Applause*

Traveller's troubles ahoy by nxtr · 2004-09-27 13:52 · Score: 1, Informative

Many countries, if not all, have tight security measures on importing radioactive substances. They often require special permits for such importation. I can imagine a law abiding citizen coming into a country with an electronic device with a radioactive battery, declaring that they have something radioactive and only be laughed at by customs officials and turned away from that country. Also, I should mention the fact that many airlines prohbit radioactive substances on their flights for many obvious reasons.

Obviously they didnt learn from gulf war syndrome by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 13:55 · Score: 0

They also said that the depleted uranium shells wouldn't cause our soldiers any ill effects. Well I guess if there's enough profit involved it will justify all the damage done to the environment, and our health (redundant).

In my own defence by einhverfr · 2004-09-27 13:56 · Score: 1

First, I did write the correct disclaimers so that if I was wrong (which I was), that it would ensure that people don't take it as either an expert opinion or a summary of the article.

Secondly, for milliwatt batteries, I could see something like this working, but it would still be a massively daunting engineering task-- the smaller the radioactive mass the more difficult it will be to collect the energy. Again we are talking milliwatts here. I suspect that this is all theoretically possible but the engineering may be some time off.

--

LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP

Re:In my own defence by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 15:19 · Score: 0

In your own defence? What possible defence could you have? You posted an opinion without reading the fucking article! It's like a fucking arm-chair mechanic diagnosing my automobile's mechanical problems when I mentioned I heard a grating sound when driving. Know what I did to that fucker? I stabbed him in his neck 20 times, and then cut his body into many small pieces and tossed them into the Gulf of Florida right before Jeanne came to "take another unfortunate victim". I might just do the same thing to you, you worthless piece of shit! (Time to check the weather forecast to see if there are any hurricanes expected in your area.)
Re:In my own defence by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 17:43 · Score: 0

Please remember to mark the "No Karma Bonus" checkbox when you post comments like these. Thanks.
--
Sick of pompous windbags? Change "Karma Bonus" modifier to -1 penalty.

Does it produce the 1.21 Gigawatts needed???? by Nemesis099 · 2004-09-27 14:10 · Score: 1

I need to power my flux capacitor to get back the future where they sell it on the shelves!!

Hooray! by shutdown+-p+now · 2004-09-27 14:11 · Score: 1

One step towards the future of Fallout.

What, you never wanted to find out how ghouls smell?

Not that dangerous... by KD5YPT · 2004-09-27 14:20 · Score: 1

If anyone even RTFA, they would notice that ALL the radioactive materials used in these batteries have very low penetration depth (less then a milli-meter, even less the a tenth of a milimeter). Which means they wouldn't get pass the layer of dead skins (skin cells that can't mutate) on your body. They wouldn't even make it out of their container.

--
In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.

Re:Not that dangerous... by aXis100 · 2004-09-27 15:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

That's mostly true - alpha emitters are normlly quite safe to handle.....however if they are breathed in or ingested, they can be quite dangerous as they can be in direct contact with healthy cells.

For example, burning them would be bad.

Direct generation by redsilo · 2004-09-27 14:30 · Score: 1

(snip) ONE OF THE MICROBATTERIES WE DEVELOPED early last year directly converted the high-energy particles emitted by a radioactive source into an electric current. (unsnip) I think this is well worth pursuing.

Not so fast there, Sparky! by the-other-bill · 2004-09-27 14:54 · Score: 1

But it is a myth that you require a certain amount of radiation for it to be dangerous. ANY amount is dangerous.

I've mentioned this URL before, and I'll do it again. Check out http://www.aapsonline.org/jpands/vol9no1/chen.pdf.

Apparently (and this is deduced from the hard body count) if you live for 20 odd years in a dwelling where the rebar had been contaminated with Cobalt 60, you end up with a cancer rate less that 4% of everybody else. And fewer babies get born with congenital defects. Now this was a gamma radiating event instead of dispersed inhaled alpha emitters, but it would still do us some good to start paying attention directly to what Mother Nature is telling us instead of blindly believeing everything we hear in college.

Hormesis good! Linear No Threshold bad!

Re:Not so fast there, Sparky! by vandan · 2004-09-27 15:12 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Sure. Live in radioactive area. Live longer.

You need to be more critical of what you read.

Extra alpha particles... by nns6561 · 2004-09-27 15:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

Microprocessor manufacturers are already going to great lengths to eliminate sources of high energy particles. This is just what they need, radioactive sources on the chip. This will make IBM's radioactive acid look like a joke. They already use old lead to minimize alpha particles. Lets add some polonium. This is the same stuff IBM uses to induce alpha particles to check for vulnerabilities. Processors do not need any more high energy particles floating around.

Obligitory Batman Quote by PIPBoy3000 · 2004-09-27 15:39 · Score: 1

Atomic batteries to power, turbines to speed!

As an odd aside, a couple weeks ago NASA announced a more efficient propulsion method for atomic-powered spacecraft. I doubt it would scale to the size they're talking about, but it's interesting nonetheless.

The future for this technology by mkiwi · 2004-09-27 15:56 · Score: 1

I applaud the research from said members of IEEE for their work, which will consequently mean nothing to anyone else. The government would never allow this, and if one reads the IEEE code, they wouldn't allow the technology into public either.

Have you actually looked at the word 'nuclear'? by wedgiesaurus · 2004-09-27 16:04 · Score: 1

I don't know why people think nuclear has three syllables, but I can assure you it doesn't. It's spoken just as it looks like it should be- nu-clear (new-clear)... Just a friendly grammar check from your local neighborhood spell checker.

But moving right along, it surely will be funny to see how the tree hugging hippies respond to this development. Maybe they'll horde them so we can't have them, and then grow extra arms for hugging trees more effectively!!

Re:Have you actually looked at the word 'nuclear'? by uberdave · 2004-09-27 16:28 · Score: 1, Informative

I have never heard it pronounced the way you suggest. The dictionary has it listed as either new-klee-ur or newk-you-lur.

--
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad

Soup those nucubats up by cryptochrome · 2004-09-27 16:11 · Score: 1

I recall reading a another article about mems-based micropower supplies. But in that case, they were designed to turn stray vibrations from the environment into power. The mems-based nuclear battery designs sound awfully similar. I suspect that it would be possible to make a mems device capable of absorbing power from both vibration and particle emission, thereby increasing output and useful lifetime.

Likewise, the diode-type nuclear battery could double as a photovoltaic cell if it was made in the right type. Consider planting a radioisotope seed in the center of the photovoltaic beads that spheral solar's panels use. All particles would be absorbed by the silicon and there would be no need for additional sheilding. Manufacture would be easier than with a conventional flat cell.

In both cases, the devices would derive a good portion of their power from non-nuclear sources, nuclear power alone would provide a constant if reduced stream of power, and as the isotopes wear out the devices continue to function when source power is available. It may have its uses.

--

---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

Lots of low level radiation ? good idea by fsterman · 2004-09-27 16:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

" Here's another idea: give each component--sensor, actuator, microprocessor--its own nuclear microbattery."

Okay, I was in Honors chemistry, my favorite part was nuclear chem, I did a massive research project on fusion reactors. I would take a good well managed Nuclear reactor over a coal one any day BUT just like I am tired of being exposed to waaaaaay too many low levels of chemicals as is this had better get some good shielding!

Since the nuclear industry has done sooo poorly in the past the maybe these batteries will be monitored like everything else should be!

And what about disposal? I am over an aquifer! A shitload of low amounts of radiation builds up. Now there are ways to lower the half life and recycle most of waste. Hopefully they just use tritium, then it's like 12 years and there is an unlimited supply of it in the ocean. Just one cubic kilometer is enough to power INSANE amounts.

--
Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?

Odd approach. by Christopher+Thomas · 2004-09-27 16:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

What I don't understand is why they went with the electromechanical scheme that they used, instead of epitaxially depositing a big stack of P-I-N diodes and letting the ionizing radiation work its magic directly. The article mentions a single-layer diode test, but you want a big enough stack to sap charge from the entire trail left by the alpha or beta particle that's plowing through the device.

The electromechanical scheme has the virtue of collecting almost all of the energy as (nominally) usable heat, but conversion efficiency stinks, from what I can gather. Junction efficiency won't be so hot either (for the same reason solar cell efficiency is poor - carriers are given more energy than required to overcome the band-gap), but not too bad (anything over 10-15 eV will just create secondary showers of lower-energy electrons).

Can anyone familiar with these issues tell me what I'm missing?

not a chance by poptones · 2004-09-27 16:59 · Score: 1

they'd catch him first. why do you think radio shack records your name and address every time you buy batteries?

Exit signs by Kevin108 · 2004-09-27 17:05 · Score: 0

A lot of commercial exit signs are registered with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and can release a small degree of radiation. One manufacturer is Isolite (IE only, the bastards). For more information http://www.isolite.com/aboutluminousprintable.htm

--

It's a perfect time for being wasted.
A perfect time to watch the stars.
- Burden Brothers, "Beautiful Night"

Re:Someone who knows their physics please tell me by uberdave · 2004-09-27 17:22 · Score: 1

There are a number of ways of harnessing power from a lump of nuclear fuel. RTGs are basically a heat engine, harnessing the heat given off by the decay. There are also nuclear batteries that use a PN junction to capture the radiation given off (basically strapping the radioactive material to a solar cell). One of the batteries mentioned in the article captures the electrons given off, and uses the resultant charge to bend a piezoelectric crystal, much like a reed in a musical instrument.

--
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad

Yup, it's a question of study before action by SnappingTurtle · 2004-09-27 17:27 · Score: 1

Yeah, I know "me too" posts are deprecated, but I just gotta compliment you on putting into clear words what I was thinking.

The question isn't whether or not the technology is definitely dangerous or not, it's whether or not sufficient study and testing has been put into determining its safety.

The top level poster declares the batteries must be safe because the radiation they put out is minimal. Well, so far so good. What about the manufacturing processes? What about the transportation of dangerous chemicals? What about what happens when the batteries end up crushed up in junkyards? That needs to be studied.

Somebody mentioned that hospital x-ray machines were hotly debated. It turns out they should have been. Some of the worst radiation accidents have been from old discarded hospital X-Ray machines that got beaten up and then put into landfills. I cringe when I ponder how many of these batteries will end up in landfills.

Of course, reactionary anti-environmentalists will immediately point out that chemical batteries fill out landfills, and certainly that's a problem. But as usual their argument centers around the perverse idea that two wrongs make a right: as long as you can point out other environmental disasters, it's ok to have a few more.

Hey, FWIW I do think these batteries sound promising. We shouldn't reject them out of hand. But we shouldn't accept them out of hand either. A lot of study is needed.

--
I've found that my posts don't format quite right w/o a sig.

Re:Yup, it's a question of study before action by Ohreally_factor · 2004-09-27 18:40 · Score: 1

My main problem with the top level poster was the tone he used, which is designed to forclose on discussion, or even study. Claiming science is on his side, he will ridicule any attempts to reasonable ascertain the dangers, and bemoan the "red tape" of having to study the safety of such devices.

Doc was right to call him on this.

--
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Re:Yup, it's a question of study before action by ReallyNiceGuy · 2004-09-27 22:05 · Score: 1

I am very sorry to disagree, but the problems was never with X-ray machines. They are devices that operates at high voltage to create the x-ray emission. When they are off, they are completely inert. What you may be refering to is to the radiotherapy machines that operates with cesium-137 isotope. These are really dangerous if disposed improperly.
Re:Yup, it's a question of study before action by SnappingTurtle · 2004-09-27 22:14 · Score: 1

What you may be refering to is to the radiotherapy machines that operates with cesium-137 isotope.
I'll file that data away. Thanks. :-)

--
I've found that my posts don't format quite right w/o a sig.

Be the first kid on your block … by Matarick · 2004-09-27 17:31 · Score: 2, Funny

with the Nuclear Armageddon Remote Control Godzilla, as seen in Godzilla: Final Wars.
Caution, wear radioactive gear when pressing the atomic breath button.
Suitable for children ages 5 and up

Re:There is significant environmental impact to th by geekoid · 2004-09-27 18:04 · Score: 1

the particls that talk about could only penetrate 25mm, and would be blocked by the dead skin on your body.
One of the elements had a half-lif of 138 days. So it would become insert material and less dangerous to the enviroment then pretty much any battery made today.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

You're still doing it! by Ohreally_factor · 2004-09-27 18:56 · Score: 1

You obviously still haven't rtfa!

I suspect that this is all theoretically possible but the engineering may be some time off.

Wrong! RTFA, and see what I'm talking about.

You're worse than an armchair expert, you're an armchair expert with your head willfully lodged where the sun doesn't shine, and you refuse to pull it out and breath the air the rest of us breaths.

--
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.

Not All Radioactive Decay are Equal by lunpa · 2004-09-27 19:00 · Score: 1

The type of radioisotopes being consider for nuclear batteries are not the ones that are used in reactors or nuclear bombs. The ones being considered are nickel-63 and tritium, They have much lower energy density than that of fissile materials. Because of the lower energy density, the particles they emit are less energetic than the radioactive materials most poeple think of. For example, the particle these candidate isotopes emit penetrate no more than 25 micrometers in most materials, so you can actually contain these particles by a simple packaging. And also remember that the layer of dead skin over your body are thicker than 25 microns. With that being said, these batteries will only able to power very low power device or used to trickle charge a much larger chemical battery. The only advantage is they can trickle charge for months or years (depending of the half-life of the isostope). So, don't expect these batteries to reach critical mass, or X-ray your genitals into impotence and most of all, don't expect them to power anything more than a PDA.

Re:Its not new- radioactive Uranium in plane stabl by Ohreally_factor · 2004-09-27 19:15 · Score: 1

Any radiation you've got to eat to die from, the person eating it deserves it (well, thats a bit simplistic, but like I said, for the willfully ignorant...). Evolution in action. Keeripes.... I ain't their momma. They can wipe their own behinds, can't they?

So, does the geiger counter go next to the salad fork, when you set the table? Miss Manners has been of no help with this.

--
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.

First observation of electron decay by Cardbox · 2004-09-27 19:32 · Score: 5, Funny

Hidden away in the article is a discovery that will revolutionize our understanding of particle physics and cosmology:

Nickel-63 is ideal for this application because its emitted beta particles travel a maximum of 21 micrometres in silicon before disintegrating

This must imply that there exists a lighter lepton than the electron. Goodbye, Standard Model!

Re:First observation of electron decay by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-28 11:44 · Score: 0

I can't be bothered to RTFA, but "beta" includes e+ (positron) as well as e- emitters.

In other news by tod_miller · 2004-09-27 20:00 · Score: 1

al-EEE have a story on using small nuclear batteries, duct tape, and a grenade, to produce a nice dirty bomb.

Seriously, the problem with safety is, you never know what it will be used for.

Anything that leaks something something as invisible and deadly as radioactive substances into the general populace (not saying it will be! I mean, this has uses for the space program right?) might be safe, until you realise some half crazed idiot will exploit it.

--
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com

Re: Big Problem by andersa · 2004-09-27 20:38 · Score: 1

One big problem which I think will significantly reduce the commercial usefulness of these devices are that the battery drains weither you use it or not.

This means that you probably wont be able to sell them in regular supermarkets, because by the time the customer picks it from the shelf, the battery will have drained itself.

You would have to get the battery directly from the manufacturer to the consumer, probably on demand. There is no way to recharge this kind of battery, so this is something that has to be taken into account in the application.

except if it gets inside you. by RMH101 · 2004-09-27 21:17 · Score: 1

breathe particles in, for example, and you're fvcked. this is high school stuff.

Re:except if it gets inside you. by Christopher+Thomas · 2004-09-28 10:39 · Score: 1

breathe particles in, for example, and you're fvcked. this is high school stuff.

Quantity matters. You're already beathing carcinogenic car exhaust and second-hand tobacco smoke, as well as lovely alpha-emitting radon from natural sources.

The important number to find is "amount of material needed to provide a larger carcinogenic effect than you're already receiving". As with so many other situations, "relative risk" is a concept that most people don't seem to grasp.

Radioactivity in the Body by ianturton · 2004-09-27 21:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

This site discusses the fact that radioactive Potassium is the largest source of Beta-radiation in the body. As an earth-science undergrad I learnt that coffee is in fact too radioactive to landfill under current EU regulations.

We went on a field trip where we were supposed to use a gigier meter to determine where the bed rock changed from granite to sandstone. In fact all we could determine was which farmers used more potassium based fertilser than others. You could pick the field boundaries out in the plots but nothing useful about the geology.

Ian

Re:Radioactivity in the Body by UrgleHoth · 2004-09-29 02:33 · Score: 1

As an earth-science undergrad I learnt that coffee is in fact too radioactive to landfill under current EU regulations
That is a bold statement. Got any supporting documentation?

--

Dogma - "let's just say we'd like to avoid any empirical entanglements."
Re:Radioactivity in the Body by ianturton · 2004-09-29 03:39 · Score: 1

Well this site gives details of the ammount of potassium in coffee (highest listed) as 115mg per 100g.
Specific activity (picocuries of potassium-40 per gram of potassium) = 818 pCi/g (see here)
and the UK Radioactive Substances Act 1993 (c. 12) says you can't put radioactive waste in to landfills. I accept that they aren't really going to stop you but technically you shouldn't!
See also this article on radiological problems in food and other goods.
Ian
Re:Radioactivity in the Body by UrgleHoth · 2004-09-29 04:08 · Score: 1

From this http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1993/U kpga_19930012_en_2.htm
(b) a substance possessing radioactivity which is wholly or partly attributable to a process of nuclear fission or other process of subjecting a substance to bombardment by neutrons or to ionising radiations, not being a process occurring in the course of nature, or in consequence of the disposal of radioactive waste, or by way of contamination in the course of the application of a process to some other substance.

This tells me that coffee is not radioactive waste, nor radioactive material as per this legislation as potassium is not listed on Schedule 1
Now if you can find that coffee contains a substance on schedule 1 in such quantities as to fall under section (a) of "meaning of radioactive material" then I will have to agree with you that coffee as waste is radioactive waste. Until and unless that time, I have to say that you were misled in your statement that coffee is a radioactive material/waste, according to British law.

--

Dogma - "let's just say we'd like to avoid any empirical entanglements."

Re: "Loose" vs "Lose". by some+guy+I+know · 2004-09-27 22:12 · Score: 1

How does kinetic energy become "loose", you illiterate fool?

The O.P. obviously meant "loose" as in "Loose the dogs!".
So the point is that the kinetic energy will no longer be tied up or penned within a kennel, but will be free to chase and bite atoms and other matter within its vicinity.

--
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana

Teh half crazed idiot by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 22:20 · Score: 0

Dude, sweet, these smoke alarms were gettin kinda expensive.

Get snipped by georgeha · 2004-09-28 00:21 · Score: 1

I did, and it was the best $15 I ever spent. Two kids are plenty.

Re:Is this really something the public can accept? by maxpublic · 2004-09-28 00:56 · Score: 1

then how can we convince this same uneducated public to adopt nuclear batteries?

By showing the public that the fanatics in the green movement are no more credible than the loons in PETA? The public as a whole already thinks that PETA is composed of a bunch of crazy wild-eyed pot-smoking hippies bent on 'freeing' the steaks from their fridge; with our friend 'market spin' it shouldn't be too hard to equate critics of the batteries with the rest of the crazies.

Apart from that there is hope. About a year ago I read on article on environmentalist views held by a cross-section of the U.S. population, in terms of percentages. It turns out that the vast majority of hard-core environmentalists are concentrated in the over-40 age group (boomers); those under forty tended to be more environmentally aware than their parents were, but far less likely to hold strong or extremist beliefs. For example, the under-40 crowd were likely to answer in favor of hydroelectric power over preservation of fish species, to prefer incentives to recycle rather than punishments for failing to do so, and saw nuclear power as a possible solution to an energy crisis rather than as a threat because of the hazards of operation.

What that means is that most of our environmental extremists are concentrated in a single generation. Nearly all of these people will be retired within twenty years, and of course their numbers are dwindling as they get culled by disease, accidents, and old age. Even if the rest of us prove unable to defeat the fanatics when it comes to nuclear power (or derivative developments, like this battery), time alone will do the job for us. In twenty years, thirty years tops, most of the unthinking opposition to all things technology will be dead and gone, leaving us to do as we please.

Max

--
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?

Cell phones by MacGod · 2004-09-28 01:13 · Score: 1

And you thought your cell phone gave you brain cancer before!

--
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one " -Albert Einstein

fill 'er up by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-28 01:44 · Score: 0

There's no reason that the amount of tritium needed for a microbattery couldn't cost just a few cents.

Damn, we'll be running cars on water after all !!
(replace the hydrogen with no neutrons in H2O with the isotope of hydrogen called tritium with guess how many neutrons in tri...)

can you say.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-28 02:04 · Score: 0

nucular??

Obligatory notice by narsiman · 2004-09-28 02:22 · Score: 1

Nucular batteries. Please post all other 'funny' rated comments under this thread.

they are talking about using Tritium in place of by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-28 02:25 · Score: 0

they are talking about using Tritium in place of nickel 63

Tritium which is what the glowing hands on most high end watches are made of

Tritium is used all the time in consumer products

/. /.ing itself very slowly by Rares+Marian · 2004-09-28 02:27 · Score: 1

Cluckshot says potassium is an alpha-emitter whereas the post above his says it's a beta-emitter.

Okay. So now we see that /. will be installed on a machine with holographic memories, which will some day tell some guy named Dave that it cannot open the pod bay doors unless Dave gets it a shrubbery or some similar item found in outer space.

--
The message on the other side of this sig is false.

Re:/. /.ing itself very slowly by cluckshot · 2004-09-28 04:01 · Score: 1

It would appear that Potassium-40 is a beta emitter. My error

--
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.

Re:Is this really something the public can accept? by fgb · 2004-09-28 02:35 · Score: 1

Easy, change the name so it doesn't have the word "nuclear" in it.

When Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging first came out, the public was not eager to accept the new technology. So they took out the word "nuclear", NMRIs became MRIs and everyone was happy with that.

Re:obligatory Oscar Wilde quote... by gadget+junkie · 2004-09-28 02:49 · Score: 1

Only the very shallow minded do not judge by appearance.

--
"If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)

Woohoo! by d_jedi · 2004-09-28 02:50 · Score: 1

Can the Simpsons plutonium-based batteries be far away? (You know.. the ones that made Bart and Lisa appear on the Itchy and Scratchy Show?)

--
I am the maverick of Slashdot

Listen to Nader by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-28 04:07 · Score: 0

You listen to a guy who has no idea what he's talking about. Good job. 2 Thumbs up for you!

Re:Someone who knows their physics please tell me by shadowbearer · 2004-09-28 13:22 · Score: 1

Can anyone else think of a misssion that would exhaust 5-10 years worth of power? ;-)

The search for WMD on Mars? :-D

SB

--
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.

Re:Its not new- radioactive Uranium in plane stabl by sexecutioner · 2004-09-28 13:28 · Score: 1

For sure, eating radioactive material is a pretty stupid thing to do. But, that's what happens when you get fallout from a nuclear blast/accident/explosion. The radioactive isotopes are taken up by plants and animals and contaminate water supplies. It would be very easy for people to consume the material under such cirumstances, hence the risk.

And hey, you're right about Cassini, I'm all for the RTGs.

And your evidence is? by Dire+Bonobo · 2004-09-28 14:22 · Score: 1

> I'm recalled of the numerous instances of intentially jibberish papers making the cut in peer review

"Numerous instances"? Name a few.

(And the intentional-jibberish article by a physicist into a comp lit journal isn't one of them; you're attempting to cast aspersions on physicists, not literature academics.)

> I'm deeply disappointed the above post was modded up

Then refute some of his points with actual evidence. The "disappointment" of an anonymous poster is...less than persuasive.

Sold out by mrmeval · 2004-09-30 20:17 · Score: 1

Traser

--
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty

452 comments