123
World's 1st nuclear-diamond battery of its kind could power devices for 1000s of years (www.livescience.com)
submitted 2 days ago by Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world to c/hardware@lemmy.world
42 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The world's first nuclear-powered battery, which uses a radioactive isotope embedded in a diamond, could power small devices for thousands of years, scientists say.

The nuclear battery uses the reaction of a diamond placed close to a radioactive source to spontaneously produce electricity, scientists at the University of Bristol in the U.K. explained in a Dec. 4 statement. No motion — neither linear nor rotational — is required. That means no energy is needed to move a magnet through a coil or to turn an armature within a magnetic field to produce electric current, as is required in conventional power sources.

The diamond battery harvests fast-moving electrons excited by radiation, similar to how solar power uses photovoltaic cells to convert photons into electricity, the scientists said.

top 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

What irks me is that neither the article nor the press information of the university linked within the article mentions how much power one can draw from such a battery. They only mention that it could be used for RFID like devices, which is not exactly a precise information.

[-] Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

15 Joules per 1g batteries over 24 hours. So around 0.416 watthours split linearly over 24 hours for a 100 g battery.

[-] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

The figure in the article was per gram of Carbon-14, which is only one ingredient of the battery, so I'd imagine that the 15J/24h is for a much larger assembly. It might have a better energy density than an RTG, but that's already a low bar.

[-] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yall are thinking about personal computers.

How about diffused led light markings on every road, vehicle, in every public building. Motion and other sensors build in so they are only active when someone is near.

I hate current street lamps, super bright and on all night.

Give us tron *aesthetic and bring back dark nightsky.

[-] x00z@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

The dark nightsky is one of the most beautiful things in the world!

[-] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago

Aesthetic, no?

[-] feddylemmy@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Subnautica vibes

[-] ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.zip 48 points 2 days ago

Yo this makes me think of the long lasting nuclear powered gadgets in the Foundation books

[-] jherazob@fedia.io 35 points 2 days ago

Or how every time you enter some ancient ruins on some game, EVERYTHING is still working despite not having seen a person in a millenia

[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 10 points 1 day ago

If video games have taught me anything, it's that ghost towns and ancient ruins apparently require less maintenance and upkeep than my own fucking house.

[-] prime_number_314159@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

The secret is that rats are committed Luddites. They chew through wires, but maintain and restore the elegant mechanisms of times long past.

You may expect that a few rats couldn't roll a 6 ton stone boulder back up a hill, but rats are also capable of growing to very different sizes depending on their environment.

[-] GhiLA@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

walk up to abandoned building in STALKER 2

30+ years after Chernobyl

the lights are on

...

[-] TheOakTree@lemm.ee 8 points 1 day ago

enter dangerous bunker overridden by monsters in STALKER 2

someone locked up the bunker to contain the monsters, been like that for 10 years

find fresh sausage and bread in a locker

[-] GhiLA@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Fresh!? Blyat!

These sausages have been seasoned by Chernobyl, blin!

Best seasoning in the zone, Stalgar! Puts hair on your tumors!

[-] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

I can get a sausage from Lidl that claims it's safe to eat for two years with no refrigeration, so by lowering my standards to the levels of someone who'd go into a bunker like that, I could probably make the claim out was fresh after a decade.

[-] Damage@slrpnk.net 7 points 2 days ago

And torches are lit

[-] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 days ago

's nuclear fire

[-] kautau@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

Well yeah they perfected those nuclear diamond batteries

[-] KoalaUnknown@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

It would be cool if they could make pacemakers with these.

[-] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 5 points 1 day ago

they don't mention size but it sounds like the kind of thing asimov had in the foundation series books (I have not seen the series).

[-] Zier@fedia.io 14 points 2 days ago

Imagine having your vibrator never run out of power, even on the go.

[-] Valmond@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago

"RRRRTTTTTRRRRRRTTTTTTTRRRRRRRTTTTTT"

FUCK IT WON'T STOP THE BUTTON IS BROKEN!

[-] over_clox@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago

Meanwhile, Apple and Samsung are probably actively trying to sweep this under the digital rug. They can't have devices out there that last more than 2, maybe 3 years...

[-] Godort@lemm.ee 51 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Unfortunately, the tech won't work for a high-power device like a smartphone. Last I read, these produce energy on the milliwatt scale.

They'll be incredibly useful for things like weather sensors and the like.

[-] Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world 21 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

From the article:

A single nuclear-diamond battery containing 1 gram [0.04 ounce] of carbon-14 could deliver 15 joules of electricity per day. For comparison, a standard alkaline AA battery, which weighs about 20 grams [0.7 ounces], has an energy-storage rating of 700 joules per gram. It delivers more power than the nuclear-diamond battery would in the short term, but it would be exhausted within 24 hours.

It seems that even a 100 gram nuclear-diamond battery would not be able to sustain a modern smartphone.

My calculations might be off, but it seems even a highly optimized low powered smartphone (say 10 watthours for 24 hours under regular use) would need x25 lower power consumption to work with a 100 g nuclear-diamond battery. And you would likely still need an additional battery of some sort (which would need to be replaced) to handle peaks (don't think modern smartphones can function under ~420 mwatt peak max).

[-] over_clox@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago

I'm gonna drop an addendum...

A wristwatch should be able to at bare minimum last at least 24 hours (you know, like a full day), before it needs recharge.

Apple Watch is like the absolute worst example of this, it has an expected battery life of around 18 hours. It doesn't even function as a proper watch if it can't even last 24 hours.

My watch (not my first merry go round with dumb watches), can at least perform their intended timekeeping function for 5 to 10 years, depending on how often you use the backlight button.

Sometimes dumb tech is nice, I don't wanna talk to my watch anyways, it's just there to tell time..

[-] Eheran@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Who uses something for 24 hours straight? 18 hours is a full day of use. How many need this things to run through the night too and how many resources would be wasted actually making it that way?

[-] over_clox@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Ever heard of the alarm function on a watch?

Yeah, some of us use the alarm, it's kinda nice when the watch can at least have a few days charge, in case something comes up and I'm out of town longer than expected and didn't bring my charger.

Given that the technology for clocks and watches that last upwards of a decade on a single battery has been around for quite a while, I don't feel I should be bothered having to recharge my watch every day. Besides, smart watches just happen to be yet another tracking device.

I'm actually a fan of simple dumb watches and clocks that can last a long time, or basically indefinitely. Or just amazing clocks in general...

Atmos Clock (Powered by atmospheric pressure changes): https://youtube.com/watch?v=Jzl8HutWvw0

Automatic Self Winding Watch: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZiubuxAAsXE

Solar Powered Watches: https://youtube.com/watch?v=oHxyp_0rW5M

Lego Mangle Rack Clock: https://youtube.com/watch?v=GUdlSYC1cCE

Digital Sundial: https://youtube.com/watch?v=wrsje5It_UU

Of course you don't have to watch any of those videos if you don't care to, but if you have any appreciation for awesome timekeeping devices, you'll probably find all those videos rather interesting.

Edit: This happens to be my current watch, a Casio WS-1300H. Mine has a custom modified spiked wrist band..

https://youtube.com/watch?v=WVAO4_AfPEY

https://lemmy.world/post/22860120

Happy Holidays!

[-] Eheran@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Comparing the runtime of a simple watch to a smart watch is a bit odd. Obviously you need next to no energy to run a simple clock, technology has been at that point since many decades. But for something with an actual screen, that does a ton of computing and has to connect to other devices.... we are not there yet. If you reduce the requirements you get some days of runtime with some still smart-ish watches.

But if you really want the watch from Apple... Just bring the charger? That is really not a big deal. The same way phones used to last days when all they did was wait for a call, but now they do not and people understand that.

[-] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 1 points 1 day ago

There are plenty of smartwatches that can last several days. The Apple watch is just bad in that regard.

[-] Eheran@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

I already said that.

[-] over_clox@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago

Gotcha, understood.

Still, why is it that an Apple watch can't even last 24 hours without needing a recharge, when I'm literally wearing a Casio designed to last 10 fucking years on a single button cell battery (that ain't even rechargeable no less)?

[-] Rexios@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago

The Apple Watch can easily last over 24 hours if you only use it as a watch and nothing else. The 18 hour estimate Apple provides is if you use all the features throughout the day such as exercise tracking, notifications, quick replying to messages, etc. If anything the 18 hour number is under selling the battery life.

[-] over_clox@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Okay, fair enough. I'm still just not a fan of having to regularly recharge a watch.

[-] ObsidianZed@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

To be fair, a standard (non-smart) watch uses a fraction of power compared to an Apple Watch which is still essentially a iPhone.

With that said, I have a Samsung watch, and though I charge it daily, it could probably last up to 3 days, so I don't know what Apple is doing.

[-] Linktank@lemmy.today 5 points 2 days ago

Yet!

[-] johsny@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago

Is that the tesseract?

[-] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 4 points 2 days ago

Jesus no. Its bad enough trying to recycle a lead acid or lithium battery.

Where the fuck am I going to safely recycle nuclear waste embedded in a diamond?!?

[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

Leave that to future generations, as it will still deliver half its original power in 5000 years.

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

It lasts 1000 years. Your great great grand children would never have to worry about this.

[-] Hardeehar@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Maybe in 1000 years we can just toss it out of the spaceship

[-] rickyrigatoni@lemm.ee -1 points 1 day ago

How do you know I won't live that long? With thousand year power sources anything is possible.

this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2024
123 points (93.0% liked)

Hardware

773 readers
167 users here now

All things related to technology hardware, with a focus on computing hardware.

Rules (Click to Expand):

  1. Follow the Lemmy.world Rules - https://mastodon.world/about

  2. Be kind. No bullying, harassment, racism, sexism etc. against other users.

  3. No Spam, illegal content, or NSFW content.

  4. Please stay on topic, adjacent topics (e.g. software) are fine if they are strongly relevant to technology hardware. Another example would be business news for hardware-focused companies.

  5. Please try and post original sources when possible (as opposed to summaries).

  6. If posting an archived version of the article, please include a URL link to the original article in the body of the post.

Some other hardware communities across Lemmy:

Icon by "icon lauk" under CC BY 3.0

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
CSFFlame@lemmy.world
Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world
Rekall_Incorporated@lemm.ee