Where are the consumer atomic batteries?! (Ideas)
Jerason Banes
Generators and I've been consistently surprised at how little research
has been done in the past 30 years. RTGs today are only mildly more
efficient than they were 30 years ago. Not to mention that NO RESEARCH
appears to have been done to bring RTGs (or similar technologies) to
consumers! My laptop only runs for 4 hours! Why can't it run for
years?
( For those unfamiliar with Radioisotope Thermal Generators, please
see http://www.atomicinsights.com/AEI_Topics.html#Batteries )
Well, I think I have an idea on how to build an efficient battery for
portable electronic use. Very simply, I think one could build a
Stirling engine small enough to power a portable device. Here's a
rough drawing of my device:
http://iambatman.homeip.net/stirling-battery.png
The basic concept is that a Radioisotope would be used to irradiate a
surrounding metal shield. As a result, this metal shield will begin to
heat. The area of the shield is vacuum insulated on all sides except
for the side facing the piston. In this way, the maximum amount of
heat will be directed toward useful work. Like any Stirling engine,
the heat will begin to transfer to the air between the piston and the
cylinder. As the air heats up, the piston will be forced into an
upward motion. When the piston reaches above the exhaust port, the
heat will be allowed to escape and the piston will fall, thus
restarting the air expansion process.
The piston's motion will be transfered to a crankshaft via a rocker
arm attached to the piston. The crankshaft's rotary motion will then
be transferred to an attached DC generator (such as a dynamo or rotary
generator). The electricity produced by the generator is then
transferred to a traditional battery, where it is stored until the
device has need of it. In this way, the engine only needs to provide
enough power to slow charge the device, and not enough to actually
power it at maximum draw.
For example, a cell phone may use tens of watts of electricity when in
use. However, when in standby mode, it can be charged with a mere 1.3
watts! (3.7V at 350 mA, according to my cell phone charger.)
Similarly, my laptop charge delivers 65W to charge the battery, even
though maximum draw may be as high as 150W. (Actually, standard draw
may often be significantly less than 65W, so it may be possible to
charge with even less electricity.)
A few points not addressed above or in the drawing are:
1. A kill switch would need to be added to prevent overcharging of the
battery. In this case, either some internal equipment could be turned
on to make use of the extra power, or it could be shunted to a dud
device that dissipates it as heat.
2. Motion could provide a serious impairment to the operation of the
engine. It may make sense to use a dual cylinder design, so that the
engine will eventually overcome any centrifugal forces that may be
applied.
3. The drawing gives no sense of scale or depth. The various parts are
assumed to be between 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch in depth. The length and
width are dependent on how much energy should be produced, and the
most efficient size for the amount of radioisotope being used. The
resulting product should fit easily into the casing of a standard
rechargeable battery pack.
4. I don't know of any reason why the piston can't be rectangular
instead of cylindrical. This would help simplify the manufacture of
the engine.
I'm afraid that my background is actually in computer sciences, so I
lack the necessary skills to calculate the exact power output and
amount of radioisotope necessary. In part, it depends on the isotope
used. Strontium-90 would be an excellent choice given its fairly high
energy density and "safe" beta radiation. The determining factor,
however, would be the economics. There's practically no information on
the 'net concerning the cost of various radioisotopes. Not to be
deterred, I believe I have a business model that may account for high
prices in isotopes.
Very simply, the best model for this type of battery would be an
annual or biannual lease. The consumer would pay X amount of dollars
per year to lease the battery. At the end of the lease, they must
return or exchange their battery for a new one. The old battery would
then be sent back to the factory for refurbishment. The radioisotope
would be reprocessed and replenished, the parts checked, and the
battery cell replaced. In this way, most of the expensive radioisotope
will be recovered and reused. This would lead to a continual drop in
the cost of producing batteries, only limited by the half-life of the
isotope, and the cost of machining and refurbishing the engine.
So, anyone have any thoughts or comments on this design? I'm
particularly interested to hear why or why not you think it would
succeed.
G. R. L. Cowan
In decaying to 90-Zr though 90-Y,
strontium-90 *usually* doesn't emit a gamma ray.
You still need a fairly heavy shield if your inventory of 90-Sr
is enough to power something big like a radio.
Radioisotopes can't be turned off,
even if spread all over a workbench by your handy cousin.
For most loads, most of the energy would go to waste.
(The outer planet probes are a notable exception.)
The power available in radioisotopes due to fission
is always a small fraction of the power released
by the fission itself; so for instance if you run
a reactor at average 2,500 thermal MW for 30 years,
then shut down for five years, the cooling pond
containing its lifetime output of spent fuel contains
a little less than 1 MW. That's including everything,
90-Sr and all. So if all that heat just warms water,
it's no big deal.
If you want a multi-billion-year battery
for up to a few time-averaged watts,
what's not to like about a battery with attached PV cell?
--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc --
fireproof fuel, real-car range, no emissions
Jerason Banes
> strontium-90 *usually* doesn't emit a gamma ray.
> You still need a fairly heavy shield if your inventory of 90-Sr
> is enough to power something big like a radio.
True enough. That's why it makes sense to use Lead as the shield. It should
conduct heat quite well, while providing the necessary shielding.
> Radioisotopes can't be turned off,
> even if spread all over a workbench by your handy cousin.
> For most loads, most of the energy would go to waste.
> (The outer planet probes are a notable exception.)
This is also true. That's why it's best to build the generator with just
enough power to slow charge the battery cell. Not only will it make the
generator less expensive, but it will help make sure that all that power
goes to use.
> The power available in radioisotopes due to fission
> is always a small fraction of the power released
> by the fission itself; so for instance if you run
> a reactor at average 2,500 thermal MW for 30 years,
> then shut down for five years, the cooling pond
> containing its lifetime output of spent fuel contains
> a little less than 1 MW. That's including everything,
> 90-Sr and all. So if all that heat just warms water,
> it's no big deal.
Ah! But it's useful energy to a consumer! A few watts of output goes a long
way in consumer devices.
> If you want a multi-billion-year battery
> for up to a few time-averaged watts,
> what's not to like about a battery with attached PV cell?
I assume you mean a Solar Cell? Solar Cells are clunky, usually need to be
exposed directly to light, and (to my knowledge) won't produce enough power
for the size of a surface that you could fit on a device. The point about
direct light exposure is particularly important, as people tend to put their
cell phones in their pockets and their laptops in their bags.
Thanks,
Jerason
--
______________________________________
How to manage your database in one easy step!
http://www.datadino.com
pragmatist
>
> So, anyone have any thoughts or comments on this design? I'm
> particularly interested to hear why or why not you think it would
> succeed.
Have you any thoughts on what happens when some kid decides to break
one open to see how it works?
Pragmatist - Stupidity is not a crime - you're free to go.
Jerason Banes
> one open to see how it works?
> Pragmatist - Stupidity is not a crime - you're free to go.
Indeed I have. The design actually necessitates the use of a sealed
container of a heavy and conductive metal. Lead would probably work
best. And when I say sealed, I mean the lead is molded around the
isotope. Now a kid might be able to swallow a hunk of lead (after
carefully ripping it off of whatever board it's welded or glued to),
but it should pass through their system with relatively little
incident. Lead poisoning is always an issue, but that's true of quite
a few technologies.
In the end, the only way a consumer would be able to extract the
radioisotope is by either grinding the heating block or smelting it.
The former is more likely. That's where a careful choice of isotope
can help a lot. It would be doubtful that a few ground up power
sources could add an amount of Strontium-90 to the environment that
would be distinguishable from the amount that already exists.
Jeff
"pragmatist" <ilsd...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:5a53ae0a.03121...@posting.google.com...
> jba...@techie.com (Jerason Banes) wrote in message
news:<33fe4f52.03121...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > So, anyone have any thoughts or comments on this design? I'm
> > particularly interested to hear why or why not you think it would
> > succeed.
>
> Have you any thoughts on what happens when some kid decides to break
> one open to see how it works?
Or what happens in a fire?
Jerason Banes
That tends to depend on the isotope used. IIRC, Plutonium can actually
burn, releasing a lot of energy in the process. if I understand
correctly, my preferred material (Strontium-90) only melts (769
Celsius) unless finely sliced and allowed to oxidize. The real concern
of course, is how much radiation is released. Well, while some gamma
rays may be released due to spontaneous fission, it isn't much. The
primary form of radiation for a material like Strontium-90 is beta
radiation. Beta radiation is only dangerous in higher quantities as it
has a hard time penetrating the skin. Most of it would probably be
contained anyway, as its shielding will melt with it (Lead melts at
372 Celsius). The end result would most likely be a slightly
radioactive, non-dangerous molten slag that can be reprocessed back
into its base components.
Disclaimer: I am not a chemist. This is simply my understanding based
on the research I've done into various elements and radioisotopes.
Thanks,
Jerason
G. R. L. Cowan
>
> > Or what happens in a fire?
>
> That tends to depend on the isotope used. IIRC, Plutonium can actually
> burn, releasing a lot of energy in the process. if I understand
> correctly, my preferred material (Strontium-90) only melts (769
> Celsius) unless finely sliced and allowed to oxidize.
Both of these metals would be already in oxide form -- SrO, PuO2.
As metals, both burn readily and very hot, like magnesium,
which strontium shares a periodic table column with.
> The real concern of course, is how much radiation is released.
Duh.
> Well, while some gamma rays may be released due to spontaneous fission,
> it isn't much.
> The primary form of radiation for a material like Strontium-90 is beta
> radiation. Beta radiation is only dangerous in higher quantities ...
... such as those required if the beta rays, when stopped,
are to produce useful amounts of heat ...
> as it
> has a hard time penetrating the skin. Most of it would probably be
> contained anyway, as its shielding will melt with it (Lead melts at
> 372 Celsius). The end result would most likely be a slightly
> radioactive, non-dangerous molten slag that can be reprocessed back
> into its base components.
>
> Disclaimer: I am not a chemist. This is simply my understanding based
> on the research I've done into various elements and radioisotopes.
Let's hope, for your sake, that you're just a kid.
If you reject PV cells because of their need for a light-exposed
exterior surface, you should, to be consistent, also reject RTGs
because they too need some exterior surface. What they need it
for is to dump the ~90 percent of the heat that they can't convert.
Or was it 98 percent? They have a history, you could look it up
if you're really interested.
Jerason Banes
> are to produce useful amounts of heat ...
You realize we're talking only a few watts of power here? On a design
that is hopefully far more efficient than an RTG. If it can't work off
of only a few grams of isotope per watt, then it isn't feasible.
> Let's hope, for your sake, that you're just a kid.
Why? Because I don't have the properties of all metals memorized? I've
stated before that my background is in computer science, not physics
or chemistry. You'll have to excuse me if I'm still learning a few
things about rare metals that very few chemistry or physics books
cover.
> If you reject PV cells because of their need for a light-exposed
> exterior surface, you should, to be consistent, also reject RTGs
> because they too need some exterior surface. What they need it
> for is to dump the ~90 percent of the heat that they can't convert.
> Or was it 98 percent? They have a history, you could look it up
> if you're really interested.
RTGs are only about 5-8% efficient. That's why I'm not suggesting an
RTG. Instead I'm suggesting what's known as an SRG (Stirling
Radioisotope Generator). The only thing I'm suggesting that hasn't
been suggested before, is to scale it down to power a small consumer
device. I'm also suggesting an "open" air based system (which by
definition is self-cooling) that attempts to direct heat by insulating
non-useful surfaces with a vacuum. Nasa's SRGs are "closed" Helium
based engines and are far larger than the one I'm suggesting.
I really don't want to be rude or start a flame-fest, but I would
appreciate if you actually reviewed the design before making comments,
especially rude ones.
Thank you,
Jerason
Jeff
Plutonium is one of the worlds most deadly substances. 1/10,000 of a gram of
Pu inhaled will cause lung cancer.
"Jerason Banes" <jba...@techie.com> wrote in message
news:33fe4f52.03121...@posting.google.com...
> > Or what happens in a fire?
>
> That tends to depend on the isotope used. IIRC, Plutonium can actually
> burn, releasing a lot of energy in the process. if I understand
> correctly, my preferred material (Strontium-90) only melts (769
> Celsius) unless finely sliced and allowed to oxidize. The real concern
> of course, is how much radiation is released. Well, while some gamma
> rays may be released due to spontaneous fission, it isn't much. The
> primary form of radiation for a material like Strontium-90 is beta
> radiation. Beta radiation is only dangerous in higher quantities as it
> has a hard time penetrating the skin. Most of it would probably be
> contained anyway, as its shielding will melt with it (Lead melts at
> 372 Celsius). The end result would most likely be a slightly
> radioactive, non-dangerous molten slag that can be reprocessed back
> into its base components.
Right, just like Chernobyl on a smaller scale.
Eric Gisin
trolling elsewhere.
"Jeff" <levy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:NW8Eb.14393$IF6.6...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
Axel Berger
>Plutonium is one of the worlds most deadly substances.
Joseph Goebbels knew you only had to repeat something often enough to
make it true. So in spite of it becoming excessively boring, I'll
repeat again:
It is not and by a margin. That statement has been a complete myth from
day one.
Karl Johanson
>
> That tends to depend on the isotope used. IIRC, Plutonium can actually
> burn, releasing a lot of energy in the process.
It can. That's part of why Plutonium RTGs use Plutonium oxide.
Karl Johanson
N. Thornton
> > one open to see how it works?
> > Pragmatist - Stupidity is not a crime - you're free to go.
> Indeed I have. The design actually necessitates the use of a sealed
> container of a heavy and conductive metal. Lead would probably work
> best. And when I say sealed, I mean the lead is molded around the
> isotope. Now a kid might be able to swallow a hunk of lead (after
> carefully ripping it off of whatever board it's welded or glued to),
> but it should pass through their system with relatively little
> incident. Lead poisoning is always an issue, but that's true of quite
> a few technologies.
>
> In the end, the only way a consumer would be able to extract the
> radioisotope is by either grinding the heating block or smelting it.
> The former is more likely.
or just cutting it with scissors. Or jabbing it repeatedly with a
screwdriver, hacksawing it, treading on it, nailing into it, chucking
it in a fire, hammering it, or any of the other numerous things some
kids do with batteries.
> That's where a careful choice of isotope
> can help a lot. It would be doubtful that a few ground up power
> sources could add an amount of Strontium-90 to the environment that
> would be distinguishable from the amount that already exists.
however a collection of them could provide anyone willing to learn
with the materials to make a nuclear bomb. That is a minor little
downside. Along with that small drawback of dangerous amounts of
radiation being contained within nothing more than a bit of soft and
easily molten lead. Never mind the expense, and the imposibility of
getting Jo Public to buy a nuke powered laptop - or to actually lift
one off the ground.
Its an idea, but it isnt doable practically, as it has a very long
list of downsides and problems.
Regards, NT
Eric Gisin
half-life is too long. In fact their decay is so slow you can safely hold
them in your hand (engage your troll filters).
You need isotopes with half-life in the decades for atomic batteries. An
example is Tritium, which is used for lighting. It is the least dangerous
choice.
"N. Thornton" <big...@meeow.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a7076635.03122...@posting.google.com...
G. R. L. Cowan
>
> Clueless. You cannot build a battery with Uranium or Plutonium, their
> half-life is too long. In fact their decay is so slow you can safely hold
> them in your hand (engage your troll filters).
>
> You need isotopes with half-life in the decades for atomic batteries. An
> example is Tritium, which is used for lighting. It is the least dangerous
> choice.
The outer planet probes are powered by 238-Pu, half-life IIRC 87 years.
The Peltier/Seebeck effect junctions degrade quicker.
--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc --
how cars gain nuclear cachet (without being stuffed with strontium-90)
Jeff
"Eric Gisin" <eric...@graffiti.net> wrote in message
news:bs20m...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> Clueless. You cannot build a battery with Uranium or Plutonium, their
> half-life is too long.
Tell that to the Pu batteries in space.
> In fact their decay is so slow you can safely hold
> them in your hand (engage your troll filters).
>
> You need isotopes with half-life in the decades for atomic batteries. An
> example is Tritium, which is used for lighting. It is the least dangerous
> choice.
Tritium is actually quite safe, being a hydrogen isotope and all. If it is
released into the air, it disperses very quickly,
Jerason Banes
>
> or just cutting it with scissors. Or jabbing it repeatedly with a
> screwdriver, hacksawing it, treading on it, nailing into it, chucking
> it in a fire, hammering it, or any of the other numerous things some
> kids do with batteries.
>
About the only one you've listed that is in any way dangerous is
throwing it into a fire. Given that (if the design actually works)
only a few grams of isotope is used, I'd actually classify it as less
of a danger than throwing a normal battery in a fire. Those have a
nasty tendency to explode. And when they explode, they throw shrapnel
all over the place. Plus you need your fire over 327 degrees celsius
to melt lead. That's 620 farenheit for those of us in the USA. A wood
stove can get that hot, but it's generally considered "A Bad Thing".
>
>>That's where a careful choice of isotope
>>can help a lot. It would be doubtful that a few ground up power
>>sources could add an amount of Strontium-90 to the environment that
>>would be distinguishable from the amount that already exists.
>
>
> however a collection of them could provide anyone willing to learn
> with the materials to make a nuclear bomb.
Oh, Dear Lord. You can't make a nuke out of any old isotope. You need
a material or isotope that is easy to fission. This is usually Uranium
and Plutonium, although only certain isotopes. Strontium-90, Tritium,
Nickel-65, etc. are all "safe" for industrial use.
> That is a minor little
> downside. Along with that small drawback of dangerous amounts of
> radiation being contained within nothing more than a bit of soft and
> easily molten lead.
Umm... right. Alpha and Beta radiation are a minor hazards. Alpha is
almost useless for military purposes (sheet of paper will stop it)
while beta radiation is only dangerous to people standing right next
to a heavy source (beta radiation can be shielded by a thin sheet of
metal). Plus the danger is more in getting burns than any long term
hazards. If a terrorist wanted to create a "dirty" bomb out of a beta
emitter, he'd be a pretty stupid terrorist. Gamma, X-Ray, Neutron, and
Nutrino radiation are much more of a problem. The last two would need
a full nuke to produce. The first two, however, are emitted by some
Radioisotopes. So what's the solution? DON'T USE GAMMA EMITTERS!
I suppose you could argue that the radioactive "fallout" (a fancy name
for dust) would cause a cancer problem. Of course, I'm not quite sure
that you can add much more than already exists in the air and soil
today. Check the EPA documents. Strontium-90 has pretty well saturated
things from all the nuke testing during the cold war.
> Never mind the expense, and the imposibility of
> getting Jo Public to buy a nuke powered laptop
3 year battery life, guaranteed! They'll sell like hotcakes. Besides,
a radioisotope is hardly a "nuke". It is in no way a reactor. It has
no active component. It simply sits there and converts excess matter
into energy. No concerns about meltdown whatsoever. And the only way
that Joe Public is going to brand it a nuke is if someone tells him
that's what it is. If I advertise it as an "isotope battery" or
"energetic particle generator", then he's not going to make the
association. I just need the initial advertising push to imprint that
on his brain before the eco-freaks get into full gear. At that point
they'll be too late! BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
> - or to actually lift
> one off the ground.
What part of "grams" is so difficult to understand? A few GRAMS per
watt. Let's assume 5 grams per watt. If we want 65 watts, we get 325
grams. Even at 10 grams per watt, we're talking 650 grams. Now we
wouldn't actually want to give someone a 65 watt power supply. A more
likely power supply would be 30 Watts to slow charge a normal battery
(e.g. Lead Acid or LIon). That becomes 150-300 grams. If we can't get
a watt for every couple of grams, then the design won't work.
I feel like I'm repeating myself. Oh wait, I am. *sigh* :-/
> Its an idea, but it isnt doable practically, as it has a very long
> list of downsides and problems.
I'd love to hear the problems! I really would! But first you have to
get off the idea that radiation == most deadly thing in existence. It
simply isn't true. If we can get past this and look at the design,
then maybe someone can tell me if they think (from a purely energy
producing standpoint) it is a viable idea or not.
Thanks,
Jerason
N. Thornton
> N. Thornton wrote:
> > or just cutting it with scissors. Or jabbing it repeatedly with a
> > screwdriver, hacksawing it, treading on it, nailing into it, chucking
> > it in a fire, hammering it, or any of the other numerous things some
> > kids do with batteries.
> About the only one you've listed that is in any way dangerous is
> throwing it into a fire.
So youre saying if a kid opens one up and gets beta emitter on their
fingers thats not dangerous. I see.
> Given that (if the design actually works)
> only a few grams of isotope is used,
enough isotope to produce heat: thats well beyond enough to do damage
to living tissue. Thats the point.
> >>That's where a careful choice of isotope
> >>can help a lot. It would be doubtful that a few ground up power
> >>sources could add an amount of Strontium-90 to the environment that
> >>would be distinguishable from the amount that already exists.
well, show us figures.
> > however a collection of them could provide anyone willing to learn
> > with the materials to make a nuclear bomb.
> Oh, Dear Lord. You can't make a nuke out of any old isotope. You need
> a material or isotope that is easy to fission. This is usually Uranium
> and Plutonium, although only certain isotopes. Strontium-90, Tritium,
> Nickel-65, etc. are all "safe" for industrial use.
ok.
Of course that wont stop the percentage of people who will continue to
think these things can be turned into nukes, and who will blight the
image of any puter maker so bold, and scare a percentage of an
ignorant public. Lot of sales lost there, lot of extra costs and
controversies to handle.
> > That is a minor little
> > downside. Along with that small drawback of dangerous amounts of
> > radiation being contained within nothing more than a bit of soft and
> > easily molten lead.
> Umm... right. Alpha and Beta radiation are a minor hazards. Alpha is
> almost useless for military purposes (sheet of paper will stop it)
> while beta radiation is only dangerous to people standing right next
> to a heavy source (beta radiation can be shielded by a thin sheet of
> metal).
right, it can be dangerous.
> Plus the danger is more in getting burns than any long term
> hazards.
It is ionising radiation that can cause serious damage when stuck on a
finger or swallowed.
> If a terrorist wanted to create a "dirty" bomb out of a beta
> emitter, he'd be a pretty stupid terrorist.
Hardly! Newspapers report a bomb with nuclear material and the public
will freak, whatever the facts. A terrorist creates terror, and this
would, big time. The one being stupid is you here, you are failing to
grasp human nature and the problems it brings to your idea.
> Gamma, X-Ray, Neutron, and
> Nutrino radiation are much more of a problem. The last two would need
> a full nuke to produce. The first two, however, are emitted by some
> Radioisotopes. So what's the solution? DON'T USE GAMMA EMITTERS!
>
> I suppose you could argue that the radioactive "fallout" (a fancy name
> for dust) would cause a cancer problem. Of course, I'm not quite sure
> that you can add much more than already exists in the air and soil
> today. Check the EPA documents. Strontium-90 has pretty well saturated
> things from all the nuke testing during the cold war.
numbers
> > Never mind the expense, and the imposibility of
> > getting Jo Public to buy a nuke powered laptop
> 3 year battery life, guaranteed! They'll sell like hotcakes.
I think youre being naive here.
> Besides,
> a radioisotope is hardly a "nuke". It is in no way a reactor. It has
> no active component. It simply sits there and converts excess matter
> into energy. No concerns about meltdown whatsoever. And the only way
> that Joe Public is going to brand it a nuke is if someone tells him
> that's what it is. If I advertise it as an "isotope battery" or
> "energetic particle generator", then he's not going to make the
> association. I just need the initial advertising push to imprint that
> on his brain before the eco-freaks get into full gear. At that point
> they'll be too late! BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
very naive.
> > - or to actually lift
> > one off the ground.
>
> What part of "grams" is so difficult to understand? A few GRAMS per
> watt. Let's assume 5 grams per watt. If we want 65 watts, we get 325
> grams. Even at 10 grams per watt, we're talking 650 grams. Now we
> wouldn't actually want to give someone a 65 watt power supply. A more
> likely power supply would be 30 Watts to slow charge a normal battery
> (e.g. Lead Acid or LIon). That becomes 150-300 grams. If we can't get
> a watt for every couple of grams, then the design won't work.
> I feel like I'm repeating myself. Oh wait, I am. *sigh* :-/
> > Its an idea, but it isnt doable practically, as it has a very long
> > list of downsides and problems.
>
> I'd love to hear the problems! I really would! But first you have to
> get off the idea that radiation == most deadly thing in existence. It
> simply isn't true. If we can get past this and look at the design,
> then maybe someone can tell me if they think (from a purely energy
> producing standpoint) it is a viable idea or not.
how are you going to get the public at large past this one? The
reality is some people are still scared of microwaves. Even if youre
right on all technical points, it is the less well informed that rule
the market.
Regards, NT
Jerason Banes
> > throwing it into a fire.
>
> So youre saying if a kid opens one up and gets beta emitter on their
> fingers thats not dangerous. I see.
This is getting tiring. Kids can't exactly BITE through a block of
lead. The lead itself is probably more dangerous (from heavy metal
poisoning) than the isotope sealed within. Honestly, this argument is
getting very tiring. I've only repeated myself in just about every
reply in this thread. Let me solve this for you.
UNLESS YOU CAN SHOW HOW A CHILD CAN APPLY SUFFICIENT DESTRUCTIVE FORCE
TO A HUNK OF LEAD TO PENETRATE TO A METAL CONTAINED INSIDE, WE MAY
ASSUME THAT THE RADIOISOTOPE IS SAFE FROM ACCIDENTAL TAMPERING.
Period. End of story. I will not reply to this foolishness again
unless a poster can produce a valid argument.
> > Given that (if the design actually works)
> > only a few grams of isotope is used,
>
> enough isotope to produce heat: thats well beyond enough to do damage
> to living tissue. Thats the point.
Enough isotope to produce damage to cells IF INGESTED OR INHALED. The
whole point is that the isotope is well protected. We don't want this
thing to be hotter than hades, we just want enough heat to produce
energy in a VERY SMALL engine. By careful direction of the heat via a
vacuum, we can assure that a small constant heat source will
eventually bring the engine up to operating temperature and ensure
continual operation.
> > >>That's where a careful choice of isotope
> > >>can help a lot. It would be doubtful that a few ground up power
> > >>sources could add an amount of Strontium-90 to the environment that
> > >>would be distinguishable from the amount that already exists.
>
> well, show us figures.
The EPA has some useful information here:
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/strontium.htm
Here's the figures from a study done in Scotland during the 90's:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library/stat-ses/sest7-4.htm
Thrilling, isn't it? Oddly, the figures in Scotland seem to have
increased during the early 90's. When I have more time, it would be
interesting to find out why. It may be related to something happening
with nearby nuclear plants.
BTW, apparently there are claims that adult bodies reject Sr-90 when
sufficient calcium is available:
http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=5&catid=18
That sounds reasonable considering that Sr-90 is occasionally used as
a medical "tracer" (a radioisotope introduced into the blood stream
for the purpose of tracking blood flow). Still, I'm not a doctor, so
you'll need to come to your own conclusions.
Another point to consider is that most Sr-90 introduced by weapons
testing, was introduced as small particles. A solid chunk of metal is
going to have less environmental impact than a fine dust.
> > Oh, Dear Lord. You can't make a nuke out of any old isotope. You need
> > a material or isotope that is easy to fission. This is usually Uranium
> > and Plutonium, although only certain isotopes. Strontium-90, Tritium,
> > Nickel-65, etc. are all "safe" for industrial use.
>
> ok.
>
> Of course that wont stop the percentage of people who will continue to
> think these things can be turned into nukes, and who will blight the
> image of any puter maker so bold, and scare a percentage of an
> ignorant public. Lot of sales lost there, lot of extra costs and
> controversies to handle.
It's all a PR game. Joe Consumer will (of course) freak if he learns
of radioactive power sources too soon. That's why the best (and most
willing) early clients would be technologists and businessmen. Many
technologists would think that a nuclear battery would actually be
cool. Businessmen generally don't care as long as they're assured it's
safe and it makes their lives more efficient.
Once that early momentum is established, it would become increasingly
difficult to convince people of the dangers. As enough adopters come
onboard, people will simply stop caring and enjoy the technological
benefits.
> It is ionising radiation that can cause serious damage when stuck on a
> finger or swallowed.
Which isn't going to happen when it's encased in lead. Do you make a
point of cutting open a battery, handling its toxic contents with your
bare hands, and then inhaling the fumes? Most people don't. As a
result, this is very much a strawman argument.
> > If a terrorist wanted to create a "dirty" bomb out of a beta
> > emitter, he'd be a pretty stupid terrorist.
>
> Hardly! Newspapers report a bomb with nuclear material and the public
> will freak, whatever the facts. A terrorist creates terror, and this
> would, big time. The one being stupid is you here, you are failing to
> grasp human nature and the problems it brings to your idea.
Uh huh. And they will know that the bomb was dirty, how? Either the
inspectors would have to instigate FUD by producing an accident
investigation report that states that an area is a radiation hazard,
or the terrorists would have to make the statement in a demands
letter. Either way, the government would be most likely to downplay
the problem and perform whatever cleanup is necessary (probably a
matter of clearing away the wreckage and putting down a new layer of
tar or cement).
Considering that there are much more effective Radioisotopes that are
naturally occurring (read: easy to get ahold of), I maintain that a
terrorist using an alpha or beta emitter would be a pretty stupid
terrorist.
> > > Never mind the expense, and the imposibility of
> > > getting Jo Public to buy a nuke powered laptop
>
> > 3 year battery life, guaranteed! They'll sell like hotcakes.
>
> I think youre being naive here.
Am I? Joe Public lives, breaths and works surrounded by toxic
substances daily. The trick is that Joe Public is (generally) not
quite stupid enough to go drinking his household chemicals, or eating
his batteries, or melting and injecting plastic substances into his
bloodstream.
Okay, so that last one is a bit silly, but it helps illustrate my
point. Joe Public may be stupid, he's not out to cause himself a
painful and horrible death. He's going to be cautious at first,
listening to both sides of the media; one who tells him he's going to
die if he buys these batteries, and one who's going to tell him that
there's no danger and he should enjoy the benefits of a battery that
doesn't die. As time goes on, and none of the early adopters die from
their batteries, the anti-atomics are going to sound more and more
like extreme reactionaries.
Keep in mind that cell phones are shown to cause brain cancer, yet
people continue to yap on them for hours at a time. Now if I offered
Joe Public an "atomic" battery that only lasts a few hours/days longer
than today's batteries, you can be sure that it would flop, but a
battery that lasts years is going to be much more enticing.
> > Besides,
> > a radioisotope is hardly a "nuke". It is in no way a reactor. It has
> > no active component. It simply sits there and converts excess matter
> > into energy. No concerns about meltdown whatsoever. And the only way
> > that Joe Public is going to brand it a nuke is if someone tells him
> > that's what it is. If I advertise it as an "isotope battery" or
> > "energetic particle generator", then he's not going to make the
> > association. I just need the initial advertising push to imprint thatt
> > on his brain before the eco-freaks get into full gear. At that point
> > they'll be too late! BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
>
> very naive.
Perhaps. The only way to know is to build the damn thing and let the
market decide. There are always opponents (like you) to new
technologies. I could just see you:
"Cars are killing people! No one will buy them!"
"You want to pump ELECTRICITY to Joe Public?! What happens if a power
line falls or a kid sticks a fork into a socket!?"
"Do you have any idea how HOT a steam engine gets? What happens if the
broiler explodes?!"
"Those rockets could fall on New Jersey and kill millions! Not to
mention the dangerous chemicals that will be around for years!"
"Horses could trample people!"
"Run for the hills! We're all going to die! No! Wait! Hills could have
falling rocks! Run for the shores! No! Wait! You could drown! Run for
the forests! NO! WAIT! A TREE COULD FALL! We're all going to DIE!"
> > I'd love to hear the problems! I really would! But first you have to
> > get off the idea that radiation == most deadly thing in existence. It
> > simply isn't true. If we can get past this and look at the design,
> > then maybe someone can tell me if they think (from a purely energy
> > producing standpoint) it is a viable idea or not.
>
> how are you going to get the public at large past this one? The
> reality is some people are still scared of microwaves. Even if youre
> right on all technical points, it is the less well informed that rule
> the market.
And yet, AMAZINGLY, nearly ever family has a Microwave. Even those
that are scared they're leaking radiation. Joe Public is simply scared
of things he doesn't understand. If he can gain common sense
experience with those things, he may still be scared, but not scared
enough to not use them. Besides, it wouldn't kill anyone if we started
teaching a little more nuclear science in schools. An educated public
is generally less afraid than an uneducated one. That's why we accept
electricity, batteries, flying machines, gas engines, and other
technologies without fear.
Jeff
> > > About the only one you've listed that is in any way dangerous is
> > > throwing it into a fire.
> >
> > So youre saying if a kid opens one up and gets beta emitter on their
> > fingers thats not dangerous. I see.
>
> This is getting tiring. Kids can't exactly BITE through a block of
> lead. The lead itself is probably more dangerous (from heavy metal
> poisoning) than the isotope sealed within. Honestly, this argument is
> getting very tiring. I've only repeated myself in just about every
> reply in this thread. Let me solve this for you.
>
> UNLESS YOU CAN SHOW HOW A CHILD CAN APPLY SUFFICIENT DESTRUCTIVE FORCE
> TO A HUNK OF LEAD TO PENETRATE TO A METAL CONTAINED INSIDE, WE MAY
> ASSUME THAT THE RADIOISOTOPE IS SAFE FROM ACCIDENTAL TAMPERING.
Thinking back to my childhood, lets see; hammers, rocks, woodstoves,
bonfires, drills (lead drills quite nicely), hacksaws, etc.
Jerason Banes
> > TO A HUNK OF LEAD TO PENETRATE TO A METAL CONTAINED INSIDE, WE MAY
> > ASSUME THAT THE RADIOISOTOPE IS SAFE FROM ACCIDENTAL TAMPERING.
>
> Thinking back to my childhood, lets see; hammers, rocks, woodstoves,
> bonfires, drills (lead drills quite nicely), hacksaws, etc.
A hammer might deform a block of lead, but I have a hard time
believing it would crack it. Same with rocks. Woodstoves are a problem
at temperatures greater than 620 degrees Fahrenheit, but were covered
in previous posts. If you take a power drill or hacksaw to it, it's no
longer accidental, is it?
DBurch7672
Cityites were VERY careful drivers; [ONE sideswipe/'fender bender" with the
Batmobile, and it's "GOODBYE, GOTHAM CITY! HELLO, HIROSHIMA/NAGASAKI/(maybe
now!) CHERNOBYL!"] :)