The idea of this making it into any consumer product is science fiction, and articles like this can be safely ignored. Some back of the envelope math to illustrate why: - The decay energy of Ni-63 is 66 keV, but since the energy is split with an irrecoverable neutrino, the average recoverable energy per decay is more like 17 keV. - The typical power consumption of an iPhone is about 10 watts, give or take. - Converti…
I wouldn't mind having a dumb watch with one of these batteries that would basically never need to be replaced throughout its lifetime.
That would be a cool exercise to make it comsume the tiniest amount of power as possible.
100 microwatts - I can't imagine a phone idles on that. About 36 microamps at 3.6 volts. > less than a coin at 15 x 15 x 5mm Slightly smaller than a stack of four US dimes.
A modern smartphone, no, not currently. Feature phones maybe, if made specifically with low-power parts. Personally I'm interested in putting this in a watchy [0], that can get around on tens of microwatts average consumption because of deep sleep states and an e-paper screen. [0] https://watchy.sqfmi.com
That's more the scale I was thinking .You'd still need a rechargeable battery or large cap to run the ESP32 in any useful mode.
It is coming (again) thanks to one of the largest single market on the planet making replacable batteries in portable electronics a requirement by 2027 (in 3 years time) [0]. I find it highly unlikely that there will be double production of devices for the EU market on one hand and the rest of the world on the other (and the biggest producers are not going to be pulling out of the market for obvious reasons). [0] htt…
If only. I suspect they will use the "waterproof" exception as an excuse to continue as before.
I hope so. I've loved that ever since the first summer with a waterproof phone. Where I live, the summer rains can drench you in a minute,
P.s. More critical thinking is required before reposting this kind of article, those are, anyway, all very similar: computer generated mock, no test, no prototype, no scientific documentation, no peer reviews. Only a before-unknown company that declare a miraculous breaking ground tech. I'm sure that if I declare can produce an anti-matter base battery capable to give power to your phone and also your CAR, the "news"…
It's fair to be skeptical of the article, and also fair to simultaneously look at the wattage output by a single cell and to do some math to determine it's possible to generate power. It is maybe too bulky. It is maybe too lower power. But my comment was not incorrect, just as your skepticism is not incorrect.
It's not matter of skepticism, it can't work and it's matter of science, it doesn't work both as generator to "recharge" the battery (at microwatt scale it needs years ) and as generator to directly power "phones or drones", thing they declare, to do that you should employ very "hot" isotopes and if we don't count other factors that discourage that solution, the shielding, we are talking about centimeters of solid lead, make the same solution impractical. I don't think people want a 2kg phone large as a toaster. Isotope based batteries are only good for space satellites and probes and there is no way to "miniaturize" them at a scale you can use in a phone, principal reason is radiation: to produce significant energy to power "phones or drones" or to recharge the battery you needs high radiations that means thick shielding.
The idea of this making it into any consumer product is science fiction, and articles like this can be safely ignored. Some back of the envelope math to illustrate why: - The decay energy of Ni-63 is 66 keV, but since the energy is split with an irrecoverable neutrino, the average recoverable energy per decay is more like 17 keV. - The typical power consumption of an iPhone is about 10 watts, give or take. - Converti…
Your numbers are ahem a bit off. An iPhone 15 has a 3367 mAh battery. Around 12 watts. It lasts longer than 1 hours 12m. Probably even running full tilt.
I think your post indicates a narrow "can this power the whole phone" thinking that is over-applied when considering this power source. The power here is faint, but the energy is vast, & we should assess that merit too. The previous post called this is a 100mW battery. That's not enough power for active use for a phone, but it's probably enough to idle a phone ok, and if designed well leave some extra capacity for very slow charging a conventional battery, depending on the phone. That might be enough for some light phone use and being net neutral on any given day!
It might be enough to run some flip phones during calls, possibly.
Anyways, you've over hyped the requirements by 100x what's on offer here. I think even 2 or 3x what's available here is probably enough to make a phone than many people might never have to recharge, if supplemented by a higher power store (conventional chemical cell) to bank some of the output energy. The idea still sounds risky & scary to me, but I at least want us to be looking at vaguely the right order of magnitudes when we assess.
It's fair to be skeptical of the article, and also fair to simultaneously look at the wattage output by a single cell and to do some math to determine it's possible to generate power. It is maybe too bulky. It is maybe too lower power. But my comment was not incorrect, just as your skepticism is not incorrect.
It's not matter of skepticism, it can't work and it's matter of science, it doesn't work both as generator to "recharge" the battery (at microwatt scale it needs years ) and as generator to directly power "phones or drones", thing they declare, to do that you should employ very "hot" isotopes and if we don't count other factors that discourage that solution, the shielding, we are talking about centimeters of solid le…
You're equating difficulties with impossibilities. The analogy of a small power generator holds even if it's the power that's small not the generator.
Looking back at your original post, I was simply saying that "you can't even run an LED on this" does not mean it's useless, and you may be able to scale it up. So I think we violently agree about the difficulty. I do see how my comment may have made someone think I meant that this could actually be used in phones as is. I mistakenly used phones as an analogous device.
90% of the people I know keep their near their head, near the genitals or near their heart when not actively using it. I read the part about them asserting that it's safe, but if they want this to actually sell without a major stigma, especially in the era of social media, they will need to go out of their way to prove it.
The way to solve this is via the marketing department. Someone really helped when they renamed Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging to MRI
But MRI does not use radioactivity. It's just a huge magnet that swing your hydrogens nuclei and a detector for the tiny light produced by them.
If you want to be scared, CT is beter. They send you a lot of x-rays. The x-ray can produce cancer, so the total dose should be low to be safe, so you can't take a CT everyday.
But PET is better to be scared. They inject you wit a radioctive liquid that produce positrons. Positrons colide with your electrons and produce two gamma photons. The photons are detected and after a lot of calculatons you get an image. Don't take one eveey day.
There are a few more. They have a small risk, but used correctly the benefit outweight the risk. Ask your medical doctor and don't take they just for fun.
The idea of this making it into any consumer product is science fiction, and articles like this can be safely ignored. Some back of the envelope math to illustrate why: - The decay energy of Ni-63 is 66 keV, but since the energy is split with an irrecoverable neutrino, the average recoverable energy per decay is more like 17 keV. - The typical power consumption of an iPhone is about 10 watts, give or take. - Converti…
Your numbers are ahem a bit off. An iPhone 15 has a 3367 mAh battery. Around 12 watts. It lasts longer than 1 hours 12m. Probably even running full tilt. I think your post indicates a narrow "can this power the whole phone" thinking that is over-applied when considering this power source. The power here is faint, but the energy is vast, & we should assess that merit too. The previous post called this is a 100mW batte…
Whether it's 1 Watt, 1000 Watts or 0.0001 Watts is utterly irrelevant. It's the activity that matters. Even at the power quoted in the article of 100 microwatts, you're still talking activities on the order of a full Curie, assuming 100% efficiency (betavoltaics are down in the 10s and 20s, realistically).
Curie-quantities of activity in a package the size of coin is real activity, not the nanobananas of tritium in the pacific the media likes to segfault over. No nuclear regulator in their right mind, in any country on Earth, would generally license, let alone exempt, a Curie-level quantity of any isotope for widespread consumer usage.
The title of the article was "A tiny radioactive battery could keep your future phone running for 50 years." I can assure you this will not be going in anybody's personal electronics. At best, it will power some board-level electronics operating in the Arctic or at the bottom of the ocean, maybe a cubesat or keep-alive circuit on a space probe. Militaries, government agencies and companies with the motivation and resources to deal with the licensing could definitely have a use case here. Your average Joe will remain stuck with smoke detectors, tritium keychains, polonium static brushes, and uranium rocks as the hottest isotopes they can (legally) get their hands on.
It's not matter of skepticism, it can't work and it's matter of science, it doesn't work both as generator to "recharge" the battery (at microwatt scale it needs years ) and as generator to directly power "phones or drones", thing they declare, to do that you should employ very "hot" isotopes and if we don't count other factors that discourage that solution, the shielding, we are talking about centimeters of solid le…
You're equating difficulties with impossibilities. The analogy of a small power generator holds even if it's the power that's small not the generator. Looking back at your original post, I was simply saying that "you can't even run an LED on this" does not mean it's useless, and you may be able to scale it up. So I think we violently agree about the difficulty. I do see how my comment may have made someone think I me…
I think you are trolling, but, in case I'm wrong, I explain the concept in other words: modern phones need a charger able to provide current to the phone battery in order of Amperes (A) the one is on my desk now is 5A and can charge the phone, let say, in 1h, to simplify, let say that we need less 1A for 1h. 1 microAmpere is 1A divided by 1'000'000 so, to fully recharge my phone with a microampere, I need 1'000'000h or 114 years, with 100 mA, only 1,14 years, 10% 1 month. And these are optimistic values. So what should be the use case of that bullshit ? Emergency ? I don't think so, better a solar panel. To prolong the daily life of the battery of 1 millisecond ? But reducing drastically the space for the real battery so you have a phone even with less autonomy. Is it laughable ? Again, applying the science and not magic or sci-fi you simply can not do a nuclear powered cellphone for day-by-day use, at least one with the same volume and weight of a modern smartphone. Maybe something 1m^3 x 200kg. Problem here is that Ark reactor and Unobtanium you see in movies are not possible and there is a magical undiscovered and ultralight material to shield high level of radiation. This kind of nuclear batteries are useful for niche application, to save the state of small memory amounts, etc and are not suitable to power cellphones or drones, this will never happen. What happen is there are lot of people confusing Marvel movies with reality and want to give real money to companies that simple produce scam. This could not be the case because I did not translate the Chinese webpage of the company, I suspect here the problem is the english article, but, if the translation is correct , no doubts , if they declare they can power the phone with nuclear batteries is a scam.
You're equating difficulties with impossibilities. The analogy of a small power generator holds even if it's the power that's small not the generator. Looking back at your original post, I was simply saying that "you can't even run an LED on this" does not mean it's useless, and you may be able to scale it up. So I think we violently agree about the difficulty. I do see how my comment may have made someone think I me…
I think you are trolling, but, in case I'm wrong, I explain the concept in other words: modern phones need a charger able to provide current to the phone battery in order of Amperes (A) the one is on my desk now is 5A and can charge the phone, let say, in 1h, to simplify, let say that we need less 1A for 1h. 1 micro Ampere is 1A divided by 1'000'000 so, to fully recharge my phone with a microampere, I need 1'000'000h…
I'm not trolling. I'll summarize in three points and stop replying because I think we're talking past each other and it's a waste of our time.
1. The use in phones is a silly illustration. You can ignore phones. No one in this thread specified a form factor or power output requirement except you to bring up counter examples for an argument I'm not even proposing.
2. The math you did makes sense, but doesn't disqualify this conceptually as a generator. Even if it's of laughably small power that's literally all I said was it's just a small generator.
3. The use of the terminology of battery is misleading, these are small power generators. It's not a scam until someone says it's useful for X, where X is someone it's not useful for. We agree on all the X so far.