Reply by John Larkin ●July 25, 20122012-07-25
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:52:12 +0100, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:


>On 25/07/2012 16:40, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 09:40:24 -0400, "P E Schoen" <paul@peschoen.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "John Larkin"  wrote in message
>>> news:riit08hn0mb07pej90bq6ii6cvtmjn4es5@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> http://citylabs.net/
>>>
>>>> Looks like betas whacking solar cells.
>>>
>>>> Makes no sense to me. A primary lithium battery will deliver power
>>>> for over 20 years at a cost per joule probably a million times better
>>>> than this. Not to mention getting a more sensible terminal voltage.
>>>> How do they expect to charge a battery with 0.7 volts?
>>>
>>>> That all goes for most of the "energy harvesting" things you read
>>>> a lot about.
>>>
>>> There are a few applications where such a power source might make sense,
>>> especially if it had a truly limitless lifetime and reasonable output. Their
>>> newer versions seem to have moved from nanowatts to microwatts, and the web
>>> page is rather old so things may have improved, or fallen apart.
>>
>> Tritium's half-life is about 12 years, and the conversion chips could
>> be subject to radiation damage.
>
>Strontium 90 as a near pure beta emitter would have a lot more welly 
>behind it and a longer half life of ~30y. Relatively cheap radioisotope 
>from the fuel cycle reprocessing. Not good in the environment though...
>
>>> I wondered about using radioluminescence, like the old radium clock dials,
>>> coupled to solar cells. It's been done, but now the radium has been replaced
>>> with tritium: http://www.free-energy.ws/radio-luminescence.html
>>
>> Interesting stuff. These are tritium lights, for tent zippers or key
>> rings
>>
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/ub02j0levdzy28r/Tritium.JPG
>>
>> but they are very dim.
>
>They look pretty weak and feeble.


They are nicely visible in a dark room. We have a really ugly bed in
our cabin, with big dangerous-in-the-dark bedposts, and I put tritium
lights in the tops of the posts. They are perfect for apps like that.

I have one bigger one on my key ring. If you are totally dark adapted,
it's just enough light to help you get around in the dark. Pity that
really powerful ones are not available.

I also have a Tadiran lithium battery wired to a 1M resistor and a
good green LED. It's a lot brighter and I expect it to stay at
constant brightness for 20 years or more. You can bridge the resistor
leads with fingers (or tongue!) and increase the brightness as
desired. I was, incidentally, able to visually resolve light at 700 pA
into these Avago green LEDs.


-- 

John Larkin                  Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com   jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com   

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME  analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators
Reply by Jim Yanik ●July 25, 20122012-07-25
Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote in news:MpidnZL-
StP0BZLNnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@posted.localnet:



>    You fail to understand, the people that started that company have 
> connections and got government grants; they get rich while the company 
> founders on "insufficient sales" or some such excuse.
>    Then they can go back for more money, fill their pockets and let it 
> fail more.
>    FirstSolar.
> 
>

 
"MONEY harvesters".

there's a lot more than just First Solar.

-- 
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
Reply by Martin Brown ●July 25, 20122012-07-25
On 25/07/2012 16:40, John Larkin wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 09:40:24 -0400, "P E Schoen" <paul@peschoen.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "John Larkin"  wrote in message
>> news:riit08hn0mb07pej90bq6ii6cvtmjn4es5@4ax.com...
>>
>>> http://citylabs.net/
>>
>>> Looks like betas whacking solar cells.
>>
>>> Makes no sense to me. A primary lithium battery will deliver power
>>> for over 20 years at a cost per joule probably a million times better
>>> than this. Not to mention getting a more sensible terminal voltage.
>>> How do they expect to charge a battery with 0.7 volts?
>>
>>> That all goes for most of the "energy harvesting" things you read
>>> a lot about.
>>
>> There are a few applications where such a power source might make sense,
>> especially if it had a truly limitless lifetime and reasonable output. Their
>> newer versions seem to have moved from nanowatts to microwatts, and the web
>> page is rather old so things may have improved, or fallen apart.
>
> Tritium's half-life is about 12 years, and the conversion chips could
> be subject to radiation damage.


Strontium 90 as a near pure beta emitter would have a lot more welly 
behind it and a longer half life of ~30y. Relatively cheap radioisotope 
from the fuel cycle reprocessing. Not good in the environment though...


>> I wondered about using radioluminescence, like the old radium clock dials,
>> coupled to solar cells. It's been done, but now the radium has been replaced
>> with tritium: http://www.free-energy.ws/radio-luminescence.html
>
> Interesting stuff. These are tritium lights, for tent zippers or key
> rings
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/ub02j0levdzy28r/Tritium.JPG
>
> but they are very dim.


They look pretty weak and feeble.

UK still has tritium lights in some isolated motorway phones(*) about 
10cm long and 1cm diameter. They produce enough light to see to use the 
phone in total darkness - eerie green yellow phosphor they use. Also 
available for fishing floats again with a reasonable level of brightness 
(glass vials containing phosphor and tritium gas).

(*) a bit of a throwback to the days before mobile phones but there are 
still a few parts of trunk roads with zero mobile network coverage.


>> Thermopiles using hot radioactive materials, perhaps waste, might be better,
>> but of course for other applications where located far from people.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator
>>
>> However, these are also not "eternal". TANSTAAFL.
>
> And the cost per joule is astronomical.


Less so if you don't care about operator safety.

-- 
Regards,
Martin Brown
Reply by Uwe Hercksen ●July 25, 20122012-07-25

John Larkin schrieb:


> Tritium's half-life is about 12 years, and the conversion chips could
> be subject to radiation damage.


Hello,

Tritium is a low energy beta emitter, I think there is very few 
radiation damage.

Bye
Reply by John Larkin ●July 25, 20122012-07-25
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 09:40:24 -0400, "P E Schoen" <paul@peschoen.com>
wrote:


>"John Larkin"  wrote in message 
>news:riit08hn0mb07pej90bq6ii6cvtmjn4es5@4ax.com...
>
>> http://citylabs.net/
>
>> Looks like betas whacking solar cells.
>
>> Makes no sense to me. A primary lithium battery will deliver power
>> for over 20 years at a cost per joule probably a million times better
>> than this. Not to mention getting a more sensible terminal voltage.
>> How do they expect to charge a battery with 0.7 volts?
>
>> That all goes for most of the "energy harvesting" things you read
>> a lot about.
>
>There are a few applications where such a power source might make sense, 
>especially if it had a truly limitless lifetime and reasonable output. Their 
>newer versions seem to have moved from nanowatts to microwatts, and the web 
>page is rather old so things may have improved, or fallen apart.


Tritium's half-life is about 12 years, and the conversion chips could
be subject to radiation damage.



>
>I wondered about using radioluminescence, like the old radium clock dials, 
>coupled to solar cells. It's been done, but now the radium has been replaced 
>with tritium: http://www.free-energy.ws/radio-luminescence.html


Interesting stuff. These are tritium lights, for tent zippers or key
rings

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ub02j0levdzy28r/Tritium.JPG

but they are very dim.


>
>Thermopiles using hot radioactive materials, perhaps waste, might be better, 
>but of course for other applications where located far from people. 
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator
>
>However, these are also not "eternal". TANSTAAFL.


And the cost per joule is astronomical.


-- 

John Larkin                  Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com   jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com   

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME  analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators
Reply by P E Schoen ●July 25, 20122012-07-25
"John Larkin"  wrote in message=20
news:riit08hn0mb07pej90bq6ii6cvtmjn4es5@4ax.com...


> http://citylabs.net/



> Looks like betas whacking solar cells.



> Makes no sense to me. A primary lithium battery will deliver power
> for over 20 years at a cost per joule probably a million times better
> than this. Not to mention getting a more sensible terminal voltage.
> How do they expect to charge a battery with 0.7 volts?



> That all goes for most of the "energy harvesting" things you read
> a lot about.


There are a few applications where such a power source might make sense, =

especially if it had a truly limitless lifetime and reasonable output. =
Their=20
newer versions seem to have moved from nanowatts to microwatts, and the =
web=20
page is rather old so things may have improved, or fallen apart.

I wondered about using radioluminescence, like the old radium clock =
dials,=20
coupled to solar cells. It's been done, but now the radium has been =
replaced=20
with tritium: http://www.free-energy.ws/radio-luminescence.html

Thermopiles using hot radioactive materials, perhaps waste, might be =
better,=20
but of course for other applications where located far from people.=20
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator

However, these are also not "eternal". TANSTAAFL.

Paul=20
Reply by Uwe Hercksen ●July 25, 20122012-07-25

John Larkin schrieb:


> Makes no sense to me. A primary lithium battery will deliver power for
> over 20 years at a cost per joule probably a million times better than
> this. Not to mention getting a more sensible terminal voltage. How do
> they expect to charge a battery with 0.7 volts?


Hello,

they have a battery with 3 V also.

Cheers
Reply by Robert Baer ●July 25, 20122012-07-25
John Larkin wrote:

>
> http://citylabs.net/
>
> Looks like betas whacking solar cells.
>
> Makes no sense to me. A primary lithium battery will deliver power for
> over 20 years at a cost per joule probably a million times better than
> this. Not to mention getting a more sensible terminal voltage. How do
> they expect to charge a battery with 0.7 volts?
>
> That all goes for most of the "energy harvesting" things you read a
> lot about.
>
>

   You fail to understand, the people that started that company have 
connections and got government grants; they get rich while the company 
founders on "insufficient sales" or some such excuse.
   Then they can go back for more money, fill their pockets and let it 
fail more.
   FirstSolar.
Reply by ●July 24, 20122012-07-24
On Tuesday, July 24, 2012 12:22:43 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

> http://citylabs.net/
> 
> Looks like betas whacking solar cells.
> 
> Makes no sense to me. A primary lithium battery will deliver power for
> over 20 years at a cost per joule probably a million times better than
> this. Not to mention getting a more sensible terminal voltage. How do
> they expect to charge a battery with 0.7 volts?
> 
> That all goes for most of the &quot;energy harvesting&quot; things you read a
> lot about.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> John Larkin                  Highland Technology Inc
> www.highlandtechnology.com   jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com   
> 
> Precision electronic instrumentation
> Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
> Custom timing and laser controllers
> Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
> VME  analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
> Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators


It can make cheap memory non-volatile and power sensors and/or query-able (?) systems intermittently, sounds like it could be useful. Cost is no object to the intended clientele, in fact, the more exorbitant the better.
Reply by Michael A. Terrell ●July 24, 20122012-07-24
Martin Brown wrote:

> 
> On 24/07/2012 19:33, Syd Rumpo wrote:
> > On 24/07/2012 18:10, Martin Brown wrote:
> >> On 24/07/2012 17:22, John Larkin wrote:
> >>>
> >>> That all goes for most of the "energy harvesting" things you read a
> >>> lot about.
> >>
> >> This one sounds more like shareholder IPO harvesting to me.
> >>
> > The original Batmobile used atomic batteries...
> >
> > Batman: "To the Batmobile! Let's go!"
> > Robin: "Atomic batteries to power. Turbines to speed."
> > Batman: "Ready to move out."
> 
> So why did flames come out of the back end then?
> Looked more like a fuel rich blowlamp as afterburner.
> 
> I reckon it required divine intervention - Holy smoke Batman!



   Because they are based on comic books created for grade school level
boys.  And loser like Dimbulb who shoot up theaters.