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
another atomic battery
Started by ●July 24, 2012
Reply by ●July 25, 20122012-07-25
Reply by ●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 ●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.htmlInteresting 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 ●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 ●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 ●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 ●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
