Science a GoGo's Home Page
Posted By: Anonymous Nuclear Batteries - 05/14/05 02:32 PM
"A new type of battery based on the radioactive decay of nuclear material is 10 times more powerful than similar prototypes and should last a decade or more without a charge, scientists announced this week."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/personalnuclearpowernewbatterylasts12years

NuclearPower for pacemakers? Not the realm of Science Fiction any more!
Posted By: DA Morgan Re: Nuclear Batteries - 05/14/05 03:35 PM
Yeah but will you get through airport security?
Posted By: Uncle Al Re: Nuclear Batteries - 05/14/05 04:14 PM
Nuclear battery-powered pacemakers are 25 years old. Lithium/PVP/iodine batteries are better, and eliminate the little problem with plutonium-238 if the body is cremated.

You may not release significant quantities of radioisotopes into the civilian population. The devices eventually end up concentrated for disposal or reycle, and are then subject to abuse.

Tritium is not useful as a battery basis. Its half-life is too short, it is not available at the necessary scale, its device manufacture is a nightmare, and it is a primary nuclear material for boosting fission devices.
Posted By: Mike Kremer Re: Nuclear Batteries - 05/15/05 02:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Yeah but will you get through airport security?
Hehehe. Hilarious Dan
Posted By: Mike Kremer Re: Nuclear Batteries - 05/15/05 02:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Uncle Al:
Nuclear battery-powered pacemakers are 25 years old..........
....Tritium is not useful as a battery basis.
I am certain that some wrist watches use Tritium
allowing the dial to glow in the dark.
Is the Tritium is mixed with a phosphorecent powder? If so, what 'form' is the Tritium in?
© Science a GoGo's Discussion Forums