Radioactive diamonds as small batteries that last 5000+ years

[Azimech]

Seems to me more of a mix between a battery and RTG. Very interesting. Max output is nothing special. Longevity is.

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2016/november/diamond-power.html

[p1t1o]

UoB! My old haunting ground! I knew (sorta) Dr. Neil Fox! Which means of course, that by extension, this achievement, is my achievement. You're welcome, world.

If anyone is thinking of studying chemistry, Bristol is one of the highest rated places in the UK to go, especially their research facilities. You can look a Cambridge graduate in the eye and say you studied chemistry at Bristol.

(Obviously, its no slouch at other subjects too, but Im less well acquainted.)

[Steel]

4 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

If anyone is thinking of studying chemistry, Bristol is one of the highest rated places in the UK to go, especially their research facilities. You can look a Cambridge graduate in the eye and say you studied chemistry at Bristol.

And then they'll ask you why you didn't get in to Cambridge  (I jest, but it's fair to say that people at Cambridge don't tend to look all that well on other universities!)

[p1t1o]

4 minutes ago, Steel said:

And then they'll ask you why you didn't get in to Cambridge  (I jest, but it's fair to say that people at Cambridge don't tend to look all that well on other universities!)

Ha! Its fair to a point, though a few of my friends attended and have never displayed any disdain for other places. The workload and expectation from the student *is* higher than at other universities (and of course they get millions of applicants and only take the cream, you dont even need great grades if they like your application and your interview). But they dont exist in a vacuum, and honestly the institution only counts up to a point, the rest is down to you, the student.

Why didn't I get in? Dunno. Applied twice (if you dont get in at first, they sometimes say take a gap year and re-apply, other universities do this too), and each time got an interview. One interview was a write-off because I couldn't stop coughing, the other? Dunno, just didn't tick enough of their boxes. Which was probably right because Im very lazy.

[Kerbart]

Good for pacemakers, I assume. The applications in spaceflight, at least for now, seem less rosy.

According to the article, a "C14" fueled "battery" can produce about 15J/day per gram of active material.

In comparison, a Plutonium RTG can, according to a NASA webpage, produce about 110W for 4.8 kg of plutonium. 110W equals 9.5MJ (110×24×60×60), and divided by 4,800 grams of material still leaves us with 1,980 J/day per gram, giving it a rather large advantage for the mass required.

Of course, this is technology just in its infancy, so hopefully the output can increase. After all, the material is much easier to handle, not associated with nuclear weapons and will have less of a stigma when loaded onto a rocket than plutonium.

[Azimech]

2 hours ago, Kerbart said:

Good for pacemakers, I assume. The applications in spaceflight, at least for now, seem less rosy.

According to the article, a "C14" fueled "battery" can produce about 15J/day per gram of active material.

In comparison, a Plutonium RTG can, according to a NASA webpage, produce about 110W for 4.8 kg of plutonium. 110W equals 9.5MJ (110×24×60×60), and divided by 4,800 grams of material still leaves us with 1,980 J/day per gram, giving it a rather large advantage for the mass required.

Of course, this is technology just in its infancy, so hopefully the output can increase. After all, the material is much easier to handle, not associated with nuclear weapons and will have less of a stigma when loaded onto a rocket than plutonium.

 

One variable is missing. For example the GPHS-RTG has a total mass of 57 kg, it's mass of Pu-238 is 7.8 kg. I don't expect the diamond to need such heavy hardware to support it's function.

[Kerbart]

1 hour ago, Azimech said:

 

One variable is missing. For example the GPHS-RTG has a total mass of 57 kg, it's mass of Pu-238 is 7.8 kg. I don't expect the diamond to need such heavy hardware to support it's function.

With the current numbers in play you'd need nearly 1030 kg of C14 material for the equavalent energy production of the Pu238 battery. Even without the need for any hardware you'd still be at a disadvantage. One can argue that given the half life of C14. Even if you claim that you'd need only half the amount of material because C14 doesn't decay as "rapidly" as Pu238 (90 years), therefore you need less material to have enough energy production 50 years from now, you'd still end up with 500 kg.

Don't get me wrong, it's exciting new technology, but it rather seems to be something that will have its own niche, rather than replacing something that exists. It will surely be exciting to see NASA launch spacecraft with a battery that will last for thousands of years, it will certainly be a big impulse to deep space exploration.

[YNM]

I guess that this would be valuable for interstellar probes... But after a thousand year, who'd still be home to wait for the signals ?

[Azimech]

1 minute ago, Kerbart said:

With the current numbers in play you'd need nearly 1030 kg of C14 material for the equavalent energy production of the Pu238 battery. Even without the need for any hardware you'd still be at a disadvantage. One can argue that given the half life of C14. Even if you claim that you'd need only half the amount of material because C14 doesn't decay as "rapidly" as Pu238 (90 years), therefore you need less material to have enough energy production 50 years from now, you'd still end up with 500 kg.

Don't get me wrong, it's exciting new technology, but it rather seems to be something that will have its own niche, rather than replacing something that exists. It will surely be exciting to see NASA launch spacecraft with a battery that will last for thousands of years, it will certainly be a big impulse to deep space exploration.

True. I can see another application: very small spacecraft with energy efficient computers and equipment.

I think RTG's are the size and mass they are because of a simple rule in thermodynamics, why a piston engine with a larger bore is more efficient than a smaller one i.e. surface area-to-volume ratio. Make an RTG smaller and you'll see effective max output much lower than volume would suggest. Plus the energy drop is continuous, the thermocouples degrade in quality over the years so you need to compensate and build bigger.
I think at some scale the diamond would actually win.

[Kerbart]

1 minute ago, Azimech said:

I think at some scale the diamond would actually win.

NASA Mission Director walks in the room, all smiling.

His coworkers yell: HE WENT TO JAREDS!!!

 

...sorry, couldn't resist

[Azimech]

1 minute ago, Kerbart said:

NASA Mission Director walks in the room, all smiling.

His coworkers yell: HE WENT TO JAREDS!!!

 

...sorry, couldn't resist

Ah ... too bad I'm missing that cultural reference :-)

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Azimech said:

Ah ... too bad I'm missing that cultural reference :-)

It's a commercial for a jewelry retailer.

[Kerbart]

5 minutes ago, Azimech said:

Ah ... too bad I'm missing that cultural reference :-)

It's a horrible cookie-cutter chain jewelry store. Their advertising slogan is that the girlfriends of the just-engaged woman yell that. You can probably find it on youtube

Not sure if "missing" is the right word there though. "Luckily avoided" perhaps

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

All hail the Queen

Spoiler

2035. Three League Island power plant maintenance procedure 

 

Edited January 17, 2017 by kerbiloid

[magnemoe]

16 hours ago, Azimech said:

True. I can see another application: very small spacecraft with energy efficient computers and equipment.

I think RTG's are the size and mass they are because of a simple rule in thermodynamics, why a piston engine with a larger bore is more efficient than a smaller one i.e. surface area-to-volume ratio. Make an RTG smaller and you'll see effective max output much lower than volume would suggest. Plus the energy drop is continuous, the thermocouples degrade in quality over the years so you need to compensate and build bigger.
I think at some scale the diamond would actually win.

However this system converts alpha or beta radiation directly to electricity, no need go thermal, this gives an far better efficiency but I agree it would be expensive to scale up, you would also want to use far more radioactive materials than C14, if the halflife is 50 years you get 100 times the effect out. 

[wumpus]

18 hours ago, Kerbart said:

NASA Mission Director walks in the room, all smiling.
His coworkers yell: HE WENT TO JAREDS!!!

...sorry, couldn't resist

Anyone else suspect the diamond packaging is likely marketing?  I suppose the crystal structure could trap certain radiation (the reason diamonds sparkle is that extreme refractive index), but wonder about the PR flack's claim about "hardness".  I don't think anybody is worried about the radioactive carbon getting scratched.

[Elthy]

I wonder how exactly they get the energy out of the radiation. No word on that in the article...

[AeroGav]

2 minutes ago, Elthy said:

I wonder how exactly they get the energy out of the radiation. No word on that in the article...

You may already know this, but it shouldn't be that hard.   There's three types of radiation - alpha radiation, beta radiation, and gamma radiation.    Of the three,  alpha is the least penetrating , and therefore least dangerous - is stopped by a sheet of paper.  Alpha particles are helium ions, basically the nucleus of a helium atom, shorn of their orbiting electrons.   Therefore they are positively charged,  and will tend to induce current in whatever they strike.   After all, creating ions is what a battery is all about (think lithium-ion).

As for beta and gamma radiation, they are not charged in themselves, but they tend to knock the electrons off whatever they strike, turning them into ions (charged particles).

The trick is to stop the ion and the electron immediately recombining (wasting the energy as heat) and get it to flow around an electric circuit first. 

[p1t1o]

1 hour ago, wumpus said:

Anyone else suspect the diamond packaging is likely marketing?  I suppose the crystal structure could trap certain radiation (the reason diamonds sparkle is that extreme refractive index), but wonder about the PR flack's claim about "hardness".  I don't think anybody is worried about the radioactive carbon getting scratched.

 

6 minutes ago, Elthy said:

I wonder how exactly they get the energy out of the radiation. No word on that in the article...

 

Apparently the radiation is able to impart a charge on the diamond. I would wager that it is something to do with compatible energies, crystal lattices, defects etc.

Smoosh some charged particles through any crystal lattice and something electricity-ish is bound to happen.

[Elthy]

20 minutes ago, AeroGav said:

The trick is to stop the ion and the electron immediately recombining (wasting the energy as heat) and get it to flow around an electric circuit first. 

Exactly. Now that i think about it the technology may be related to photovoltaics, utilizing very thin layers of differently doped diamond.

[NSEP]

Can this be done with industrial diamonds? Or do i really need to craft that iron pickaxe and get real ones.

[Shpaget]

Quote

In fact, diamond is the hardest substance known to man, there is literally nothing we could use that could offer more protection.”

Non sequitur?

 

Anyway,I'm surprised this wasn't mentioned already.

https://youtu.be/KKdzhPiOqqg

And a bit more about it by Dave from EEVBlog

https://youtu.be/yNQCaSNIrEM?t=15m27s

 

Edited January 18, 2017 by Shpaget

[p1t1o]

28 minutes ago, Shpaget said:

Non sequitur?

Its probably to assuage any "OMG Radioactivity!!" paranoia.

[PB666]

On 1/16/2017 at 9:45 AM, Kerbart said:

Good for pacemakers, I assume. The applications in spaceflight, at least for now, seem less rosy.

According to the article, a "C14" fueled "battery" can produce about 15J/day per gram of active material.

In comparison, a Plutonium RTG can, according to a NASA webpage, produce about 110W for 4.8 kg of plutonium. 110W equals 9.5MJ (110×24×60×60), and divided by 4,800 grams of material still leaves us with 1,980 J/day per gram, giving it a rather large advantage for the mass required.

Of course, this is technology just in its infancy, so hopefully the output can increase. After all, the material is much easier to handle, not associated with nuclear weapons and will have less of a stigma when loaded onto a rocket than plutonium.

You have just enough power to send a message into deep space like 'here is why we blew ourselves to kingdom come'.

In seriousness, however it could be used to send an reactivation signal or charge a capacitor that then activates recovery from dormancy. For example you could have two long lived radioisotopes that then when combined can generate power for dormant systems, thaw frozen cells, bring an artificial  prenatal incubator online,  . . . . . . . .add water and get humans.

This then makes interstellar travel for periods of 10,000s years possible (the halflife of C-14 is about 5000 years and its essentially useless after 40,000 years for dating).

 

[wumpus]

On 1/18/2017 at 1:55 AM, NSEP said:

Can this be done with industrial diamonds? Or do i really need to craft that iron pickaxe and get real ones.

From the article, that is the idea.  You get the carbon from graphite rods used in [fission] reactors, then turn them into diamonds.

On 1/18/2017 at 5:45 AM, p1t1o said:

Its probably to assuage any "OMG Radioactivity!!" paranoia.

Which made me suspicious of the whole diamond business, although you would think "anything but plutonium*" would be enough for most people.  But diamond does have an extreme index of refraction (only some seriously exotic materials have more) so it might have advantages for at least trapping gamma rays (except that wiki claims that C14 decay involves beta emissions, which is unlikely to be effected).

* isn't the Plutonium used in RTGs a different isotope than the one used in bombs?  While there is the wildly hyped toxicity, it really isn't as bad as the 4-4-4 dangers you read about in "Ignition" (some of which are still used).