Azimech Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p1t1o Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 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.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 On 1/16/2017 at 3:07 PM, 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. Expand 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!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p1t1o Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 On 1/16/2017 at 3:12 PM, 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!) Expand 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbart Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azimech Posted January 16, 2017 Author Share Posted January 16, 2017 On 1/16/2017 at 3:45 PM, 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. Expand 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbart Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 On 1/16/2017 at 6:28 PM, 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. Expand 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YNM Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 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 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azimech Posted January 16, 2017 Author Share Posted January 16, 2017 On 1/16/2017 at 8:08 PM, 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. Expand 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbart Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 On 1/16/2017 at 8:46 PM, Azimech said: I think at some scale the diamond would actually win. Expand NASA Mission Director walks in the room, all smiling. His coworkers yell: HE WENT TO JAREDS!!! ...sorry, couldn't resist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azimech Posted January 16, 2017 Author Share Posted January 16, 2017 On 1/16/2017 at 8:48 PM, Kerbart said: NASA Mission Director walks in the room, all smiling. His coworkers yell: HE WENT TO JAREDS!!! ...sorry, couldn't resist Expand Ah ... too bad I'm missing that cultural reference :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 On 1/16/2017 at 8:49 PM, Azimech said: Ah ... too bad I'm missing that cultural reference :-) Expand It's a commercial for a jewelry retailer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbart Posted January 16, 2017 Share Posted January 16, 2017 On 1/16/2017 at 8:49 PM, Azimech said: Ah ... too bad I'm missing that cultural reference :-) Expand 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 (edited) Reveal hidden contents All hail the Queen Reveal hidden contents 2035. Three League Island power plant maintenance procedure Edited January 17, 2017 by kerbiloid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 On 1/16/2017 at 8:46 PM, 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. Expand 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wumpus Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 On 1/16/2017 at 8:48 PM, Kerbart said: NASA Mission Director walks in the room, all smiling. His coworkers yell: HE WENT TO JAREDS!!! ...sorry, couldn't resist Expand 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elthy Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 I wonder how exactly they get the energy out of the radiation. No word on that in the article... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AeroGav Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 On 1/17/2017 at 4:54 PM, Elthy said: I wonder how exactly they get the energy out of the radiation. No word on that in the article... Expand 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p1t1o Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 On 1/17/2017 at 3:50 PM, 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. Expand On 1/17/2017 at 4:54 PM, Elthy said: I wonder how exactly they get the energy out of the radiation. No word on that in the article... Expand 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elthy Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 On 1/17/2017 at 5:04 PM, 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. Expand Exactly. Now that i think about it the technology may be related to photovoltaics, utilizing very thin layers of differently doped diamond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSEP Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Can this be done with industrial diamonds? Or do i really need to craft that iron pickaxe and get real ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shpaget Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 (edited) Quote In fact, diamond is the hardest substance known to man, there is literally nothing we could use that could offer more protection.” Expand 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p1t1o Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 On 1/18/2017 at 10:16 AM, Shpaget said: Non sequitur? Expand Its probably to assuage any "OMG Radioactivity!!" paranoia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 On 1/16/2017 at 3:45 PM, 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. Expand 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wumpus Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 On 1/18/2017 at 6:55 AM, NSEP said: Can this be done with industrial diamonds? Or do i really need to craft that iron pickaxe and get real ones. Expand 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 10:45 AM, p1t1o said: Its probably to assuage any "OMG Radioactivity!!" paranoia. Expand 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now