this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2024
248 points (86.0% liked)

Technology

59207 readers
3307 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A tiny radioactive battery could keep your future phone running for 50 years::A glowing horizon for phones

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] terminhell@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Nuclear power at small scale is already in use in devices. Some medical devices, smoke detectors etc. As long as there is proper shielding, the enclosure is robust enough, and the overall device is made easily serviceable, I'm all for it. I can understand the fear sentiment of anything flagged as radioactive, but radiation is all around us already. Idk, but the less we can ditch super toxic and explosive lithium the better.

[–] Person264@lemmings.world 19 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The radioactive source isn't used for power in smoke detectors, it's used to detect smoke. What small scale devices use radioactivity actually for power?

[–] terminhell@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

My grampa had a pacemaker that was.

Edit: Source - https://osrp.lanl.gov/pacemakers.shtml

Edit2: For the smoke detectors, i know its not what powers it per se, as far as the electronics that sound the alarm and such. More pointing out it contains radioactive material, and is something in every (hopefully) house, and you likely walk by it often.

[–] Person264@lemmings.world 1 points 10 months ago

That is well cool

[–] NESSI3@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)
[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Here's the real issue with the bs fluff title and complete fabrication of what these can be used for. It says in the article the battery makes 100 microwatts at 3v. Well that's an insanely small wattage. Your phone requires like 2 to 10 watts when youre on it. Regular watts.

One single watt is 1,000,000 microwatts. It would take 10,000 of these radioactive 50 year batteries ran together in parallel for just a watt of power. You'd need like 100,000 of them in your phone to cover all power requirements.

[–] terminhell@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So, you're saying there's a chance :p

The sentiment for me here, is any overall betterment of portable power is good. Yea the article and this specific tech is presented in an overhyped fashion, no doubt.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 10 months ago

Well the other thing is that this company didn't even do anything new. This battery type/concept has been used for decades. They've had pacemakers with em since the 1970's.

[–] CucumberFetish@lemm.ee 7 points 10 months ago

The issue is not the radioactivity, it's the power density. Per the article, this is ~24x smaller than an average phone battery, but can supply only 100uW.

I have a relatively conservative phone use, and on average, my phone uses 450mW. That means that you'd need 4500 of those batteries in your phone. But the battery would also need to cover the power usage peaks, which are multiple times higher than the average power consumption.