The world’s first nuclear-powered battery, which uses a radioactive isotope embedded in a diamond, could power small devices for thousands of years, scientists say.

The nuclear battery uses the reaction of a diamond placed close to a radioactive source to spontaneously produce electricity, scientists at the University of Bristol in the U.K. explained in a Dec. 4 statement. No motion — neither linear nor rotational — is required. That means no energy is needed to move a magnet through a coil or to turn an armature within a magnetic field to produce electric current, as is required in conventional power sources.

The diamond battery harvests fast-moving electrons excited by radiation, similar to how solar power uses photovoltaic cells to convert photons into electricity, the scientists said.

  • HubertManne
    link
    fedilink
    14 hours ago

    they don’t mention size but it sounds like the kind of thing asimov had in the foundation series books (I have not seen the series).

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    311 hours ago

    Jesus no. Its bad enough trying to recycle a lead acid or lithium battery.

    Where the fuck am I going to safely recycle nuclear waste embedded in a diamond?!?

    • @Dkarma
      link
      19 hours ago

      It lasts 1000 years. Your great great grand children would never have to worry about this.

      • @Hardeehar
        link
        123 minutes ago

        Maybe in 1000 years we can just toss it out of the spaceship

  • Ms. ArmoredThirteen
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3821 hours ago

    Yo this makes me think of the long lasting nuclear powered gadgets in the Foundation books

    • jherazob
      link
      fedilink
      2419 hours ago

      Or how every time you enter some ancient ruins on some game, EVERYTHING is still working despite not having seen a person in a millenia

      • Queen HawlSera
        link
        fedilink
        English
        112 minutes ago

        If video games have taught me anything, it’s that ghost towns and ancient ruins apparently require less maintenance and upkeep than my own fucking house.

      • GHiLA
        link
        fedilink
        7
        edit-2
        18 hours ago

        walk up to abandoned building in STALKER 2

        30+ years after Chernobyl

        the lights are on

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          11 hour ago

          enter dangerous bunker overridden by monsters in STALKER 2

          someone locked up the bunker to contain the monsters, been like that for 10 years

          find fresh sausage and bread in a locker

      • @kautau
        link
        519 hours ago

        Well yeah they perfected those nuclear diamond batteries

  • Zier
    link
    fedilink
    1018 hours ago

    Imagine having your vibrator never run out of power, even on the go.

    • @Valmond
      link
      716 hours ago

      “RRRRTTTTTRRRRRRTTTTTTTRRRRRRRTTTTTT”

      FUCK IT WON’T STOP THE BUTTON IS BROKEN!

  • @johsny
    link
    English
    718 hours ago

    Is that the tesseract?

  • @over_clox
    link
    1221 hours ago

    Meanwhile, Apple and Samsung are probably actively trying to sweep this under the digital rug. They can’t have devices out there that last more than 2, maybe 3 years…

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      42
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      Unfortunately, the tech won’t work for a high-power device like a smartphone. Last I read, these produce energy on the milliwatt scale.

      They’ll be incredibly useful for things like weather sensors and the like.

    • Alphane MoonOPM
      link
      English
      17
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      From the article:

      A single nuclear-diamond battery containing 1 gram [0.04 ounce] of carbon-14 could deliver 15 joules of electricity per day. For comparison, a standard alkaline AA battery, which weighs about 20 grams [0.7 ounces], has an energy-storage rating of 700 joules per gram. It delivers more power than the nuclear-diamond battery would in the short term, but it would be exhausted within 24 hours.

      It seems that even a 100 gram nuclear-diamond battery would not be able to sustain a modern smartphone.

      My calculations might be off, but it seems even a highly optimized low powered smartphone (say 10 watthours for 24 hours under regular use) would need x25 lower power consumption to work with a 100 g nuclear-diamond battery. And you would likely still need an additional battery of some sort (which would need to be replaced) to handle peaks (don’t think modern smartphones can function under ~420 mwatt peak max).

      • @over_clox
        link
        1021 hours ago

        I’m gonna drop an addendum…

        A wristwatch should be able to at bare minimum last at least 24 hours (you know, like a full day), before it needs recharge.

        Apple Watch is like the absolute worst example of this, it has an expected battery life of around 18 hours. It doesn’t even function as a proper watch if it can’t even last 24 hours.

        My watch (not my first merry go round with dumb watches), can at least perform their intended timekeeping function for 5 to 10 years, depending on how often you use the backlight button.

        Sometimes dumb tech is nice, I don’t wanna talk to my watch anyways, it’s just there to tell time…

        • @Eheran
          link
          07 hours ago

          Who uses something for 24 hours straight? 18 hours is a full day of use. How many need this things to run through the night too and how many resources would be wasted actually making it that way?

          • @over_clox
            link
            1
            edit-2
            4 hours ago

            Ever heard of the alarm function on a watch?

            Yeah, some of us use the alarm, it’s kinda nice when the watch can at least have a few days charge, in case something comes up and I’m out of town longer than expected and didn’t bring my charger.

            Given that the technology for clocks and watches that last upwards of a decade on a single battery has been around for quite a while, I don’t feel I should be bothered having to recharge my watch every day. Besides, smart watches just happen to be yet another tracking device.

            I’m actually a fan of simple dumb watches and clocks that can last a long time, or basically indefinitely. Or just amazing clocks in general…

            Atmos Clock (Powered by atmospheric pressure changes): https://youtube.com/watch?v=Jzl8HutWvw0

            Automatic Self Winding Watch: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZiubuxAAsXE

            Solar Powered Watches: https://youtube.com/watch?v=oHxyp_0rW5M

            Lego Mangle Rack Clock: https://youtube.com/watch?v=GUdlSYC1cCE

            Digital Sundial: https://youtube.com/watch?v=wrsje5It_UU

            Of course you don’t have to watch any of those videos if you don’t care to, but if you have any appreciation for awesome timekeeping devices, you’ll probably find all those videos rather interesting.

            Edit: This happens to be my current watch, a Casio WS-1300H. Mine has a custom modified spiked wrist band…

            https://youtube.com/watch?v=WVAO4_AfPEY

            https://lemmy.world/post/22860120

            Happy Holidays!

      • @over_clox
        link
        621 hours ago

        Gotcha, understood.

        Still, why is it that an Apple watch can’t even last 24 hours without needing a recharge, when I’m literally wearing a Casio designed to last 10 fucking years on a single button cell battery (that ain’t even rechargeable no less)?

        • @ObsidianZed
          link
          514 hours ago

          To be fair, a standard (non-smart) watch uses a fraction of power compared to an Apple Watch which is still essentially a iPhone.

          With that said, I have a Samsung watch, and though I charge it daily, it could probably last up to 3 days, so I don’t know what Apple is doing.