Nickel-63 to Copper-63 Nuclear Electrical Battery

SpaceNut · 2023-12-24 15:40:40

I remember that this is not new and that the content of such is hidden in older topics.

Of course, this is a thermal heat that is outputted from the reaction.
From what I remember it does take a special build to achieve this heat from the isotopic state change.
That it does not produce an electric from this state change from charge difference.
Of course, like all things nuclear fear keep the progress of these only to lab use and nothing beyond for the commercial power or heating sources.

Russia to use highly enriched Ni-63 for atomic batteries into an atomic battery with a lifetime of 50 years.

Radioactive battery provides decades of power

The copper that remains after the beta emissions is of a negative potential due to the exchange.

half life and other tables present
High power direct energy conversion by nuclear batteries

Prototype nuclear battery packs 10 times more power
https://newatlas.com/nickel-nuclear-bat … ign/54884/
https://phys.org/news/2018-06-prototype … -power.pdf

?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnewatlas-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2Farchive%2Fnickel-nuclear-battery-2.png

Here is another that will cover the thermal energy use of decay.

Calliban · 2023-12-24 18:16:38

Here is a paper on the Ni-63 battery.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio … ar_battery

It is a good fit for long duration low power applications. The decay energy, Q, is very low - 17.4KeV. The power released by a molar mass of material, will be proportional to Q and inversely proportional to half life. We are dealing with a material with low Q and long half life. So power output is low, but very reliable.

tahanson43206 · 2023-12-24 19:24:39

For SpaceNut and Calliban... Thank you both for your support of this inquiry.

The quote below is a follow up on the tip from SpaceNut that the Russians have done work on this concept ...

For SpaceNut ... please note that the Russian work was NOT about thermal power... it was ENTIRELY about direct production of electric current. I am not interested in the thermal pathway because it is so inefficient. A direct electric path would be 100% efficient, because all transactions occur at the quantum level, which is 100% efficient.

Based on a quick search, here's what I found.
The research conducted by Russian scientists on nuclear batteries using Nickel-63 presents an interesting parallel to your concept. Their work highlights several key aspects relevant to your project:
New Nuclear Battery Design: Russian researchers have developed a nuclear battery design based on Nickel-63, improving power density compared to conventional batteries. This design uses Nickel-63, which has a half-life of over 100 years.
Prototype and Power Output: Their prototype used layers of Nickel-63 with a thickness of two microns, sandwiched between diamond diodes measuring 10 microns thick. This configuration achieved a power output of about 1 microWatt (µW) and a power density of 10 µW per cm³, suitable for applications like powering a pacemaker.
Energy Efficiency: The nuclear battery developed boasts about 3,300 milliWatt-hours of power per gram, significantly higher than conventional electrochemical batteries.
Production Potential: The researchers have also developed an efficient method for mass-producing the thin diamond layers. While large-scale production of Nickel-63 might be challenging, it is considered feasible in the near future.
This research underscores the potential of Nickel-63 in creating compact, long-lasting power sources. For your concept, these findings suggest that with appropriate technological advancements and design optimization, Nickel-63 could indeed be a viable option for providing sustained power output in a safe and efficient manner. However, scaling up to achieve a megawatt of power would require significant advancement beyond the current capabilities demonstrated in the prototype.
User
First, thank you for finding the Russian paper, and for evaluating the paper with respect to the project we are working on. Can you tell if the Russian design was collecting energy in the form of electrons to produce electricity directly, or were they using thermal energy?
ChatGPT
The Russian design for the nuclear battery using Nickel-63 was focused on collecting energy in the form of electrons to produce electricity directly. This was achieved by using Nickel-63 sandwiched between diamond diodes to create a beta voltaic device. In this setup, the beta particles (electrons) emitted by the Nickel-63 interact with the diamond, generating an electrical current. This method is distinct from thermal energy collection and is akin to how solar panels generate electricity from light, but in this case, the source is the beta radiation from the decay of Nickel-63.
User
Is there any evidence the Russians sought a patent for their design? When did this work take place?

ChatGPT
I wasn't able to find specific information on whether the Russian researchers sought a patent for their nuclear battery design using Nickel-63. The details regarding patents are often more complex to ascertain and may require access to dedicated patent databases or official patent office records.
The development and demonstration of the prototype by Russian researchers occurred around 2016-2017, as indicated by their presentation of the prototype at Atomexpo 2017. This suggests that the research into this technology was relatively recent, and the work on industrial-scale production of Nickel-63 was anticipated to advance in the mid-2020s.
For detailed patent information, it would be advisable to consult a patent database or seek assistance from a professional specializing in intellectual property, who can navigate the specific legal databases and verify the existence of such patents.

This work appears to be of sufficient quality so that a patent (or several) would logically follow.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2023-12-24 19:35:50

Yes one of them was a solid state battery approach which is the picture.

There is also another using the nickel which was a thermal reaction as it did not employ and semiconductor materials.

E-Cat 1MW Plant, which comes in a standard shipping container, can produce one megawatt of thermal energy, using low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR) -- a process, often known as cold fusion, that fuses nickel and hydrogen into copper, producing energy 100,000 times more efficiently than combustion.

https://www.livescience.com/13745-newes … sible.html

tahanson43206 · 2023-12-24 19:42:56

For the record:

Per Google:

Combining gallium (atomic number 31) and nitrogen (atomic number 7), gallium nitride (GaN) is a wide bandgap semiconductor material with a hard, hexagonal crystal structure.
Gallium nitride semiconductors: The Next Generation of Power
navitassemi.com › gallium-nitride-the-next-generation-of-power
About Featured Snippets

Gallium nitride is of interest because it was (is?) the beta particle capture mechanism chosen by the Americans, as reported in the paper found by Calliban.

Diamond is of interest because it is a form of Carbon, which is one of the most common elements on Earth.

ChatGPT came back with confirmation that Gallium is a rare element, compared to Carbon.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2023-12-24 19:44:47

Also used is solar cells and diodes as the bandgap voltage is 0.3 volts to activate unlike the normal semiconductor that is 0.7 volts approximate.

tahanson43206 · 2023-12-24 19:53:10

For SpaceNut re #6

Can you find out (and post for the record) the relative abundance of Gallium? Nitrogen is common, but I suspect Gallium is not suitable for a mass production environment. I am looking for a solution that allows thousands of these power packages to be deployed world wide, so use of common materials would seem advisable.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2023-12-24 20:17:39

For all who may be interested in this topic...

Here is a link to a copy of the transcript with ChatGPT4. The work with ChatGPT was enhanced by input from SpaceNut and Calliban and even by BARD, who came to the rescue by finding a reference to Nickel-63.

SpaceNut then found a link to the Russian work, and Calliban found a link to work by Americans using Gallium Nitride.

This transcript ends with a discussion of the very serious issue of waste heat that would be expected from a 1 megawatt power pod. The reactor cannot be turned off, so a reliable way to dispose of waste heat is vital for this system.

Waste heat can be used to heat a building, or used to assist an industrial process, but a backup system able to dispose of the ENTIRE heat output is needed.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RUE … sp=sharing

(th)

Calliban · 2023-12-25 02:19:49

Assuming that my calculations are accurate, 1 gram of Ni-63 has decay power of 8.5mW. To produce 1MW of power, the battery would need to contain some 118 tonnes of Ni-63. That much Ni-63 would be very costly and physically difficult to manufacture. I would suggest that you think of applications with microwatt to watt power levels. That might have uses in compact devices that need to function independently of human intervention for long periods of time.

Last edited by Calliban (2023-12-25 02:22:44)

tahanson43206 · 2023-12-25 07:15:24

For Calliban re #9

Thank you for this helpful contribution to the topic!

The mass of the system will require more than the reactive element. In both the Russian and the American designs, a layer of material is required to collect electrons emitted by the Nickel-63. Thus the mass of the system will be at least double the mass of the reactive material.

The mass of the material is one thing. The physical volume is another. If you have time (and I know your time is limited) please attempt to compute the volume of the Ni-63 that corresponds to the 118 tonnes your calculations indicate will be needed to deliver 1 MW.

To this point I only had ChatGPT's optimistic estimate to go by, so it is ** very ** helpful to have your estimate in hand for comparison.

The form factor I'm considering is the volume of a standard shipping container, which is published as 8 x 20 by 8 (in round numbers) There is a tall version as well, with a height of 9 feet (again in round numbers). Can your 118 tons fit into that form factor?

The supply of 1 MW was a starting point for this investigation. A home supply of 2 KW for 50 years is a reasonable lesser target.

The use of the words "costly" and "expensive" should be avoided, because they are subjective terms without meaning. The actual requirements to manufacture, install, maintain and recycle this device is likely to be more helpful.

Again, ** thank you ** for your support of this topic!

(th)

SpaceNut · 2023-12-25 08:05:53

Nuclear Batteries with Potential

made in a layer
Recent progress and perspective on batteries made from nuclear waste

Diamond Nuclear Battery

tahanson43206 · 2023-12-25 08:11:08

For SpaceNut re #11

Thank you for your discoveries and the links you provided in #11

The Diamond Nuclear Battery link may be a reference to the Russians, which you brought to our attention a few posts ago.

I'll go back and follow the links in a moment .... I stopped in now to deliver ChatGPT(4)'s estimate of the mass required to deliver 1 megawatt for 20 years. The mass estimate is 6 tons, which can be compared to Calliban's estimate. I asked ChatGPT(4) to show it's work, and it did so. here is a summary:

Thank you ** very much ** for recasting the problem in grams per watt. 6.2 tons of Nickel-63 is what you seem to have found is needed for this application. Six tons of Nickel would have a volume at standard temperature and pressure. Please compute the volume of that quantity of Nickel, and compare it to the desired form factor of 8 feet by 8 feet by 20 feet.
ChatGPT
The calculated volumes are as follows:
Volume of 6.157 Tonnes (6157 kg) of Nickel-63:
Approximately 0.691 cubic meters.
Volume of the Shipping Container (8 feet by 8 feet 6 inches by 20 feet):
Approximately 38.51 cubic meters.
Comparison:
The volume occupied by the required mass of Nickel-63 for your Power Pod concept is significantly less than the total volume of the standard shipping container. This indicates that the Nickel-63 would occupy only a small portion of the container, leaving ample space for the necessary beta voltaic cells, cooling systems, shielding, and other components.
It's important to note that the actual arrangement and distribution of Nickel-63 within the container would need to be optimized for efficient energy capture and safety considerations, such as radiation shielding and heat dissipation.
This comparison suggests that the form factor of a standard shipping container is more than adequate to house the Nickel-63 along with all necessary systems and safety measures for the 1 megawatt Power Pod concept.

This line is reserved for a link to the actual computations:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NWn … sp=sharing

The bottom of the transcript contains a detailed explanation of the computations used by ChatGPT4 to arrive at the 6 tons figure.

Because ChatGPT can make errors, I am skeptical of the result, and hope that someone in the forum membership has the time to study the calculations in detail. We can wave our hands all day, or in the case of this forum, for 20 years, but until we perform actual computations and offer them for inspection, that is all we are doing.

The key concept used by ChatGPT4 to estimate power output is the energy output of one emission event. The program then extrapolated from one emission event to the total number of such events needed to reach the 1 megawatt objective. it then extrapolated that result ove 20 years. I suspect there must be an error in there somewhere.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2023-12-25 08:25:41

For SpaceNut re #11

Thanks again for the links you provided ...

I checked the "diamond" reference and discovered it has NO connection to the Russians .... In fact the work predates the Russian paper.

Diamond Nuclear Battery
The University of Bristol posted a press release in 2016 introducing another possible next generation nuclear battery technology using carbon isotopes in the form of diamonds. Nuclear power generation produces radioactive waste that cannot be easily disposed. In United Kingdom alone, 95,000 tons of radioactive C-14 are deposited and decaying. Researchers at the University of Bristol discovered a way to heat and gasify the radioactive C-14 concentration on the surface of deposited nuclear graphite wastes, and condense the gas into artificial diamonds. A man-made diamond generates an electric current when placed in a radiation field, and a diamond made of C-14 produces a radioactive field spontaneously. Hence, the diamond battery can create a constant electric current as long as it remains radioactive. Although C-14 can deliver only 15 joules per gram (compared to 700 joules per gram of standard alkaline battery), the C-14 diamond battery can generate power for 7746 years before reaching 50% charge (compared to a single day usage of standard alkaline battery). The C-14 diamond can be encapsulated in a non-radioactive diamond shell which will block all radiation and protect the battery under harsh conditions. [6] The resulting battery is made of the hardest material on Earth, so the industry might finally overcome the psychological resistance of sensitive clients such as patients using IMDs.
Conclusion

This is definitely interesting! The paper at link reported on another approach, which is an aqueous solution to pull beta emissions for use.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2023-12-25 08:59:47

For Calliban re contribution to topic ....

Thanks again for your contribution! I fed it into the process with ChatGPT(4) and have ** just ** received a clarification that takes half life into account.

ChatGPT4 originally calculated the total amount of Ni-63 that must be transformed to produce 1 megawatt for 20 years. This calculation was based upon the beta emission event, and I hope it will stand up to scrutiny. However, ** that ** calculation did NOT take half-life into account. When I brought that to the attention of ChatGPT, it recalculated and now it offers a total of 7.07 tonnes needed. I will continue pressing the issue of half-life to see if further adjustments are forthcoming.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2023-12-25 09:09:33

Follow up .... I just asked ChatGPT4 to re-compute the number of emission events needed to produce one megawatt in one second.

I suspect that Calliban's post will inspire us to improve the calculations to take half-life into account.

To be continued ...

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2023-12-25 09:31:11

While I wait for ChatGPT4 to return from the most recent request, here is a quote showing it's calculation for production of power from emission events...

Here's the step-by-step calculation for the mass of Nickel-63 required to generate 1 megawatt of power for 20 years:
Energy per Decay Event of Nickel-63:
1.071738×10−14
1.071738×10 −14 Joules per decay event.
Power Output:
Target: 1 megawatt (1×1061×10^6 watts).
Total Energy Required for 20 Years:1 MW×3600 seconds/hour×24 hours/day×365 days/year×20 years
1 MW×3600 seconds/hour×24 hours/day×365 days/year×20 years.
This equals 630,720,000,000,000
630,720,000,000,000 Joules.
Number of Decay Events Needed:630,720,000,000,000 Joules/1.071738×10−14 Joules/decay
630,720,000,000,000 Joules/1.071738×10 −14 Joules/decay.
This equals approximately 5.885×10285.885×10 28 decay events.Moles of Nickel-63 Required:
Using Avogadro's number (6.022×1023 atoms/mol6.022×10^23 atoms/mol)
.5.885×1028 atoms/6.022×1023 atoms/mol 5.885×10 28 atoms/6.022×10 23 atoms/mol.
This equals approximately 97,725 moles.
Mass of Nickel-63 in Grams:
Molar mass of Nickel-63 is 63 g/mol63 g/mol.97,725 moles×63 g/mol97,725 moles×63 g/mol.
This equals approximately 6,156,696.87
6,156,696.87 grams or about 6157 kilograms.
This calculation provides the estimated mass of Nickel-63 needed to generate 1 MW for 20 years

I suspect this calculation does not take half-life into account

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2023-12-25 09:38:43

ChatGPT4 came back with this result:

To deliver 1 megawatt of power in one second, approximately
9.33×10199.33×10^19 decay events of Nickel-63 must occur. This calculation is based on the energy released by each decay event of Nickel-63, which is approximately
1.071738×10−141.071738×10^−14 Joules.

This set of calculations should be subject to veification.

If we have a forum member willing to tackle this, please confirm or falsify the calculation.

Note: the presentation from ChatGPT does not translate well to text. I'll ask for a text translation.

Certainly! To deliver 1 megawatt of power in one second using Nickel-63, it requires approximately
93,306,386,448,926,880,000 decay events.
This calculation is based on the fact that each decay event of Nickel-63 releases approximately
1.071738 x 10^-14 Joules of energy.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2023-12-25 10:53:58

ChatGPT4 was overwhelmed by the challenge of computing the number of Nickel-63 atoms that must be present, to generate a megawatt of power in one second, given the half life of 100 years. When I finally regained control of the conversation, it offered this guideline:

It looks like we encountered a reset in the code execution state, which interrupted the calculation. However, let me explain the concept, so you can understand how to calculate the initial number of Nickel-63 atoms needed to have the specified number of decay events in one second, taking into account the half-life of 100 years:
Formula for Initial Atoms (N0): We use the formula (not translated correctly to text)
0=(0.5)N 0 = (0.5) Tt N , where:0N 0 is the initial number of atoms.
N is the number of decay events (or the number of atoms that decay) in a given time.
t is the time period for which we calculate the decay (in this case, 1 second).
T is the half-life of the substance (in seconds, for Nickel-63, this would be 100 years converted to seconds).
Applying the Formula: By inserting the number of decay events required for 1 MW in one second and the half-life of Nickel-63 into this formula, we can calculate the initial amount of Nickel-63 atoms needed in the Power Pod at the start of the period.
Interpreting the Result: This calculation will give us the total number of Nickel-63 atoms required at the beginning to ensure that enough atoms decay in each second to generate 1 MW of power, accounting for the gradual decrease in the number of undecayed atoms over time due to the half-life.
I can attempt the calculation again, or if you prefer, this explanation might provide the guidance needed for your team to perform the calculation.

Here is a link to the saved transcript:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C8O … sp=sharing

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2023-12-25 11:31:28

I had to start a new session with ChatGPT4 to recover from the poorly framed question...

Here is a calculation formatted for Notepad/gedit:

You
Thank you for trying! Something has interfered, and the display is formatted for a high level processor such as Word or Libre Office. Can you format the presentation for display in Notepad or gedit?
ChatGPT
Absolutely, I'll format the presentation for a plain text editor like Notepad or gedit:
Calculation of Nickel-63 Mass Required for 1 Megawatt Power Output
Half-Life of Ni-63:
100 years
Decay Events per Second for 1 Megawatt Output:
Approximately 9.33 x 10^19 decays per second
Conversion of Half-Life to Seconds:
1 year = 365.25 days
1 day = 24 hours
1 hour = 3600 seconds
Half-life in seconds = 100 * 365.25 * 24 * 3600
Decay Constant (lambda) Calculation:
lambda = ln(2) / Half-life in seconds
Total Number of Ni-63 Atoms Required (N):
N = Decays per second / lambda
Calculated as approximately 4.25 x 10^29 atoms
Atomic Mass of Ni-63:
62.929669 atomic mass units (amu)
Conversion Factors:
1 amu = 1.66053906660 x 10^-27 kilograms
1 metric ton = 1000 kilograms
Mass of One Ni-63 Atom in Kilograms:
Mass = Atomic mass of Ni-63 * amu to kg conversion factor
Total Mass of Ni-63 in Kilograms:
Total mass in kg = Mass of one Ni-63 atom in kg * Total number of atoms
Total Mass of Ni-63 in Metric Tons:
Total mass in metric tons = Total mass in kg * kg to metric ton conversion factor
Calculated as approximately 44.39 metric tons
This format should be compatible with basic text editors like Notepad or gedit. Let me know if there's anything else you need!
You
Yes! Thank you! This is very helpful indeed! Now let's discuss your results in a bit more detail. I think you have determined that if we start with 44.39 metric tons of Ni-63, and if we are able to convert all beta emissions from that sample with 100'% efficiency, we will deliver 1 megawatt in the first second. Have I interpreted your results correctly?
ChatGPT
Your interpretation is almost correct, with a few important clarifications:
Starting Mass of Ni-63: The calculated mass of 44.39 metric tons of Ni-63 is the amount needed at the start to ensure that approximately
9.33×10^19
decay events occur in the first second. This number of decay events is what's required to produce 1 megawatt of power in that second.
Efficiency of Conversion: The calculation assumes that all the energy released from these decay events is converted into electrical energy with 100% efficiency. In practice, achieving 100% conversion efficiency is not possible due to various losses and limitations in current technology. The actual efficiency of energy conversion in betavoltaic devices (which use beta particles from radioactive decay to generate electricity) is much lower.
Duration of Power Output: The calculation is specific to the first second. Over time, as Ni-63 decays, the number of decay events per second will decrease, leading to a decrease in power output. However, due to the long half-life of Ni-63 (100 years), this decrease is very gradual.
In summary, starting with 44.39 metric tons of Ni-63 and assuming 100% conversion efficiency, you would theoretically deliver 1 megawatt of power in the first second. However, this is a theoretical model and actual results would vary based on the efficiency of the conversion technology and other practical considerations.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2023-12-25 11:36:40

And here is the follow up ... after 20 years, it appears that power output will be decent, at .87 megawatts

Furthermore, it appears that the 44.39 metric tons of Ni-63 will fit inside a standard shipping container:

Apache Internal Server error objected to the quote ... I'll offer the file as a link

Let's calculate the remaining fraction of Ni-63 after 20 years and the new power output.
After running the Nickel-63 (Ni-63) nuclear battery system for 20 years, starting with 44.39 metric tons, the power output would decrease to approximately 0.87 megawatts. Here's the calculation presented in a format suitable for Notepad or gedit:
<snip>
The volume of 44.39 metric tons of Ni-63 is significantly less than the volume of the pod. Ni-63 will easily fit within the given pod dimensions.
This shows that the volume of Ni-63 required for the nuclear battery is much smaller than the available space in the pod. Let me know if you need further details or calculations!
You
Thank you! I'll offer this work to the review team! While I'm away, best wishes for similar success with all your other fans!

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2023-12-25 11:45:44

We have an opportunity to study ChatGPT's work in detail. There are likely to be errors, so it is up to the NewMars Review Team to find them.

In the absence of finding the errors that lie in wait, here is the outlook:

A starting allocation of 44.39 tons of Ni-63 can deliver 1 megawatt in the first second. Energy drawn is electric, consisting of beta particles emitted when a neutron in Nickel-63 converts to a proton, to yield stable Copper Cu-63.

Thermal energy can be expected because the beta capture will not be 100% effective, and that thermal energy must be managed.

After 20 years, it appears that power output will be 87% of the starting level.

The pod could be scaled down for a home heating and power market, while keeping the shipping container form factor.

in that case, power output would be reduced to something like 2 Kw, or 14 Kw using a popular Generac model as a guide, and it would still be producing at 87% of the starting level after 20 years.

(th)

Calliban · 2023-12-25 17:17:27

Maybe someone can check my sums and tell me where I am getting this wrong?

1 mol of 63Ni contains 6.02x10^23 atoms and weighs 63 grams. The decay constant of 63Ni can be calculated thus:

T1/2 × L = ln2

L= ln2/T1/2 = 0.693/(100.1 × 365,25 × 24 × 3600) = 2.19425662×10^−10

Decay power = (6.023×10^23 × 2.19425662×10^−10 × 17,400eV × 1.6×10^-19)/63 = 0.0058W/gram

To produce 1MW, we would need:

M = 1,000,000/0.0058 = 171,311,853 grams (171.3 tonnes)

That is a lot of radioisotope for not very much power. If 63Ni is extracted as a fission waste product, then maybe these batteries could have niche applications. But consider that a 1000MWe fission reactor, produces about 1 tonne of fission products each year. How much of that waste stream is going to be 63Ni and how much would it cost to seperate it from other nuclides?

If we are producing 63Ni by irradiation of 62Ni, then the reactor must be designed such that leakage neutrons are absorbed into 62Ni. Each 235U fission yields about 2.5 neutrons. One of those neutrons is needed to sustain the reaction. About 0.5 neutrons are absorbed by 238U resonance peaks and other parasitic losses. So each fission, which yields 180MeV of thermal energy, gives us a maximum of 1 spare neutron, which can be absorbed into 62Ni. When the resultant 63Ni decays, it releases 17.4KeV, which is 10,000x less than a single fission event.

This is why it will never be practical to use radioactive batteries as anything more than a niche energy source. All of the long-lived fission products and irradiation products from a fission reactor, account for a pitiful quantity of energy release compared to the fission events that generated them. That doesn't mean that they aren't useful in niche applications, where small amounts of power are required. But don't expect to be powering cities with these things.

Last edited by Calliban (2023-12-25 17:23:28)

tahanson43206 · 2023-12-25 19:17:10

For Calliban re calculation in #22

First, thank you ** very ** much for engaging with me in this study!

ChatGPT4 compared your calculations to the ones it produced, and if found a difference:

To find where the discrepancy occurred, we need to re-examine the energy per decay event used in both calculations and ensure that all conversion factors are consistent and accurately applied. Let's revisit the initial assumptions and calculations with a focus on these areas.
Upon re-examining the energy per decay event used in both calculations, we find a significant discrepancy:
Our Initial Assumption: The energy per decay event of Ni-63 was assumed to be approximately
1.071738×10−141.071738×10^−14 Joules.
Third Party's Assumption: After converting their value from electronvolts to Joules, the energy per decay event of Ni-63 is approximately
2.784×10−152.784×10^−15 Joules.

You can't both be right, and ChatGPT4 assures me it would be happy to have the correct value. It tells me it's access to the Internet has been shut off, so we have agreed to a collaborative approach. Since I can open the Internet on one monitor, while holding ChatGPT4 open on another, I can act as a go-between to help ChatGPT4 to correct it's base data.

It appears the two of you are working with different units,. which makes the comparison a bit more challenging.

I don't care if the number of tons is 44.39 or the 171 you calculated. I just need to know which is correct.

Thanks ** again ** for participating !!! I am delighted to be giving ChatGPT4 a workout!

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2023-12-26 07:17:42

For SpaceNut Re #1

Thank you for the many references you collected and posted in #1 of this topic!

This post is about just one of them: https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apr/article/6/ … by-nuclear

I. INTRODUCTION
The original discovery of the electron-voltaic effect induced by beta particles (high energy electrons resulting from radioisotope decay) was published during the same time period the work on the photovoltaic effect was reported (Rappaport, 1954). Although the photovoltaic effect exploited in solar cells has become important for renewable energy sources, the electron-voltaic or alphavoltaic effect has been largely ignored due to the small amount of energy continuously generated in demonstration devices. The purpose of this review is to investigate the possibility of higher power devices.
Direct conversion of energy from isotope decay (either alpha or beta particles) is accomplished using charge separation structures such as acceptor/donor doped (PN) junctions Radioisotope Thermal Generators (RTGs) (Prelas et al., 2014 and Yang and Caillat, 2006), or vacuum capacitors (Kavetsky et al., 2009). Radioisotope based devices have the highest energy densities of any technology but deliver only small amounts of continuous power.
Recent reviews of nuclear battery technology were published by Olsen et al. (2012) and Prelas et al. (2014). This review will be limited to discussions on devices that utilize the electron-voltaic or alphavoltaic effect and highlighting the power limitations of radioisotope based battery technology. The review will attempt to address the three goals annunciated in the Nano Power Program (Prelas et al., 2016): (1) obtain a specific power between 1 and 100 mW/cm3, (2) have a battery lifetime of 10 years, and (3) obtain a power of 1 W/g. The Ragone diagram (Christen, 2000 and Romer et al., 2008) shown in Fig. 1 plots the specific energy vs specific power for three of the reported best performing betavoltaic devices. The sloping lines of the Ragone diagram indicate the discharge times for the technologies in question. The region of interest (>1 mW/kg and > 10 year discharge time) is indicated on the Ragone plot by the shaded triangular region. It is clear that none of these devices meet two of the performance criteria.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2023-12-26 12:39:27

This is for Calliban ...

Thank you (again) for your participation in this topic!

I opened a session with ChatGPT(4) today, intending to follow up on the discrepancy between your results (171 tons) vs the earlier figure of 44 tons delivered by ChatGPT4. Happily, Internet access is once again available to ChatGPT4, and it quickly identified the discrepancy.

I did not realize this, but you had used the average energy value for a beta emission from Nickel-63. ChatGPT4 had used the maximum energy, which is considerably greater. Upon review, ChatGPT4 readily conceded that your choice was more appropriate.

I'd like to (at least try to) emphasize this point ... evaluation of results delivered by ChatGPT4 is important and necessary.

While much of the work done by ChatGPT4 stands up to scrutiny, little glitches like this one can spoil the results.

A beneficial outcome of this episode is that I have added one more skill to the box full I am building up in working with this powerful software.

It appears that 171 tons is going to be the number to work with, but I'm about to ask ChatGPT4 to redo the entire calculation, based upon the improved (average) energy number.

Update: Here is a link to the 1 megawatt study, showing recovery from an error, thanks to feedback from Calliban:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/gpkmu1hp … vxro8&dl=0

I have opened a new session to explore the market for home power supply for 50 years, at the rate of 14 Kw. 14 Kw is a popular capacity offered by Kohler and Generac, to major suppliers in the field of backup power.

The purpose ** the new ** study is to find a solution that will deliver 14 Kw (or more in the beginning) over 50 years.

The market for such a package ** should ** be in the millions of units.

(th)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2023-12-24 15:40:40

Nickel-63 to Copper-63 Nuclear Electrical Battery

#2 2023-12-24 18:16:38

Re: Nickel-63 to Copper-63 Nuclear Electrical Battery

#3 2023-12-24 19:24:39

Re: Nickel-63 to Copper-63 Nuclear Electrical Battery

#4 2023-12-24 19:35:50

Re: Nickel-63 to Copper-63 Nuclear Electrical Battery

#5 2023-12-24 19:42:56

Re: Nickel-63 to Copper-63 Nuclear Electrical Battery

#6 2023-12-24 19:44:47

Re: Nickel-63 to Copper-63 Nuclear Electrical Battery

#7 2023-12-24 19:53:10

Re: Nickel-63 to Copper-63 Nuclear Electrical Battery

#8 2023-12-24 20:17:39

Re: Nickel-63 to Copper-63 Nuclear Electrical Battery

#9 2023-12-25 02:19:49

Re: Nickel-63 to Copper-63 Nuclear Electrical Battery

#10 2023-12-25 07:15:24

Re: Nickel-63 to Copper-63 Nuclear Electrical Battery

#11 2023-12-25 08:05:53

Re: Nickel-63 to Copper-63 Nuclear Electrical Battery

#12 2023-12-25 08:11:08

Re: Nickel-63 to Copper-63 Nuclear Electrical Battery

#13 2023-12-25 08:25:41

Re: Nickel-63 to Copper-63 Nuclear Electrical Battery

#14 2023-12-25 08:59:47

Re: Nickel-63 to Copper-63 Nuclear Electrical Battery

#15 2023-12-25 09:09:33

Re: Nickel-63 to Copper-63 Nuclear Electrical Battery

#16 2023-12-25 09:31:11

Re: Nickel-63 to Copper-63 Nuclear Electrical Battery

#17 2023-12-25 09:38:43

Re: Nickel-63 to Copper-63 Nuclear Electrical Battery

#18 2023-12-25 10:53:58

Re: Nickel-63 to Copper-63 Nuclear Electrical Battery

#19 2023-12-25 11:31:28

Re: Nickel-63 to Copper-63 Nuclear Electrical Battery

#20 2023-12-25 11:36:40

Re: Nickel-63 to Copper-63 Nuclear Electrical Battery

#21 2023-12-25 11:45:44

Re: Nickel-63 to Copper-63 Nuclear Electrical Battery

#22 2023-12-25 17:17:27

Re: Nickel-63 to Copper-63 Nuclear Electrical Battery

#23 2023-12-25 19:17:10

Re: Nickel-63 to Copper-63 Nuclear Electrical Battery

#24 2023-12-26 07:17:42

Re: Nickel-63 to Copper-63 Nuclear Electrical Battery

#25 2023-12-26 12:39:27

Re: Nickel-63 to Copper-63 Nuclear Electrical Battery

Board footer