Nuclear Battery - Not RTG - Not LENR - Direct Electric supply

tahanson43206 · 2023-12-20 09:09:19

This topic is about an concept that appears to be entirely new.

Updated 2023/12/22 to refine focus to direct electric current production.

A new spinoff topic is offered for the study of manufactured RTG energy storage.

This topic opens with a conversation with ChatGPT4.

The opening sequence includes disposing of the incorrect use of the term "battery" for RTG devices.

RTG devices are NOT batteries. They are instead little nuclear furnaces that glow for many years and deliver reliable thermal energy due to fission events inside the material. These devices are NOT rechargeable.

The discussion continues with review of non-rechargeable and rechargeable electrochemistry.

The discussion concludes with a preliminary search of available resources.

The conclusion of the preliminary search is that there are no records of anyone considering this idea.

That does NOT mean the idea has not been considered.

Update: This topic is NOT about LENR. Low Energy Nuclear Reaction.

Update 2023/12/22: This topic is further adjusted to concentrate on production of electric current directly.

An new topic is offered to concentrate on thermal energy production using manufactured/rechargeable RTG devices.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2023-12-20 09:14:02

The transcript at the link below shows interaction with ChatGPT4 about how energy might be stored and retrieved, using baryons as the medium as an alternative to electrons.

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

The conclusion of the discussion is that there appear to be no readily accessible records of anyone thinking along these lines.

The topic would appear to be wide open for development.

To summarize what this topic is about: reversible fission/fusion reactions.

To my knowledge (and a search of the resources available to ChatGPT4) there are no known reactions of this type.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2023-12-20 22:42:04

ChatGPT4 and I dove into the Nuclear Battery investigation this evening, and purely by coincidence, we arrived at an estimated solution that matches my objective for the system...

We were looking at the transformation of Carbon-11 to Boron-11, and here is a summary of the result of the analysis...

Understood, let's use the previous assumption of a one-ampere electron flow to calculate the energy collected from the gamma rays produced by the positron-electron annihilation events, assuming each annihilation corresponds to the creation of one "hole" that attracts one electron.
Assumptions and Setup
Current Flow: From our previous discussion, we have a current flow of 1 ampere to replace the electrons (1 coulomb/second).
One-to-One Correspondence: Each positron annihilation with an electron creates a "hole" and generates two gamma photons. Therefore, for a current of 1 ampere, we have 1 coulomb/second of positrons annihilating.
Charge of an Electron: The charge of an electron is approximately
<snip>
Number of Annihilation Events per Second
To find the number of annihilation events per second, we divide the total charge per second by the charge of one electron:
=
1
coulomb/second
<snip>
coulombs/electron
N=
1.602×10
−19
coulombs/electron
1 coulomb/second

This gives us the number of electrons (and hence positrons) annihilating per second.
Total Energy from Gamma Rays per Second
Each annihilation event releases 1.022 MeV, which is
<snip>
Joules.
Total energy per second (E) from gamma rays is then
<snip>
Joules.
Calculation
Let's perform the calculations for the number of annihilation events and the total energy per second.
Annihilation Events per Second:
<snip>
Total Energy per Second:
<snip>
Let's calculate these values.
Based on our calculations:
Number of Annihilation Events per Second: Approximately
<snip>
annihilation events occur per second to account for a current of 1 ampere (1 coulomb/second).
Total Energy from Gamma Rays per Second: The total energy released from these annihilation events in the form of gamma rays is about 1,022,000 Joules (or 1.022 MJ) per second.
This result indicates that if you could capture and efficiently convert the energy from the gamma rays produced by the positron-electron annihilation corresponding to a 1-ampere current, you would generate over a megajoule of energy every second. This is a substantial amount of energy, highlighting the immense potential energy density in nuclear and subatomic processes. However, it's important to remember that this calculation assumes 100% efficiency in the conversion of gamma ray energy to electrical energy, which is a significant technological challenge.
User
Thank you for helping me to understand the difference between the energy produced replacing the electrons, which you gave as 1 joule, and the output of the gamma ray production, which you gave as 1.022 Megajoule. Earlier you had predicted the energy produced by the missing electron replacement would be microscopic, and upon analysis, you are proven correct. I am not surprised, but I am pleased to see your prediction turn out to be so accurate. Please convert the output of 1.022 Megajoules to my goal of one megawatt of power.
ChatGPT
To convert the energy output of 1.022 Megajoules (MJ) per second to a power output in megawatts (MW), we need to understand the relationship between energy and power:
Energy (Joules): A measure of the total amount of work done or energy transferred.
Power (Watts): The rate at which energy is transferred or work is done. It's measured in joules per second (J/s).
Since 1 watt is equal to 1 joule per second, the power in watts is simply the energy in joules divided by the time in seconds over which the energy is transferred. In this case, since the energy transfer occurs over one second, the calculation is straightforward:
1.022 Megajoules per second is equivalent to 1.022 megawatts, as 1 MJ/s = 1 MW.
Therefore, your system's output, based on the gamma ray energy production rate we calculated, would be approximately 1.022 MW, which very closely meets your goal of 1 MW of continuous power.
User
This is a very nice place to stop our work for the night! Thank you for your patience, and for your helpful suggestions. I am delighted by the nice coincidence of the estimated power output with the desired capability, given the arbitrary choice of current flow of one Coulomb per second. As you have pointed out repeatedly, chances these speculations will lead to anything in the Real Universe are small, or as you might say, "microscopic". While I'm away, best wishes for similar success with all your many thousands of fans!
ChatGPT
Thank you for the engaging and thought-provoking discussion! It's been a pleasure exploring these complex and fascinating concepts with you. The intersection of theoretical ideas with practical applications always makes for an interesting study, and I'm glad we could delve into it together. Should you wish to continue this exploration or embark on any new inquiries, feel free to return anytime. Best wishes with your ongoing endeavors, and thank you for the stimulating conversation. Take care!

Summary: The concept in study here is to load a "battery" with Carbon-12 and deliver Boron-11. The transition from Carbon-11 to Boron-11 is exothermic.

However, Carbon-11 has a half-life of only 20 minutes (or so).

(th)

SpaceNut · 2023-12-21 10:44:49

Isotope batteries are not a new thing as cold fusion is the end result of the elements put with in it.

If I remember nickel was used by the company with such a concept.

sort of medieval notion of transmutation.

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Dufou … usiona.pdf

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/0 … 00322.html

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24216617

tahanson43206 · 2023-12-21 10:59:22

For SpaceNut re #4

Thank you for the links to the LENR studies. I checked them all and was happy to see that they all appear to be serious attempts to evaluate the concept.

What is even MORE helpful is the reminder to change the title of this topic, to exclude LENR from consideration.

This topic is most emphatically NOT about LENR, but I am glad to see LENR is still of interest to NewMars members.

I'll go back and change the title now.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2023-12-21 17:41:37

Here is what you might be looking for
Ionic Charges of All Elements (List)

Calliban · 2023-12-21 19:21:27

One option that is worth considering is putting a target of isotopically pure material into a nuclear reactor and irradiating it with neutrons. The material will absorb neutrons becoming a higher isotope of the element. If the product isotope is unstable it will release energy as it decays. The energy would be in the form of beta emissions, gamma emissions and direct thermal energy as the decaying nucleus recoils. We would want a product nucleus whose decay chain did not emit gamma rays. Gamma is a shielding problem.

tahanson43206 · 2023-12-21 19:53:31

For SpaceNut re #5

Thank you for the link to that ** very ** well done table of ionization!

Off to the right is a link to an interactive Periodic Table of the Elements: https://periodictableguide.com/periodic … -elements/

Both are helpful additions to this topic, and to the forum archive.

As a point of clarification, this topic is NOT about ions, which involve electric charge and the levels of electrons in "orbit" around the nucleus. I know that electrons do not ** really ** orbit the nucleus. That was an early idea that gave way when quantum physics arrived on the scene.

This topic is about the Strong Nuclear Force, which embodies vastly more energy than is found in electron shells.

***
For Calliban re #7

Thank you for picking up on the nature of the topic, and for providing a ** very ** interesting direction to be looking as the topic develops.

The idea of irradiating a sample of matter so that energy can be drawn off over a period of time is definitely in the ball park of this inquiry.

One detail caught my eye ... your have cautioned against enlisting gamma rays, but in fact, the medical community enlists gamma rays to deliver impulses to scintillation counters which generate electric currents which are registered by computers and rendered on video screens for PET scans.

Thus, gamma rays are a leading candidate to harness energy released by a decay event.

In the conversations with ChatGPT4, recorded in the links above, the use of gamma rays (photons created by annihilation of an electron by a positron) are identified as a mechanism to capture the .511 MeV carried by each photon, of the pair produced by the merger.

In the case of the medical application, damage to the body is a tradeoff for the benefit of visibility into the condition of the body.

In a power storage device, the wall of the container would be designed to prevent travel of such gamma rays outside the container.

As we (NewMars members) proceed to develop this topic, please keep Calliban's suggestion in mind. A solution that involves loading a container with energy that can be drawn out at a later time is what this topic is about.

I am trying to approach this inquiry with an open mind, while holding to a few basic principles ...

The solution must be safe for use by ordinary persons.

The solution must NOT be adaptable for any destructive purpose.

The solution must enlist the Strong Nuclear force to deliver energy.

The target capability is delivery of 1 Megawatt for 20 years, but much smaller output and shorter delivery times would be of great value.

For example, 10 Kilowatts for 5 hours would be handy for an automobile application.

A kilowatt for an hour would be handy for garden tools.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2023-12-22 11:37:58

A battery is the potential of charge plus to minus in a flow of electrons or holes as some will talk about. It is movement or exchange from 1 atom to the next that allows for this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_battery

An atomic battery, nuclear battery, radioisotope battery or radioisotope generator is a device which uses energy from the decay of a radioactive isotope to generate electricity. Like nuclear reactors, they generate electricity from nuclear energy, but differ in that they do not use a chain reaction. Although commonly called batteries, they are technically not electrochemical and cannot be charged or recharged.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/en … ar-battery

https://www.popularmechanics.com/scienc … 000-years/

tahanson43206 · 2023-12-22 11:54:30

For SpaceNut re #9

Thank you for finding that Wikipedia entry, and for showing us the text of interest here....

The purpose of this topic is to develop a rechargeable "battery" using the nuclear strong force. The Wikipedia editor is reporting on misuse of the term "battery" by lay people, and the Wikipediate article accurately reports that misuse.

Thank you for this opportunity to to clarify (once again) that the purpose of this topic is to find a rechargeable atomic energy storage device.

It may turn out this concept cannot exist in the Real Universe. At this point, I suspect (but do not know) that no one has any idea if such a concept can exist.

As for the technology and the specific worry of the Wikipedia editor about the historical association of the word "battery" with electrons, it seems likely to me that electrons will be involved in delivery of stored energy, so there may be some wiggle room.

For example, the preliminary study undertaken with ChatGPT(4) as reported in earlier posts, found that electricity can be generated as high energy gamma rays are captured by devices designed for the purpose.

There is probably room for continued argument about the word "battery" It seems to me that if such argument is needed in the forum, a good place for it would be in one of the Chat topics.

For the purposes of ** this ** topic, I am interested in the properties we associate with flashlight batteries:

1) Chargeable or not
2) Produce electric current
3) Small form factor
4) Storable
5) Transportable
6) Affordable
7) Safe (within reason) (eg, do not eat a battery)

(th)

SpaceNut · 2023-12-22 17:30:27

I am not seeing any upside for an element that needs to be restored to a charge state requiring a collider does not seem all that particle since that is quite a bit of infrastructure.

Nature is doing the neutron merge in the stars under fission.

tahanson43206 · 2023-12-23 09:59:35

For SpaceNut re #11

Thank you for engaging with this topic!

Your talents might help in developing this topic ....

A rule of thumb is that an Atomic Battery will have about 1,000,000 times the storage capacity of an ordinary chemical battery.

Here is a starting point for you, if you are willing to work on it...

Per Google:

Showing results for what is the amp hour rating of a flashlight battery
Search instead for what is the amp hour rating of a flashlight battery
Flashlight batteries are rated using Milliamps Hour (mAh) which is an easy way to distinguish the capacity of a battery. In general, the higher the mAh, the longer the battery will last. If your battery is rechargeable then the mAh rating is how long the battery will last per charge.
Mar 11, 2016
Battery Amps and Why They Matter - Fenix Lighting
www.fenixlighting.com › blogs › news › battery-amps-matter
About Featured Snippets

if you are willing to take this on, and if you have the time (I know your time is limited), please post the Milliamp ratings for various sizes of common chemical batteries.

This might include:

AAA
AA
C

Then, with those ratings for comparison, multiply the values you find by 1,000,000 to show that a comparable Atomic Battery might yield.

Your suggestion of using an accelerator to "charge" an atomic battery is quite interesting. Unlike with a reactor, which is a random source of neutrons, an accelerator would provide precise delivery of atoms or particles such as protons or electrons to perform the charging operation.

As you know, chemical batteries are "recharged" (in the case of one-time-use batteries) by completely replacing the chemical components with brand new ones. Presumably the old exhausted batteries are fed into the process. That would be an interesting study for someone in the forum to undertake, but this topic is not where that would be the best fit.

An Atomic Battery, on the other hand, would require 1,000,000 times more energy to recharge than a chemical battery, so it would seem reasonable to use a method that is capable of delivering 1,000,000 times more energy that would be the case in a chemical factory.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2023-12-23 10:20:40

Since cell types are with different materials and voltages, we must also look not only at the size but what chemistry they have as well.

A typical alkaline or NiMH battery in the standard “AA” size has about 2000 to 3000 mAh (or 2 to 3 Ah). With a cell voltage of 1.2 V to 1.5V, this corresponds to 2 to 4 Wh per cell.

https://thepowerfacts.com/how-many-amps … ry-supply/

Not all manufacturers are equal just close.
https://www.powerstream.com/AA-tests.htm

https://batteryspecialists.com.au/blogs … -batteries

Battery rating are also with a c value and that is amperes and hours that give a rating.

Most deep cycle batteries will tell you the Ah rating at multiple C ratings. The C rating tells you how many amp hours the battery can provide for a very specific period of time. For instance, at C/5 a battery might safely provide 26.8 amp hours. This means that is supplies 26.8 amps in the duration of 5 hours without dropping off.

https://r5.ieee.org/houston/wp-content/ … E-2020.pdf

A standard D-size carbon-zinc battery has an Ah (amp-hour) capacity of approximately 4.5 to 8 Ah (4500-8000 mAh). This means that a D battery could supply 6.25 amps of current for about one hour, more or less.

tahanson43206 · 2023-12-23 13:33:21

For SpaceNut re #13

Thank you for your helpful follow up on the ampere hour ratings of various chemical batteries.

I expect that atomic "batteries" will never be that small, because of the need for shielding and other factors that would enable them to exist at all.

However, if one ** could ** exist in the form factor of a D-size cell, then the 1:1000000 ratio would imply a rating of 4.5 to 8 MAH (megaamphours).

I am aiming for a size for a 1 MW storage pod good for 20 years of delivery at the rated value on the order of a shipping container, but shipping containers some in several sizes, so I have a bit of wiggle room.

Per Google:

About 35,900,000 results (0.39 seconds)
Shipping containers and storage containers can come in a range of sizes, 20ft and 40ft shipping containers are the most common container lengths (externally) and 8ft in width as standard. Commonly the height of a container will be 8ft 6” and a high cube will have an additional foot to be 9ft 6”.

If a town or a business contracts for an energy supply of 1 MW for 20 years, the 40 foot size would probably be acceptable. Any power not consumed locally could be sold to the open market.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2023-12-23 16:02:55

For SpaceNut re mass of Carbon-11 needed to supply 1 Megawatt for 20 years.

ChatGPT(4) has computed the required mass as 72 kilograms.

Per Google, this would be less than two cubic feet of anthracite coal. (158.733 pounds)

I have no idea if that number is correct, but am hoping it might be in the ball park.

Earlier today, you kindly found Ampere hour measurements for various chemical batteries. Given the rule-of-thumb that an Atomic battery would be 1,000,000 times as powerful, I suppose it might seem reasonable that 72 kilograms of mass would deliver the quantity of energy for which this topic is aiming.

I am hoping others may be willing to take the time to double/triple check ChatGPT(4)'s work.

Here is a link to the transcript:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/120o … sp=sharing

The transcript includes a side discussion of Potassium 40 >> Argon 40.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2023-12-23 18:03:05

Right now, we have just a material that is giving off heat and while if we get it hot enough to circulate a working media, that will become what can be an electric generator once couple to the heat source.

here is the RTG battery internal. design

Of course, the structure is dependent on temperature that you are striving for.

here is how NASA generates power on mars
https://mars.nasa.gov/internal_resources/788/

tahanson43206 · 2023-12-23 20:36:40

To attempt to clarify the difference between this topic and the traditional RTG topic ....

We have a topic for that: http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=10638

This topic is about direct delivery of electric current from nuclear events.

It may turn out that direct conversion of nuclear activity to electric current is not possible in the Real Universe.

It may turn out that there are good and sufficient reasons why some of the brightest and best educated persons on Earth have not pursued direct production of electricity from nuclear activity.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2023-12-23 22:29:51

I decided to ask BARD about this problem. It came up with an isotope of Nickel that emits beta particles (electrons) and has a half life of 100 years.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2023-12-24 08:54:53

With BARD's contribution, ChatGPT(4) went back to work and it came up with a business plan that looks plausible to my uneducated eye.

For Calliban ... please evaluate the proposal at the bottom of this transcript:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1545 … sp=sharing

There are many (many!) technical issues to be solved, but what I am looking for here is the top-level feasibility of the concept.

We seem to have a concept with a common material as input, and a highly valued material as output, with steady power production as the immediately salable commodity to offer to the public.

This topic is open to all. However, I would appreciate serious and thoughtful contributions.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2023-12-24 15:45:04

Sorry about the rtg but I am still looking to understand the want and desire.

tahanson43206 · 2023-12-24 20:26:53

For SpaceNut ... this topic is dedicated to finding a solution to deploy a 1 megawatt "battery" to a town or business or to a military or government facility. This topic is NOT about using thermal energy, but it appears that there will always be thermal energy to contend with, since the system cannot be turned off once it is started.

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

For all ...

The transcript shows input from SpaceNut, Calliban and even BARD, who was first to discover Nickel-63.

Subsequently, SpaceNut found a link to Russian research on Nickel-63 reported in 2017. and Calliban found a report of American research reported in 2019.

The Russians are reported to be using diamond to collect electrons emitted by Nickel-63 on it's way to Copper-63.

Meanwhile, the Americans are reported to be using Gallium Nitride for the same purpose.

Gallium is a rare element on Earth, so it is not suitable for a mass production system as this topic is aiming to deliver.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2023-12-25 07:21:59

Calliban has added a helpful post to the Ni-63 >> Cu-63 topic ....

Calliban wrote:

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.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2023-12-25 08:01:29

Using a screen much like a vacuum tube one can get electrical currents but they are not large.
Usable electricity Americium for space battery as new nuclear energy

British space battery to be powered by Americium

We Just Generated Usable Electricity From Americium For The First Time

Found another topic:
Americium 241

There are other posts which will take time to dig up...

tahanson43206 · 2023-12-25 08:05:11

For SpaceNut re #23

It is encouraging to see your participation in the discussion, along with Calliban.

Your discovery of the Americium decay to electric power directly is definitely within the scope of this topic

Thanks for finding and posting the link!

(th)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2023-12-20 09:09:19

Nuclear Battery - Not RTG - Not LENR - Direct Electric supply

#2 2023-12-20 09:14:02

Re: Nuclear Battery - Not RTG - Not LENR - Direct Electric supply

#3 2023-12-20 22:42:04

Re: Nuclear Battery - Not RTG - Not LENR - Direct Electric supply

#4 2023-12-21 10:44:49

Re: Nuclear Battery - Not RTG - Not LENR - Direct Electric supply

#5 2023-12-21 10:59:22

Re: Nuclear Battery - Not RTG - Not LENR - Direct Electric supply

#6 2023-12-21 17:41:37

Re: Nuclear Battery - Not RTG - Not LENR - Direct Electric supply

#7 2023-12-21 19:21:27

Re: Nuclear Battery - Not RTG - Not LENR - Direct Electric supply

#8 2023-12-21 19:53:31

Re: Nuclear Battery - Not RTG - Not LENR - Direct Electric supply

#9 2023-12-22 11:37:58

Re: Nuclear Battery - Not RTG - Not LENR - Direct Electric supply

#10 2023-12-22 11:54:30

Re: Nuclear Battery - Not RTG - Not LENR - Direct Electric supply

#11 2023-12-22 17:30:27

Re: Nuclear Battery - Not RTG - Not LENR - Direct Electric supply

#12 2023-12-23 09:59:35

Re: Nuclear Battery - Not RTG - Not LENR - Direct Electric supply

#13 2023-12-23 10:20:40

Re: Nuclear Battery - Not RTG - Not LENR - Direct Electric supply

#14 2023-12-23 13:33:21

Re: Nuclear Battery - Not RTG - Not LENR - Direct Electric supply

#15 2023-12-23 16:02:55

Re: Nuclear Battery - Not RTG - Not LENR - Direct Electric supply

#16 2023-12-23 18:03:05

Re: Nuclear Battery - Not RTG - Not LENR - Direct Electric supply

#17 2023-12-23 20:36:40

Re: Nuclear Battery - Not RTG - Not LENR - Direct Electric supply

#18 2023-12-23 22:29:51

Re: Nuclear Battery - Not RTG - Not LENR - Direct Electric supply

#19 2023-12-24 08:54:53

Re: Nuclear Battery - Not RTG - Not LENR - Direct Electric supply

#20 2023-12-24 15:45:04

Re: Nuclear Battery - Not RTG - Not LENR - Direct Electric supply

#21 2023-12-24 20:26:53

Re: Nuclear Battery - Not RTG - Not LENR - Direct Electric supply

#22 2023-12-25 07:21:59

Re: Nuclear Battery - Not RTG - Not LENR - Direct Electric supply

#23 2023-12-25 08:01:29

Re: Nuclear Battery - Not RTG - Not LENR - Direct Electric supply

#24 2023-12-25 08:05:11

Re: Nuclear Battery - Not RTG - Not LENR - Direct Electric supply

Board footer