Linked by Jordan Spencer Cunningham on Fri 9th Oct 2009 20:49 UTC, submitted by SReilly
Hardware, Embedded Systems Not that we haven't known that this would one day happen, but it's still an exciting development nonetheless. Some folks over at the University of Missouri have whipped up nuclear batteries small enough to run the typical mobile device of today. They don't quite specify if has enough voltage to power something like a phone or a laptop as the batteries are being designed with MEMS and NEMS technology in mind, but they claim that these penny-sized batteries hold one million times the charge of "regular batteries." Whether a "regular battery" by their definition is the standard AA, the typical laptop battery, or a watch battery is unbeknownst to us peasants. It's being designed for MEMS and NEMS technology, but why not have it power my lappy if it's got the voltage? Imagine running one's computer for seven hundred years, and imagine all of that delicious space saved from the curse of conventional laptop batteries. Perhaps we don't need wireless electricity after all.
Order by: Score:
Safety?
by Zifre on Fri 9th Oct 2009 21:15 UTC
Zifre
Member since:
2009-10-04

The article says this is entirely safe, but I'm a bit... skeptical.

(Although, I have to say, almost never having to charge or replace the batteries in anything would be really nice.)

Reply Score: 2

Nuclear disposals?
by eantoranz on Fri 9th Oct 2009 21:40 UTC
eantoranz
Member since:
2005-12-18

So they have developed a way for us humans to get rid (kind of) of our own nuclear disposals? :-)

Reply Score: 3

RE: Nuclear disposals?
by izomiac on Sun 11th Oct 2009 21:58 UTC in reply to "Nuclear disposals?"
izomiac Member since:
2006-07-26

If it's still radioactive it's not dead yet so you'd probably not want to dispose of it. But, even if you did it's not like it has much radiation, and it's not airborne. In all likelihood, the chemical structure is probably more toxic than the radioactivity. Biologically speaking, radiation is natural and only becomes a problem if it surpasses what your cells can repair without error, so the risk is basically zero until that limit is exceeded. People with familial cancers might want to avoid them though, since those are often defects in DNA repair.

Reply Score: 1

Terrible name and title
by kev009 on Fri 9th Oct 2009 22:57 UTC
kev009
Member since:
2006-11-30

Nuclear battery is a terrible choice of name for the general public. Immediately people associate this with Nuclear Fission, bombs, etc.

No, you wont have a Uranium reactor running in your pocket. Just because something gives off radiation doesn't mean it is inherently unsafe or dangerous. Many watches, scopes, and compasses in the military use Tritium for illumination.

I propose the term Atom Battery, or ABAT ;) .

Reply Score: 5

RE: Terrible name and title
by JLF65 on Fri 9th Oct 2009 23:51 UTC in reply to "Terrible name and title"
JLF65 Member since:
2005-07-06

I was thinking more like Low Energy Emissions Type Battery, or LEET Battery. ;)

Reply Score: 6

RE: Terrible name and title
by Morgul on Fri 9th Oct 2009 23:59 UTC in reply to "Terrible name and title"
Morgul Member since:
2005-07-06

Fudge the numbers and you get "1000 year Atomic Batteries". Now, all they need is to get Adam West to be their spokesman...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Terrible name and title
by Doc Pain on Sat 10th Oct 2009 18:17 UTC in reply to "Terrible name and title"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

Just because something gives off radiation doesn't mean it is inherently unsafe or dangerous. Many watches, scopes, and compasses in the military use Tritium for illumination.


I own an older soviet watch that - if I remember correctly - uses Uranium for illumunation. Sadly, I can't check this because I don't know where my Geiger-Mueller-counter and this watch are located at the moment. :-)

I propose the term Atom Battery, or ABAT ;) .


ATOMINO!!! =^_^=

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Terrible name and title
by echo.ranger on Mon 12th Oct 2009 16:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Terrible name and title"
echo.ranger Member since:
2007-01-17

You're not thinking of tritium are you? Its a radioactive element that is luminescent and is often used to illuminate watch dials, magnetic compasses and gun sites.

If you're talking about a radioactive substance used to illuminate your watch, as opposed to powering it, then its likely tritium you're referring to.

Reply Score: 1

want!
by helf on Sat 10th Oct 2009 01:10 UTC
helf
Member since:
2005-07-06

I would LOVE this. Gimme AA/AAA sized RTGs and I'll be happy for a long time.

Reply Score: 2

RE: want!
by drstorm on Sat 10th Oct 2009 01:26 UTC in reply to "want!"
drstorm Member since:
2009-04-24

Gimme AA/AAA sized RTGs and I'll be happy for a long time.

A couple of hundreds of years at least. ;)

Reply Score: 2

Exploding iPhones
by Cody Evans on Sat 10th Oct 2009 02:57 UTC
Cody Evans
Member since:
2009-08-14

If iphones are already exploding with lithium batteries, I would hate to see one explode with one of these...

Reply Score: 4

RE: Exploding iPhones
by StephenBeDoper on Sat 10th Oct 2009 03:35 UTC in reply to "Exploding iPhones"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

If iphones are already exploding with lithium batteries, I would hate to see one explode with one of these...


"Need to take off and nuke something from orbit. Yep, there's an app for that."

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Exploding iPhones
by Cody Evans on Sat 10th Oct 2009 04:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Exploding iPhones"
Cody Evans Member since:
2009-08-14

Your reply just made my day.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Exploding iPhones
by JLF65 on Sat 10th Oct 2009 15:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Exploding iPhones"
JLF65 Member since:
2005-07-06

Your reply just made my day.


Yes, it was very funny. ;) Truthfully, though, there's nothing to worry about in that respect. These Lithium batteries "explode" because they're made from extremely (chemically) reactive materials in an effort to generate as much energy as needed. Nuclear materials aren't nearly as (chemically) reactive - especially the materials used in nuclear batteries. The danger comes from OUTSIDE explosions exposing the nuclear materials, not from INSIDE explosions. So unless something else in the electronic device is explosive, nuclear batteries are ideal.

Since these batteries will last longer than the device itself, you can also design the product differently - hide/shield it from everything else with layers of plastic. You don't need to worry about changing a battery, just disposing of the device properly once you no longer need it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Exploding iPhones
by StephenBeDoper on Sat 10th Oct 2009 21:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Exploding iPhones"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Your reply just made my day.


Thanks! For my money, there will never be a better internet meme than "nuke it from orbit."

Reply Score: 2

Iran ?
by bugjacobs on Sat 10th Oct 2009 02:58 UTC
bugjacobs
Member since:
2009-01-03

I guess they wont export this to Iran !

haha !

Reply Score: 3

Recycle these!
by strcpy on Sun 11th Oct 2009 12:55 UTC
strcpy
Member since:
2009-05-20

Try to recycle these!

Like there would not be enough hazardous waste from computers.

PCs -- one core of consumerism.

Reply Score: 2

NOT FOR PHONES, LAPTOPS!
by aargh on Mon 12th Oct 2009 07:54 UTC
aargh
Member since:
2009-10-12

I wish bloggers like mr. Jordan Spencer Cunningham would do they research before they post nonsense news they only wish they were true...

"As for powering gadgets, torches - perhaps even electric cars - such applications would seem out of reach for now. Kwon says that there is "a long way to go" before his battery is ready for commercial marketing."

"In particular, he needs to boost the power output of the battery before it can ever be relevant to devices other than MEMS. It currently puts out just 16.2 nano-Watts. One would need a huge pile of such batteries - almost forty million of them - to produce enough power to run a cellphone."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/08/nuclear_coin_battery/

Reply Score: 2

RE: NOT FOR PHONES, LAPTOPS!
by JayDee on Mon 12th Oct 2009 15:29 UTC in reply to "NOT FOR PHONES, LAPTOPS!"
JayDee Member since:
2009-06-02

I agree, the penny sized technology is not for phones or laptops... for the time being.

They have, as he says, been used to provide power in spacecraft - typically secret spy satellites in need of more power than solar panels can provide - and also probes sent far from the sun. But these power units have been a lot bigger than a penny.


The quote above does however say that the technology is used in more power intensive applications with bigger sized batteries. It might be possible to use this tech for phones and laptops in the future. Aren't we exploring the future of computing here at OSNews?

Reply Score: 2

A conspiracy
by Leroy on Mon 12th Oct 2009 12:08 UTC
Leroy
Member since:
2006-07-06

to make us all sterile! LOL

Reply Score: 1

RE: A conspiracy
by WereCatf on Mon 12th Oct 2009 12:27 UTC in reply to "A conspiracy"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

to make us all sterile! LOL

Well, men are obsolete ;) It's already known how to create artificial sperm cells ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: A conspiracy
by DrillSgt on Mon 12th Oct 2009 14:22 UTC in reply to "RE: A conspiracy"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

to make us all sterile! LOL

Well, men are obsolete ;) It's already known how to create artificial sperm cells ;)


But yet those artificial sperm cells will do no good if the ovaries are fried as well ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: A conspiracy
by jgagnon on Tue 13th Oct 2009 11:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: A conspiracy"
jgagnon Member since:
2008-06-24

Babies will be obsolete once we perfect cloning. ;)

Reply Score: 1

Why not make it bigger?
by airwedge1 on Mon 12th Oct 2009 16:04 UTC
airwedge1
Member since:
2006-02-22

Why not make it bigger where I can buy a nuclear batter the size of a furnace for example, and power my entire house with it?

Reply Score: 1