Gamma Ray Decay to potential watts

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on calculating the potential power output from the gamma decay of Cobalt-60 (Co-60) to Nickel-60 (Ni-60). Each decay emits two gamma rays of 1.3 MeV and a beta particle of 0.3 MeV, resulting in an energy release of approximately 4.5e-13 J per decay. To sustain a power output of 60 Watts, approximately 1.3e14 decays per second are required, necessitating about 3 grams of Co-60. The half-life of Co-60 is 5.2 years, leading to a significant decrease in power output over time. Practical energy conversion methods remain limited, with current techniques primarily involving heat engines and thermoelectric junctions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of gamma decay and nuclear reactions
  • Familiarity with energy calculations and power output
  • Knowledge of radiation shielding techniques
  • Basic principles of thermoelectric conversion
NEXT STEPS
  • Research "Cobalt-60 decay and its applications in power generation"
  • Explore "Gamma-ray interactions with matter and electron production"
  • Investigate "Thermoelectric generators and their efficiency"
  • Learn about "Radiation shielding materials and their effectiveness"
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, nuclear engineers, energy researchers, and anyone interested in the practical applications of gamma decay in power generation.

ANarwhal
Messages
57
Reaction score
0
I'm interested in calculating how much power (in Watts) could be produced (assuming a 100% conversion efficiency between Gamma Rays and electrical power) from gamma decay of a 60 Co -> 60 Ni.

How long would this reaction last? Just a few seconds or longer? Are there any decays that last for a long time?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Each gamma decay takes a very short time (order 10^-23 seconds iirc) ... it is a statistical rather than a continuous process.

You can work out the rates from the mean lives of the processes. Imagine you are driving a sensitive waterwheel with raindrops.
 
As Simon mentioned, the actual power will depend upon the activity, which is decays per second. Multiply this by the energy per decay and you have energy per second, which is power. You'll find it takes an enormous activity to generate enough power to light up an electricl light bulb.
 
Cobalt 60 decay emits two 1.3 MeV gammas and a 0.3 MeV beta. This is 4.5e-13 J per decay. To produce 60 W, you would thus need 1.3e14 decays per second. This is equal to 3615 Ci, or about 3 g of Co-60. Co-60 has a half-life of 5.2 years which means if the bulb initially produced 60 W, after 5.2 years it would produce 30 W, after 10.4 years - 15 W, etc.

Note that this 60 W cobalt-60 lightbulb would cause a dose of 500 R/hr (fatal) at a distance of 10 ft if unshielded. However with a 5 inch thick leaded glass shield surrounding the bulb, this could be reduced to 0.1 R/hr at 10 ft.

(using the Rad Pro Calculator here: http://www.radprocalculator.com/Gamma.aspx )
 
Last edited:
How were you planning to do the energy conversion? I could only think of using a heat engine driving an alternator, which would not necessarily be very efficient. Is there some 'direct conversion' method?
 
When the gamma rays hit matter, they can produce high-energetic electrons. Maybe the efficiency can be improved if they are used directly to generate high voltage/low current, which is then converted to the needs of a lamp. In addition, the heat of the impact site can be used.
The production of 60Co is too expensive to make this practical in any way.
 
mfb said:
When the gamma rays hit matter, they can produce high-energetic electrons. Maybe the efficiency can be improved if they are used directly to generate high voltage/low current, which is then converted to the needs of a lamp. In addition, the heat of the impact site can be used.
The production of 60Co is too expensive to make this practical in any way.

There's the rub, I'm afraid. It's the actual details that would have to be right and I don't think a method exists yet. As far as I know, the only methods available (used in spacecraft ) involve using a nuclear source for heat and then thermoelectric junctions - not very efficient.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K