Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Nuclear battery

  1. Aug 14, 2006 #1

    {~}

    User Avatar

    I was going to post this in the nuclear engineering forum but my question is really more electrical.

    A beta emiter is a radioactive substance which radiates electrons (beta particals) in all directions.

    My question is, is there a way to generate electricity from electrons traveling away from a spherical source?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 14, 2006 #2

    dlgoff

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Most beta emitters (well the ones I've worked with) are not very energetic. Like C14; the particles can be stopped by a couple sheets of paper. But I quess there's a little energy you could gain from. I don't know how you would make a battery though.

    Regards
     
  4. Aug 14, 2006 #3

    {~}

    User Avatar

    well wha if it were a strong source? Isn't ther any process in electronics where you might do something like this?
     
  5. Aug 14, 2006 #4

    berkeman

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Put the emitter ball inside a larger concentric sphere, and connect the load resistance between the outer metal sphere and the inner beta emitter. Seems like it would work.
     
  6. Aug 14, 2006 #5

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Problem 1:

    A metric ton (1000 kg) of carbon-14 has about [itex]6 \cdot 10^{29}[/itex] atoms. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_14, Carbon-14 has a specific activity of 14 disintegrations per minute (dpm) per gram carbon.

    Thus, a metric ton of carbon-14 undergoes about 233,000 disintegrations per second.

    A typical hair dryer consumes 15 amperes of current at 110 volts. This means that approximately 200,000,000,000,000,000,000 electrons are travelling through the hair dryer every second.

    If you wanted to power your hair dryer with the electrons ejected by beta decay, you'd need something on the order of 30 trillion tons of carbon-14. Doesn't sound very efficient, does it?

    Problem 2

    As the electrons are ejected from the atoms of a beta-radioactive substance, the remaining atoms become more and more positively charged. It would be quite difficult to continue pulling electrons from them indefinitely.

    - Warren
     
  7. Aug 14, 2006 #6

    NoTime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I can't see this as any normal battery, because you arn't generating any holes for the electrons to move back into.
    OTOH if you simply put a sphere around the source it seems like the sphere should eventually generate a negative charge with respect to ground(in this case literally ground)

    Problem is that 1 amps worth of current for a second represents something like 6 X10^18 electrons. That is a lot of decay events. Using it as some sort of power source seems to be shy a few orders of magnitude.
     
  8. Aug 14, 2006 #7

    NoTime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Do they?
    If C14 decays to C13 arn't the number of protons the same. The electron shels would stay the same with the same occupancy.
     
  9. Aug 14, 2006 #8

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    How in the world is carbon-14 going to decay to carbon-13? Are you suggesting that somehow a neutron just "jumps" out of the nucleus? :confused:

    Perhaps you do not understand what beta decay is: the decay of a neutron into a proton and an electron (and an electron antineutrino). Carbon-14 decays to Nitrogen-14 via beta decay.

    - Warren
     
  10. Aug 14, 2006 #9

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This is not true -- this would violate the conservation of charge, which does not happen in any particle decay.

    - Warren
     
  11. Aug 14, 2006 #10

    NoTime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Fair enough.
    My knowledge of decay paths leaves something to be desired.
    OTOH this decay path generates a hole for an electron to move back into as in berkeman's post.

    PS: Wouldn't that have to be N-13 and not 14?
     
  12. Aug 14, 2006 #11

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yes, you could conceivably create a circuit, allowing the ejected electrons to move through a circuit before coming back to the sample. (I thus retract my "Problem 2.")

    And no, the decay product is definitely nitrogen-14. Carbon-14 has 6 protons and 8 nuetrons. If one of those neutrons decays into a proton (+ electron, etc.) the resulting atom has 7 protons and 7 neutrons, and is nitrogen-14.

    - Warren
     
  13. Aug 14, 2006 #12

    NoTime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    :rofl: I never could add.

    What's the basis for the nuclear batteries used on some spacecraft?
    Is it something like this with a high rate alpha or beta emitter or is it a thermal process?
     
  14. Aug 14, 2006 #13

    {~}

    User Avatar

    Spacecraft use a thermal process. The decaying source generates heat which is simply tapped into with thermal couples.

    I wasn't expecting to get one electron volt per electron emitted or anything like that. What I was thinking was to try and tap into their kinetic energy using inductance. They do, after all, have moving magnetic fields.

    Forget about the whole nuclear thing for minuet. What if you had a magically powered electron gun that could be used to power something else? How would you generate electricity from that?
     
  15. Aug 14, 2006 #14

    NoTime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    This was always my impression, but this thread made me realize I didn't actually know how it was done.

    I'm thinking you might be worse off this way.
    I seem to recall that the ejection speeds are fairly low as such things go and with a mass of 10^-28g or so...
    Might do better with an alpha emitter.
    Don't know.

    Don't see how. The efficiency would always be less than 100%.
     
  16. Aug 14, 2006 #15

    {~}

    User Avatar

    Does it matter if you don't have perfect efficiency? For the point of this thought experiment the electron gun is powered by something else entirely that we can't tap and aren't controling in any way. The electron gun emits an incoherent beam of electrons. We can't control the gun in any way. The gun could potentialy be a source of energy but the only thing we can manipulate is the beam.
     
  17. Aug 15, 2006 #16

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) have been used to power spacecraft for decades.

    http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/ Radioisotope thermoelectric generator
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_Nuclear_Auxiliary_Power_Program
    http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/messenger/oldmess/RTG.html
    http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/safety.cfm
    http://sse.jpl.nasa.gov/scitech/display.cfm?ST_ID=705 ('Expanding Frontiers with Radioisotope Power Systems' - pdf download available)

    :uhh: Magically?!? Well, an electron gun would produce a current of electrons, which IS electricity.

    Lower efficiency just means that one has to produce more energy from one source to get a particular amount of electrical energy. For a system of 25% efficiency, one must generate 4 kW of power from a source to get 1 kW of electrical energy. At 33.3% efficiency one would only need to develop 3 kW of power to get 1 kW of electrical energy.
     
  18. Aug 15, 2006 #17

    NoTime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Tapping the beam current seems to be the best way.
    Ie: put whatever you want to power in the electron return path.
    The beam itself would constitute a DC current, so you would need to steer it in and out of a transformer core or have a pulsed beam.
    Also you might get something using the Hall effect.
    Edit: Or thermal effects.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2006
  19. Aug 15, 2006 #18

    berkeman

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    What you are asking about is called "direct conversion", and is part of the road map for fusion power generation. If we could get a clean fusion reaction with direct conversion for the power generation, we would be one happy planet. That's several decades away at least, unfortunately. The best near-term prospects for fusion are still with dirty reactions and thermal conversion...:rolleyes:

    Anyway, here's a link about direct conversion:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion
     
  20. Aug 15, 2006 #19

    {~}

    User Avatar

    fusion hmm..

    The idea to me was sparked by this which looks to me like a gas filled raddiation detector that suposedly generates power.
     
  21. Aug 29, 2006 #20
    I seem to remember someone already figured this out. Didn't the Batmobile need to get nuclear batteries to charge before they left the Batcave:rofl: :rolleyes:
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Nuclear battery
Loading...