|
Published by C1ay 05-15-2005
| ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
| | ||||||||||
|
#1
By
BlameTheEx
on
05-16-2005
|
| Re: New 'Nuclear Battery' Runs 10 Years, 10 Times More Powerful A classic case of mistaking an advertising press release for news. The only numbers are in the header, and they are useless. 1) What are the actual efficiencies of these new batteries? We can't even begin to consider applications without this information. 2) What are the "Current nuclear batteries" that they are comparing them to? Are they referring to the best under development for future NASA missions, the normal standard available off the shelf or what? 3) How are they measuring efficiency? Immediate power to weight ratio, total power over lifetime of battery to weight ratio, power to tritium ratio, power to waste heat ratio, power to dollar ratio or what? If power to weight ratio is the measure does the weight include radiation shielding and heat sinks? There is a slightly more detailed press release here: http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=2154 As best as I read it this 10 times improvement is only in comparison to previous Betavolt batteries. It is careful to point out that those were of limited use. It is NOT a comparison with other more efficient methods of converting radioactive decay to electricity. Sadly nether press release gives a link to the actual paper on the topic (Volume 17 issue 10 of Advanced Materials). As the authors have chosen to publish in a journal that charges a subscription the link would be of limited use to most of us. The commercialisation of these batteries falls to BetaBatt, a company limited to a single web page here: http://www.betabatt.com/ |
|
#2
By
C1ay
on
05-16-2005
|
| Re: New 'Nuclear Battery' Runs 10 Years, 10 Times More Powerful Well actually, if you follow the link from the bottom of the article where it says Source: University of Rochester and then click on the news release there you'll see that it's exactly the same news release. I also don't agree that the University of Rochester released it for advertising purposes, they released it to show how Philippe Fauchet, professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Rochester and co-author of the research, had helped to develop a new method of etching silicon to get a higher yield from betavoltaic cells than those methods that are currently being used. The point of the article was to report that this new method of etching the silicon increased the useful surface area by more than 160 fold over previous betavoltaic batteries resulting in higher efficiencies and lifespans. This will lead to a large increase in the useful lifespan of the spacecraft that use betavoltaics for power as well. Sorry if you find that disappointing. |
|
#3
By
BlameTheEx
on
05-17-2005
|
| Re: New 'Nuclear Battery' Runs 10 Years, 10 Times More Powerful Oops. You are right. It is the same news release. Perhaps you are right about Rochester's motives too but that does change the article from being a press release. Not that I am totally against press releases. What I am against is the failure to provide at least links to the necessary basic data. As stands the only way to evaluate this development is to pay a subscription to Advanced Materials. Not even BetaBatt is giving specifications of the batteries it is supposed to market! That betavoltic batteries are improved is news but so what? There are developments all over. The development is only of interest to the extent that it solves problems, or at least gives hope of solving problems. Without the numbers we have no way of telling how likely this is. Of course if betavoltic batteries were already viable then any improvement would be of real interest. You assert "This will lead to a large increase in the useful lifespan of the spacecraft that use betavoltaics for power as well." If betavoltic batteries are already practical for spacecraft then you make a fair point. However I fail to find such an assertion in the article. Correct me if I am wrong but I was under the opinion that the hope is rather that development will one day make betavoltics viable for space. If so we are back to wondering if they will ever compete with alternative solutions, and cursing the lack of numbers. |
|
#4
By
C1ay
on
05-17-2005
|
| Re: New 'Nuclear Battery' Runs 10 Years, 10 Times More Powerful You do realize that all research news comes from news releases. To say you are against press releases is to say that you're against research news being published. And then to complain that the author used a venue that would allow them to actually get paid for their work says a lot. Do you work for free? And why do you think data collected from research that investors spent money to produce should be freely available. Are you a contributor? I'm sure that if you have a current development project that this technology might be suitable for, then BetaBatt will gladly send over a sales rep that will overwhelm you with all the data you want at no charge. Give them a call and tell them you're building a space probe or something. You might even get a free sample for your R & D. I did not mean to imply that current spacecraft use betavoltaics, only that those that would could see a large increase in lifespan as a result compared to using current betavoltaics. Poor word choice. If the lifespan of any battery technology can be expanded 10 fold it is a given that any applications that would use that technology would see an increase. One of the design goals of this technology is for it's use in space exploration. |
|
#5
By
Pete
on
05-18-2005
|
| Re: New 'Nuclear Battery' Runs 10 Years, 10 Times More Powerful I have access to Advanced Materials through my University. I don't follow the details in the article (I'm a Business graduate!), and I don't want to post copyrighted material to a public forum, but I'm sending it to BlameTheEx for comment. |
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Article: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Article Tools | |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Article | Article Starter | Category | Comments | Last Post |
| Evolution is Junk Science and Secular Religion | perfusionista | Biology | 119 | 01-27-2006 01:23 PM |
| Cell Architecture | alexander | Computer Science | 4 | 04-07-2005 06:03 AM |
| New clues add 40,000 years to age of human species | Tormod | General Science News | 7 | 02-21-2005 09:13 AM |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:22 PM.













