Scientists Invent 30 Year Continuous Power Laptop Battery

reply to post by Tom Bedlam


Okay, I would be glad if you show us how you come to these numbers you wrote. Show me tha math!

reply to post by tiagoratto


No problem, mang.

One, you can look in a textbook and get the Psp of tritium direct, or you can calculate it. My book gives a number of roughly 34 microwatts/curie.

Knowing that the definition of a curie is 3.7E10 decays per second, assume every decay emits an electron with an energy of 5.7keV, and from that it's straight algebra to get a number of 32.5 microwatts/curie, which tells me there's probably some digits to the right of 5.7 I'm not figuring in. But if you go with the table, it's only 34 microwatts/curie, IF you capture and convert every electron that leaves the material into useful power, which doesn't happen. It's definitely not 100% efficient.

As far as the 125 microwatts per cc figure goes, it's from the horse's mouth. Slide 9 says - 125 uW/CC. You can also find Gadeken cite that figure elsewhere. That's a goal, by the way, not a current battery. And he is the guy the article is on about.

Oh, he's also got a Psp table on page 3 with the 34 uW number. That's all the power that's coming out as beta particles per curie. There isn't any more.

As for the price, if tritium is about $3 the curie, a figure he also gives, and you get 32uW per curie, then enough to provide you with a Watt (if you're 100% efficient) would be 1/32E-6 curies, or 29411 Curies. Times 3 is $88,235.

$88 grand for a watt of power? I reckon I'll stick with my crappy little 1200mAh batteries.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury... I beseech you to think outside the box and ask yourself the following... If it took our dear government 30 years to reveal the use of atomic RTG batteries used by NASA when they launched Voyager in 1961, how long do you think it will take them to tell us about the Thorium plasma batteries they are using now in satellites and long-range torpedoes and soon in electric RC tanks that could cross all of Euarasia without a single refueling or recharge?

For sure a 30 year laptop battery is great but just compare it with a battery that will power your entire home and everything in it for 3-5 generations! I urge you to Google and search out the facts to put this laptop battery into real perspective. I rest my case.

Originally posted by AnotherEnergyVictim
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury... I beseech you to think outside the box and ask yourself the following... If it took our dear government 30 years to reveal the use of atomic RTG batteries used by NASA when they launched Voyager in 1961, how long do you think it will take them to tell us about the Thorium plasma batteries they are using now in satellites and long-range torpedoes and soon in electric RC tanks that could cross all of Euarasia without a single refueling or recharge?

For sure a 30 year laptop battery is great but just compare it with a battery that will power your entire home and everything in it for 3-5 generations! I urge you to Google and search out the facts to put this laptop battery into real perspective. I rest my case.

I knew someone would say this! Oh and just a minor correction, the Voyager Program was launched at 1977... 34 years ago and it's still alive and well. RTGs were first created back in the 1950's and was first tested in on a satellite during 1961. In reality the thing that strikes me the most is the technology in the battery doesn't use any kind Radioactive Isotope similar to an RTG. The mechanics is the same it's just that how can "neutron beta-decay into protons" be possible? What possible Element(s) can achieve this?