Talk:Atomic battery

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Atomic battery article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

improvement

Looks like there is a possibility of vastly improving the output of Atomic Batteries: https://physorg.com/news4081.html

something new

Radio isotopic generator [1] Ni-63 beta radiation induces a harmonic oscilation in a piezo-element.Stone 09:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nifty. I recall that a similar cantilever-based system was built about a year or two ago (listed under "reciprocating electromechanical atomic batteries" on this page), but this certainly deserves a citation. --Christopher Thomas 17:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This link is bad

Britt, Robert Roy (May 16, 2005). "Nuclear battery keeps going, and going ...". MSNBC. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7843868/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ieee8023 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Errors

Currently, the article reads: "In the French anime Code Lyoko, the supercomputer in the series uses a nuclear battery. This is often believed by some fans to be uranium-based, but the half-life of the battery (20 years or so, judging from the show's established timeline) makes this unlikely, as a uranium battery would last for hundreds if not thousands of years (and the radioactivity would have killed Peter Duncan and Jeremie very quickly). As of now, some fans currently theorize that the fuel for the battery is Lead-210 as its half life is 22.3 years."

The errors are in bold, and suggest that somebody confused nuclear batteries with nuclear reactors.
The first one would only be even close to true if they were using U232, as any other isotope of uranium would still provide well over >95% output after "hundreds if not thousands of years", and would continue to provide consistent power for "millions of years". Further, atomic batteries are non-critical in nature - their function is impeded by a chain reaction, not enhanced by it.
The second is a related issue. Gamma radiation is unsuitable for power, as it's difficult enough to stop, let alone capture as an energy source. If there's no benefit to it, and it presents a safety concern, then there is no sense in using a power source that emits gamma radiation. However, alpha and beta radiation are quite easy to stop, and present little health risk - alpha radiation (The kind produced by the decay of Uranium) can be stopped by almost anything (including the layer of dead skin cells that covers human beings), and beta radiation isn't much harder to contain. Gamma radiation would not be produced at hazardous levels unless the radioisotope used was put into a critical or near-critical state - something for which there is no reason to do in the first place.
Basically, the statement is poorly researched and doesn't fit with established fact.
On another note, I think that a half-life of 22.3 years would make lead unsuitable, as the claimed ~20-year lifespan of the power source would have it degrade to ~50% of it's initial power output in that time span. I could understand a life cycle where a power source is allowed to run down to 85%-80% of it's capacity for powering a discreet object like a computer, but running down to 50% of it's output is just unreasonable. Granted it wasn't supposed to go on so long, but the failure point would have likely been much sooner than that. I suppose over-engineering is the only real answer, although it does lead to questions about how the secret facility disposed of the unneeded power without raising suspicions. Fdgfds 18:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article called Atomic battery and not Nuclear battery?

I'm guessing that there has already been a long discussion of this that is archived somewhere. Could someone kindly provide me with a link to it? --arkuat (talk) 07:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thermal converters

Perhaps the Stirling Radioisotope Generator (SRG) should be included in this section. --Parax (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is now. - Rod57 (talk) 02:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that need to be cited

See: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Radioactive_battery

It appears to be largely the same article with nearly the same text.

/usr/human/Artemis Chubwell 07:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC) Arty-C —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arty-C (talk • contribs)

New article from BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8297934.stm Good source for recent development and applications. The linked http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/57794.stm is also good, too. Specifically describes Voyager 1 and Pioneer 10 as powered by Nuclear batteries. 98.222.133.234 (talk) 04:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Betavoltaics

The article gives the impression betavoltaics were invented in 2005, when in fact these devices have been around for decades and were used in early pacemakers. This has been corrected. Does the work at Rochester and Toronto really deserve a singular mention compared to all of the other work that has been done? I changed the text to that which is on the introduction of the Betavoltaic page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.115.27.10 (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this page should say something about the early history of betavoltaics, especially as used in pacemakers or ICD devices.

All the articles I've read about pacemakers powered by atomic batteries either don't give any technical details, or talk about the Numec NU-5 which was apparently built around a radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) developed in the 1960s and installed only during the 1970s.

If you have any references that describe any pacemakers powered by betavoltaics or any other atomic battery, or any other human-implantable devices powered by an atomic battery, please add those references to the appropriate section of this article, perhps atomic battery#Pacemakers. Thank you. --DavidCary (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Safety section?

Like a previous question about the name of the article, I'm guessing the answer to mine is buried somewhere in an archive as well.. Why isn't there a section on safety? The article on Radioisotope thermoelectric generator has a safety section, and it seems like at least links to safety sections of the most used isotopes. I'm guessing that lead or something could be used to shield the isotope and whatever is used to convert the emitted energy - but that I'd think add to the weight, which for something like a pacemaker might be a concern. I'd also (wild) guess that an optoelectric converter might avoid the usual safety concerns all together - but the article on that doesn't say anything either. Jimw338 (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Sources

In order to complete an assignment for an an English course I am enrolled in a have added 4 extra sources and cited them in the article. MattMan1995 (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Thanks. --Chetvorno^TALK 17:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

fiction

For example, nuke batteries are a gatherable item in the Fallout games. Arlo James Barnes 00:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

Nuclear micro-battery doesn't look notable enough for a standalone article, including the work of only one author and the article is rather editorial. Support the 2017 merge proposal. Klbrain (talk) 06:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the same reasons. --Chetvorno^TALK 11:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done long ago. Taylor 49 (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename proposal

Proposing renaming to Nuclear battery. Taylor 49 (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pacemaker graphic

The description for the inset pacemaker graphic says "Radioisotope-powered cardiac pacemaker being developed by the Atomic Energy Commission, is planned to stimulate the pulsing action of a malfunctioning heart. Circa 1967." Aside from the "Circa 1967" at the end, this is written as if it were work currently underway. The United States Atomic Energy Commission was dissolved in 1975 (the United States Department of Energy is its current successor). Is there any reason not to rewrite this in past tense, perhaps as "A radioisotope-powered cardiac pacemaker was being developed by the Atomic Energy Commission, circa 1967, and was planned to stimulate the pulsing action of a malfunctioning heart" to be clearer? I have no idea whether the work ever was completed or led to an available device. —Salton Finneger (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

artificial cardiac pacemaker#Lithium battery says: "[i]n the late 1960s, several companies, including ARCO in the US, developed isotope-powered pacemakers, but this development was overtaken by the development in 1971 of the lithium iodide cell by Wilson Greatbatch. Lithium-iodide or lithium anode cells became the standard for pacemaker designs." Arlo James Barnes 00:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]