Guest echtrae Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 Scientists Invent 30 Year Continuous Power Laptop Battery Your next laptop could have a continuous power battery that lasts for 30 years without a single recharge thanks to work being funded by the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory. The breakthrough betavoltaic power cells are constructed from semiconductors and use radioisotopes as the energy source. As the radioactive material decays it emits beta particles that transform into electric power capable of fueling an electrical device like a laptop for years. I'm definitely looking forward to this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaGaijin Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 Would it be safe? I mean, the thing uses radioactive stuff. Nuclear? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EveKnight75 Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 And if it is safe, why aren't they applying it to something more beneficial like cars? I mean, the bigger complaint is about fuel prices and toxic emissions and all that junk. Why not create the electric car and just get it out of the way? There's plenty of people who want longer-lasting laptop batteries - me included - but I'll settle for 30 hours or days over 30 years. That, and we're all constantly warned about the health hazards of radioisotopes. Combine that with the male infertility scare and you're getting a sizable portion of the laptop demographic who wouldn't be willing to use the batteries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foeofthelance Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 Would it be safe? I mean, the thing uses radioactive stuff. Nuclear? Radioactive just means it emits radiation. Your tv is radioactive. Your boiler is radioactive. Your radio is most definitely radioactive. What kind of radiation is the difference. Comparitively, nuclear power plants are some of the least radioactive sources out there. Coal plants are more hazardous. (Granted, this is not to say that nuclear power plants produce radiation. They are simply subject to more stringent guidelines concerning how much they are allowed to release to the environment. Coal plants, on the other hand, aren't subject to those regulations.) The battery described in the article doesn't even come close. All it is is an electron transfer caused by neutron decay. That happens in most non-standard isotopes, plenty of which are naturally occuring. So, yeah, over all, probably pretty safe. And if it is safe, why aren't they applying it to something more beneficial like cars? I mean, the bigger complaint is about fuel prices and toxic emissions and all that junk. Why not create the electric car and just get it out of the way? Honestly, this I'm a little shakier on, but it could simply be a matter of mass/power ratios. Most people might not notice a three or four pound laptop battery, but if it would require a thirty or forty pound battery to power the car, that's quite a bit of extra weight added on to the engine, not to mention cost of the fuel. 3 ounces might power the laptop. A car is another story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlodger Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 Wow, the battery which can be used in about 15 consecutive laptops Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZombieDuke Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 Whoo HOO! I won't have to plug in my baby anymore! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.