2 edits
@Ponderable saidCold but not TOO cold, eh. Water may shuttle electrons around but I bet ice does not generate much of anything except keeping our drinks cold....
Interesting new results on a common substance:
https://phys.org/news/2025-09-scientists-ice-generates-electricity-bent.html
Mybe we get new autonomous sensors in cold conditions?
BTW, there is work being done in the labs using Nickle 63 if I got it right, an isotope that has something like a 100 year half life but is somewhat radioactive and is being made into very VERY long lasting batteries pushing out WHOLE MICROAMPS of current, but enough to run stuff like heart monitors and the like.
Out of Chinese labs.
@Ponderable saidThat was an interesting read. I didn't know thunderstorms were caused by ice particles. I thought that anything that cold would condense and fall as rain. I must admit I can't make sense of that. There are rarely thunderstorms when it is snowing so why isn't the electric effect greater when it is snowing in winter?
Interesting new results on a common substance:
https://phys.org/news/2025-09-scientists-ice-generates-electricity-bent.html
Mybe we get new autonomous sensors in cold conditions?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thundersnow
@sonhouse saidNickle 63 is man made in nuclear reactors. Isn't cost an issue or is it a common byproduct of all nuclear reactors to be utilized when needed?
Cold but not TOO cold, eh. Water may shuttle electrons around but I bet ice does not generate much of anything except keeping our drinks cold....
BTW, there is work being done in the labs using Nickle 63 if I got it right, an isotope that has something like a 100 year half life but is somewhat radioactive and is being made into very VERY long lasting batteries pushing out W ...[text shortened]... rt monitors and the like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Mz_p9RIzho
Out of Chinese labs.
@Metal-Brain saidA small battery running a few microwatts would not need much Nickle 63 but a gram will cost you about $4000. Or 1.8 MILLION per pound.
Nickle 63 is man made in nuclear reactors. Isn't cost an issue or is it a common byproduct of all nuclear reactors to be utilized when needed?
But if it becomes strategic new chemical engineering would presumably lower the cost.
@sonhouse saidThat is less about chemical engineering than nuclear engineering (creating the Ni63 in the first place).
A small battery running a few microwatts would not need much Nickle 63 but a gram will cost you about $4000. Or 1.8 MILLION per pound.
But if it becomes strategic new chemical engineering would presumably lower the cost.
@Ponderable saidNeutrons smashing into Ni62 till a 63 pops out. Wonder how many megawatts are used for such a project and how long does a run last, is it possible to get a single gram in one of those runs?
That is less about chemical engineering than nuclear engineering (creating the Ni63 in the first place).
@sonhouse saidSeems like the Russians have developed something useful here:
Neutrons smashing into Ni62 till a 63 pops out. Wonder how many megawatts are used for such a project and how long does a run last, is it possible to get a single gram in one of those runs?
https://patents.google.com/patent/RU2629014C2/en
@Ponderable saidThe above example shows that when using the claimed technical solution when irradiating a target from copper at fast neutron reactors, it is possible to provide large-scale production of the nickel-63 isotope with high specific activity.
Seems like the Russians have developed something useful here:
https://patents.google.com/patent/RU2629014C2/en
I wonder what this means for the price of Ni63? 4000 dollars a gram is a wee expensive right now.
Maybe it will come down all the way to TWO thousand dollars a gram.......