Open Menu
AllLocalCommunitiesAbout
lotide
AllLocalCommunitiesAbout
Login

A tiny radioactive battery could keep your future phone running for 50 years

⁨90⁩ ⁨likes⁩

Submitted ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨0x4E4F@sh.itjust.works⁩ to ⁨technology@lemmy.world⁩

https://www.techradar.com/phones/a-tiny-radioactive-battery-could-keep-your-phone-running-for-50-years

source

Comments

Sort:hotnewtop
  • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    That could is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that headline.

    Also, we can barely get OEMs to support phones for 5 years now...

    source
    • 0x4E4F@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I’d say, 10 years is more than enough, the device is practically unusable after that, even if it’s still working.

      source
      • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        the device is practically unusable after that, even if it’s still working.

        Not if you can change the battery...

        I am having to retire my 7 year old S5, which still works perfectly, because 3G networks are being switched off in a couple of months.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • elshandra@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      If this was an economically scalable proven thing today, phones wouldn’t be sold with batteries in 5 years.

      source
      • 0x4E4F@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        It is doable, but it’s not practical. Technology moves so fast nowadays, a 10 year old i7 is easilly surpassed by a modern day i3.

        Don’t get me wrong, I use old tech all the time, but it’s becoming increasingly impractical to do so.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • Noerttipertti@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Not all phones are smartphones. Theres still plenty of use cases for call/sms only phones.

      source
      • 0x4E4F@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Amd they don’t support anything higher than 3G, which will go in history in a few years… and then the only thing you can use them for is a paper weight.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
  • a1studmuffin@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Remember when light bulbs used to last decades? A phone battery that lasts that long is incompatible with capitalism.

    source
    • mipadaitu@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      When they were really dim and far too red like 80 years ago? Or when they switched to LED and actually lasted a decade, like now?

      Batteries that last a decade will open up the opportunity for expensive tech like we never imagined.

      source
      • 0x4E4F@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Or when they switched to LED and actually lasted a decade, like now?

        Don’t know about you, but LEDs with Edison screws on them don’t last that long. Maybe Siemens or some other brand name manufacturer, but the cheap Chinese ones last only a few months.

        It’s the heat buildup that’s the problem. Disassemble them, slap a CPU heatsink on it and yes, they will last forever.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • a1studmuffin@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Here’s what I was referring to with the lightbulb thing and capitalism:

        en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      The original Edison bulb still works iirc

      source
    • nudnyekscentryk@szmer.info ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      The battery is not the point of failure in contemporary phones, this new radioactive battery doesn’t change much

      source
  • GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Sensationalized clickbait.

    100 microwatts, aiming for 1W in 2025. That’s a big difference and 1W is still not enough for a cell phone. Phone-scale batteries aren’t even on the roadmap.

    source
    • fidodo@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      1 Watt is plenty to power a phone on average. While idle a phone uses less than 1 Watt. The thing is, nuclear batteries are a misnomer, they’re actual electrical generators. For this to work in a phone, you’d want to pair it with an actual battery, and the generator would charge the battery while the phone is idle and that would provide enough power on average for when you’re actively using your phone.

      source
      • 0x4E4F@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        My idea exactly. Unless it can output at least double of what the phone’s max drain is, there is no other way.

        source
    • abhibeckert@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      1W is enough for a cell phone, if you combined it with a capacitor for brief bursts at higher watts.

      source
      • fuck_u_spez_in_particular@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Now play a game for an hour…

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • Lojcs@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        My phone uses 0.6W when idle and 1.2-2.5W while I’m using it. Peaks are 8W+. No way an internal reactor only can power a phone.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • 0x4E4F@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      You could do it with a parallelized output from a bunch of them.

      source
      • Tja@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Or with a diesel generator in a wheelbarrow

        source
  • squid_slime@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Looking for to a mini reactor being directly next to my balls

    source
    • Kolanaki@yiffit.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      “Just getting a little cancer, Stan.”

      source
      • KlavKalashj@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        BUFFALO SOLLDYA

        source
    • 0x4E4F@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      It’s not that radioactive and Nikel 63 decays to copper, so there is no radioactive waste being produced when the battery is depleted.

      source
  • RememberTheApollo@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Oh, good. So whenever some fool tosses a phone out of a car to get crushed on the roadway, shoots one because TikTok, or otherwise mangles a phone, we now have a potential for radioactive material to be spread around?

    source
    • 0x4E4F@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      No, read the article. It’s Nikel 63 and the decay is copper. It’s contained in a metal seal.

      source
      • jjagaimo@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        And Nickel 63 is… radioactive material

        source
        • -> View More Comments
  • remotelove@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    It’s a variation of the same scam: youtu.be/5M5MF6KE-jY?si=7odXF_9q2SkumX7X

    source
  • Juviz@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Some of the first pacemakers used radioactive batteries. We left that concept pretty fast. And that is considering you have to cut your patient open to change a pacemaker battery. This will not happen in commercial cellphones

    source
    • 0x4E4F@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I think so as well.

      But, it would be nice if it could be applied to vehicles.

      source
  • ManuLeMaboul@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    It outputs 0.1 milliwatts, can’t even power a single LED.

    source
    • 0x4E4F@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      The size is smaller than a coin. Put enough of them in parallel and they’ll output enough power.

      source
      • froh42@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Yeah 5000 of them to get the 500 mW a smartphone needs in standby mode.

        It is the article that mentioned smart phones which is bullshit. This is a (probably expensive) battery specialized for extremely low power devices which need to run for many years. It will never be something that powers your phone.

        The tech is really cool and there’s applications for such a battery - just not phones.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
  • ReverendIrreverence@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I don’t need 50 years but 50 days (before recharging) would be cool

    source
  • WallEx@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Fallout universe timeline, here we come!

    source
  • mumblerfish@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    100 microwatts? What does a phone use, like 1W? So they are 4 orders of magnitude off? So phones need to become 10,000 times more efficient or the battery that much bigger?

    source
    • JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Betavolt is planning to boost its tech to produce a 1-watt battery by 2025. And while it still has some way to go, the company seems confident stating development is way ahead of European and American scientific research institutions and enterprises.

      RemindMe! 1 year repeat

      source
      • Gladaed@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        This is physically implausible. Also self proclaimed advances without 3rd party proof are less than worthless.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
  • exscape@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    This again? It's utter bullcrap I'm afraid.

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=5M5MF6KE-jY

    source
    • 0x4E4F@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Others pointed this out as well. It seems it is a scam, but it might become a viable solution in the not so distant future (10 years or so from now).

      source
  • account_93@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Perfect, my phone will outlast me

    source
    • the_seven_sins@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Depending on how radioactive the battery in your pocket is, that’s not hard.

      source
  • Gork@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    50 Ci? That’s a helluva lot of activity.

    source
    • cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      And that’s for a battery that only produces 100 microwatts. A battery that produces 10000 times more power will be a lot spicier.

      source
  • nicetriangle@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    These tech articles on some new advancement are basically the same phenomenon of bullshit as articles ending in a question mark. The answer is always "nah"

    source