Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 83853
  • *Latest: jb45

  • *Total Posts: 521917
  • *Total Topics: 15552
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 6
  • *Guests: 14
  • *Total: 20

Author Topic: The Best Candidate for OU Prize  (Read 13065 times)

Offline onthecuttingedge2005

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
The Best Candidate for OU Prize
« on: November 06, 2009, 03:38:42 AM »
The best candidate for a self contained OU solar device.

this unit if build should qualify for the OU prize, it would win.

it would require no direct ambient light for it to function but additional ambient light would make it more efficient, it will work night or day.

the Tritium can be doped with a variety of phosphor compounds to change the frequency(color) of the radioluminescence so that the system can be tuned to even higher efficiencies.

the beta-(electrons) emissions will also induce a capacitance charge onto the solar cell that can also be drawn off of at the leads.

a simple casing is enough to shield all radioactive emissions of Tritium, Helium is the only pollutant during the decay of Tritium over it's half life, the Helium waste is non radioactive.

using glow in the dark powders like these with Tritium will cause the powders to glow for decades continuously.
http://glonation.com/glow-powder.html
« Last Edit: November 06, 2009, 04:03:01 AM by onthecuttingedge2005 »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

The Best Candidate for OU Prize
« on: November 06, 2009, 03:38:42 AM »

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: The Best Candidate for OU Prize
« Reply #1 on: November 06, 2009, 04:17:11 AM »
Cuttingedge:

You are proposing a variation on an atomic battery:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_battery

Quote
The terms atomic battery, nuclear battery, tritium battery and radioisotope generator are used to describe a device which uses the emissions from a radioactive isotope to generate electricity. Like nuclear reactors they generate electricity from atomic energy, but differ in that they do not use a chain reaction. Compared to other batteries they are very costly, but have extremely long life and high energy density, and so they are mainly used as power sources for equipment that must operate unattended for long periods of time, such as spacecraft and automated scientific stations in remote parts of the world.

Nuclear battery technology began in 1913, when Henry Moseley first demonstrated the Beta Cell. The field received considerable research attention for applications requiring long-life power sources for space needs during the 50s and 60s. Over the years many types and methods have been developed. The scientific principles are well known, but modern nano-scale technology and new wide bandgap semiconductors have created new devices and interesting material properties not previously available.

Batteries using the energy of radioisotope decay to provide long-lived power (10–20 years) are being developed internationally. Conversion techniques can be grouped into two types: thermal and non-thermal. The thermal converters (whose output power is a function of a temperature differential) include thermoelectric and thermionic generators. The non-thermal converters (whose output power is not a function of a temperature difference) extract a fraction of the incident energy as it is being degraded into heat rather than using thermal energy to run electrons in a cycle. Atomic batteries usually have an efficiency of 0.1–5%. High efficiency betavoltaics have 6–8%.

Some interesting stuff about Tritium:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium

Quote
While tritium has several different experimentally-determined values of its half-life, NIST recommends 4,500±8 days (approximately 12.33 years).[1] It decays into helium-3 by the beta decay:

    31T     â†’     32He     +     e−     +     Î½e

and releases 18.6 keV of energy in the process. The electron's kinetic energy varies, with an average of 5.7 keV, while the remaining energy is carried off by the almost-undetectable electron antineutrino. Beta radiation has more inherent power than alpha, so it can penetrate more (alpha particles cannot penetrate paper, whereas beta particles can move through a few centimetres of wood). This means they can penetrate skin and tissue more deeply and cause damage further down, in less accessible areas, so tritium is dangerous if inhaled, ingested, if combined with oxygen in tritiated water molecules, absorbed through pores in the skin or if close and long-term exposure occours (radiation sources has been demonstrated to cause cancer in animals and humans). The low energy of tritium's radiation makes it difficult to detect tritium-labelled compounds except by using liquid scintillation

Radioactive decay is not really a source of free energy, it's atomic energy.  Tritium is nasty stuff, and very expensive to make.  I am sure that you have heard of "heavy water" manufacturing plants.

Also, the power output will drop by 1/2 after 12.3 years, Tritium's half-life.  There will be 1/2 as much Tritium available to produce power in your proposed device.

MileHigh

Offline onthecuttingedge2005

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
Re: The Best Candidate for OU Prize
« Reply #2 on: November 06, 2009, 04:37:42 AM »
Cuttingedge:

You are proposing a variation on an atomic battery:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_battery

yes, it is similar but uses more conversion techniques than an Atomic Battery. it is more efficient than an Atomic Battery. and refillable and renewable. the solar cells will not degrade from the low energy Beta- of Tritium.

1-H-3 (tritium)
Magnetic Moment: 2.9789 nm
Radioisotopic Power: 0.26 W/gm
H-3 is a pure beta emitter. This nuclide is useful for thickness gauge of thin plastics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Atomic Mass: 3.0160493 ± 0.0000000 amu
Excess Mass: 14949.794 ± 0.001 keV
Binding Energy: 8481.821 ± 0.004 keV
Beta Decay Energy: B- 18.591 ± 0.001 keV

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spin: 1/2+
Half life: 12.33 Y ( 0.4866 % )
Mode of decay: Beta to He-3
Decay energy: 0.019 MeV

Possible parent nuclides:
Neutron emission from H-4

Quote
Some interesting stuff about Tritium:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium

since I am a chemist I have better information than wiki on my bookshelf. thanks anyways.

Quote
Radioactive decay is not really a source of free energy, it's atomic energy.  Tritium is nasty stuff, and very expensive to make.  I am sure that you have heard of "heavy water" manufacturing plants.

Atomic Energy is free energy, Tritium will generate 20,000 times more energy than what it took to produce it over its entire life time. Tritium is a civilian available Isotope and requires no licences to purchase it or to own it. it is one of the safest of Isotopes because it requires very little shielding to shield its radioactive emissions. it is a very low energy emitter so it will not produce any X-Rays and or Gamma Rays. when we are talking about the Beta energy it is related to how fast the Electron is ejected, the Electron is low energy so that means it is ejected at low velocity. this is why there is no X-ray or Gamma rays emissions because it doesn't have enough energy to produce them on impact on an electron cross section.

Quote
Also, the power output will drop by 1/2 after 12.3 years, Tritium's half-life.  There will be 1/2 as much Tritium available to produce power in your proposed device.

I made this clear in my post didn't I?

thanks for your input, If nobody wants to take my professional word on this then I will have to build it myself and win the prize, If you want to win then follow my professional advice, build it. I know a great deal about Isotopes and chemistry, it will work as I said.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Best Candidate for OU Prize
« Reply #2 on: November 06, 2009, 04:37:42 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Xaero_Vincent

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 90
Re: The Best Candidate for OU Prize
« Reply #3 on: November 06, 2009, 04:54:04 AM »
I thought about tritium solar panels too but the problem is solar panels are inefficient and while tritium vials may produce a bright glow but its FAR FAR FAR less luminescent than the sun and therefore less energy to be converted by the panel.

The sun shines about 1kW of solar energy per square meter. The brightest tritium technology I've found is called Litroenergy Its claimed to produce light comparable to a 20 watt incandescent light bulb.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1937720/posts

So while tritium-powered solar panels might generate minuscule amounts of power, its not practical. In addition, tritium is an extremely rare radioactive isotope of hydrogen and global production is tiny. An example of how small is how only about 550lbs of tritium have been produced in the USA since 1955. Large demand for tritium for solar applications would quickly deplete the world supply.

Offline onthecuttingedge2005

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
Re: The Best Candidate for OU Prize
« Reply #4 on: November 06, 2009, 05:02:50 AM »
it's all about tuning the efficiencies in all areas of the device, even if it is built unefficient it would still win the prize because it would require no additional input for a minimal of 12.3 years, the entire volume of the tritium will be unuseful in about 30 years over the units life. the system could be recharged before that to increase the energy density back to normal.

this would even work in miniature like the size of a small button battery.

I could develope this same unit using other Isotopes besides Tritium but I explained it this way for safe and general purposes.

I can also increase the light intensity by doping any of the following Isotopes into the phosphor, here is a list of the potential Beta emitters in PDF format.

the low energy beta- electrons are also captured by the solar cell as an ionized differential charge upon the face of the solar cell so in a sence it will also deliver more potential than what the photoreaction itself produces.

thanks for the link on Litroenergy.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2009, 05:25:38 AM by onthecuttingedge2005 »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Best Candidate for OU Prize
« Reply #4 on: November 06, 2009, 05:02:50 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Xaero_Vincent

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 90
Re: The Best Candidate for OU Prize
« Reply #5 on: November 06, 2009, 05:40:43 AM »
Its sounds like a good idea but the power difference would be too great to be accepted. Nuclear batteries might be a better option and forget the solar panel.

155 Lumens is what is expected from a typical 20 watt incandescent light bulb. About 683 lumens will equal 1 watt of light power. So the power output from the array of green glowing tritium vials will produce less than 1/4 of a watt. The most efficient commercial solar panel might be 20% so electrical power produced would only be 20% of that 1/4 of a watt.

Offline onthecuttingedge2005

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
Re: The Best Candidate for OU Prize
« Reply #6 on: November 06, 2009, 08:35:14 AM »
to continue furthering efficiency and technology of this topic.

these are little 'Gases' Tritium Keychains, 'Liquid' Tritium is much brighter when doped with Phosphors and it can get even brighter if I used 32Si particles in the device instead of Tritium, 32Si emits 12 times more beta particles than Tritium and would still be in the safe range for light weight plastic shielding. these little gasesous beta lights are about as bright as a small LED light when compared.

if you look at these simple gas tritium beta lights and then increase the illumination 12 times the lumen's then this would be comparable to gaseous 32Si targeting a phosphor coat instead of Tritium.

with 32Si doped with Phosphor I could make self powered semiconductors that would last +160 years with no batteries needed. they would utilize their own Beta-(Electrons) as a primary current source and convert light directly to electricity as a secondary current source.

there is "real" usable energy for work here otherwise these Tritium Beta Lights wouldn't function.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Best Candidate for OU Prize
« Reply #6 on: November 06, 2009, 08:35:14 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline onthecuttingedge2005

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
Re: The Best Candidate for OU Prize
« Reply #7 on: November 06, 2009, 09:40:49 AM »
article on the new 30 year Beta Battery.

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news-betavoltaic-10.1.html

the above Semiconductor Beta Battery uses Tritium for doping the pourous Silicon.

I could make it better using 32Si(B-) instead of 28Si(stable), using P doped 32Si I could generate 12 times the current and it will last 160 plus years continuously without recharging. I could also increase surface area of the 32Si to increase potential energy density.

here is some extra info from wiki on the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betavoltaics

Offline Xaero_Vincent

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 90
Re: The Best Candidate for OU Prize
« Reply #8 on: November 06, 2009, 01:44:24 PM »
I never heard of 32Si being used for betavoltaic lighting but if it beta decays then it will work if it were coated with phosphor. How dangerous is the radioactive emissions though? Radium was used before tritium and light emitted from it would last well over 3000 years (half-life is 1600 years) but it caused bone cancer and therefore most countries banned its use for this purpose.

Understand that tritium is among the least dangerous radioactive isotopes and even so there is a import ban on it in the USA. 12x more light output might be enough for a solar panel (even though its still far less than the sun) but it would only make sense for a high-efficiency multi-junction panel with hybrid Sun use to make the idea cost effective. Multi-junction would be necessary so that it can be tuned for the light wavelength of the 32Si light emission and also the Sun's visible wavelengths for daytime use.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2009, 04:50:24 PM by Xaero_Vincent »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Best Candidate for OU Prize
« Reply #8 on: November 06, 2009, 01:44:24 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Xaero_Vincent

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 90
Re: The Best Candidate for OU Prize
« Reply #9 on: November 06, 2009, 05:59:56 PM »
I was looking over your list of pure beta emitting materials...

Why not try rubidium-87?

* 49 billion year half-life
* 2nd most abundant naturally occuring isotope of rubidium (27.8%) and the element is the 23rd most abundant on Earth
* Decays into stable isotope strontium-87
* Slightly higher energy density than silicon-32 but still weak enough that emissions can be contained in a thick plastic shell.

The 49 billion half-life doesn't mean that after another 49 billion years that the radioactive decay is finished. Oh no sir... after another 49 billion years, 25% of the material will remain and following yet another 49 billion years later--12.5% will remain.

So used as a betavoltaic light or battery source, it will be enough to last at least 100 billion years and wont be completely "discharged" or dimmed until the death of the Universe.

I think I just might have grey hair by then...

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: The Best Candidate for OU Prize
« Reply #10 on: November 06, 2009, 10:36:04 PM »
Xaero:

I think that you have made a lot of great points and did some energy and power crunching that I was not going to look up myself.

The bottom line is that Cuttingedge's idea most likely in principle can be developed, but cannot ever become something that would be practical.  Not by a longshot.

Cuttingedge:

Assuming that the only practical way to produce Tritium is by extracting heavy water from ordinary water in a heavy water plant - then it would take millions or billions of times more energy to produce the Tritium than you could extract from it.  Nonetheless, your idea is an interesting thought experiment.

MileHigh

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Best Candidate for OU Prize
« Reply #10 on: November 06, 2009, 10:36:04 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Xaero_Vincent

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 90
Re: The Best Candidate for OU Prize
« Reply #11 on: November 07, 2009, 12:10:19 AM »
You're right that tritium is impractical for solar applications but its being proposed as fuel for nuclear batteries that can power portable electronics. However, the rarity of the gas and difficulty of producing it will pose big issues for mass consumption.

Rubidium has overwhelming advantages compared to tritium and the element exists freely in nature but there are a few drawbacks as well.

Rubidium-87, while a weak beta emitter compared to many other isotopes is about 15x more energetic than tritium. This means that the radiation hazard is slightly greater but isn't so energetic that it cannot be shielded in much the same way.

Its a reactive element and ignites in water and moist air. The element is typically distributed in sealed vials. Light emitting vials would also be sealed so this isn't really a problem unless the vials were shattered.

Offline Xaero_Vincent

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 90
Re: The Best Candidate for OU Prize
« Reply #12 on: November 07, 2009, 12:32:03 AM »
An alternative to using highly-reactive rubidium might be indium.

Indium-115 is the most common isotope (95%), isn't reactive with water and air and non-toxic (aside from radioactivity), has twice the decay energy of 87Rb (B- 495 keV) into stable Tin-115 and has a ridiculously long half-life of 441 trillion years.

The disadvantage is that the element is far less abundant and is listed as the 61st most abundant element on Earth. However, it is 3x more abundant than silver.

Offline onthecuttingedge2005

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
Re: The Best Candidate for OU Prize
« Reply #13 on: November 07, 2009, 08:41:24 AM »
I never heard of 32Si being used for betavoltaic lighting but if it beta decays then it will work if it were coated with phosphor. How dangerous is the radioactive emissions though? Radium was used before tritium and light emitted from it would last well over 3000 years (half-life is 1600 years) but it caused bone cancer and therefore most countries banned its use for this purpose.

Understand that tritium is among the least dangerous radioactive isotopes and even so there is a import ban on it in the USA. 12x more light output might be enough for a solar panel (even though its still far less than the sun) but it would only make sense for a high-efficiency multi-junction panel with hybrid Sun use to make the idea cost effective. Multi-junction would be necessary so that it can be tuned for the light wavelength of the 32Si light emission and also the Sun's visible wavelengths for daytime use.

hi Xaero.

did you know that 60Co produces about 20 times the suns lumen energy per square meter on the ground per oz in invisible gamma radiation(if you could see it). 1 oz of 60Co will kill all life including tree's within a 1000 foot radius exposure over a given amount of time. you have to be careful here. it has to be calculated right.

at these energies you have to calculate gamma energies produced by B- collision releasing gamma radiation due to hardened shielding, softer shielding may not give off gamma, while hardened may. I think it has to do with the conductive electron in the shieldings band gap, when a high energy 60Co beta- particle hits the conductive electron it interacts with it releasing a gamma ray. so hardened shielding in this case actually increases radiation levels in the gamma ray spectrum rather than Beta-. 60Co's own conductive electron band gap may interact with its own Beta- decay and also emit a gamma ray. so it is best to leave these higher beta- energy levels to scientific labs.

60Co is the extreme upper limit that is to dangerous to incorporate. very intense. the half life of an Isotope has a lot to due with how dangerous it is because the element with shorter half lives disintegrate into energy faster and release higher energy densities that can be on the verge of SF or spontaneous fission. especially if the isotope is in the seconds half life range. even a half life of days is extremely nasty stuff. you could imagine 1 pound of solid matter being converted to Beta decay(electrons) in 5.271 years. that's a lot of harvestable electrons.

Jerry
« Last Edit: November 07, 2009, 07:23:08 PM by onthecuttingedge2005 »

Offline onthecuttingedge2005

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
Re: The Best Candidate for OU Prize
« Reply #14 on: November 07, 2009, 10:24:30 PM »

 

OneLink