4 ms·

This will sound like neckbeard cynicism, but I actually mean this and in a positive way: "There are so many possible uses that we’re asking the public to come

by roel_v 10y ago

This will sound like neckbeard cynicism, but I actually mean this and in a positive way: "There are so many possible uses that we’re asking the public to come up with suggestions of how they would utilise this technology by using #diamondbattery.” It's cool how they're engaging the public in their research in this way. Of course it's a transparent ploy to get social media mentions, but scientists of all sorts (and I kind of am one myself) would do themselves a favor by doing more to get the general public to know about their/our work. This particular thing 'feels' sort of slimy (to me at least, but I suspect to others on this site as well), but I think that's a bad reflex on my part, and that easy, low-friction things like giving people an opening to send a quick tweet or FB post reaches a different audience than having a stand at the 'open science fair' or having a lecture open to the general public; those tend to self-select in the audience they attract, to put it mildly.

mahranch 10y ago
> This particular thing 'feels' sort of slimy I was just coming here to talk about how inaccurate the title was. It implies (or leads people to believe) that "nuclear batteries" are something new. Or at least, that's what they want readers thinking. They're not even close to new. They're decades old. They're aboard the Voyager probes (which is why they're still working, 30 years later) and they're powering the Curiosity rover on Mars. Hell, there was even a nuclear battery powered automobile made by Ford I believe (the "Nucleon") as proof of concept. This was in the 1950s. The new thing here, is the fact that they can run the batteries with nuclear waste.
- qbrass 10y ago
  The Ford Nucleon was a styling exercise and was never intended to have a working prototype. The concept itself didn't use a nuclear battery, it was designed around a miniaturized nuclear reactor which powered the car using a steam turbine.
- x3n0ph3n3 10y ago
  Voyager I and II and Curiosity are powered with radioisotope thermoelectric generators [1], which are nothing like this proposal. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_ge...
  - mahranch 10y ago
    > Voyager I and II and Curiosity are powered with radioisotope thermoelectric generators AKA a nuclear battery... That's how they're referred to by just about everyone.
- nathan_f77 10y ago
  I knew about the nuclear batteries in space, but isn't the new thing here the miniaturization and safety? > Carbon-14 was chosen as a source material because it emits a short-range radiation, which is quickly absorbed by any solid material. This would make it dangerous to ingest or touch with your naked skin, but safely held within diamond, no short-range radiation can escape. In fact, diamond is the hardest substance known to man, there is literally nothing we could use that could offer more protection. That sounds really promising to me. And I wonder if there is some more optimal lattice structure, or some way to scale it up and produce enough energy to power a smartphone.
kriro 10y ago
Going back to Ludwik Fleck I'd argue that it makes a lot of sense for a thought collective to bridge the gap between the esoteric and exoteric circle more often. Social media seems like a natural choice in this day and age.

by roel_v 10y ago

mahranch 10y ago

> This particular thing 'feels' sort of slimy I was just coming here to talk about how inaccurate the title was. It implies (or leads people to believe) that "nuclear batteries" are something new. Or at least, that's what they want readers thinking. They're not even close to new. They're decades old. They're aboard the Voyager probes (which is why they're still working, 30 years later) and they're powering the Curiosity rover on Mars. Hell, there was even a nuclear battery powered automobile made by Ford I believe (the "Nucleon") as proof of concept. This was in the 1950s. The new thing here, is the fact that they can run the batteries with nuclear waste.

qbrass 10y ago
The Ford Nucleon was a styling exercise and was never intended to have a working prototype. The concept itself didn't use a nuclear battery, it was designed around a miniaturized nuclear reactor which powered the car using a steam turbine.
x3n0ph3n3 10y ago
Voyager I and II and Curiosity are powered with radioisotope thermoelectric generators [1], which are nothing like this proposal. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_ge...
- mahranch 10y ago
  > Voyager I and II and Curiosity are powered with radioisotope thermoelectric generators AKA a nuclear battery... That's how they're referred to by just about everyone.
nathan_f77 10y ago
I knew about the nuclear batteries in space, but isn't the new thing here the miniaturization and safety? > Carbon-14 was chosen as a source material because it emits a short-range radiation, which is quickly absorbed by any solid material. This would make it dangerous to ingest or touch with your naked skin, but safely held within diamond, no short-range radiation can escape. In fact, diamond is the hardest substance known to man, there is literally nothing we could use that could offer more protection. That sounds really promising to me. And I wonder if there is some more optimal lattice structure, or some way to scale it up and produce enough energy to power a smartphone.

kriro 10y ago

Going back to Ludwik Fleck I'd argue that it makes a lot of sense for a thought collective to bridge the gap between the esoteric and exoteric circle more often. Social media seems like a natural choice in this day and age.