4 ms·
For a short while they were used in implantable pacemakers as 'lifetime' power sources[1] The main issue is that they're really rather inefficient. The efficie
by shabble 14y ago
For a short while they were used in implantable pacemakers as 'lifetime' power sources[1]
The main issue is that they're really rather inefficient. The efficiency of the thermocouple at converting thermal->electrical is only about 5-10%, and combined with the cost of shielding, expense of the radioisotope to begin with, and security/safety considerations, they're really only suitable for niche aerospace/defense applications.
Edit: I was curious if anyone had considered a stirling or other heat-engine driven by decay heat, and found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_Radioisotope_Generator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_Radioisotope_Generato... which looks like it can hit 20+% efficiencies. The downside is that unlike thermo-electric/Seebeck effect converters, they have moving parts that could be a threat to reliability, which is the major issue when you're a planet away from the nearest repair tech.
[1] https://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/Miscellaneous/pacemaker.htm https://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/Miscellaneous/pacemaker....
- ceejayoz 14y agoThe bigger issue using it in pacemakers is it's actually beneficial to have a battery that needs replacing every 10 years or so - pacemaker tech gets better so fast that a 30 year old device would be crap compared to the current generation.
- banana_bread 14y agoHow much better really, if the current one wasn't working well you would find out real quick.
- ceejayoz 14y agoMore sophisticated programs (fewer false positives and false negatives), smaller devices, batteries that last longer between charges, etc.