Chinese nuclear battery

[Wirko]

You are all made of atoms and they have nuclei.

It's worse than that! Every second, a couple of your precious carbon atoms go AWOL and become nitrogen in a really small nuclear explosion, to great delight of future archæologists.

 

[BoggledBeagle]

Well, to get 10W you would need one hundred of these batteries stacked to an object 100 x 75 x 15 mm large or larger, for $5000? Or 10 grand? 20? 50? Do you really believe that one unit will cost $5?

I do not see much practical use for this.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

It's worse than that! Every second, a couple of your precious carbon atoms go AWOL and become nitrogen in a really small nuclear explosion, to great delight of future archæologists.

Yes ~3.68 atoms N-14 § C-14 for 70kg body weight.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

Well, to get 10W you would need one hundred of these batteries stacked to an object 100 x 75 x 15 mm large or larger, for $5000? Or 10 grand? 20? 50? Do you really believe that one unit will cost $5?

I do not see much practical use for this.

10,000. Much much larger. Over 1 cubic foot per watt.

 

[Wirko]

Well, to get 10W you would need one hundred of these batteries stacked to an object 100 x 75 x 15 mm large or larger, for $5000? Or 10 grand? 20? 50? Do you really believe that one unit will cost $5?

I do not see much practical use for this.

Internet of nosy things will be everywhere. 100 microwatts can be sufficient for some sensors.

(No, it's not 100 milliwatts per cell, it's 1000 times less.)

 

[BoggledBeagle]

No, it's not 100 milliwatts per cell, it's 1000 times less

Oh, I misread that. You need then 100 thousands of these cells worth of millions dollars to get 10W (some usable power IMO).

 

[mechtech]

How hard is it to understand, it emits NO radiation.



I'm gonna try and keep my eye on this, to see if it is real. it has attracted a lot of news interest, so maybe this time it might be. If it hadn't i would be scoffing at it, but it has, so we shall see i guess.

Don't really understand the negativity, if it is real it's the battery breakthrough we have needed for a long time.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?rlz...1.24.2002...0i131k1j0i10k1.0.3OHZVu87kHs#ip=1

Well might be a few issues, such as each country governing/regulating nuclear body, the public, the government etc.

Most smoke detectors have a small amount of radioactive material. Old ones when you changed the battery exposed the metal box and there was a radioactive sticker, I see the newer ones made the battery compartment separate.

A lot of issues arise with proper disposal after it's EOL, kids taking them apart, etc. The depleted uranium rounds the US uses are controversial, among other things. Lead paint was used for a very long time and leaded gas, it was a miracle item until the truth got out about it.............which was strange considering lead's toxic effects have been known since the roman times.

The new trend is to make things safer, for people and environmentally.

They could be a niche product, like in pacemakers or other items that kids won't/can't tear apart, etc.

 

[FoulOnWhite]

How big was the first OLED screen?

If this is the first of its type, it is starting small, and may develop into something usable like OLED did.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

How big was the first OLED screen?

If this is the first of its type, it is starting small, and may develop into something usable like OLED did.

This is a dumb response. Let me explain, because an "OLED screen" is taking a developed technology, miniaturizing it, and making it cost effective. That is a different challenge than taking tech that is more than old enough (read: 2016 news cycle) and rebranding it as a magical nearly solved situation. It isn't nearly solved, it's fundamentally incapable of producing enough energy to do anything useful with current technology. You are trying to sell the potential of a Tesla lithium ion battery and giving us nickel-cadmium technology. It's just fundamentally wrong, in a way that only a journalist hopped up on copium and a good news cycle could share without asking basic questions which put its conclusions into the realm of fantasy.

Now, let me answer your question. The first OLED screen is one of multiple answers. Theoretically, a single pixel can be defined as an indicator, and thus a screen. Your answer then is the second you have OLEDs of all three primary colors Red-Green-Blue.
If that answer does not suit, I had a monochrome OLED screen on my Zen Stone in 2008. For the record, that was an mp3 player back in the days where Circuit City was alive.
If that answer doesn't suit then you have dozens of answers for TVs. The point of OLED was not to do something new, but to get it affordable. As such my answer for "the first OLED screen" is whenever it breached the price threshold for you to buy.


You see, if you don't understand the struggles something must endure then you'll perpetually be misled by idiots who win simply by parroting what other people pay them to parrot. It's how self driving cars were possible, the Hyperloop was "just a hockey table," and the idiots hawking this want to pretend that background radiation doesn't exist...because if you pretend beta decay is your main power source you don't have to answer about why this is dangerous....just like it's alrighty to play with depleted uranium....right? Just remember not to imbibe it in any way, or even have an open wound...yeah...

 

[R-T-B]

How big was the first OLED screen?

If this is the first of its type, it is starting small, and may develop into something usable like OLED did.

You don't understand. You can't just "scale" physics to make them exponentially more powerful. It's not going to get better. At least, not to that degree. You won't even see 2x the output from this.