Nuclear binding-energy difference → Electrical work

Matrix context

D = disequilibrium row · C = coupling family column. A cell reads the state of the atlas for that pair.

D.20 × C.27 · Nuclear binding-energy difference × Nuclear heatfamily: Nuclear heatD.20 × C.40 · Nuclear binding-energy difference × Thermopolarizationfamily: Thermopolarization

Typed bounds on this route

Every limit the atlas holds for this route, as constraint records: reached through bounded_by claims on the route's own entities. Hard bounds (an upper bound or a formula) decide the thermodynamic-bound check above; benchmarks, constitutive relations and resource limits are listed and never decisive. No prose limit exists anywhere (pass 42).

• Carnot limit · formula-bound · hard, applies to this route
  η ≤ 1 − T_c/T_h for any heat engine between reservoirs at T_h and T_c

Steps

1. 01
   Nuclear binding-energy difference —drives→ Radioactive decayestablishedclaim record

   nuclear → nuclear

   radioisotope required

   refs [1]
2. 02
   Radioactive decay —produces→ Beta particlesestablishedclaim record

   nuclear → nuclear

   • beta emitters such as tritium, Ni-63, Pm-147, Sr-90

   refs [1]
3. 03
   Beta particles —drives→ Radioisotope heatingestablishedclaim record

   nuclear → thermal

   • beta particles stopped within the source and its cladding; in practice RTG heat comes from alpha emitters (see the alpha claim)

   radioisotope required

   refs [1]
4. 04
   Radioisotope heating —produces→ Temperature gradientestablishedclaim record

   thermal → thermal

   refs [1]
5. 05
   Temperature gradient —drives→ Thermopolarization effecttheoretically predictedclaim record

   thermal → electrical

   E_∥ = S_TP ∇T · liquid thermopolarization coefficient S_TP [V/K]

   the field along the gradient; Gittus, Albella & Bresme 2020 give S_TP ≈ −0.6 mV/K for acetonitrile near standard conditions and Bresme et al. 2008 fields of order 10⁶ V/m for water at 10⁸ K/m, both from non-equilibrium molecular dynamics; the sign reverses with temperature in water (Armstrong & Bresme 2015)

   • a polar molecular liquid is maintained under a spatial temperature gradient
   • the response is the non-equilibrium polarization / electrostatic field of the liquid itself, not ionic thermodiffusion and not the pyroelectric response of an already ordered ferroelectric fluid (Máthé et al. 2022's ferroelectric-nematic thermomotor is that other coupling)
   • simulation only: no experiment has measured the polarization of an ordinary polar liquid under a temperature gradient (pass 32 web search, not a route-search-v1 negative)

   refs [2] [3] [4]
6. 06
   Thermopolarization effect —produces→ Separated surface chargereportedclaim record

   electrical → electrical

   • the induced bulk polarization terminates at a surface or electrode as bound / screening charge; modulating the gradient produces a displacement / polarization current
   • the solid, electroded dielectric of the 1982–1994 measurements; the polar-liquid spelling has no charge-collection evidence (the simulations report bulk polarization and electrostatic potential) and does not inherit this sink

   refs [5] [6] [7]
7. 07
   Separated surface charge —converts into→ Electrical workestablishedclaim record

   electrical → electrical · loss to thermal

   • electrodes on the charged surfaces connected through a load

   refs [8]

Evidence for the complete composition · 0

No source on record for this exact composition. The sources below support the individual steps, not the route as a whole.

Evidence for the constituent relations · 8

1. [1]
   M. A. Prelas, et al.. A review of nuclear batteries (2014)

   Progress in Nuclear Energy 75, 117–148 · doi:10.1016/j.pnucene.2014.04.007 · crossref ✓ 2026-09-19 · record
2. [2]
   F. Bresme et al.. Water Polarization under Thermal Gradients (2008)

   Physical Review Letters 101, 020602 · doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.020602 · record
3. [3]
   J. Armstrong, F. Bresme. Temperature inversion of the thermal polarization of water (2015)

   Physical Review E 92, 060103 · doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.92.060103 · record
4. [4]
   O. R. Gittus, P. Albella, F. Bresme. Polarization of acetonitrile under thermal fields via non-equilibrium molecular dynamics simulations (2020)

   The Journal of Chemical Physics 153, 204503 · doi:10.1063/5.0025148 · record
5. [5]
   A. L. Kholkin, V. A. Trepakov, G. A. Smolenskii. Thermopolarization currents in dielectrics (1982)

   JETP Letters 35 (3), 124–127 (Pis'ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 35, 103–106) · www.jetpletters.ru/ps/1313/article_19837.shtml · record
6. [6]
   V. A. Trepakov, K. M. Nurieva, A. K. Tagantsev. Recent developments of the thermopolarization effect investigation (1989)

   Ferroelectrics 94, 377–381 · doi:10.1080/00150198908014283 · record
7. [7]
   E. Rafikov et al.. Frequency and temperature dependence of the thermopolarization response in dynamic investigations (1994)

   physica status solidi (a) 144, 471–477 · doi:10.1002/pssa.2211440228 · record
8. [8]
   H. B. Radousky, H. Liang. Energy harvesting: an integrated view of materials, devices and applications (2012)

   Nanotechnology 23, 502001 · doi:10.1088/0957-4484/23/50/502001 · crossref ✓ 2026-09-19 · record