infinity12358 Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 why don't we have a pole of super conducting material connecting a large body of water to space - thus creating free super cold water which can be used by power plants? apart from the logistics of getting a long enough pole and getting it to stand up, of course. theoretically, would it work? this theoretical pole could connect the ocean to space as well, thus reducing the temperature of the ocean - although you'd have to have the ability to disconnect it at will, or the whole ocean would freeze over! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilSolution Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Well they certainly have strong enough and simaltaniously conductive enough materials, the costs are ridiculous though. Were talking about making minute amounts in the lab, maybe there are more practical materials but im not aware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Not really sure about this - but i think you would basically only be losing heat to vacuum of space via bb radiation - and that aint that great at 200-300k. I think you would be talking about a couple of hundred watts per square metre - which isn't gonna be enough to provide aircon for the maintenance team let alone anything useful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enthalpy Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Same opinion: works in principle, not in figures. No good heat conductor exists. No material exists that supports its weight over 300km height. Please don't tell me "graphene" nor "nanotube". At that scale, polypropylene is just as good. At the scale of a rope, nanotubes will be as bad as plastic. Heat emission will be limited by the blackbody efficiency, or 315W/m2 at 273K. That a very hard limit to any cold sink in space, say for a nuclear reactor or RTG; designers look for hotter hot sources because no cool air is available - or they imagine huge cold sinks, nearly immaterial, of flying droplets or moving plastic films. No use for big power. BUT nice uses for free real cold at tiny power: Ground-based telescopes "see" a background temperature linked with the Universe more than with Earth - after a difficult design effort. This means that the background makes less noise in the receiver than if an antenna points to the ground. Can be <20K. On astronomy space probes, CCD retinae can sometimes be cooled for free, if very well insulated, provided their thermal radiation interacts with cold space rather than the spacecraft. Can be <50K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infinity12358 Posted November 10, 2013 Author Share Posted November 10, 2013 Cool, thanks for the thoughts! So radiation isn't good enough to remove enough heat to be significant. Bums! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now