swansont Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 Now on tapping the sun's energy. Might I propose a method? How bout using all those free neutrons for something? How many free neutrons are we talking about? (P.S. the two methods suggested here are bogus of course and I only put them there for kicks, Also no mockery intended, Seriously) Don't we already have enough of a trolling problem in general, and dearth of science in this thread? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJ McCaustland Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) How many free neutrons are we talking about? Don't we already have enough of a trolling problem in general, and dearth of science in this thread? True sorry. I don't mean any mockery at all. I recognize my sassy attitude its just I hate it when people propose using highly cost inefficient methods of producing energy when you have the wondrous nuclear power sitting around. I'll edit my post, and change my attitude. Now on tapping the sun's energy, Solar panels obviously wouldn't work so lets go with a more practical approach, you could use a method of refraction to focus the sun's light onto a very small point, and use something like a molten salt system to produce electricity, now to increase efficiency you could put a satellite into geo stationary orbit and use the atmosphere as a kind of giant lens to focus the light via the curvature of the atmosphere with the earth and then use that incredibly focused beam to melt salt and produce electricity. There's a sass free non bogus method that could work, it would just pose the question: How many of those big bucks you willing to fork over? Edited July 1, 2015 by TJ McCaustland 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted July 1, 2015 Author Share Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) I wasn't aware that sunlight was modulated.And how big of an antenna does this require?Which restricts the power. How much power do you plan to transmit?How do you do this?I am proposing that in order to transmit the required energy toward earth , an unmodulated sample of sunlight waves are modulated , by a resonant wave induced in the antenna . The antenna sections would need to be 750 meters long to represent half wave dipoles . However it is unlikely the sunlight will directly induce this resonance in the antenna sections , without some form of signal processing of the incoming sunlight waves. The long term aim in the signal processing , is to Amplitude Modulate , the sunlight. In other words cause the peak amplitude of the sunlight , to fluctuate in intensity in sympathy with a resonant , 1500 meter wave. This in all arms of the antenna grid. Thereby transferring a portion of energy suitable for transmission toward earth stations . I think the level of energy , capable of being transmitted , is likely to be limited by the current capacity of the antenna structure. Mike Edited July 1, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) Does anyone know what proportion of the energy powering Earth's natural processes comes from Solar flux and what proportion is provided by processes due to the Earth / Moon system and what proportion may be attributed to 'other causes'? Edited July 1, 2015 by studiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 I am proposing that in order to transmit the required energy toward earth , an unmodulated sample of sunlight waves are modulated , by a resonant wave induced in the antenna . The antenna sections would need to be 750 meters long to represent half wave dipoles . However it is unlikely the sunlight will directly induce this resonance in the antenna sections , without some form of signal processing of the incoming sunlight waves. The long term aim in the signal processing , is to Amplitude Modulate , the sunlight. In other words cause the peak amplitude of the sunlight , to fluctuate in intensity in sympathy with a resonant , 1500 meter wave. This in all arms of the antenna grid. Thereby transferring a portion of energy suitable for transmission toward earth stations . I think the level of energy , capable of being transmitted , is likely to be limited by the current capacity of the antenna structure. image.jpg Mike To what end? How much energy will this modulation add? Are there any existing systems that use the modulation rather than the carrier to transfer energy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted July 2, 2015 Author Share Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) To what end? How much energy will this modulation add? Are there any existing systems that use the modulation rather than the carrier to transfer energy?Alternating Current or an oscillating wave is a far more satisfactory way of storing and maintaining energy than Direct Current. As was found in the distribution systems for Electricity developed for the National Grid electricity systems here on earth. Storing electricity in Batteries has always , and still does produce problems. Energy and Frequency have a relationship, so I would imagine long waves will have a more manageable energy level than Sunlight which goes right ,up to , the Ultra Violet level. Showering down Long Waves to Earth is likely to be far more acceptable to the population and human health than any of the higher frequencies. Nothing in the human body would resonate at such frequencies , so it would be quite safe . Whereas reception stations could be set up with antennas of say Quarter Wavelength ( 375 meters) . Just ! ( maybe less. I would have thought ALL waves contain energy ( Planks law link :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law ) . Illustration of Planks law . Link :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law Mike Edited July 2, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Have you thought to look into the safe threshhold limits on radiative power in RF frequency ranges? Being near 25 watt antennas at RF frequencies is dangerous enough. Your talking about using a similar process at potentially higher wattage from space. You might want to consider those hazards not just to humans but to insects birds etc. Lol not to mention your talking about radiating a signal on a steady stream through the atmosphere. That would have the additional side effect of temperature changes in that area. Depending on frequency and transmission power. Might want to consider potential climate effects. Let alone any political concerns on a nearby population. We are dealing with a regulated body. Every country has its frequency control regulations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted July 2, 2015 Author Share Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) Have you thought to look into the safe threshhold limits on radiative power in RF frequency ranges? Being near 25 watt antennas at RF frequencies is dangerous enough. Your talking about using a similar process at potentially higher wattage from space. You might want to consider those hazards not just to humans but to insects birds etc. Yes , I appreciate your comments . The term RADIATION , makes most people go ' freaky ' with associations to Radio activity. However , I believe the principle here is resonance . If there is no way of resonating , then I would have thought the incident of such waves ,would pass with zero ,interaction? Is that not so? Do we not exist in a sea of waves , that do not interact with us . It's only those like microwaves that make interactions with water and metal that cause problems ? I remember , hearing about engineers who worked with early microwave oven technology , getting cooked, and people near RADAR antennas being warned off . But to my knowledge Long wave , has been passive in this respect? Is that not so ? Ps. The only way I can think of it is :- If someone comes into a room , and invites you to get out of your comfortable arm chair , in order to shake your hand. You get up and they come across to you , shake your hand and give you a warm hug. Then invite you to sit down and have pleasant conversation . You sit back and relax . ..then a day later , another friend comes to visit you and treats you similarly .....Is like Long Waves. H.F. Or higher frequencies are like someone , grabbing you by surprise, and shaking the living daylights out of you. Then throwing you to the floor. Then doing it again and again and again .... It's all to do with the ' speed ' of change . Surely ? ( Frequency of oscillation , or wave ) ? Distribution of intensity with wavelength . Long waves far to right, off screen . Suns radiation main radiation hump shown here , centre graph . See Wikipedia for clear diagram :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law The Sun itself is bringing all the main frequency waves to earth . We and other creatures live with this . All I am talking about is siphoning off a little bit of this energy , in outer space. Converting it to a long wave , safe signal . Then putting it back onto a fraction of the suns rays , in the form of " A Carrier wave ( sun wave), with a modulation wave ( long wave ) , being sent to earth in a harmless capacity, to be freely available, as a manageable and safe form of Energy . I agree we do have to get the antennas with their inbuilt converters and modulators ,up there . The space elevators suggested by Arthur C Clark , are likely to be feasible shortly using carbon fibre technology. Link :- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xdr6zXXrTbg Mike Edited July 2, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted July 2, 2015 Author Share Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) The only way for space-based solar to be effective, IMO, is IF someone manages to develop a space elevator. A cost effective way to get the panels up there and the energy could be sent to earth via the tether. .. As per your comment . See end of previous post ! Arthur C Clark Ideas before technology now available . Link :- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xdr6zXXrTbg Mike Edited July 2, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Alternating Current or an oscillating wave is a far more satisfactory way of storing and maintaining energy than Direct Current. As was found in the distribution systems for Electricity developed for the National Grid electricity systems here on earth. Storing electricity in Batteries has always , and still does produce problems. That's electricity, not light Energy and Frequency have a relationship, so I would imagine long waves will have a more manageable energy level than Sunlight which goes right ,up to , the Ultra Violet level. Showering down Long Waves to Earth is likely to be far more acceptable to the population and human health than any of the higher frequencies. Nothing in the human body would resonate at such frequencies , so it would be quite safe . Whereas reception stations could be set up with antennas of say Quarter Wavelength ( 375 meters) . Just ! ( maybe less. I would have thought ALL waves contain energy ( Planks law link :- <a data-ipb="nomediaparse" data-cke-saved-href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck"href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck" s_law"="" class="bbc_url" title="External link">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law ) . Illustration of Planks law . Link :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law Mike Yes, E =hv, but you were specifically talking about using modulation to transfer the energy, not the light itself. How would that work? And you still haven't addressed the problem of "low energy levels" means "not very much energy transferred" so how is this useful? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted July 2, 2015 Author Share Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) That's electricity, not light A) Yes, E =hv, but you were specifically talking about using modulation to transfer the energy, not the light itself. How would that work? B) And you still haven't addressed the problem of "low energy levels" means "not very much energy transferred" so how is this useful? .------------------ A) a modulated sunlight wave is still an E= hv albeit a more complex waveform if sent as illustrated. The sunlight passing through the massive antenna Grid , would continue uninterrupted , other than being tampered with by a modulating signal , derived from incoming sunlight , converted to a much lower frequency .( long wave) . The resulting wave envelope would have much the similar level of energy as the incoming unmodulated sunlight. The difference being the output is now sunlight with long-wave ' hitching a ride ' . This is unfocused distributed energy that may be demodulated on earth as useful distributed low energy requirements. --------------------- B) the other energy, sun derived , long wave signal , present on the antenna platform , can also be focused to receiving stations on earth. Note this signal DOES NOT have a sunlight content. ( or it would 'FRY' everything it touched. The focused beam , would be pure long wave energy .The level of energy here would have been restored to a much higher level due to the focusing far in excess of the original. It will be AC ( alternating current ) and at a harmless frequency . This will be usable for distribution to bigger users. ----------------------- Mike Edited July 2, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrP Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 How would you convert the sunlight to long wave radio again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted July 2, 2015 Author Share Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) How would you convert the sunlight to long wave radio again?.Well there is all sorts of ways . The important thing is to use the incoming source of sunlight to be the driver to producing the modulation signal. Frequency divider to provide a chopping signal, sub harmonic, or other counter to provide a signal to vary the amplitude of the suns rays at a long wave frequency . I appreciate one is handling a very large signal . So it will require some ingenious methods. However we are ONLY Varying the levels of amplitude. An electronic clock working at the desired long wave signal rate , could be amplified up ,in such a way as to electronically restrict the flow of sunlight in a synchronised way . Again 10,000 square meters of sunlight might take a bit of handling , ....but .. I am sure ingenious ways of restricting light flow electronically can be derived, with a bit of research . After all there have been a lot of experiments in quantum mechanics trying to isolate individual photons. ..' Just ' .. . needs scaling up a bit ! Mike Edited July 2, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 . ------------------ A) a modulated sunlight wave is still an E= hv albeit a more complex waveform if sent as illustrated. image.jpg The sunlight passing through the massive antenna Grid , would continue uninterrupted , other than being tampered with by a modulating signal , derived from incoming sunlight , converted to a much lower frequency .( long wave) . The resulting wave envelope would have much the similar level of energy as the incoming unmodulated sunlight. The difference being the output is now sunlight with long-wave ' hitching a ride ' . This is unfocused distributed energy that may be demodulated on earth as useful distributed low energy requirements. Similar amounts of energy. Right. So what is gained here? B) the other energy, sun derived , long wave signal , present on the antenna platform , can also be focused to receiving stations on earth. Note this signal DOES NOT have a sunlight content. ( or it would 'FRY' everything it touched. The focused beam , would be pure long wave energy .The level of energy here would have been restored to a much higher level due to the focusing far in excess of the original. It will be AC ( alternating current ) and at a harmless frequency . This will be usable for distribution to bigger users. But your implied math, there is almost no energy here. So what do you gain by doing this? How is is this better than just generating a longer-wave transmission by itself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrP Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 ... or just let the light travel to the earth and harness it there with a solar cell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 ... or just let the light travel to the earth and harness it there with a solar cell. If we had some numbers, we could do a comparison. Which is why I want some actual analysis, and not drawings and hand-waving. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrP Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 How about an energy storage device/plant on the moon? Would save the impracticality of transference to Earth and it could be used to power manufacture plants or fuel generators in space to re-fuel space craft or build things we need in space that are difficult to get up there. Or even a free floating space power station that could re-fuel/top up craft on long haul space flights to Mars or beyond. This would save the craft having to leave the Earth's atmosphere fuelled to capacity carrying extra weight - it would break orbit with a minimal fuel load, collect the fuel needed for it's journey from the station, collect parts or materials for construction from the moon base and then set off to colonise somewhere far out. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted July 2, 2015 Author Share Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) If we had some numbers, we could do a comparison. Which is why I want some actual analysis, and not drawings and hand-waving.The number that is relevant at the present method of using solar power is : On a good sunny cloudless day 1 kilowatt hour will fall on the surface of 1 square meter in one hour . However this is reduced by inefficiencies (clouds, night time , general losses ) to 100 watts to 200 watts. Output from a solar panel ,over a 24 hour period average. So to be pessimistic or realistic 0.1 kilowatt hour per square meter of solar panel. 10 % - 20% efficiency. And it's not in a form AC that we usually like to use but in DC so needs inverting to AC . This is o.k. We either need to slow up on our consumption of energy , or seek additional alternative supplies. If the Sun gave us all this originally to make things grow to make oil and coal . It seems a good idea to tap in to the Sun directly. While doing this , we may as well consider the distribution of the energy . We are all loving wi-fi . No wires. Mobility. Information on tap. All I am proposing is wi-fi style energy distribution . Long wave as it seems harmless and possibly suitable. And the possibility of mobility. Also rather than cover our entire countryside with solar panels . Harness the energy 'up there ' , do two things , point it where it is needed in quantity and , Give a sprinkling of general energy that is available anywhere. So the idea of using harmless radio frequency to distribute it or send it on the back of existing sunlight. There are some efficiencies associated with radio wave amplification. Class A , Class B , and Class C . Class C is particularly efficient as conduction only occurs over part of a cycle , not the whole cycle . It relies on momentum or resonance to invoke a sine wave . Mike Reference :- http://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/how-much-electricity-can-i-generate-solar-panels Edited July 2, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Externet Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Worlds Energy requirements ' May be ' within our technological Grasp !Much if not all of the energy the world needs is already within technological grasp. Just money is needed to build/implement engineering for its extraction. It is called lunar power + solar power by exploiting tides. Turbines in the strait of Gibraltar should be capable of powering Europe. Denmark, Canada and Asia have also, straits with gigantic potential. Without need to bring wires or lossy wireless from space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 The number that is relevant at the present method of using solar power is : On a good sunny cloudless day 1 kilowatt hour will fall on the surface of 1 square meter in one hour . However this is reduced by inefficiencies (clouds, night time , general losses ) to 100 watts to 200 watts. Output from a solar panel ,over a 24 hour period average. So to be pessimistic or realistic 0.1 kilowatt hour per square meter of solar panel. 10 % - 20% efficiency. And it's not in a form AC that we usually like to use but in DC so needs inverting to AC . This is o.k. We either need to slow up on our consumption of energy , or seek additional alternative supplies. If the Sun gave us all this originally to make things grow to make oil and coal . It seems a good idea to tap in to the Sun directly. Great, though these are things that are generally known. What you need to do is apply this sort of analysis to your idea and give the comparable numbers. While doing this , we may as well consider the distribution of the energy . We are all loving wi-fi . No wires. Mobility. Information on tap. All I am proposing is wi-fi style energy distribution . Long wave as it seems harmless and possibly suitable. And the possibility of mobility. Also rather than cover our entire countryside with solar panels . Harness the energy 'up there ' , do two things , point it where it is needed in quantity and , Give a sprinkling of general energy that is available anywhere. So the idea of using harmless radio frequency to distribute it wi-fi is harmless in part because it's low power. You can't use the "harmless" argument in the context of a power distribution scheme, because then it won't be low power. wi-fi at signal levels we currently use is really crappy for powering things. Also, there will be no need to cover the countryside with solar panels. That, too is something that can be analyzed, and has been. More science, less hyperbole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted July 2, 2015 Author Share Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) Great, though these are things that are generally known. What you need to do is apply this sort of analysis to your idea and give the comparable numbers. wi-fi is harmless in part because it's low power. You can't use the "harmless" argument in the context of a power distribution scheme, because then it won't be low power. wi-fi at signal levels we currently use is really crappy for powering things. Also, there will be no need to cover the countryside with solar panels. That, too is something that can be analyzed, and has been. More science, less hyperbole. Well the aspect of losses ,with radio transmission , is that to some extent it is in our hands. The amazing thing with both light and radio waves , in principle there need be no losses. A photon of light or radio wave (photon ) , setting off from the other side of the galaxy , will arrive intact with no degradation, unless it hits something . Then it will suffer 100% loss. What looks like loss is is really the spreading out and dilution on the surface of a sphere ( inverse square law) . This is the dilution of number of photons per square meter on the surface of the expanding sphere. If we choose to make the photons travel in a tight column , there in theory there will be no loss. I know that is simplistic , and life isn't like that. But I am saying , that if we point a tight beam , from an antenna in the sky , towards a fixed receiving station , there should be very little loss. If on the other hand or also , if we let our signal ,spread out ,like the surface of a sphere , then the inverse square law kicks in and our signal will go down by the square of the distance . If on the third hand we tighten up our cone of radiation we can improve on this a lot . That is why I suggested a mixture of the two. Mike Edited July 2, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Also, there will be no need to cover the countryside with solar panels. That, too is something that can be analyzed, and has been. More science, less hyperbole. See, for example, http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/89018-harnessing-solar-power-in-space/?p=867972 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted July 2, 2015 Author Share Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) See, for example, http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/89018-harnessing-solar-power-in-space/?p=867972Well I must say that that article is very impressive. It certainly shows how it would be possible to get what is needed from land based solar panels ,if that is the way you want to go . We are still left with this problem of distribution, DC Supply , cloud cover, darkness and having energy while on the move . So I guess that takes the pressure off feeling we are going to be buried alive under solar panels . I do however think that the scheme I am suggesting has a lot of merit, particularly when the subject of distribution is considered as well as the issue of Energy available anywhere . I also am impressed with what the previous poster ( Externet post #44 ) was saying about turbines in straits ( Gibraltar etc ) Mike Edited July 2, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Well I must say that that article is very impressive. It certainly shows how it would be possible to get what is needed from land based solar panels ,if that is the way you want to go . We are still left with this problem of distribution, DC Supply , cloud cover, darkness and having energy while on the move . So I guess that takes the pressure off feeling we are going to be buried alive under solar panels . I do however think that the scheme I am suggesting has a lot of merit, particularly when the subject of distribution is considered as well as the issue of Energy available anywhere . You haven't solved distribution at all, if you are beaming down from geostationary satellites to fixed receivers. Nor weather nor darkness. And we haven't even gotten to cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Yes , I appreciate your comments . The term RADIATION , makes most people go ' freaky ' with associations to Radio activity. However , I believe the principle here is resonance . If there is no way of resonating , then I would have thought the incident of such waves ,would pass with zero ,interaction? Is that not so? Do we not exist in a sea of waves , that do not interact with us . It's only those like microwaves that make interactions with water and metal that cause problems ? I remember , hearing about engineers who worked with early microwave oven technology , getting cooked, and people near RADAR antennas being warned off . But to my knowledge Long wave , has been passive in this respect? Is that not so ? Ps. The only way I can think of it is :- If someone comes into a room , and invites you to get out of your comfortable arm chair , in order to shake your hand. You get up and they come across to you , shake your hand and give you a warm hug. Then invite you to sit down and have pleasant conversation . You sit back and relax . ..then a day later , another friend comes to visit you and treats you similarly .....Is like Long Waves. H.F. Or higher frequencies are like someone , grabbing you by surprise, and shaking the living daylights out of you. Then throwing you to the floor. Then doing it again and again and again .... It's all to do with the ' speed ' of change . Surely ? ( Frequency of oscillation , or wave ) ? image.jpg Distribution of intensity with wavelength . Long waves far to right, off screen . Suns radiation main radiation hump shown here , centre graph . See Wikipedia for clear diagram :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law The Sun itself is bringing all the main frequency waves to earth . We and other creatures live with this . All I am talking about is siphoning off a little bit of this energy , in outer space. Converting it to a long wave , safe signal . Then putting it back onto a fraction of the suns rays , in the form of " A Carrier wave ( sun wave), with a modulation wave ( long wave ) , being sent to earth in a harmless capacity, to be freely available, as a manageable and safe form of Energy . I agree we do have to get the antennas with their inbuilt converters and modulators ,up there . The space elevators suggested by Arthur C Clark , are likely to be feasible shortly using carbon fibre technology. Link :- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xdr6zXXrTbg Mike Not quite the risk is reduced not eliminated. It depends not just on frequency and power but also on soft tissue resonance. Here is a sample chart. https://www.google.ca/url?q=http://www.bccdc.ca/NR/rdonlyres/ECBB20E0-A717-4FE9-BAE1-B1E48334459C/0/Section13Final06062013.pdf&sa=U&ei=unWVVYvdAYuWgwSFjbUQ&ved=0CBcQFjAC&sig2=GLJEqGALUuhv8SYdlWfY3g&usg=AFQjCNGh9dzZ5U9nPARwYYRpS4iKEdQBZg safe threshold limits is the safe exposure time. and it depends on the SAR value. 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