Jump to content
Science Forums

which is a better form of energy?  

1 member has voted

  1. 1. which is a better form of energy?

    • solar power
      38
    • nuclear power
      19


Recommended Posts

Posted
He was a proponent of the concept .. (sort of)

 

Ron, there is a really simple design that requires no counter spinning wheel .

 

The point of it was that is was a method that allowed for the transmission of energy with 0 losses, while serving as a method of moving things between space and the ground.

 

Had a rather long thread on this, and covered quite a few of the issues.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/space/5641-another-space-elevator-concept.html

Thanks. I'll check it out.

Posted
Think of the currents in the atmosphere. Bad enough on a cable, a much worse worry with belts...

 

Think of the amount of tension on a 5 meter thick cable on a suspension bridge. Now multiply the amount of tension on that cable by 1,000 (at the very least)

 

We are talking about placing so much stress on the cable that only the strongest material we can conceive of has a chance of supporting it.

 

It might be a bit wobbly a ride for the first 100 KM, but nothing compaired to a rocket I would imagine.

 

I do believe we are getting off subject though :)

Posted
But it still is far fetched.. how exactly are you going to beam that much EM with losing a lot of energy via diffraction.

There are "windows". EM energy in the visible region is out (light) because the intensity would blind anybody or any living thing even close to your reciever on the ground. EM energy at IR frequencies would be absorbed by clouds, ozone, other stuff, including skin, feathers, leaves. EM energy at microwave frequencies would be absorbed by only a few molecules, including water vapor. But there are several frequencies that have minimum interaction with plants and animals, AND can get through the atmosphere with few losses.

Posted

I don't know it seems to be an article of praise for a particular Aussie scientist, what of it?

 

Anyway beam splitters are simply that, they split a signal into parts. This thread as far as I know isn't interested in that. It is simply interested in gathering solar energy above the stratosphere and transporting it to earth.

Pyro was suggesting what to gather and transport through reflection or whatever means to a receiver here on earth.

Posted

Guys guys. Please take a moment to glance here...

 

Sholud we first figure a way to make the solar power gatherers(currently called solar panels) more efficient?

 

Might I suggest metals which show the photoelectric effect at very long wavelengths...

Posted

I saw a doc on it a few years back. The tests where promising, but when a full scale prototype was built (all the windows of a CSIRO building here in australia where covered in the stuff, gave a cool stained glass effect) it failed miserably.. no one was quite sure why :eek_big:

Posted
I don't know it seems to be an article of praise for a particular Aussie scientist, what of it?

.

 

She is making almost atom thin things.

Could she employ same technology to solar panels?

And thus cut down the expense of using silicon?

 

More efficient? Go back one space

http://news.com.com/Old+solar+tech+back+in+limelight/2100-11746_3-6068926.html

"That area (of concentrators) is enjoying a resurgence, which went into disfavor in favor of flat panels," said Emmanuel M. Sachs, professor of mechanical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "Because there are 35-percent-efficient cells, as opposed to 20-percent-efficient cells, it makes sense to look at concentrators again."

 

Much of the use of solar concentrators has been with high-efficiency germanium solar cells in space or at large-scale installations, where arrays of panels are lined up in desert areas, for example, said Sachs, who developed technology at MIT now being commercialized by Evergreen Solar.

 

Some interesting links on this (above link)page too.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...