Mike Smith Cosmos Posted July 31, 2015 Author Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) You know this information is already available. Your HAM radio booklet should have the calcs. [latex]P_d=\frac{P_tG_t}{4\pi R^2}[/latex] [latex]G=\frac{max- radiated -power of -actual -antenna-directional -gain}{radiation -intensity- of omnidirectional -antenna -of -same power}[/latex] P_ t is peak intensity. The recieving antenna only captures a portion of the effective power per square foot. The effective capture area of received power is power density* effective capture area. You can crunch the numbers but you will find you will be dealing with microwatts if not Pico watts at the range your talking from orbit. Not counting stratosphere effects. Then you would also require an immense capture area. Far greater than what is mobile. I appreciate your formulae and comments . It's a bit further ahead yet as I need to demonstrate the transmission of energy as opposed to message signal . These are obviously related . But in the reception of message , ones goal is a clear signal. The energy issue is to maximise energy . A first look at the formula you gave , looks like a sphere of radiation , thus the energy density will fall off into the inverse square law ' issue ' where the signal gets diluted as the sphere of photons density , gets shared on a greater and greater surface area. I was hoping to thwart this by some form of directional polar diagram type transmission. But obviously that means the coverage goes down ( can't have cake and eat it ) . I was hoping that I could deal with that by only looking for 10 % of available light conversion. The fact that it is long wave means it will spread out more anyway , does it not? I am back to this thing ? What exactly does a photon of long wave radio wave actually ' look like ' where is it ? , what is its dimensions? If I am standing here ! And a particular , single photon of long wave comes by , although it's invisible , where roughly is it spread out to? Does it exist spread over 1250 meters in diameter or twice that Or where . And if I stick out my antenna to absorb that one photon , and suck its energy in , I presumably have removed it from some space of existence , and it does not carry on into the distance ? Is that right ? Is there some form of antenna that will shoot the photons out like a potato gun , but only in selective directions ( like a shower head say ! ) Mike Edited July 31, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) The directional antennas is the second formula. You must include the gain factor. In other words G=etc. I'll dig for an example under Yagi unidirectional antennas Edited July 31, 2015 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted July 31, 2015 Author Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) The directional antennas is the second formula. You must include the gain factor. In other words G=etc. I'll dig for an example under Yagi unidirectional antennas.I am thinking of many ginormous shower heads , out in space , some thousands of meters across, showering down long wave photons in a near strait ( slightly diverging ) shower of photons , covering a surface area of earth . Say in vast circular coverage areas on earth . I think these polar diagrams I have got hold of here , are in fact Yagi antenna polar diagrams . The disc satellite would take 10 % of incoming sunlight and do some form of conversion to long-waves, so as to send this down , spread out like a shower head of water as 100 watt per square meter long wave energy , distributed in these polar zones , which hopefully would constitute fairly complete coverage . You would not notice it if you looked up , only that 10% of sunlight was missing . Does not have to be 10 % could be 5% , but as Swansont keeps telling me 100 watts per square meter is not a lot . I think it could accumulate to be enough . Mike Edited July 31, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 . I am thinking of many ginormous shower heads , out in space , some thousands of meters across, showering down long wave photons in a near strait ( slightly diverging ) shower of photons , covering a surface area of earth . Say in vast circular coverage areas on earth . image.jpg I think these polar diagrams I have got hold of here , are in fact Yagi antenna polar diagrams . The disc satellite would take 10 % of incoming sunlight and do some form of conversion to long-waves, so as to send this down , spread out like a shower head of water as 100 watt per square meter long wave energy , distributed in these polar zones , which hopefully would constitute fairly complete coverage . You would not notice it if you looked up , only that 10% of sunlight was missing . Does not have to be 10 % could be 5% , but as Swansont keeps telling me 100 watts per square meter is not a lot . I think it could accumulate to be enough . Mike Unfortunately when you start doing power calcs I can attest Swansort is correct. Even assuming you can deliver 100 watts effective power at the surface. Your receiving antenna would have to be Huge to receive that 100 watts and in perfect attenuation. The effective power would only be sufficient to charge batteries on a trickle charge. We can already do this with far greater practicality with solar power. The problem isn't solar or wind power. The problem is power storage. The technology already exists for renewable power, what's holding it back is power storage sufficient enough and affordable to handle peak hour usage. Using your idea would require a far larger surface area than most efficient solar panels. Better advancements in solar panels haven't hit the common market yet. This includes the transparent solar panels. (Where every windshield or window can be a solar panel). Storage is what's problematic As far as storage is concerned grids across the globe are still upgrading. Some areas generate more power than they can store currently. Here is a related article. http://breakingenergy.com/2015/05/25/new-storage-technologies-open-doors-for-wind-and-solar/ Another example is where I live we have several thousand wind generators. Only a small percentage run at the same time. We haven't got the storage infrastructure yet for the storage. Still under development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted August 1, 2015 Author Share Posted August 1, 2015 (edited) Unfortunately when you start doing power calcs I can attest Swansort is correct. Even assuming you can deliver 100 watts effective power at the surface. Your receiving antenna would have to be Huge to receive that 100 watts and in perfect attenuation. The effective power would only be sufficient to charge batteries on a trickle charge. We can already do this with far greater practicality with solar power. The problem isn't solar or wind power. The problem is power storage. The technology already exists for renewable power, what's holding it back is power storage sufficient ........ Eeks ! I am going to have to ' shut up ' or I will end up in 'concrete Wellington boots ' This energy storage seems like Big Business. I still wonder if directly producing usable energy directly from the Sun and distributed directly as a power source would not be a bad idea! I think its a matter of " Focus " or " Non Divergence " of energy . I need to do a little test , and a little thinking . I did this at University fairly recently 2000 ish , I experimented with these hi-fi separate earphones . They have a little transmitter in a hub, and you wander about and listen to your music in your earphones. O.k. In the room but fade out soon. I put a copper dish behind the hub and found I could go for 100 meters down the university corridor and still hear the music . Just like car head lights . It's the balance between the point source and the focused signal beam ! You could have some form of switched beam . Power sharing across the coverage area . So when you had the power , on your bit , it would be good power , when you did not have your bit you got nothing . There is the conversion from light at 100's of nano metres down to long wave at a thousand metres say. That is a power sharing of 1: 1,000,000 per photon of sunlight . Is that enough to be useful electrical energy directly ? Again what surface area are we talking about for 1,000,000 sunlight photons wide ( or as a spot) . And how big a spot is a single photon of long wave energy ? It's like giving the kiddies swing a nudge , once per large swing , with a little short nudge per cycle . The kid gets to have a ' long' swing in exchange for a very 'short' nudge ( 1 in a 1,000,000 ) every swing cycle . ( we carry on reading our book while the kid continues to swing without our input ,required) One photon of sunlight for one photon of long wave , all the other photons 999,999 photons of sunlight are free to do whatever they do. ( make trees and plants grow and keep us warm ) ( or read a book ) . We have got our continuous photon of long-wave ? It's a fair deal ? Everybody is happy! Mike Edited August 1, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 I need to do a little test , and a little thinking . I did this at University fairly recently 2000 ish , I experimented with these hi-fi separate earphones . They have a little transmitter in a hub, and you wander about and listen to your music in your earphones. O.k. In the room but fade out soon. I put a copper dish behind the hub and found I could go for 100 meters down the university corridor and still hear the music . Wireless headphone tend to be battery powered, so you are amplifying a signal. And sound doesn't carry that much energy, so not much power has to be available. Transmitting a signal is significantly different than transmitting power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted August 1, 2015 Author Share Posted August 1, 2015 (edited) Wireless headphone tend to be battery powered, so you are amplifying a signal. And sound doesn't carry that much energy, so not much power has to be available. Transmitting a signal is significantly different than transmitting power.So everybody is telling me ! " transmitting a signal is significantly different than transmitting power." Signal you can accept spreading out , then everybody can hear you! Power , if you are counting on it , or it is in short supply , needs to be directed , somehow , so that it does not get diluted. Unless of course you are the Sun , then you have so much power you can afford to spread it all over the place ! If you are scratching around for mortals of energy , you NEED to know ' where it is ' ? I just wish I could find out , how big a photon is at set frequencies ? Is a photon of light "So big " and a photon of long waves " Hugh"? If I knew that , I could think about , ' where the photon is ? " and how can I capture it. Or them " . I am working with ' ghosts ' at the moment. I do hope it's not going to turn into. " it's everywhere ! " yes but where is the main ' chunk' ? I can feel a sort of strange ' madness ' coming on ! Mike Edited August 1, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 (edited) A single photon is pointless. Think of it this way, the typical sensitivity on a two way radio reciever is 2.5 microvolts. This signal is then amplified. That's to accept a broadcast from typically 25 watt antennas at a decent range. A 100 watt antenna gives you better range but not on the scales were talking. No one using a cell phone will want to carry a 12 foot square antenna to gather enough power to run their cell phone. At 100 watt this is the profile you would need to gather 25 mw for a trickle charge. (Though I didn't account for reflective power loss and efficiency) Edited August 1, 2015 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted August 2, 2015 Author Share Posted August 2, 2015 (edited) A single photon is pointless. Think of it this way, the typical sensitivity on a two way radio reciever is 2.5 microvolts. This signal is then amplified. That's to accept a broadcast from typically 25 watt antennas at a decent range. A 100 watt antenna gives you better range but not on the scales were talking. No one using a cell phone will want to carry a 12 foot square antenna to gather enough power to run their cell phone. At 100 watt this is the profile you would need to gather 25 mw for a trickle charge. (Though I didn't account for reflective power loss and efficiency) My line of reasoning ( which may be fallacious ) but a) I would like to reason it out . And b) I would like to try it out . If a young girl across the room has a ball in her hand . And we are lead to believe a photon of Radio Frequency is a ball and wave particle then :- If the girl aims the ball at me , and throws it across the room , and I catch it . I then have an exact ball that was thrown . If now I generate a photon of Rf , throw it across a small part of space , I aim it at an antenna some distance away , not too far , say 100 meters , and my antenna is designed to be a good launcher of r.f.. Then I have an exact replica of a photon that was sent across this bit of space. If I now repeat the experiment with 20, god-zillion photons ( plus a few for losses ) , and send the 20 god-zillion (plus a few for losses ) into my well designed antenna , something very near to 20 god-zillion Photon looking rf photons will appear in my receiving antenna . ( incidentally i am assuming for the sake of this mental experiment 20 god-zillion photons ( plus a few for losses ) will furnish me 100 watts per square meter. ) at my catching end . If now I relocate my sending antenna to a satellite in space . Pick up at least 2 kW per sq meter or sunlight up in outer space , and convert in such a way as to furnish me with sufficient numbers of long wave photons as to cover losses into an aiming antenna with a certain amount of spread so as to cover a nominated part of the earths surface , (though not a spherical transmission ) more like a 20 times spread . Will I not receive 100 watts of long wave per square meter? ( or something of that order of magnitude . ) on earth . Under the domain of this particular antenna in space . ( say 2km square antenna array ) Mike Edited August 2, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 (edited) You are aware that electromagnetic frequency is mediated via photons ? The formulas I provided cover what your describing. Those calcs assumed a perfect receiving antenna which of course doesn't exist. Then the other problem is the mean free path of individual photons is too short for your descriptive above. However that's another detail Edited August 2, 2015 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted August 2, 2015 Author Share Posted August 2, 2015 (edited) You are aware that electromagnetic frequency is mediated via photons ? The formulas I provided cover what your describing. Those calcs assumed a perfect receiving antenna which of course doesn't exist. Then the other problem is the mean free path of individual photons is too short for your descriptive above. However that's another detail Of course . I appreciate photons are electro magnetic fields as far as I understand it. Of quantified amounts defined by Planks constant and wavelength. The nearest I can get to a visualisation of a photon is a bubblised E-M entity whose size , I am at a loss to understand ? Yes I appreciate your formulas , I will use them when I make my experimental 40 meter then 1230 meter transmitting coil and antenna and identicle receiving coil and antenna . I would hope to make the transmitting antenna unidirectional with a slight divergence , the receiving antenna unidirectional . Eg it PRO RATA ( only looses, reduces, from the initial 2 kilowatts / sq meter from the absorbed sunlight to 100 watts / sq meter for the earth location receiver . ) In the model it will just be a watt or two transmitted, received pro rat 2000 : 100 . Also a control 1 watt to 1 watt in the non divergent identical antennas . I hope ! I am hoping it will near the young girl lobbing a ball of photons of defined size / quantity with an EQUAL ball of photons and defined size . Being received if everything is non divergent and like for like . Or in 2000:100 as in the following illustrative diagram :- Mike Ps had a quick look at " the mean free path" . Not sure if this is what Richard Feynman described for the summation of all probabilities of paths that light could take . Being all possible paths but most being out of phase , apart from the ones the lines take in normal reflective understanding ( ie angle of incidence = angle of reflection) however others are there cancelling out ? ( because of the phase of each path ) . Do you mean the girl has to use up energy throwing the ball all the other paths , all to cancel out , but the normal reflective path, or straight projection? Edited August 3, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted August 8, 2015 Author Share Posted August 8, 2015 (edited) . RESONANCE Notice below ( the diagram from Wikipedia ) , the sharp rise and fall to the resonance curve. This frequency spectrum can select out a desired safe frequency and exclude other dangerous frequencies. I am not sure of any resonant frequencies of the human body and brain . But provided these are outside of this curve ( the curve of resonance being the long wave frequency chosen , in this project ) . Then the human body should be quite safe , if not an alternative , suitable , permissible frequency in the long wave spectrum can be chosen . image.jpg Link :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance Mike .What does it mean ' disastrous. Resonance ' at 1 on this graph ? When the input frequency equals the resonant frequency , what " disaster " befalls us ? Does it mean if there is no damping , 'everything hits the roof '. ? Whoosh ! Mike Edited August 8, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 . What does it mean ' disastrous. Resonance ' at 1 on this graph ? When the input frequency equals the resonant frequency , what " disaster " befalls us ? Does it mean if there is no damping , 'everything hits the roof '. ? Whoosh ! Mike delta is the damping coefficient. If that is zero, then you only absorb energy. And keep absorbing it. Energy in, no energy out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted August 13, 2015 Author Share Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) delta is the damping coefficient. If that is zero, then you only absorb energy. And keep absorbing it. Energy in, no energy out.. Is that just a theoretical thing? Like it never happens in real life ? Or is that what the Big Bang was ? The ultimate in Resonance action ? Ref :- Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance Edited August 13, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 The are no "perfect" resonances, as an infinitely narrow transition width implies infinite lifetime of the excited state. There is always some dissipation of energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted August 14, 2015 Author Share Posted August 14, 2015 (edited) The are no "perfect" resonances, as an infinitely narrow transition width implies infinite lifetime of the excited state. There is always some dissipation of energy..Your statement sounds 'very much' like the history of the universe . Does it not ? Because if you run what you have said ' backwards ' it sounds very much like the exploration backwards we are currently doing with CERN in investigating ever nearer to time 'zero' . Or have I picked up on the wrong thing ? Mike P.S. Humm! I like it . " The Great Resonance " . I knew there was something special about Resonance. I have been fascinated ever since I learned to play with resonance . Particularly when I investigated it in electronics with ' tuned circuits ' , how they either absorbed energy , or gave it out . There has got to be something , there , somewhere ? ( I suppose you are going to tell me now , " this needs to be a separate thread ? " ) Edited August 14, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrP Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 Would love to see this start to work seriously in my lifetime. Ever hopeful - one day! http://www.iflscience.com/physics/lets-all-get-cautiously-excited-about-fusion-power-breakthrough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 . Your statement sounds 'very much' like the history of the universe . Does it not ? No, not to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted August 15, 2015 Author Share Posted August 15, 2015 (edited) No, not to me.Here is the resonance graph with left hand side removed . Could the Left hand side not be an input created by some form of resonant action . Be it that resonance can start from nothing with :- A) Correct Tuning ? And / Or I B) gentle ever increasing swings from nothing ? C) a sudden step function ? D) a n other ? Mike Edited August 15, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted August 15, 2015 Author Share Posted August 15, 2015 (edited) Here is the resonance graph with left hand side removed . Could the Left hand side not be an input created by some form of resonant action . Be it that resonance can start from nothing with :- A) Correct Tuning ? And / Or B) gentle ever increasing swings from nothing ? C) a sudden step function ? D) a n other ? Mike .. For the experiment today a Xtal quartz . 7.000 mhz arrived . Now to build power rf amp to drive antenna with 100 watts / sq meter . Later to measure reception wattage at 10 meters over a 1 sq meter area . . . . Edited August 15, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 Here is the resonance graph with left hand side removed . Could the Left hand side not be an input created by some form of resonant action . I have no clue what you're asking, or what the point of chopping half of the graph off is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sorcerer Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 @ the OP : Actually the simple solution would be to realise we don't "require" much energy at all, but rather we "desire" it. The energy we do need, we get from the sun, in the forms of heat suitable for our metabolism and chemical energy via plants photosynthesis (and a little from chemotrophs).I'm also not sure what you mean by getting energy "directly" from the sun.... a solar sail? I got through 3 pages, it's enough lol.How about I simplify it to this:We build a massive solar array in space, we use that electricity to power a radio station.This sends radio waves to earth, which are somehow converted back to electricity.I'm not sure how you'd do this, I was imagining a large sub woofer vibrating peizo electric crystals or driving a diaphram in a pipe to pump a piston. But then I realised you'd need a power source to convert the radio waves into sound waves and probably would need more energy in that is able to be got out. So I did a search. Google gave me this.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dXUWytchhk http://phys.org/news/2011-08-rectenna-radio-electricity.html http://phys.org/news/2011-08-rectenna-radio-electricity.html As for the terrestrial version, they were able to generate about 1.2mV and 0.06µW of power inside the exhibition hall, where the video was made, at the Tokyo Big Sight. The signals received were from a digital terrestrial broadcast sent from the Tokyo Tower which was about 5.5km away. It's possible, but doesn't look like the returns would be worth the cost of the infrastructure even if this technology gets alot more efficient. My main concern would be that by increasing energy delivered from the sun to the earth we would upset natural cycles. Electricity use inevitably leads to heat being emitted, that goes into the atmosphere. Also extra energy of any kind, even long radio waves will interact with the atmosphere, however slightly and heat it up. lol....... and this popped into my head https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty0TaNGLmIs But I am trying to offer some way out of our Energy Crisis . The simple way out is to stop inflicting it needlessly on ourselves. We don't need constant economic growth, we don't need constant population growth. We can have a zero growth economy and live perfectly satisfying lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 Honestly, this has all been bandied about for decades using microwaves. Those who remain ignorant of the past are doomed to repeat it. Space-based solar power Space-based solar power (SBSP) is the concept of collecting solar power in space (using an "SPS", that is, a "solar-power satellite" or a "satellite power system") for use on Earth. It has been in research since the early 1970s. ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sorcerer Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 Honestly, this has all been bandied about for decades using microwaves. Those who remain ignorant of the past are doomed to repeat it. Space-based solar power Mike did mention this, so he's hardly ignorant of it. His reasoning for using long wave was that it's safer.... less likely to cook people. I think that's on the first page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 Mike did mention this, so he's hardly ignorant of it. His reasoning for using long wave was that it's safer.... less likely to cook people. I think that's on the first page.Yes well, Mike isn't exactly an engineer or understanding of the facts of the matter. That's on like the next 10 pages. 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