Jump to content
Mike Smith Cosmos

Worlds Energy requirements ' May be ' within our technological Grasp !

Recommended Posts

Yes well, Mike isn't exactly an engineer or understanding of the facts of the matter. That's on like the next 10 pages.

Mike is a great Guy , and he needs all the support he can get !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

 

The waves cause the electrons in an antenna to oscillate, so you are creating AC current already (just not very much, for a radio wave), so this would just add inefficiency to the system.

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.

 

But he has not demonstrated that it won't, despite the relatively simple analysis required.

Mike is a great Guy , and he needs all the support he can get !

 

That's moot. The issue is the feasibility of the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

===============================

Reference to Antennas and Transmitter :

===============================

 

See previous thread # 186 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/89737-worlds-energy-requirements-may-be-within-our-technological-grasp/page-10#entry878551

 

.Now to build power rf amp to drive antenna with 100 watts / sq meter . Later to measure reception wattage at 10 - 50 meters over a 1 sq meter area of reception .

 

I have managed to do some mechanical vibration tests with the springy model using copper wire as a model for a 7 Mhz antenna.

 

This next picture is with the copper wire NOT vibrating. Notice occasional node contact points (3-4)

 

post-33514-0-98038200-1440054921_thumb.jpg

 

This following picture is with the copper wire totally vibrating along its curled up length ( except at the contact nodes , As swansont explained on a previous thread ) . Note the blurry areas on the copper wire , where vibrating , as opposed to still nodes. Thus a long antenna can possibly be curled into a , non conducting container with non metallic contact points , having a radiation area of say 1 square meter . A sort of rotational polarisation .

 

post-33514-0-99519100-1440055201_thumb.jpg

 

Notice free vibrating end , there are similar vibrations of the copper wire along its length , apart from contact nodes. (3-4 ) . However the vibration is definitely ONE vibration along its length.

 

A similar antenna can be used for measuring the arrival power say some , many 10 to 50 meters away . Outside the ' near field '

 

 

Mike

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

===============================

Reference to Antennas and Transmitter :

===============================

 

See previous thread # 186 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/89737-worlds-energy-requirements-may-be-within-our-technological-grasp/page-10#entry878551

.Now to build power rf amp to drive antenna with 100 watts / sq meter . Later to measure reception wattage at 10 - 50 meters over a 1 sq meter area of reception .

I have managed to do some mechanical vibration tests with the springy model using copper wire as a model for a 7 Mhz antenna.

This next picture is with the copper wire NOT vibrating. Notice occasional node contact points (3-4)

attachicon.gifimage.jpg

This following picture is with the copper wire totally vibrating along its curled up length ( except at the contact nodes , As swansont explained on a previous thread ) . Note the blurry areas on the copper wire , where vibrating , as opposed to still nodes. Thus a long antenna can possibly be curled into a , non conducting container with non metallic contact points , having a radiation area of say 1 square meter . A sort of rotational polarisation .

attachicon.gifimage.jpg

Notice free vibrating end , there are similar vibrations of the copper wire along its length , apart from contact nodes. (3-4 ) . However the vibration is definitely ONE vibration along its length.

A similar antenna can be used for measuring the arrival power say some , many 10 to 50 meters away . Outside the ' near field '

Mike

?

I have reasoned out why this works . The length of the copper wire is a resonant length. Also the conduit copper wire can take a Non Straight path . In the same way a fibre optic cable does not have to be straight in order to operate . ( although this I appreciate is based on total internal reflection ) . In principle if a conduit can work consistently ,internally . It does NOT have to be straight. This allows a resonant length of 66 feet , to exist in a tubular form , yet within a transmitting area of 1 square metre. I think ?

 

This would equally work , I think ? , with a resonant length of copper wire for 7 mhz . ( ie 66 feet for a half wave ) . Thus as long as the ends are left open or terminated in suitable ( free space impedance ) . The centre 33 feet in from either end may be fed with the driving 100 watts at 7 MHz. Say at 300 ohm impedance .

 

You could argue , it will not work all circular like illustrated.

 

My reasoning is that it will, as the electrons that are excited at the feed point , are not , I believe ? Going anywhere. They oscillate about a mean position at 7,000,000 times each second . They have no time to go anywhere , what does move at the speed of light is the change in charge as a wave . This moving charge effect ,creating an associated magnetic effect, can move at the speed of light. Soon to be, if not already forming into a photon of Electro Magnetic energy Wave . .?

 

As the wave charge effect ( forming photon) has no mass , it will not have any impedance with the route of the copper wire ( I think ? ) . So this random , circular , route , should allow RF transmission , In the normal way , all-be-it with circular polarisation ? The initiating oscillating electrons , will I imagine , be subject to resistance or impedance as they oscillate in the antenna copper wire . But as previously stated ( cautiously ! ) . Individual electrons are unlikely to move through any great distance within the conductor of the antenna. ( I think ? ) .

 

If I provide a similar receiving antenna , the reverse should apply , with electrons oscillating in the receiving antenna Load . ( Receiver ) .

 

Then a comparison of wattage ( transmitted) to ( received ) , hopefully 100 watts each ( accepting some losses. )

 

It's possible for me to stand in between and I am confident , I receive no harm ! ( I hope )

 

post-33514-0-48775400-1440156410_thumb.jpg

 

Mike

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Antenna parts .

 

Rescued from and old transformer . Two lengths of 33 ft copper wire . ( which is approximately , half the length of our garden ) These will be made into a rhombic antenna where the two 33 ft arms will be loosely folded into a dustbin shape . Having a firing direction , one way , slight rotational polarisation .

 

Effectively a half wave dipole , centre fed , with looses ends having a 300 ohm termination . Facing sideways, tuned to 7.000 mhz

 

.post-33514-0-42726400-1440365796_thumb.jpg

 

Mike

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mHz or MHz?

.

What is the difference ? Does mHz mean milliHertz, no such thing as a thousandth of a cycle is there ?

 

I mean 7 million cycles per second .

 

7 mega hertz is 40 meters in wavelength , in radio waves . Presumably there is no such thing as milli hertz 1/1000 th of a cycle ?

 

Anyway , my fault . 7,000,000 cycles per second . 7.000 MHz. Shortwave . My crystal is for exactly 7.000 MHz .

( I forgot , in your world of atomic clocks 7/1000th of a cycle at 40 meters per cycle , could be quite a 'goodly number ' of oscillations of an atomic particle ! Going zzittt in such a fraction of a 7MHz cycle . A whole life time of something in the sub atomic world ) . My distances are " half way across my garden, your distances are one billionth of a meter or something . We live in different worlds "

 

The designation - 7.000 MHz - is an ' Amateur Radio Transmission Band licensed for interrupted Continuous Transmission, ( at its lower end { near 7.000 MHz end } , Continuous Wave ' . (CW Morse Code) . I have such a licence ( G4HMA ) . ( --. ....- .... -- .- )

 

Mike. .-.-. ( Which in morse code means AR , " Over and Out " )

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

What is the difference ?

A factor of a billion

 

Does mHz mean milliHertz

Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

. Forward and return wattage can be detected by an SWR ( Standing Wave Ratio ) meter .I have managed to buy one today , which can take up to 100 watts forward Radio Frequency Power ( 7 MHz) . At full scale 100 watts will being fed into the resonant antenna . When it is set to measure Forward and reflected energy . FORWARD POWER . Means power going into the antenna . Then a switch enables measurement of reflected power ( 0% , 4 %, 11%, , 25%, RED any more is dangerous to the equipment ) This gives a measure of the STANDING WAVE RATIO ( SWR) . 1 means none reflected , all radiated , 2 means 11% reflected , 3 means 25% reflected . Any more close down . If 1 is achieved it means 100 watts will be totally radiated by the Antenna ! Here is the SWR Meter .

 

post-33514-0-93926700-1440538757_thumb.jpg

 

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Actual Longer wave Antenna seen yesterday on North Devon Coastal area.

 

Centre fed dipole , by the looks . Although the length would be no problem on a large satellite in orbit . I am working on the idea of the condensed rhombic both for tests and actual use.

Wiith a 1 square meter transmission and reception ( energy collection ) , area.

.

post-33514-0-25614100-1440747811_thumb.jpg

 

Careful looking and magnification will reveal the down ( or up ) centre fed open feeder wires (very faint ).

 

Mike

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today, met up with a bunch of Radio Amateurs in a Cafe , weekly meeting . ( in Exeter )

Discussed my project with them .

 

One who stayed behind to discuss in more detail, when I spoke of the Normal antenna being 66 test , but my desire to randomly coil it up into a fistful of copper wire " yes I have transmitted on a ball of wire before " !

 

After they had all dispersed with the shock of it all , I repeated my experiment with an oscillating small ball of wire , which appeared. to repeat the idea .

 

See attached model

 

post-33514-0-44512500-1444736110_thumb.jpg

 

The random shaped ,loose wire did not change its frequency , with shape , however did seem to depend on number of turns !

 

Mike

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much power did you successfully transmit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much power did you successfully transmit?

I am afraid ,I have not got that far ,yet .

 

I have purchased a 7.000 Mhz ( 7,000 Kkz) Xtal . I have yet to build the Power Amplifier Xtal oscillator . I have the antenna copper wire to length , ready to arrange into a single square meter two dimensional arrangement . Then work up to 100 watt input to the Power Amplifier. I have a standing wave meter to measure forward and reflected power in the feeder.

Similarly , I intend a receiving antenna ' bunch ' some meters away ( also with a cross section of 1 sq meter )

 

We will see what received wattage arrives ?

 

post-33514-0-73621200-1444776152_thumb.jpg

 

Mike

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only major problem that I see with this kind of idea beyond physically accomplishing it, is that we would be adding more energy to a basically closed system, if you cause more of the suns energy to reach earth somehow, you will eventually cause imbalance, unless you export an equal amount of energy off the earth as well.

.

Any amount of energy that you add to this relatively closed system whether it be sunlight in origin or nuclear or whatever, slowly adds energy to the system, which will eventually result in a more and more energetic system, ie warmer and warmer...

Edited by MountainGuardian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only major problem that I see with this kind of idea beyond physically accomplishing it, is that we would be adding more energy to a basically closed system, if you cause more of the suns energy to reach earth somehow, you will eventually cause imbalance, unless you export an equal amount of energy off the earth as well.

.

Any amount of energy that you add to this relatively closed system whether it be sunlight in origin or nuclear or whatever, slowly adds energy to the system, which will eventually result in a more and more energetic system, ie warmer and warmer...

 

Yes , I sort of see what you are saying, but any energy that I was intending redirecting in long waves form ,to one of the supply hubs , was absorbed up there in orbit for the conversion process . So there should be no net gain in energy forward.

 

I am still gathering the equipment together for a test , so am unable to give any more progress update at the moment . Thank you for giving the subject your consideration at this time . I will try and supply the result of the test soon , although a radio amateur friend of mine showed me the Tesla Experiment last week . Bit freaky !

 

post-33514-0-43769400-1453274475_thumb.jpg

 

Mike

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to begin by saying I'm very doubtful of the feasibility of space based solar as any kind of, let alone an all encompassing energy solution for terrestrial use. I admit I'm even a bit doubtful of Mike Smith Cosmos' motivations for this proposition -

 

...in danger of stripping our store of energy reserves dry.

 

 

Mike, I would say climate change is a more compelling and urgent reason for a global energy transition than the danger of running out of energy resources. Do you accept that, rather than the danger of running our energy resources dry the need to leave the greater part of fossil fuel resources in the ground is the most immediate - and unless carbon capture and storage becomes financially feasible, permanent - constraint on those resources?

 

Although efforts towards that energy transition are a long way from adequate, as a motivation to urgently look beyond fossil fuels, climate does have strong basis in science and evidence. Much more so in my view than any hypothetical impending energy shortage. When it comes to mobilising support for seriously big, visionary projects motivation is an essential ingredient. My own view is that failure to mobilise the support - community, government and corporate - for that essential goal has been a serious constraint and impediment to the transition away from fossil fuels; a grand and visionary approach like a Space Based Solar Power System (SBPS), much like capital intensive big nuclear, is especially vulnerable to a lack of clear commitment to that fundamental goal.

 

There have been broad, comprehensive and well credentialled studies of our energy options and space based solar hasn't emerged as the standout best option. I'm not sure it really rates as a serious option at all. I know that such an energy transition will involve significant commitments made without future certainty but Space Based Power Systems are entirely hypothetical and to be viable, look to be predicated on a pre-investment in other entirely hypothetical technologies such as space elevators or other novel and untried launch systems. I would note that I would find it disturbing to discover that the concerns people have about the climate consequences of our energy choices are being co-opted and we are misled into commitments to unproven and potentially uneconomical energy solutions by people with unbounded optimism and enthusiasm for space projects, for whom that space capability rather than energy/emissions/climate solutions, is the primary motivation.

 

Renewable energy options down here on Earth may have their limitations, but for the most part they are not hypothetical. Importantly they can be trialled and introduced incrementally without those very large pre-investments that a space based approach requires. They are approaching or passing price points that make them viable commercial competitors to fossil fuels even without the climate consequences and costs being factored into the economics - and it doesn't look like the well of innovation is anywhere near running dry. The intermittency issues are real and challenging but I suggest they are not uncrossable barriers. As for nuclear, I have my own reservations about rapid, massive global expansion of it's use, and whilst I have no doubt it will have a significant place in a global low emissions energy mix it has some real barriers, economic as well as security and political, that put it at severe disadvantage. Later perhaps, in an appropriate thread - not here.

 

As far as space based energy goes, it occurs to me that any feasible means of beaming energy down from orbit would have the potential to beam energy up from Earth, over and down again someplace else. Some places have energy excesses. Siting solar or wind or tidal to maximum effect would be enhanced by better transmission methods. Proponents of SBPS might took more closely at the feasibility of such technologies for a global energy transmission grid and avoid the need for launching all the other stuff. I would note that the losses from proposed microwave systems which seem to be most favoured, are still significant and transmitting energy thrice - up, over and down - would exacerbate that. Long wave radio seems to be hypothetical and being low frequency, it intrinsically carries less power and doesn't look suitable. Laser might work better in any space to space transmission with potentially lower energy losses so it might be possible to rely on microwaves only twice for up and down.

 

However I do remain very doubtful; wind and solar may have been unrealistic as more than a niche even a decade ago but they now comprise more than half all new generation being built. Energy storage may have been solar and wind's poor relation but that is not the case any more; we are better placed than ever to develop a combination of intermittent renewables, distribution and storage systems adequate to our requirements. These are all on something of a roll and far from hitting barriers they are gaining momentum; grand, visionary - most especially the more speculative options - have a long way to go to even get any kind of foot in the door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

......................

.......... Mike, I would say climate change is a more compelling and urgent reason for a global energy transition .............

 

Do you accept that, rather than the danger of running our energy resources dry the need to leave the greater part of fossil fuel resources in the ground is the most immediate..........

 

have been solar and wind's poor relation but that is not the case any more; we are better placed than ever to develop a combination of intermittent renewables, distribution and storage systems adequate to our requirements. These are all on something of a roll and far from hitting barriers they are gaining momentum; grand, visionary - most especially the more speculative options - have a long way to go to even get any kind of foot in the door.

.

.

Very eloquently put argument.

 

My reason for picking on Long Wave as a vehicle for transfer of energy from space platforms was that . ' Long waves are less dangerous than microwaves ( which have been identified with cooking ) , whereas long waves have been used quite extensively in the past for transmission systems with no adverse effects also transmitting through water , ( as far as I know ) ' yet they can be sufficiently spread as to provide a generalised distribution of energy for mobile uses , such as personal transport , electronic-device uses, etc . Light on the other hand ( with solar panels ) is interrupted by cloud , as you know . And some energy storage devices can be quite heavy .

 

I have recently bought some equipment to do some simple experiments , to demonstrate the harmless nature of beaming longer waves through or around the human body ( namely me ) , by longer waves , namely ( 40 meter waves ) , concentrated in a beam 1 square metre approximately in dimension .

 

I appreciate this is very much in an initial feasibility stage , but this is often where ideas are initially established or kicked out as not practicable .

 

post-33514-0-69921200-1453362251_thumb.jpgpost-33514-0-51072900-1453362545_thumb.jpg

 

 

Ps as regards your question " Do you accept that, rather than the danger of running our energy resources dry the need to leave the greater part of fossil fuel resources in the ground is the most immediate"

 

Yes I am o.k. With your comment there . I am more interested in exploring alternative methods of

 

1. mobile , power , source , and

2. non interrupted energy from the sun .

 

Mike

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wierd, I replied to this thread and my reply seems to be gone....

.

As in my first reply, maybe I messed up or something on posting it, I pointed out that.... If we can use sunlight from space to power the world we are adding extra energy into a relatively closed system. If you increase the amount of sunlight energy hitting the earth by 1 percent, which would power all of our energy needs you cause the earth to warm. Whether we have the technological ability to use space sunlight as an energy source is a rather mute point, we still end up heating up our planet with the energy we are using to do work.

.

If we used that energy in space and moved much of our indusry into space then you might have something because you are not adding massive amounts of energy into a basically closed system.

.

The only way that sunlight energy will ever work in the long term on earth is to utilize the energy that is already hitting the earth and or utlize the wind, water etc that releases natural stored energy in easily useable ways.

.

There is no magic energy answer for humans, no matter what magic source of energy one may come up with, you still have the problem of adding too much energy to the relatively closed system of this planet....

Edited by MountainGuardian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As in my first reply, maybe I messed up or something on posting it, I pointed out that.... If we can use sunlight from space to power the world we are adding extra energy into a relatively closed system. If you increase the amount of sunlight energy hitting the earth by 1 percent, which would power all of our energy needs you cause the earth to warm. Whether we have the technological ability to use space sunlight as an energy source is a rather mute point, we still end up heating up our planet with the energy we are using to do work.

 

As far as I understand it the sunlight would not be directly hitting earth. The suggestion was to convert the energy into a non-harmful form of radiation and capture this radiation on earth. This wouldn't make the earth warmer as global warming comes from fossil fuels being burned and CFCs. In fact it could possibly reduce global warming by lowering reliance on fossil fuel.

 

As a side note my concern would be that should the idea prove valid the same satellite could be weaponized and prove a valuable weapon for the country that controls it.

Edited by fiveworlds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MountainGarden, the enhanced greenhouse from burning fossil fuels adds something like (according to Franner 2009) 100 times more heat than the total 'waste heat' from combustion and energy use. Another study by Zhang and Caldeira puts the total heat gain over the estimated period of raised CO2 levels much higher, at more than 100,000X - I'm not sure what to make of that except to say it's surprising and disturbing.

 

Wherever they are placed, solar power systems should reduce that enhanced greenhouse component. During a transition, and depending on where they are made, manufacture will still be adding GHG's - most likely at rates reflective of the energy mix present, so at 100,000X that could remain significant until low emissions energy is closer to 100%. And if we acknowledge the need to stabilise climate that - or negative emissions - appears to be the required goal. If there were 100% terrestrial renewables that should leave us with zero net gain from waste heat. Nuclear would continue to add heat. If space solar is in low orbit, it will shade the world below most of the time it's in sunlight, but, given some period of operation during periods when it neither shades the world below nor is shaded by it it would add some small proportion of energy that otherwise wouldn't reach the atmosphere. Higher orbits would make change the proportion.

 

Whilst I hesitate to say waste heat is insignificant it barely rates compared to far more significant enhanced greenhouse and other problems around energy/emission/climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The impact of the collection of Energy from direct Solar Power , seems to be upon us !

You do not have to travel far down a road , to not come upon a " Solar Panel ' farm ".

 

I come to pass one , nearly Daily .

 

The roof of many houses are covered in solar Panels .

 

I am getting, ever so ,gradually nearer my tests as to the practicality of gathering power in space , and sending the energy down as a 'distributed LOW ENERGY supply ' as well as to ' large collecting centres, for HIGH ENERGY ' via a LONG WAVE LINK .

 

Mike

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone come up with a better idea of new different energy over the present one? Rumor has it they have? Curious One :confused:

 

 

What is "the present one"? There are many sources of energy currently used.

 

Where is this rumour from? What does it say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All energy , sooner or later come from STARS . ( nearly all ** )

Our sun is of course a STAR .

So any new , SUSTAINABLE ,source of energy , must come from either energy bound up in atoms as Radio Activity (created inside stars) , or Comming from our Star , the SUN , comming as Solar Radiation on to the Earth.

 

Of course this Sun activity can place its energy into the atmosphere by evaporating seawater, setting up circulating atmosphere and winds , giving us wind energy .

 

Mike

 

**

Although , I suppose gravitational energy is outside , what I have stated above . As the moon circulations of the earth , pulls up the seas , as tides , the energy which can be extracted by BARAGE SCHEMES.and other water flow schemes.

 

Ref : Tidal Schemes :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power#Current_and_future_tidal_power_schemes

 

post-33514-0-83182800-1472979335.jpeg.post-33514-0-86562900-1472980209.jpeg

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As , is required by many active systems , RESONANCE , is at the core of this proposed system .

 

In this case the Resonant Frequency needs to be in the ' Long Wave ' region of the spectrum .

Such a system of resonance is not normally occurring in nature as we are talking in large distances ,even for a single wavelength for one complete cycle !

 

However , with a certain amount of ingenuity , this resonance may be possible ?

 

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.