Slashdot Mirror
Focused Microwaves Could Enable Wireless Power Transfer
esocid alerts us to news out of the University of Michigan, where physics researchers have found a way to focus microwaves to a point 20 times smaller than their wavelength using a new 'superlens'. Such resolution was thought to be impossible until recent years, and it could bring about the capability to transfer power wirelessly.
"No matter how powerful a conventional lens, it cannot focus light down to more than about half its wavelength, the 'diffraction limit'. This limits the amount of data that can be stored on a CD, and the size of features on computer chips. The new lens is a 127-micrometer-thick plate of teflon and ceramic with a copper topping. 'The beauty of these is that they're planar,' Grbic says, 'they're easy to fabricate.' The lenses can be made through a single step of photolithography, the process used to etch computer chips."
While it's nifty that they can focus EM radiation to a smaller point now, I'm not following how this will enable wireless power transfer.
Firstly, it's horribly inefficient. There are significant losses over the signal path that hand waving won't make go away. And then there's the real show-stopper: high power microwave beams would be a hazard to aviation, shipping, or anything or anyone else who got in the way.
There'd be enough scattering of the beam to spread the danger around. Sure, this technology is possible - but there just don't seem to be any practical applications for it. Wire is much more efficient and airmen have a chance to see and avoid it. They'd never know that microwave beam was there until they entered it.
Beaming power in from space is a perennial favorite - but nobody ever seems to be able to get around the atmospheric effects. And I'd prefer to not have any randomly scattered ionizing radiation impinging on my home, thanks.
Depends on how much the power is needed, and how soon. The space elevator seems like it's a long time away, still in need of new materials to be invented, and so on. On the other hand, solar power in space is feasible now, at least technically.
Without power people die. So the risks of catastrophic failure of microwave power transmission from space, must be weighted against the possibility of many people not getting electricity. It might be safer to build powerplants now, than to wait for a hypothetical space elevator.
I don't know if he's correct, but even a small amount of thought should show you a lot of possible ways.
* No exposure to the elements, thus reduced maintenance cost from wind/weeds/corrosion
* No land cost
* No clouds, no day/night cycle
* Cost is based on weight, not on land, potentially allowing for use of extremely large light cheap panels instead of smaller denser more expensive ones
Does it make up for the difference? I couldn't say. But there's four ways in which space beats land in terms of efficiency.
Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
Actually, NASA's study got it exactly right. The amount of solar-collecting material you'd need to place into orbit is large enough that you'd spend a lot more energy and money getting it into orbit then you'd ever get back from it once it was functional. Things may have improved since then (more efficient rockets, lighter solar panels, etc), but I doubt they've improved so much as to make the plane feasible yet. I'd re-do the feasibility studies after the space elevator is up and working, getting enough mass into orbit will be a lot cheaper then
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
No, the problem is that carbon dioxide is acting as a blanket, trapping too much heat beneath it.
How is adding more energy to the equation going to do anything but make it worse?
It's not a heat beam, it's a microwave beam. There's a big difference between the two. The amount of heat generated by the beam when it reaches the receiver would be insignificant, and it would generate no heat when going through the atmosphere, because the wavelength chosen would be one that is transparent with respect to air. So the net effect would be practically zero added heat. (Even if you count the heat generated by the motors powered by the resulting electricity, it's still insignificant compared to the heat trapped by CO2 in the atmosphere) And if we use that device to replace traditional fossil fuels, then its net effect would be a significant reduction in CO2 output.
There are good reasons why in-orbit solar power isn't a good idea at this time, but your reason isn't one of them.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
... replacing our entire energy consumption with external sources only increases the energy flux striking the Earth by about 0.01%.
Actually, replacing ground-generated electricity with space solar power REDUCES the heat load.
First: Ground generated electricity is made with big heat engines, limited by the carnot cycle. In addition to the heat released by using the energy, there's the heat released on the cold side of the heat engine. The total is a lot more than you bought and used.
But with space solar power the cold side of the heat engine is in space, radiating toward the sky (with it's black body temperature of 4 degrees absolute). The dumped heat misses the earth. All you heat with is the useful power and a few percent losses. (The sky-to-ground system is estimated to run in the range of 90% efficient and only part of its losses are on the ground.
But far more significant: Fuel-driven ground generators release carbon dioxide, which continuously traps solar power as heat until it's eventually scrubbed from the atmosphere decades or centuries later. That is a big multiple of the useful power actually delivered. No fuel burned on Earth, no CO2 pumping the greenhouse.
The main problem will be keeping us from sliding into an ice age over the next 400 to 1,200 years. (According to one model the current interglacial peaked at about the dawn of agriculture and we've been essentially regulating the earth's temperature as the "furnace" output has been curving down for the last 6,000 years or so, with a slight bump since industrialization. Stop the CO2 and we'd quickly crash back onto the steepening slope of the cooling curve.) But that takes decades to centuries. So we can decide what to do about it in a few generations, when we start to get below the old "regulated" temperature.
One nice thing: If we need to bring in more heat from space we'll have the infrastructure to do it. B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way