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."
I have no problem with this idea. It is intriguing. My problem is with the energy system of America as a whole. The fossil fuel market is drawing quickly to a close. Now many people want to replace their gas with hydrogen. I completely disagree with hydrogen for three reasons. First hydrogen is more volatile than gasoline and it has serious storage problems (Ask the Hindenburg). Secondly, electricity is wasted in the electrolysis process (electrolysis is around 66% efficient). Lastly and most importantly it is exactly what oil companies want. They want an infrastructure they can control. A battery/ electric car is in my view undeniably the best option. Don't let any corporations catch you saying that though. I think renewable energy is a great idea in the short run. But growing energy needs will ultimately eclipse renewable energy. Or at least there will be some minimum that energy will always cost more than In 2005 a nuclear reactor in Arizona produced more energy than all solar and wind plants that year. About 10% of American power in nuclear power. In the United States for the past 30 year since Three Mile Island there has been a public schizophrenia of nuclear power. Only one new reactor has been approved since 1979. France is the world's leading energy exporter and about 75% of their energy is nuclear energy. They have employed new technology that reduces nuclear waste by 90%. Really nuclear waste is benign. The amount of toxic waste created by producing solar cells for renewable energy eclipses the amount of nuclear waste generated. As for nuclear meltdowns, the temperature of a uranium powered critical reactor regardless of design will never eclipse a certain temperature. The casings of the reactor can withstand this temperature. Persons living next door to a reactor encounter less radiation from the reactor each year than they do from continental plane flight. Contrary to popular belief nuclear power is both safe and economical. Ultimately nuclear power is the key especially when considering space travel within the solar system. If you are familiar with antimatter, it is not an available resource, but can be created. Eventually in many years antimatter will be the only viable option for interstellar travels. Space travel is something that would stimulate the economy. Every dollar spent by NASA makes seven times its value in GDP. There are trillions of dollars of natural resources on a single asteroid. The moon contains Tritium that is almost a purely burning nuclear fuel. So space is worth the effort. This is off topic. But replacing nuclear power I don't think is wise. I do believe that this satellite solar beam technology is worth pursuing.