Wireless energy transfert

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Steph, Dec 5, 2001.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Steph Registered Member

    Good day.

    What is the most efficient way to transmit energy wireless?

    Is it microwave ? If it is, what's the effiency % ?

    In the near futur, i'm sure we will replace concentional rocket
    technology by beaming energy directly to a space craft
    powered by a plasma engine. This will be great to acheive 100%
    Payload/fuel ratio (100% payload and no fuel) !


  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    One problem with this type of plasma radiation is it's concentrate does extreme damage to the o-zone layer making it dangerous to our planet.

    (The only entrance points would be North and South Poles since they already have holes)

    I think there was a test for broadcasting electricity from Old oil rigs out in the sea, but I think it failed.. Too many peoples television ariels were causing televisions to explode. (since ariels in the area would have an increase in power surge)
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    The ozone hole is predominately at the south pole, though small holes have appeared at the north on rare occasions.



    The shorter the wavelength of light used will result in "more bang for your buck", so microwaves would be good. I don't know whether a plasma engine has enough output with a economical beam of microwaves. Remember that EMR is restained by the inverse square law, so when the distance to the spacecraft doubles you would have to increase the power beamed to it fourfold.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Steph Registered Member

    Hi Stryderunknown !

    I didn't know that plasma could do arm to ozone.
    What would be the best way to convert electrical
    current into an action/reaction propellant beside plasma ?

    Let say that i have a space ship with nearly unlimited
    electrical current (forget about this microwave thing for now)
    How can I convert this current into a push reaction without
    any conventional fuel involved ? Deep space one used
    ionized argon gas with an electrically induced magnet to accelerate
    the gas at very high velocity. But this concept still required
    Argon as fuel.


  8. SeekerOfTruth Unemployed, but Looking Registered Senior Member


    I believe that Larry Niven proposed to use a "ramscoop". The ramscoop is a ship that uses gigantic electromagnetic fields to funnel the hydrogen of interstellar space to a single point where it is ignited to provide thrust.

    Interesting idea and a great basis for Science Fiction novels...
  9. Steph Registered Member


    Very interesting concept !

    The question is: can we do this in the Earth atmosphere to lift a space ship into orbit ?

    Isolating the ship from the surrounding air with a magnetic field
    would have also the advantage to nullifies friction.

    Is there any lab experience or small scale prototype of that
    thing ?

  10. Teg Unknown Citizen Registered Senior Member

    The problem encountered is not a new one. When reaching higher into light spectrums (microwave, x-ray, and gamma-ray), people are affected. Cellular phones are infamous for this and they aren't even into the microwave band. There is a reason that when pointing x-rays at a person the technicians run out of the room before firing. They cause cellular decay! Until a safe means can be found of transmision, I prefer wires.
  11. Adam §Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥ Registered Senior Member

    Plasma rockets such as that used on the Deep Space One probe do not have the thrust to take something from Earth's surface, so worrying about them damaging our atmosphere is irrelevent. (BTW, just in case some people don't know, a plasma is simply an ionised gas; ie. it has a charge.) These things so far are taken aloft by chemical rockets and launched from space.

    The higher the frequency or amplitute of an EM emissions, the more energy involved. It's easier to generate higher amplitude at higher frequency. An X-ray at a given energy level has more power than a microwave at the same energy level because it has higher frequency. Look at it this way: bang your hand on the table once per second, giving you a certain frequency. Bang harder and get more energy (greater amplitude). Or bang faster and get more energy (greater frequency). Altering frequency is easier to do, less damaging on the equipment.

    Microwaves are relatively low frequency (around 10^9), below visible light (around 10^14). X-rays are way up around 10^18. Thus X-rays and Gamma rays and such would be the best for energy transfer. However, containment/absorption is a problem; the high energy levels are why we don't yet have X-ray lasers as far as I know. Hard to get that signal moving around in the amplification tube when it just shoots out the end every time.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page