Home arrow Forum arrow Research arrow The Ribbon arrow Power line inside the ribbon
Power line inside the ribbon
September 06, 2010, 03:11:25 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
Author Topic: Power line inside the ribbon  (Read 13774 times)
neil
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 992


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: June 15, 2007, 03:57:31 PM »

Welcome john: I think all you typed is true, however 30 kilometers does not improve the safety factor by much, nor the payload per year. I'm hoping as soon as a stronger,lighter material becomes available in quantity, balloon research will be funded. 50 kilometers may be practical, and power from the air may be practial as soon as something better than copper is available to carry electric current.   Neil
Logged
Gaunter
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: June 24, 2007, 08:21:55 PM »

Power transmission requires the climber to have a big aerial to receive the power.  This will have a large atmospheric drag, holes will reduce the drag but it is still big.


How do you figure that?  The experiment I cited used aerials less than 2 square feet in size.  Over time, and practice, it is likely that the size of such an arial will be reduced in size, rather than increase.
Logged
A_M_Swallow
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 839


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: June 24, 2007, 10:33:04 PM »

You obviously missed this sentence "With such a design, power transfer has a limited range, and the range would be shorter for smaller-size receivers."

Every time you double the range the aerial needs to be 4 times as big.  They were working over 7 feet, the beam for the Space Elevator would have to work over thousands of miles.
Logged

Andrew Swallow
windemut
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 747


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: June 25, 2007, 06:29:21 AM »

The article cited describes the use of near field resonance energy transfer. "Near field" means energy does not get radiated away into space, which is good. It also means transfer efficiency decreases exponentially in just a few wavelengths, which is bad. The "resonance" part, which is the advance that they are describing, gains you a few extra wavelengths, but no more.

As Andrew correctly notes, "near field" implies that both receiver and transmitter have to be of a size similar to the distance between them. You can do much better with a focussed far field microwave beam, but that still requires HUGE receiver rectennas that are entirely too large to put on a climber, due to the much larger wavelength of microwaves compared to light.

Andreas
Logged
Frank Scully
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: September 22, 2008, 04:26:08 AM »

Hello Ladies and Gents,

I am also new to this forum.
I'm a big A.C.Clark fan.
Regarding a power source for the lift.
Why not have the power source be part of the ribbon's structure itself in the form of light?
That would save weight I would think.
This idea may be amoung the multitudes of posts in this forum but here goes.

"Researchers at IBM and the University of Toronto are squeezing light out of molecules"
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-129097.html



Regards, 
 Frank
« Last Edit: September 22, 2008, 04:43:47 AM by Frank Scully » Logged
A_M_Swallow
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 839


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: September 22, 2008, 03:42:05 PM »

The optical system uses energy to generate light.  Unfortunately, to power the climbers we need something that gives off energy.

The light may end up being used in the communications laser, the libar and the ribbon repair equipment.
Logged

Andrew Swallow
abolish slavery
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: September 27, 2008, 09:29:59 AM »

Perhaps Authur C. Clark's idea of small, light weight nuclear fusion reactors along the ribbon might be realized within the near future? [ http://EMC2fusion.org ]
Logged
FutureAEI
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: September 10, 2009, 01:56:39 PM »

http://www.physorg.com/preview100445957.html

Seems to me such wireless transfer of energy would in large part alleviate both the weight of the "transmission lines" and associated problems with resistance.  Further, no physical connection is then required between the ribbon and lifter, so friction and drag should be greatly reduced, if not eliminated from such a connection.

While not a scientist or engineer as many of you appear to be, from a logic stance, it would seem that using a magnetic propulsion system to power the lifter would be one of the "best options".  We already have the technology and experience building such systems.  Such a system would not have to use "rollers or other mechanical attachement to the ribbon", which would mean less friction, wear and tear, and chance to damage the ribbon from such a mechanical form of locomotion.
I've always felt that using mechanical propulsion would not work either due to friction and abrasion of the ribbon, or the sheer slowness of the technology. Using magnetic (or electromagnetic) propulsion seemed to be the way to go. No mechanical drive parts to wear out. No friction/abrasion on the ribbon. No antennae on the lifter, causing drag in the lower atmosphere, and excess weight (less cargo capacity).

If it becomes possible to extrude a ribbon with built-in conductors/superconductors, then the ribbon itself could be used to transfer power to the lifter. If graphene technology progresses, maybe the ribbon could be made of one type of graphene, utilizing a mandrel with varied seed crystals to orient the carbon for the particular portion of the cross-section of the ribbon (structural, conductor, insulator, or combinations thereof). Once completed, the upper terminus could have a solar panel farm to provide power which is fed to the ribbon. The excess power could be sold to anyone located around the base of the ribbon for use/distribution (another incentive for providing the location).

Also, by elimination mechanical interaction between the lifter and the ribbon, speed would only be limited by drag in the lower atmosphere. You could start the lifter and keep it below the speed of sound until you're above 90% of the atmosphere, and then accelerate to your final velocity. If you go 1,000 mph, you could get to GO in about 24 hours (a lot better than 7 days). Or maybe 6,000 mph, making it about a 4 hour trip.

Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.7 | SMF © 2006, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!

Login Form

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 06, 2010, 03:11:25 AM
Username: Password:
Login with username, password and session length

Forgot your password?