| Pages:
1
2 |
497
National Hazard
Posts: 778
Registered: 6-10-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: HSbF6
|
|
Of course fusion is the holy grail in many ways, and we must develope it.. My only problem with it is the near guarantee of monopolies forming. I'm
not a fan of monopolies. I'm pretty convinced that the more people are invested and involved with producing the things they consume, the more they
appreciate and conserve them. This results in an overall better attitude and way of living. People have not adapted to value something they bought
with a credit card.
How does anyone think people can be healthy doing one (sedentary) task all day every day and then buying everything they need in life? That way of
life is optimized for maximum commerce, not health/happiness. Imagine if people actually felt invested in their energy, food, waste management,
education, etc? Additionally, much of the centralized industry that results in huge externalities and the monolithic bureaucracy to regulate them
would be unnecessary if people did more for themselves.
Electrical heating is utterly ridiculous. It just proves my point that even though certain aspects of our systems are efficient, the overall picture
is terrible. Yes transmitting electricity miles is much easier than heat, but we have to move past the outdated centralized systems now that we have
the technology to effectively do most things in a decentralized community based fashion. Solar heating is extremely efficient!
We might still be hunting and gathering if hard core hippies had their way... But would we be facing nuclear winters, and the enslavement/genocide of
billions? Having our entire recorded history invested in to "development" makes it hard to look at the issue objectively I guess. What even
constitutes success? Why is having billions of people using lots of technology and being unhappy/unfulfilled (on average) automatically preferable to
millions living sustainably and mostly happily? I would really like to understand how people justify that assumption? I'm not even trying to advocate
getting rid of technology, just trying to understand how so many on a science forum have such a hard time looking at it objectively.
[Edited on 20-3-2012 by 497]
|
|
|
GreenD
National Hazard
Posts: 623
Registered: 30-3-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: Not really high anymore
|
|
Ultra derailment
ʃ Ψ*Ψ
Keepin' it real.
Check out my new collaborated site: MNMLimpact.com
|
|
|
peach
Bon Vivant
Posts: 1428
Registered: 14-11-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
When can science madness expect it's dividends for the R&D work on the panel?
The question has been as completely answered as it can be considering you were unaware of the alternatives and, when talking about petawatts of power
and a few trillion dollars of revenue per year (ExxonMobil's revenue for 2011: 486 billion USD), the monstrous topic at hand.
The goal was power generation, which means considering the viability of the idea against other technologies; prior to actually specifying a design.
If someone here had an idea for ultra-efficient solar panels, they are unlikely to hand it over on a forum. Even if the goal is to release it at cost,
a patent is still useful in securing and focusing development grants (e.g. many countries won't provide development grants to offshore activities).
And a patent can't be filed against something that is public knowledge (e.g. this forum).
[Edited on 20-3-2012 by peach]
|
|
|
White Yeti
National Hazard
Posts: 816
Registered: 20-7-2011
Location: Asperger's spectrum
Member Is Offline
Mood: delocalized
|
|
I don't think this is a derailment, I think GreenD is just trying to boost his post count.
Fusion is the future, but keep in mind that the neutrons given off from DT fusion are not exactly nice to have, (unless they are used to make
radioactive isotopes on purpose). There are other fusion technologies, I personally put my money behind helium 3 fusion, but this would also require
some kind of international effort for developing lunar exploration and mining. Also, the protons given off during helium-3 fusion contain most of the
energy and can be slowed down and used to generate an electric current.
I agree with Peach, fusion is the hippie's dream, but they just don't realise it. I might go as far as to say fission is the hippie's dream but many
will argue otherwise.
I think that fundamentally we have to change the way we think about energy. We always think of taking energy sources, harnessing energy and converting
it to electricity. Granted, electricity is the most versatile form of energy, but most energy intensive industries need heat. Converting electricity
into heat is cheap, but we use more and more energy every year, especially considering the fact that developing countries are, well, developing. We
will have to develop ways to store and transport heat in the near future.
Interesting quote (I might even use it for myself) regarding fossil fuels:
"The Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil." —Sheikh Yamani
Mankind will simply have found a better, safer, cheaper and more abundant energy source to drive its machinery.
"Ja, Kalzium, das ist alles!" -Otto Loewi
|
|
|
GreenD
National Hazard
Posts: 623
Registered: 30-3-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: Not really high anymore
|
|
How is this not a derailment? The thread is about changeing the wavelength of light, and now its about hippies breeding fusion reactors. I totally
agree, but for the sake of argument, this is a complete derailment.
ʃ Ψ*Ψ
Keepin' it real.
Check out my new collaborated site: MNMLimpact.com
|
|
|
peach
Bon Vivant
Posts: 1428
Registered: 14-11-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
It's derailed, from your perspective, because the question you've asked is so broad. I can demonstrate;
| Quote: | Can we bind oxygen to things?
The end application in my eyes would be ultra-efficient oxidation of organic compounds |
The same thing could be achieved without even involving oxygen, and may even be more efficient (in one sense or another; cost, risk, energy, time,
yield etc) by doing it by those different methods.
In essence, all you need to absorb and re-emit light at differing frequencies is for an electron to pass from one energy level to another through a
discrete step, causing it to eject the surplus energy; hopefully as a photon that leaves the material.
The process can be 100% efficient if the colour going in matches the colour coming out, as it involves discrete packets of energy going in and coming
out, and the colour is defined by the energy of the packet. The efficiency changes under differing loads. If the photon coming in does not have the
energy required to push the electron through the discrete step, nothing will come back out; the photon will be absorbed by bulk properties and
transformed to heat, or not even be absorbed (e.g. microwaves vibrating molecules of water in a frozen chicken, or bouncing off metallic surfaces). If
the energy going in is higher than the discrete step, it may push the electron through it, provided it doesn't pass directly through the material it's
self without interacting (e.g. x-rays, which can also knock the electron clean out of orbit, something UV will do). Assuming it is absorbed by an
electron, and the electron remains bound, it will jump through the step to a higher energy state. It's residence time in that higher energy state
depends on it's surroundings. In some instances, it will fall back immediately. In others, it can be kept there for an eternity by blocking it's path
back. If it falls back, then it will re-emit the energy it's gained at a wavelength that corresponds to the energy change in the step. The remaining
energy is dissipated in some way, such as phonons in a lattice.
The topic involves an understanding of band gaps, depletion zones, population inversions and so on to begin breaking the surface. Under which lies a
lot more (spin states and quantum probabilities, balancing efficiencies from the quantum level to the global, practical implementation).
I don't intend for this to be an offensive reply, I'm only trying to point out that you need to further clarify the question, as it's a heavy topic
with many different starting points and possibilities.
[Edited on 22-3-2012 by peach]
|
|
|
AndersHoveland
Hazard to Other Members, due to repeated speculation and posting of untested highly dangerous procedures!
Posts: 1986
Registered: 2-3-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I have thought about using internal refraction instead of mirrors for a non-linear optic device. Theoretically, near 100% efficient conversion could
potentially be possible, but I have never read anything about this. Essentially it would look more like a ring than a linear cavity.
|
|
|
daragh8008
Hazard to Self
Posts: 61
Registered: 15-10-2008
Location: Eire
Member Is Offline
Mood: Happy
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by AndersHoveland  | | Theoretically, near 100% efficient conversion could potentially be possible, but I have never read anything about this. Essentially it would look
more like a ring than a linear cavity. |
Just on that, to which theory do you refer to. I only ask because I would be very interested to find out more. Thanks
[Edited on 2-4-2012 by daragh8008]
|
|
|
Cesium Fluoride
Harmless
Posts: 48
Registered: 26-1-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Cupric
|
|
This might be of interest for further reading. SFG is a fairly common spectroscopic technique utilizing non-linear optics that is used to interrogate
the structure of surfaces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sum_frequency_generation_spectr...
|
|
|
Texium
|
Thread Moved
20-11-2023 at 12:13 |
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
