ronthepon Posted May 16, 2006 Report Share Posted May 16, 2006 He was a proponent of the concept .. (sort of) Ron, there is a really simple design that requires no counter spinning wheel . The point of it was that is was a method that allowed for the transmission of energy with 0 losses, while serving as a method of moving things between space and the ground. Had a rather long thread on this, and covered quite a few of the issues. http://hypography.com/forums/space/5641-another-space-elevator-concept.htmlThanks. I'll check it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qfwfq Posted May 16, 2006 Report Share Posted May 16, 2006 Think of the currents in the atmosphere. Bad enough on a cable, a much worse worry with belts... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kayra Posted May 16, 2006 Report Share Posted May 16, 2006 Think of the currents in the atmosphere. Bad enough on a cable, a much worse worry with belts... Think of the amount of tension on a 5 meter thick cable on a suspension bridge. Now multiply the amount of tension on that cable by 1,000 (at the very least) We are talking about placing so much stress on the cable that only the strongest material we can conceive of has a chance of supporting it. It might be a bit wobbly a ride for the first 100 KM, but nothing compaired to a rocket I would imagine. I do believe we are getting off subject though :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted May 18, 2006 Report Share Posted May 18, 2006 But it still is far fetched.. how exactly are you going to beam that much EM with losing a lot of energy via diffraction.There are "windows". EM energy in the visible region is out (light) because the intensity would blind anybody or any living thing even close to your reciever on the ground. EM energy at IR frequencies would be absorbed by clouds, ozone, other stuff, including skin, feathers, leaves. EM energy at microwave frequencies would be absorbed by only a few molecules, including water vapor. But there are several frequencies that have minimum interaction with plants and animals, AND can get through the atmosphere with few losses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michaelangelica Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 solar beam splitters/what do you make of this?http://www.abc.net.au/sydney/stories/s654510.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwes99_03 Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 I don't know it seems to be an article of praise for a particular Aussie scientist, what of it? Anyway beam splitters are simply that, they split a signal into parts. This thread as far as I know isn't interested in that. It is simply interested in gathering solar energy above the stratosphere and transporting it to earth. Pyro was suggesting what to gather and transport through reflection or whatever means to a receiver here on earth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qfwfq Posted May 22, 2006 Report Share Posted May 22, 2006 It might be a bit wobbly a ride for the first 100 KMI'm sure that would be the least of the problems! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kayra Posted May 23, 2006 Report Share Posted May 23, 2006 I'm sure that would be the least of the problems! You've got that right :hihi: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthepon Posted May 23, 2006 Report Share Posted May 23, 2006 Guys guys. Please take a moment to glance here... Sholud we first figure a way to make the solar power gatherers(currently called solar panels) more efficient? Might I suggest metals which show the photoelectric effect at very long wavelengths... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay-qu Posted May 23, 2006 Report Share Posted May 23, 2006 Of course we should make it more efficient.. dont you think they are trying? I remember watching something about titanium dyes maybe a search will turn something up ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthepon Posted May 24, 2006 Report Share Posted May 24, 2006 Titanium dyes? This has gotta be interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay-qu Posted May 24, 2006 Report Share Posted May 24, 2006 I saw a doc on it a few years back. The tests where promising, but when a full scale prototype was built (all the windows of a CSIRO building here in australia where covered in the stuff, gave a cool stained glass effect) it failed miserably.. no one was quite sure why :eek_big: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michaelangelica Posted May 24, 2006 Report Share Posted May 24, 2006 I don't know it seems to be an article of praise for a particular Aussie scientist, what of it?. She is making almost atom thin things.Could she employ same technology to solar panels?And thus cut down the expense of using silicon? More efficient? Go back one spacehttp://news.com.com/Old+solar+tech+back+in+limelight/2100-11746_3-6068926.html"That area (of concentrators) is enjoying a resurgence, which went into disfavor in favor of flat panels," said Emmanuel M. Sachs, professor of mechanical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "Because there are 35-percent-efficient cells, as opposed to 20-percent-efficient cells, it makes sense to look at concentrators again." Much of the use of solar concentrators has been with high-efficiency germanium solar cells in space or at large-scale installations, where arrays of panels are lined up in desert areas, for example, said Sachs, who developed technology at MIT now being commercialized by Evergreen Solar. Some interesting links on this (above link)page too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
learnin to learn Posted May 26, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 how would one maintain a giant space elevator? I mean that thing has to big huge right? wouldnt you have to like replace it after a certain amount of time? I mean you cant have it running 24/7 365 days a year can you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 Try searching within Hypography for "space elevator." :doh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
learnin to learn Posted May 30, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 30, 2006 I was wondering, is a space elevator logical? Our satilites orbit around the earth at thousands of miles per hour, how are we going to build a space elevator to a satilite that is orbiting around the earth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthepon Posted May 30, 2006 Report Share Posted May 30, 2006 A geosynchronous satellite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.