[rescue] Energy

[Chris Byrne]

Okay my orginal statement (or at least the part thats  being discussed here)
was that we've come up with three ways to generate electrical power. Scuse
me, I should have been more specific. To GENERATE usable, practical,
reliable, consistant, constant electric power. Actually according to that
standard I should have said two ways. I just threw in the piezoelectric
effect in for fun, I wouldnt actually try to generate power from it.


So to address the points polks raised.

There are several photoelectric technologies but the three of which I am
familiar are both chemical reactions. One is catalytic reaction, one is a
phase change in a semi conductor (okay so its a quantum rather than chemical
reaction) the third is a dielectric reaction.

I suppose you could say neither of these last two is a chemical reaction
since there was no stoichiometric relationship, no sysnthesis, no covalent
bonding etc... but I was grouping them in with chemical reactions. The
changing of valences by two substances touching each other is a chemical
reaction was my logic.

The atomic battery effect (I dont remember the proper word either), and
triboelectric effect are not practical for the regular generation of utility
class electrical power, though both have been used for large amounts of
power in an experimental way. Hell anyone with a Van De Graf generator can
tell you that (anyone ever been to a lightning show? great fun. Bostons
Museum of science used to have one)

Seebeck/peltier/thermoelectric. Still the conversion of waste heat into
electricity, though much more efficient than the whole steam thing. The
thing basically works like this: take one side make it hot, take the other
side make it cold. The difference in potential energy minus the loss through
the medium is the power available across the cricuit. The problem there is
maintaining the diffence in temperature between the sides. I've never seen
of a way of doing this for the ultra high heat we're talking about that
didnt involve using more power then the thing would put out. Also what the
hell are you going to use as the dielectric?

Okay MHD effect, also known as left hand rule. I honestly hadnt thought of
this one, though it is essentially passing two magnets near each other. A
charged fluid passing through a field changes the potential of the field
(conversely applying a field to a charged fluid will cause it to try to pass
through the field. Thus the hunt for red october). That might work actually,
though I'd have to see some numbers. The problem is that we are already
using magnetic containment for the plasma in the reaction mass. Can we use
the field potential change in that containment for power? I don't know.

Its fun to see how many electrical reactions are reviresible. i.e. rotate
the shaft of a motor and it generates power, put power into the magnets and
the shaft rotates. Put current into a thermoelectric device and its a heater
and a cooler, heat one side and cool the other and it generates power. The
only problem is that the systems are far less than 100% efficient or we'd be
able to make true perpetual motion without outsystem energy.

Chris Byrne



> -----Original Message-----
> From: rescue-admin at sunhelp.org [mailto:rescue-admin at sunhelp.org]On
> Behalf Of Kyle Webb
> Sent: 10 May 2002 01:15
> To: rescue at sunhelp.org
> Subject: RE: [rescue] Energy
>
>
> At 02:52 PM 5/9/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> > >In the past three hundred years we have come up with precisely
> three ways
> > >for generating electricity. Interesting chemical reactions, smashing
> > >crystals, and moving magnets near each other.
> >
> >Seebeck effect?  (AKA thermocouples).  Isn't that how the RTGs used on
> >deep-space sats work?
>
>
> Photoelectric effect (solar cells).
> Atomic battery effect (not sure what the proper name for it is) where you
> use radioactive emission of charged particles to directly create
> a current
> (alpha, beta or positron emitters).
> Triboelectric effect (static from friction)
> MHD generators (uses the plasma itself as the conductor moving
> through the
> magnetic field, though somewhat close to a standard generator in concept).
>
> One other point is that there are a number of aneutronic fusion reaction
> paths, albeit they aren't leading candidates for power generation at the
> moment.
> Sadly, I must agree that fusion seems to be a ways off. It's been "just
> around the corner" for quite a long time, and IMHO will continue that way
> for a time yet.
>
> Kyle Webb
> _______________________________________________
> rescue list - http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue