Are these things scientifically possible

[nec208]

I see this on TV that in the future this may be possible but is this scientifically possible or what is really stopping this.

1. Tesla building a tower to tap into the ionosphere they say HAPP is doing this saying the ionosphere is like a electric charge blanket one can tap into and may get free electricity.
2. Other idea is tapping into lighting and getting electricity from lighting by building big towers
3 And last is tapping into the electric radiation in space and using this for free electricity.


Could this get us off gas,coal and oil?


And some thing because no matter can go faster than light do to it will slow down and take more energy than what is in the univers than a Hyper dimension or warp speed may be the only way to go where you go so fast but you out of face and ino hyper dimension. If this turns out not true than no one will be going anywhere.

 

[MeteorWayne]

1. No

2. No

3. No

 

[Jerromy]

The latest debate in energy from space is constructing solar satellites which would transfer energy from solar rays converted into radio waves or laser waves. The only benefit from satellite reception is an unobstructed view of the sun and the problems are laser transmission doesn't work well through cloud cover and radio waves has a high volume of lost energy.

Tapping into lightning would be a great idea if one of two possibilities are achieved... either there needs to be a system to slowly drain the storm of electrical energy or there needs to be a method of dispersing and storing the energy. Lightning bolts contain way too much energy to handle on a regular basis... a kite with wool string gets the concept across but the real problem lies in collecting what capacity you can withstand without burning out the means to collect it.

Tapping into the energy of the universe involves both problems in the previous two explanations. There is way more energy in outer space than we have means to handle and transmitting it down to Earth in a stable, usable manner is far more difficult than burning coal or building dams. As far as output for the effort goes, nuclear power is the only source which can hold us until breakthroughs are made for cleaner and more dependable sources of energy.

 

[drwayne]

The latest debate in energy from space is constructing solar satellites which would transfer energy from solar rays converted into radio waves or laser waves..

That has been being discussed / debated for many decades now. I remember writing a paper on it back
in the 1970's, and it was not new then. (Neither was I, but that is a different topic for another day)

 

[nec208]

So is there anyone looking into this ? What is HARPP doing ? Are they not trying tap into this? Or is this too scfi now so no one is looking into this.

One bolt of lighting how many homes will it power?

 

[Jerromy]

how many homes will it power?

I am just guestimating but I imagine a single bolt of gigawatt range lightning could burn out about a million homes worth of 60 watt incadescent light bulbs. The question more relevant is how can we capacitate so much energy and distribute it in a useful manner... the "current" answer is we can't.

 

[R1]

So why can't we build capacitors the size of Apollo 12 rockets and put a few in every city,
and connect them all to each other in a grid using stranded but rigid pipelines
comprised of 100 lightning rod cables?

 

[origin]

how many homes will it power?

I am just guestimating but I imagine a single bolt of gigawatt range lightning could burn out about a million homes worth of 60 watt incadescent light bulbs. The question more relevant is how can we capacitate so much energy and distribute it in a useful manner... the "current" answer is we can't.

Strangely enought there is acutally very little energy in a lightning strike. There is a lot of power in a lightning strike because it is high voltage and a relatively high current. The problem is the strike lasts only milliseconds so the overall energy of the strikes are small.

I have seen estimates that the energy from a lightning strike would only keep a single 100 watt bulb illuminated for 5 or 6 hours!

 

[R1]

Many times a lightning will actually strike a few times, though. It is not alwys just one strike.

Lightning has also been provoked successfully, iirc. I think scientists fired a laser beam
to clouds, resulting in lightning stirkes.

So what if we had high towers and capacitors to actively draw energy for storm clouds?

 

[origin]

Many times a lightning will actually strike a few times, though. It is not alwys just one strike.

Lightning has also been provoked successfully, iirc. I think scientists fired a laser beam
to clouds, resulting in lightning stirkes.

So what if we had high towers and capacitors to actively draw energy for storm clouds?

Lightning just does not have that much energy so it is not economical. The other problem is trying to store the energy, it is not that easy to convert a very high voltage to a voltage that can be stored.

And the bottom line is there just is not that much energy in lightning. A thunderstrom has a tremendous amount of energy in it (on the order of hydrogen bombs), that is mostly thermodynamic energy and there is no way currently to extract or convert that energy to anything useful.

Thunderstorms get this energy from the sun so I guess the thing to do is to go to the source. Currently solar energy is just not very efficient, so it is very expensive compared to other sources of electricity. If you can figure out a way to make a solar cell that increases the efficiency of solar to electrical energy by a few percent you would be a rich. You'll have a lot of competition though...

 

[nec208]

how many homes will it power?

I am just guestimating but I imagine a single bolt of gigawatt range lightning could burn out about a million homes worth of 60 watt incadescent light bulbs. The question more relevant is how can we capacitate so much energy and distribute it in a useful manner... the "current" answer is we can't.

Strangely enought there is acutally very little energy in a lightning strike. There is a lot of power in a lightning strike because it is high voltage and a relatively high current. The problem is the strike lasts only milliseconds so the overall energy of the strikes are small.

I have seen estimates that the energy from a lightning strike would only keep a single 100 watt bulb illuminated for 5 or 6 hours!

Are you saying one gigawatt in one lightning strike ?

 

[SpaceTas]

HARP is sending low frequency radio signals into the ionosphere to induce aurora. It is not tapping into the energy in the ionosphere, in fact it is adding energy to the ionospheric region.


A general physics (and even philosophical) point there is no free electricity or energy. There is not abundant energy or electricity sitting around in space ("free space" of another [poster) just waiting to be plugged into.

There is plenty of solar energy in space and here on Earth. In space it has not been partly absorbed by the atmosphere so there is more energy available per square meter of collecting area. You then have to collect it and get it to your power socket. The question of the solar power satellite debate is this advantage make the whole enterprise worthwhile?

You can extract energy using the Earths magnetic field: (2nd time today) hang a conducting loop of wire below your satellite, this will induce a current in the loop as the satellite/loop moves through the Earths magnetic field. The induced current creates its own magnetic field which interacts with the Earths field to slow down the loop. So the energy comes out of the satellite's orbit; so it spirals in. To keep going you would need to fire your engines... using energy.
Nothing is for free.

Sorry tapping into the ionosphere won't work. It is composed of both negatively charged electrons and the positively charged ions. UV and other solar radiation ionizes (ejects electrons from atoms) the very thinly spread atmosphere. So there is an equal number of negative and positive changes up there. If you put a tower (wire) there you are hoping that just the electrons would flow making a nice current.
Nope:
1> the electrons are attracted to the positive charge so you would need a larger than the ionosphere positive charge at the base of your tower. You could try putting a negative charge under another tower creating a circuit. But you still have to create all this charge which requires lots of energy. In fact about the same as what you would get out.
2> say just the electrons started to move the ions would not be far behind, canceling your current. Even if you made 2 circuits one for positive charge (ions), one for the negative (electrons) you still need the flow to be kept going to separate the charges and keep them moving. (heat losses, magnetic induction opposing flow ...).

Batteries drive circuits because of energy stored in them. The electrical power is driven by turning turbines driven by falling water (gravity energy) or steam (chemical energy in coal or gas). ....

You can't create energy for free, just convert it and each conversion entails some loss.

 

[MeteorWayne]

it's HAARP, not HARP...sheesh....

http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/

 

[MannyPim]

Many times a lightning will actually strike a few times, though. It is not alwys just one strike.

Lightning has also been provoked successfully, iirc. I think scientists fired a laser beam
to clouds, resulting in lightning stirkes.

So what if we had high towers and capacitors to actively draw energy for storm clouds?

I have not heard of using lasers to trigger lightening. I suppose a powerful enough ultra violet laser could ionize a column of air and create a low resistance path to earth ground.

I have heard and seen lightening triggered by small rockets fired into thunderstorms and trailing a quickly unwiding spool of wire. This method is successful a large percentage of the time. Of course, when it does trigger a lightning bolt, the rocket and the wire are instantly vaporized.

 

[nec208]

Many times a lightning will actually strike a few times, though. It is not alwys just one strike.

Lightning has also been provoked successfully, iirc. I think scientists fired a laser beam
to clouds, resulting in lightning stirkes.

So what if we had high towers and capacitors to actively draw energy for storm clouds?

I have not heard of using lasers to trigger lightening. I suppose a powerful enough ultra violet laser could ionize a column of air and create a low resistance path to earth ground.

I have heard and seen lightening triggered by small rockets fired into thunderstorms and trailing a quickly unwiding spool of wire. This method is successful a large percentage of the time. Of course, when it does trigger a lightning bolt, the rocket and the wire are instantly vaporized.

You have to some how drain the electric storm cloud or build a big tower and hope lighting hit it and you may have to build many big towers.But the big problem is you a have to build some big capacitor to store it than in a safe way send it too people.

So there would have to be research in how to tap into it ,store it and in a safe way send it to people.

 

[MannyPim]

Many times a lightning will actually strike a few times, though. It is not alwys just one strike.

Lightning has also been provoked successfully, iirc. I think scientists fired a laser beam
to clouds, resulting in lightning stirkes.

So what if we had high towers and capacitors to actively draw energy for storm clouds?

I have not heard of using lasers to trigger lightening. I suppose a powerful enough ultra violet laser could ionize a column of air and create a low resistance path to earth ground.

I have heard and seen lightening triggered by small rockets fired into thunderstorms and trailing a quickly unwiding spool of wire. This method is successful a large percentage of the time. Of course, when it does trigger a lightning bolt, the rocket and the wire are instantly vaporized.

You have to some how drain the electric storm cloud or build a big tower and hope lighting hit it and you may have to build many big towers.But the big problem is you a have to build some big capacitor to store it than in a safe way send it too people.

So there would have to be research in how to tap into it ,store it and in a safe way send it to people.

I looked up a few sources online and it appears liek the most accepted figure for the energy available in an average lightening strike is about 500 Mega Jules or enought to keep a 100 watt bulb lit for a couple of months or so....

That's not a lot. I would think with the low energy density and the unpreedicatbility of storms, it woould make any kind of significant investment in energy collecting infrastructure an unattractive position, even if we had the technology to capture, store and use that energy.

 

[nec208]

It would be better to drain the electric storm than build big tower and hope lighting hits it has there is lots more energy .

But a 100 watt bulb lit for a couple of months is no good for city.Well 2 or 3 lighting hits may power a small town for couple of months .

To drain the electric storm may power a small city of 200,000 people for couple of months.