h a l f b a k e r y"Bun is such a sad word, is it not?" -- Watt, "Waiting for Godot"
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
This would obviously require extensive construction work,
none the less here it is. It is a means of exploiting the Earths
own electromagnetic feild for electricity (I don't know if
anyone's already suggested this).
We would first build magnetic-material arreys at the northern
and southern
poles of the planet, which would have to extend
high into the atmosphere (perhaps multiple towers), which
would be linked together across the planets curvature by a
skeleton of conductive metals through which electric current
would spread.
What I know of equilibrium in nature (self-confessed as "not an
awful lot") tells me that in order to maintain its EMfeild at the
poles, the earth would first need to fill up the proposed
skeleton with all the current it could take. Any drain on the
system once maximum capacity had been established might be
quickly, if not instantly replenished.
Large conductor blocks set beneath cities would also need to
be filled up, and from there the cities in question would gain
their power supply.
I am of an opinion that the "charge up" time would cause
environmental upset.
I'm not sure, really, wither there is all that much land to build
such an arrey on at either pole, but the Japanese do practice
artificial means of land extension and perhaps this could be
used in this case.
[link]
|
| |
Why not build a version using a small permanent magnet and a wire? You could use it to power a flashlight. |
|
| |
I can’t believe nobody has thought of this yet. |
|
| |
If I'm reading this correctly, [arclyte] is suggesting that a conductor connecting the poles of a magnet would have a current flowing in it. Unfortunately, a magnetic field is not the same as an electric current. For a current to be induced, the conductor would need to move *relative to the magnetic field* (emphasized to pre-empt arguments of the form "the conductor moves when the Earth rotates").
A somewhat similar scheme, not fully detailed, formed the background to the novel "Omega" by Stewart Farrar. |
|
| |
What about if we used a conductive gas inside the
proposed skeleton? That could be made to move
independant of the earths rotation if we fanned it,
heated it, or something. |
|
| |
I'm pretty sure we can somehow use the fact that the earth is secretly hollow to our advantage here. |
|
| |
This brings up a curious question that I'm not certain I ever got a proper handle on, (one of the reasons I'm no EE). Is a magnetic field conservative?, meaning, is it 'used up' when an electric field is generated by it? If I had a theoretical magnetic field somehow, if I generated a current, is there a potential magnetic field drop of some sort, that would lower the output of a second induced current? |
|
| |
Haven't we done something very similar to this idea recently? |
|
| |
arclyte - electromagnetic energy is conserved. i'll go as far as to say energy is conserved, period. (until we start arguing on the quantum level ;-) |
|
| |
you *can* generate electricity by cutting Gaia's magnetic field, but not to any degree or in any form that's particularly worthwhile to bother with. (eg. a jet screaming across the magnetic lines will create a current across the wings. you'll sure put a lot more energy into that than you'll get out. it would be more efficient to burn the fuel to power a generator) |
|
| |
no croissant, but i'll give you a good effort star ->*<- for "good try". :-) |
|
| |
[Rayford]: A magnetic field is not conservative, in those terms. The electrical energy generated is a function of the strength of the field and the relative speed of the conductor moving in it (among other things). |
|
| |