Solar-pumped laser power transmission, a way to dramatically decrease launch costs?

William Mook writes:
Silicon receivers collect the 1,100 nm photons and convert them with
over 90% efficiency to electricity.

Sun -- Electrons --- Laser --- Electrons
Low 60% 80% 90% overall 43.2%
High 65% 85% 95% overall 52.4%


Do you have or know of any working lab examples of Laser-Electron conversion
efficiencies of 90+%? Cites or references appreciated.

Isn't there a problem with surface area illumination of the cells with a tight
beam or is the beam dispersion high enough to give a higher surface area
illumination?

How does your proposed Laser illumination compare to solar illumination in terms
of multiples of suns?

Just as phased array techniques may be used to direct multiple
microwave beams anywhere reliably, so too can holographic techniques
be used to direct multiple laser beams anywhere reliably. I have even
pioneered a technique to use 4-wave mixing to allow satellites or
other emitters connect to any number of users at the same time

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QAUkt2VPHI

This video was marked private and I couldn't view it.

Dave

William Mook writes:

On Feb 14, 2:18Â*am, David Spain wrote:
Pat Flannery writes:
To get this up to the point where all the effort is justified due to the
increased solar flux, you are probably going to have to get the solar
collector into something like the distance of Mercury's orbit of the Sun, and
a microwave beam is going to spread all over the place from that distance on
its way to Earth.

I thought we were talking about L1, not Mercury. We're crossing into
Mookopia at this point, never mind....

Dave

Actually Dave, if you weren't such a ****ing moron you'd know how to
use the Rayleigh Criterion to calculate angular resolution of an
emitter from any distance you like.

I never questioned the impracticality of trying to use a microwave beam at this
distance. These distances (from Mercury, using GEO relay, using solar powered
lasers to power spacecraft, etc.) are all from your prior postings & proposals,
that is what I meant by Mookopia, nothing more...

For the record, I never called you a '****ing moron', I question the cost of
doing what you propose, but not the theory behind it.

Dave

On Feb 14, 2:12*pm, David Spain wrote:
William Mook writes:
Silicon receivers collect the 1,100 nm photons and convert them with
over 90% efficiency to electricity.

* * Sun -- *Electrons --- *Laser --- *Electrons
Low * * * 60% * * * * * * * 80% * * * * *90% * * *overall 43.2%
High * * *65% * * * * * * * 85% * * * * *95% * * *overall 52.4%

Do you have or know of any working lab examples of Laser-Electron conversion
efficiencies of 90+%? Cites or references appreciated.

Isn't there a problem with surface area illumination of the cells with a tight
beam or is the beam dispersion high enough to give a higher surface area
illumination?

How does your proposed Laser illumination compare to solar illumination in terms
of multiples of suns?

Just as phased array techniques may be used to direct multiple
microwave beams anywhere reliably, so too can holographic techniques
be used to direct multiple laser beams anywhere reliably. *I have even
pioneered a technique to use 4-wave mixing to allow satellites or
other emitters connect to any number of users at the same time

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QAUkt2VPHI

This video was marked private and I couldn't view it.

Dave

really? I'll check into that.

On Feb 14, 2:12*pm, David Spain wrote:
William Mook writes:
Silicon receivers collect the 1,100 nm photons and convert them with
over 90% efficiency to electricity.

* * Sun -- *Electrons --- *Laser --- *Electrons
Low * * * 60% * * * * * * * 80% * * * * *90% * * *overall 43.2%
High * * *65% * * * * * * * 85% * * * * *95% * * *overall 52.4%

Do you have or know of any working lab examples of Laser-Electron conversion
efficiencies of 90+%? Cites or references appreciated.

E. F. Zalewski and J. Geist, "Silicon photodiode absolute spectral
response self-calibration," Appl. Opt. 19, 1214-1216 (1980)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ao/abs...I=ao-19-8-1214


Isn't there a problem with surface area illumination of the cells with a tight
beam or is the beam dispersion high enough to give a higher surface area
illumination?

The laser emitter surface is an engineered surface. In a solid state
implementation you have a number of wigglers operating in parallel
across a surface - in phase - in a way that takes the light created
and expands their area to fill the surface - while controlling their
phase in a way that allows well defined beams from that area to be
formed.

How does your proposed Laser illumination compare to solar illumination in terms
of multiples of suns?

Well, I have designed systems that operate at GEO - collecting
sunlight at 1,380 W/m2 - and beam energy down to Earth at 680 W/m2 -
in the 1,100 nm band. So you can see diode brightness is not a
problem.

This is the same energy density of sunlight in the IR - and 1,100 nm
is pretty free of dispersion (if there are no clouds) Which is true in
most locations where solar panels would be operating commercially
(that's how the ground stations get built) So, the environmental
impact is doable for testing - and we adjust from there based on data.

Later systems I hope to operate at 20 W/cm2 - once the beam steering
is proven - and this is suitable for mobile applications as well -
forming beams as small as 10 cm across - 1,570 Watts - which is
sufficient for home use - this for terrestrial applications.

Systems that beam energy from near the sun to GEO operate at a native
200 W/cm2 point to point - and are 200 m across and more - 60 GW+
links - for powering larger industrial applications off world - and
for propulsive systems.

Higher intensities are used along with larger areas for terawatt scale
interstellar laser light sail operations.

Just as phased array techniques may be used to direct multiple
microwave beams anywhere reliably, so too can holographic techniques
be used to direct multiple laser beams anywhere reliably. *I have even
pioneered a technique to use 4-wave mixing to allow satellites or
other emitters connect to any number of users at the same time

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QAUkt2VPHI

This video was marked private and I couldn't view it.

Dave

It was marked private. I don't know how that happened. I've marked
it public again.

On Feb 14, 2:56*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

:On Feb 13, 2:48*am, "Androcles" wrote:
: "Pat Flannery" wrote
:
: I can't be certain, but I will say that if you move a solar collector
: array closer to the sun it will gather more energy for a given size.
:
: You should be certain before you give us your stupid opinion, Pat Flannery.
:
:My opinions are not stupid.
:

BWAAAAAHAAAAHahahahahahahahahahhahhaahhaaa!!!!!!!!

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

Off your medication again I see.

On Feb 14, 2:35*pm, David Spain wrote:
William Mook writes:
On Feb 14, 2:18*am, David Spain wrote:
Pat Flannery writes:
To get this up to the point where all the effort is justified due to the
increased solar flux, you are probably going to have to get the solar
collector into something like the distance of Mercury's orbit of the Sun, and
a microwave beam is going to spread all over the place from that distance on
its way to Earth.

I thought we were talking about L1, not Mercury. We're crossing into
Mookopia at this point, never mind....

Dave

Actually Dave, if you weren't such a ****ing moron you'd know how to
use the Rayleigh Criterion to calculate angular resolution of an
emitter from any distance you like.

I never questioned the impracticality of trying to use a microwave beam at this
distance. These distances (from Mercury, using GEO relay, using solar powered
lasers to power spacecraft, etc.) are all from your prior postings & proposals,
that is what I meant by Mookopia, nothing more...

For the record, I never called you a '****ing moron', I question the cost of
doing what you propose, but not the theory behind it.

Dave

Dave, you said many many things of a hateful and dismissive nature to
me. You questioned many more things than cost.

Even so, a major reason I favor laser over maser is the compactness of
laser systems versus microwave systems. That factor of 10,000 to 1 in
diameter, and similar factor in energy density, is a big plus in
lowering laser based system costs.

The mass of solar pumped lasers is far less than the mass of an
equivalently capable solar pumped microwave system since the laser
system is far more compact for this reason. Costs scale with mass so
costs are far lower too.

Aerospace systems today cost $10 million per ton to create, and $50
million per ton to put into orbit. An integrated light sail
capability is a natural outcome of a solar laser powersat.

So, a 10 ton system operated near the sun generates over 60 GW and
with integral solar sail need only be launched into LEO.

This is 1 kW per $1 - far less than any proposed microwave system -
and far less than any other power source. Double this cost to account
for an orbiting receiver, and double it again to account for the
ground receivers (there may be many using four wave mixing technique
I've developed) and you still have less than $5 for 1 kilo-watt.

A typical US home uses 1 kilo-watt.

US power grid operates at about 1,200 GW so, 20 of these satellites -
and 20 receivers in GEO are enough to replace all today's
generation.

A $12 billion program with $48 billion in ground stations, and
infrastructure investments.

The world's entire need for energy (including mobile applications) is
17,000 GW. Most of this is only 20% efficient - and would be more
than 90% efficient if driven electrically. (automobiles, trucks, heat
engines of every sort) So, 4,800 GW of generation - a total of 80
satellites and 80 receivers in GEO.

A $48 billion program with $192 bilion in infrastructure
investments.

The world spends $2 trillion per year on fuels and generates 40 bilion
tons of CO2 in the process of burning them and is constrained by
depleting supplies.

A $300 million R&D program that leads to a series of expansions to the
levels indicated, provides the potential for massive returns.

Microwave systems do not.

On Feb 14, 3:31*pm, William Mook wrote:
On Feb 14, 2:35*pm, David Spain wrote:



William Mook writes:
On Feb 14, 2:18*am, David Spain wrote:
Pat Flannery writes:
To get this up to the point where all the effort is justified due to the
increased solar flux, you are probably going to have to get the solar
collector into something like the distance of Mercury's orbit of the Sun, and
a microwave beam is going to spread all over the place from that distance on
its way to Earth.

I thought we were talking about L1, not Mercury. We're crossing into
Mookopia at this point, never mind....

Dave

Actually Dave, if you weren't such a ****ing moron you'd know how to
use the Rayleigh Criterion to calculate angular resolution of an
emitter from any distance you like.

I never questioned the impracticality of trying to use a microwave beam at this
distance. These distances (from Mercury, using GEO relay, using solar powered
lasers to power spacecraft, etc.) are all from your prior postings & proposals,
that is what I meant by Mookopia, nothing more...

For the record, I never called you a '****ing moron', I question the cost of
doing what you propose, but not the theory behind it.

Dave

Dave, you said many many things of a hateful and dismissive nature to
me. *You questioned many more things than cost.

Even so, a major reason I favor laser over maser is the compactness of
laser systems versus microwave systems. *That factor of 10,000 to 1 in
diameter, and similar factor in energy density, is a big plus in
lowering laser based system costs.

The mass of solar pumped lasers is far less than the mass of an
equivalently capable solar pumped microwave system since the laser
system is far more compact for this reason. *Costs scale with mass so
costs are far lower too.

Aerospace systems today cost $10 million per ton to create, and $50
million per ton to put into orbit. *An integrated light sail
capability is a natural outcome of a solar laser powersat.

So, a 10 ton system operated near the sun generates over 60 GW and
with integral solar sail need only be launched into LEO.

This is 1 kW per $1 - far less than any proposed microwave system -
and far less than any other power source. *Double this cost to account
for an orbiting receiver, and double it again to account for the
ground receivers (there may be many using four wave mixing *technique
I've developed) and you still have less than $5 for 1 kilo-watt.

A typical US home uses 1 kilo-watt.

US power grid operates at about 1,200 GW so, 20 of these satellites -
and 20 receivers in *GEO are enough to replace all today's
generation.

A $12 billion program with $48 billion in ground stations, and
infrastructure investments.

The world's entire need for energy (including mobile applications) is
17,000 GW. *Most of this is only 20% efficient - and would be more
than 90% efficient if driven electrically. *(automobiles, trucks, heat
engines of every sort) So, 4,800 GW of generation - a total of 80
satellites and 80 receivers in GEO.

A $48 billion program with $192 bilion in infrastructure
investments.

The world spends $2 trillion per year on fuels and generates 40 bilion
tons of CO2 in the process of burning them and is constrained by
depleting supplies.

A $300 million R&D program that leads to a series of expansions to the
levels indicated, provides the potential for massive returns.

Microwave systems do not.

In the USA average electricity use is 3,500 watts (all uses) per
person and average cost is $0.08 per kWh. Over the course of a year
$2,454 is spend on electricity by every man woman and child. This
$200 per month doesn't show up in your home energy bill, it shows up
in your tax bill as part of what the governments pay, in your business
bills as part of what businesses pay.

In any case, this much revenue per person represents a present value
of $33,234 per person when the revenue extended (with no price
increases) over 30 years, and discounted at 6.5% discount rate.

It will take five years to design and build a test system. Investors
in this system will take grave risks. Venture Capital types generally
seek 40% per year - doubling their money every two years. A 5.37
multiplier in five years. So, dividing this figure by 5.37 obtains
$6,179 per person.

Agreeing to supply an American town of 148,789 people or more with a
power purchase agreement should be sufficient to attract VCs who would
buy the rights to the revenue stream (but not the underlying
technology) for $300 million cost, provided in 60 installments of $5
million each, along with 60 progress reports. Coming in under-budget
splits the difference with investors and technologist. Going over
budget cedes a portion of additional power sales over and above
already owned by VCs. (A town of 150,000 uses half a giga-watt, the
satellite produces 60+ GW)

In any case, $300 million should be doable as a first step.

On Feb 14, 6:24*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook , talking to himself, wrote:

:On Feb 14, 3:31*pm, William Mook wrote:
snip Mookie nuttiness commented on elsewhere

:
:It will take five years to design and build a test system. *Investors
:in this system will take grave risks. *Venture Capital types generally
:seek 40% per year - doubling their money every two years. *A *5.37
:multiplier *in five years. *So, dividing this figure by 5.37 obtains
:$6,179 per person.
:

Yes, and the gravest risk they'll be taking is that you haven't a clue
what the **** you're talking about. *You think a few line drawings and
tossing around a bunch of numbers gets you there. *Venture capitalists
are smarter than to hand money to someone like you.

:
:Agreeing to supply an American town of 148,789 people or more with a
ower purchase agreement should be sufficient to attract VCs who would
:buy the rights to the revenue stream (but not the underlying
:technology) for $300 million cost, provided in 60 installments of $5
:million each, along with 60 progress reports. *Coming in under-budget
:splits the difference with investors and technologist. *Going over
:budget cedes a portion of additional power sales over and above
:already owned by VCs. * (A town of 150,000 uses half a giga-watt, the
:satellite produces 60+ GW)
:

And what does this town do when your handwavium fails?

:
:In any case, $300 million should be doable as a first step.
:

Yeah, but that 'first step' doesn't produce anything.

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
*soul with evil."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Socrates

By Socrates definition you are an evil doer.

Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Androcles" wrote:


When usenet posts get interrupted by gmail users, in this case Mook,
it prevents Microsoft's Outlook Express from automatically inserting
the indent markers,


No. It's when people post through GOOGLE GROUPS (not Gmail) and then
you reply with OUTLOOK EXPRESS that the problem arises. If you can't
be convinced to use a real newsreader instead of the POS you currently
employ, why don't you just fix your Outhouse Distress installation so
that it doesn't mishandle what comes out of Goggle Gropes?

http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/


BTW, Fred, thanks for this link. This is exactly what I had been looking
for and had previously failed to find.

Excellent. Thanks.


--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

On Dec 17 2009, 7:12*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
I like this idea, *Relatively small mirrors would power
the lasers, not huge solar cell arrays. The lasers would
transmit their beams to other satellites that convert it to, and
beam it down, as microwaves. * No need for mile-size
collectors in orbit.

Proceedings of the ASCE Earth&Space 2006 Conference
April 2006

Space Power Grid- Evolutionary Approach To Space Solar Power

"At a higher level, a direct solar-pumped laser could be used to
convert solar energy on the LEO satellites, and transmit the laser
beams to other satellites where the demand for power is greater
(e.g., satellites over the dark side of earth). Recently, development
of such *lasers has reached a stage where efficiency of up to 38%
has been shown. These satellites would receive incoming
laser energy using their high-efficiency narrow-band photovoltaic
cells, convert it to microwave, and beam it to Earth. This
architecture has two advantages: the beaming to Earth
could be done at optimal microwave frequencies for maximum
transmission through the atmosphere, without requiring excessive
transmitter size. The laser beams would propagate with very
high efficiency, and require only small collectors. Thus the mass
and overall cost per unit power of the system with this architecture
may be substantially lower than the lower-risk option
presented before."

http://www.adl.gatech.edu/archives/adlp06040601.pdf

And it should be noted, the SPS start up company, Space Energy Inc,
maybe one of the more legitimate commercial attempts at SPS, has
as one of it's technical advisors this guy, and his /current/ specialty
might be a clue of things to come.....

Dr. Richard Dickinson

Space Energy Inc technical advisors

"Mr. Dickinson is one of the world's foremost experts on Wireless
Power Transmission (WPT). President of OFF EARTH-WPT,
Mr. Dickinson was Group Supervisor of the High-Power Transmitter
Group at Goldstone and was NASA's microwave power transmission
specialist on the Solar Power Satellite Reference System team....

.....he is currently involved in studying and designing the solar pumped
laser-power beaming phased array for interstellar missions."http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/TechnicalAdvisors.htm

s

Dude, I've been promoting this concept for years. It's freakin' solid
state, lighweight. You can park one at a Lagrangian point and still
get tons of energy on a cost/kw basis.