..Citizens for Space Based Solar Power....Letter to Obama

In article
,
wrote:

On Aug 12, 8:13*pm, Hugh Gibbons
wrote:
In article
,

wrote:
On Aug 11, 11:21*pm, Hugh Gibbons
wrote:
Fifteen orders of magnitude counts as highly contrasting.

Could be if that number referred to anything. *Obviously it doesn't.

I previously described a realistic scenario wherein 150dB of loss
between the transmitter and receiver were tolerable for radio
transmission from a satellitel.

So? You've calculated a number that has nothing at all to do with
power transmission from space. I describe here a power transmission
technique that does not broadcast the power transmitted as you assumed
in your calculation. The technique I've described in detail, uses an
advanced conjugate optic technique to efficiently relay power to any
number of users at the same time without such losses as you computed.
Your calculation is therefore moot.

Using this conjugate optical technology the same functionality as
radio broadcast is implemented without the power losses you
calculated.
That is, you have yet to show the number means anything.
.
Are you being dense on purpose? You claimed that transmitting signals
from satellites in space as the same as transmitting power from
satellites in space. Now you're saying that's not the case. So now
that you've changed your mind, we agree on that.

haha. Some have suggested that for me. *lol. *You cannot find anything
technically wrong to talk about so you resort to ad-hominem
observations. *Very cute. *Now, I know the sort of fellow I'm dealing
with. *lol.

It's based on your ignoring important physical principles because they
don't fit your story.

I haven't ignored a damn thing!

You certainly left any analysis of the heat sinking and the mass of the
heat sinks out of your calculation the first time.

Meanwhile, you trot out totally
inappropriate analysis and cluelessly rail at me about 15 orders of
magnitude! lol.

Dude, you're the one who brought up comm satellites. All I did is
explained the degree to which they are different.

Lets just recap. We have a 25 km diameter thin film concentrator
illuminating a 400 m diameter array of high efficiency PV cells.

Right. So the 400 m diameter collector is hit with 3900 times the
intensity of sunlight. It's gonna ****ing vaporize faster than you can
say lickety split.

Why is it you changed from 2500 concentration factor to 3900 anyway?

Things weren't hot enough for you at 2500x?

You have said that you would have a temperature at the PV cells of 110C,
but the geometry you've described can only radiate 1/2000
of the incoming solar heat at that temperature. That's as you've
described it, macroscopically, a 400m diameter disk.

No amount of photovolataic and transmitter efficiency can deal with this
amount of heat.

On Aug 13, 9:24 pm, Hugh Gibbons
wrote:
In article
,



wrote:
On Aug 12, 8:13 pm, Hugh Gibbons
wrote:
In article
,

wrote:
On Aug 11, 11:21 pm, Hugh Gibbons
wrote:
Fifteen orders of magnitude counts as highly contrasting.

Could be if that number referred to anything. Obviously it doesn't.

I previously described a realistic scenario wherein 150dB of loss
between the transmitter and receiver were tolerable for radio
transmission from a satellitel.

So? You've calculated a number that has nothing at all to do with
power transmission from space. I describe here a power transmission
technique that does not broadcast the power transmitted as you assumed
in your calculation. The technique I've described in detail, uses an
advanced conjugate optic technique to efficiently relay power to any
number of users at the same time without such losses as you computed.
Your calculation is therefore moot.

Using this conjugate optical technology the same functionality as
radio broadcast is implemented without the power losses you
calculated.
That is, you have yet to show the number means anything.
.

Are you being dense on purpose? You claimed that transmitting signals
from satellites in space as the same as transmitting power from
satellites in space. Now you're saying that's not the case. So now
that you've changed your mind, we agree on that.

haha. Some have suggested that for me. lol. You cannot find anything
technically wrong to talk about so you resort to ad-hominem
observations. Very cute. Now, I know the sort of fellow I'm dealing
with. lol.

It's based on your ignoring important physical principles because they
don't fit your story.

I haven't ignored a damn thing!

You certainly left any analysis of the heat sinking and the mass of the
heat sinks out of your calculation the first time.

Meanwhile, you trot out totally
inappropriate analysis and cluelessly rail at me about 15 orders of
magnitude! lol.

Dude, you're the one who brought up comm satellites. All I did is
explained the degree to which they are different.

Lets just recap. We have a 25 km diameter thin film concentrator
illuminating a 400 m diameter array of high efficiency PV cells.

Right. So the 400 m diameter collector is hit with 3900 times the
intensity of sunlight. It's gonna ****ing vaporize faster than you can
say lickety split.

Why is it you changed from 2500 concentration factor to 3900 anyway?

Things weren't hot enough for you at 2500x?

You have said that you would have a temperature at the PV cells of 110C,
but the geometry you've described can only radiate 1/2000
of the incoming solar heat at that temperature. That's as you've
described it, macroscopically, a 400m diameter disk.

No amount of photovolataic and transmitter efficiency can deal with this
amount of heat.

You're speaking to a bipolar pretend-Atheist, as well as a devout
Republican of the DARPA all-knowing kind.

Our willie.moon is rather special, and even right a few percent of the
time.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

On Aug 14, 12:24*am, Hugh Gibbons
wrote:
In article
,





wrote:
On Aug 12, 8:13*pm, Hugh Gibbons
wrote:
In article
,

wrote:
On Aug 11, 11:21*pm, Hugh Gibbons
wrote:
Fifteen orders of magnitude counts as highly contrasting.

Could be if that number referred to anything. *Obviously it doesn't.

I previously described a realistic scenario wherein 150dB of loss
between the transmitter and receiver were tolerable for radio
transmission from a satellitel.

So? *You've calculated a number that has nothing at all to do with
power transmission from space. *I describe here a power transmission
technique that does not broadcast the power transmitted as you assumed
in your calculation. *The technique I've described in detail, uses an
advanced conjugate optic technique to efficiently relay power to any
number of users at the same time without such losses as you computed.
Your calculation is therefore moot.

Using this conjugate optical technology the same functionality as
radio broadcast is implemented without the power losses you
calculated.
That is, you have yet to show the number means anything.
.

Are you being dense on purpose?

I'm not being dense at all. You are the one being dense sir.

*You claimed that transmitting signals
from satellites in space as the same as transmitting power from
satellites in space.

I claimed that we could broadcast power from space as easily as we now
broadcast information - YOU have read that and WRONGLY assumed the
physical process would be the same. haha... Who is being dense?
Especially after I describe to you in detail the process I'm using!
lol. MORON

*Now you're saying that's not the case.

You are having difficulty separating the operational aspects of a
thing (receiving power and communications from a satellite source) -
from the physical process used (signal beaming from one point to
communicate and conjugate optical methods for efficient power beaming)
-

*So now
that you've changed your mind,

No I have not. You have merely demonstrated your total and abject
ignorance of what I'm talking about, and your singular inability to
follow a simple logical argument.

we agree on that.

You have said very little I agree with, and this is not one of them.

haha. Some have suggested that for me. *lol. *You cannot find anything
technically wrong to talk about so you resort to ad-hominem
observations. *Very cute. *Now, I know the sort of fellow I'm dealing
with. *lol.

It's based on your ignoring important physical principles because they
don't fit your story.

I haven't ignored a damn thing! *

You certainly left any analysis of the heat sinking and the mass of the
heat sinks out of your calculation the first time

No I didn't. You however are being disingenous here. You say here
that I didn't include the weight of the radiator in my first mass
balance analysis - and then later in this very same posting you say
the radiator is only 400 m across and can radiate only 1/2000th the
needed energy. haha - You freaking loon! lol.

You bitch here about me supposedly not counting the mass of a radiator
you ignore later when you bitch about heat balance? This after I
describe everything in gory detail?

Try being a little honest huh?

lol.

What your point?

The point for me is I have a thin film of clear PET 12.8 km across.
This is the front piece. That is bonded to a reflective mylar film of
aluminum coated PET. The disk is bonded on it s edge and also bonded
in a circle a short distance in from the edge. The annulus formed is
pressurized to a relatively high pressure compared to the central
portion. The mylar film has its thickness controlled radially. This
causes the film to form a near parabolic concentrator. This is the
primary concentrator.

A 400 m diameter mylar film is bonded to the clear front surface
centrally and also inflated. Its thickness is controlled radially to
form a hyperbolic form of rotation. This is the folding optic. The
mass of all this and the radiator are included in the 20 tonnes per sq
km figure.

The beam of concentrated sunlight falls on a 400 m diameter array of
water filled cavities located at the central portion of the primary
concentrator. The emitter window is behind this sheet, and the solar
absorbing window is on the front of the sheet..

Each of these cavities have at their heart a solid state MEMs sandiwch
consisting of an optical bandpass filter,a PV device, a mems FEL, a
nonlinear optical beamsteering, and a MEMs based micropump to
circulate water around the device cooling it.

Surrounding each device in the 400 m array is a precision molded
optical cavity to do the final focusing of the sunlight, and expanding
of the laser light out back. Each cavity is filled with water and
equipped with powered channels which bring water to the cavity and
take water away. A portion of the electrical current in each device,
provides power to the channel array about 1 part in 20,000 is used for
pumping in this way. The primary energy for pumping in each cell
comes from thermal energy captured by the MEMs pump on the surface of
each device.

Surrounding the 400 m array is a 6.4 km diameter thin film of materail
bonded to the back of the concentrator. Its mass is included in the
20 ton/km2 estimate.

The film has folded into it orgami fashion, water supply and takeup
lines. It also forms a planar capillary array as does the backside of
the primary concentrator where the film attaches on the back of the
concentrator.

Hot water from the array is evaporated into the plenum formed by the
two sheets of plastic behind the concentrator, and the vapor condenses
radiating heat away - and the capillary array draws cool water back to
the center where it is drawn back to the cavities by the pump head in
each cavity..
.
Meanwhile, you trot out totally
inappropriate analysis and cluelessly rail at me about 15 orders of
magnitude! *lol. *

Dude, you're the one who brought up comm satellites. *

Yes, I did. ANd you are the one who misread what I wrote. We can
indeed just as easily receive power from orbit as we receive signals
from orbit. No problem.

haha. YOU read that and assumed I was using a similar process - EVEN
WHEN I DESCRIBE IN DETAIL THE CONJUGATE OPTICAL PROCESS I''M USING!
LOL

All I did is
explained the degree to which they are different.

No all you did was totally misunderstand what I said. I show how your
explanation was moot!

One can easily send photons back and forth from Earth orbit to Earth.
So, beaming power from space is as reasonable as beaming radio or
television from space.

This is independent of how those photons are controlled. Obviously in
a power application, things are done differently than in an
information application.

Only an ignoramous would read that, ignore the discussion of how
conjugate optics are exploited to maintain high energy efficiency
throughout, and then you go and calculate the energy loss when not
using conjugate optics! lol. What a moron.

Which is what you did - and we know what that makes you - an
ignoramous.

Lets just recap. * We have a 25 km diameter thin film concentrator
illuminating a 400 m diameter array of high efficiency PV cells.

Right. *So the 400 m diameter collector is hit with 3900 times the
intensity of sunlight. *

Ha! You complain above about me not counting the mass of the radiator
I described earlier (which I did) and now you complain the area of the
emitter window not including that radiator is too small! haha - this
proves that you are not only stupid, but you are dishonest as well.
Which is too damned bad, I thought your objections were honest ones.

We've been through all of this.

The water moving through the optical cavity acts as a heat sink,
allowing the PV cells and FEL to operate sinking 40% of the incident
energy. What makes you think a window attached to the same heat sink
a window that transmits the light and absorbs less than 1/10,000th the
energy passing through it - would suddenly vaporize? lol. Obviously
it won't.

It's gonna ****ing vaporize faster than you can
say lickety split.

No it isn't. You keep trying to take the conversation back to the
point you had it at the outset. Why? Obviously you care only to say
the things you say no matter how dishonest they are.

Clearly, I've described in detail the operation of each element. A
shaped PET cavity, filled with water,focuses sunlight onto a PV device
- which drives a free-electron laser device - which emits laser energy
through a non-linear optical window. The window the laser and the pv
are all an integrated MEMs device, resting inside a water filled
cavity - the front of the PET cavity and the back of the PET cavity
are lens shaped - and the water is exchanged every few seconds to sink
the waste heat generated.

Why is it you changed from 2500 concentration factor to 3900 anyway?

You are looking at different aspects. The lens elements are obviously
larger than the PV/laser elements which reside inside.

Geometrically the device itself is 5,000 to 1 - when you look at the
device itself.

The geomettric ratio is 3,900 to one when you look at the size of
thelens cavity array to the primary.

The heat load ratio can be as low as 2500 to one when you start
reflecting away ineffective photons and subtracting out the laser
photons..

Things weren't hot enough for you at 2500x?

The PV junction temperature is 110C - how that is maintained I've
already described.

haha you are merely grasping at straws having nothing solid to bitch
about. lol. So, you will misquote and dishonestly portray the size
of heat radiators and so forth just to bitch and say nasty things,
hoping it will change reality, or make me go away.

Shame on you.


You have said that you would have a temperature at the PV cells of 110C,
but the geometry you've described can only radiate 1/2000
of the incoming solar heat at that temperature.

Nonsense. A 12.8 km diameter collector illuminates a 400 m diameter
array of solar pumped laser elements attached to nonlinear optical
windows - and water within a planar array spreads this heat into a 6.4
km diameter radiator.

The total surface area (both sides) of this radiator is 240 sq km.
The heat radiated by this radiator is as high as 200 GW. So, the
temperature must be by the Stephan Boltzman relation;

( j /( A * b))^(1/4) = T

(200e+9/(240e+6 * 5.67e-8))^(1/4) = 348.2 K

Which is about 75 C - using other tricks temperature can be reduced
to near freezing.

*That's as you've
described it, macroscopically, a 400m diameter disk.

That's the size of the PV/laser/beam array. That array heat is spread
across 6.8 km. That is, each element is cooled by water circualting
to a planar capillary array that spread the heat over a radiator 6.8
km in diameter. I've described this as well in detail previously.

No amount of photovolataic and transmitter efficiency can deal with this
amount of heat.-

You have gone back to your old stance and ignored my discussion of
what's going on. Obviously, planar capillary arrays used as heat
spreaders are capable of sinking ove 250 Watts/cm2. When cooled from
both sides, a device can sink 500 Watts/cm2 in this way.

We have a shaped PET cavity filled with near freezing water
circulating around a MEMs device that incorporates;

a) dichroic window,
b) multi-junction PV cell
c) MEMs high efficiency FEL
d) nonlinear optical window
e) MEMs water pumps

The front side of the device is illuminated with intense solar
energy. The back side of the device radiates intense laser energy.
The water along with PET film act as an optical element. The device
is capable of sinking 500 Watts/cm2 - counting both sides - into the
water but only needs to sink 273 Watts/cm2 of incident sunlight when
operating - which amounts to 187 Watts/cm2.of heat exhange surface.

A 12.8 km diameter window
A 12.8 km diameter primary concentrator
A 400 m beam folding mirror
A 400 m array of PV/laser elements
A 6.8 km diameter planar capillary array
A 400 m free flying planar mirror

The entire system masses 20 tons per sq km.

The system captures sunlight and creating a 262 GW IR laser beam that
provides over 200 GW on Earth beamed reliably to users on Earth.

On Aug 14, 12:58*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Aug 13, 9:24 pm, Hugh Gibbons
wrote:





In article
,

wrote:
On Aug 12, 8:13 pm, Hugh Gibbons
wrote:
In article
,

wrote:
On Aug 11, 11:21 pm, Hugh Gibbons
wrote:
Fifteen orders of magnitude counts as highly contrasting.

Could be if that number referred to anything. *Obviously it doesn't.

I previously described a realistic scenario wherein 150dB of loss
between the transmitter and receiver were tolerable for radio
transmission from a satellitel.

So? *You've calculated a number that has nothing at all to do with
power transmission from space. *I describe here a power transmission
technique that does not broadcast the power transmitted as you assumed
in your calculation. *The technique I've described in detail, uses an
advanced conjugate optic technique to efficiently relay power to any
number of users at the same time without such losses as you computed.
Your calculation is therefore moot.

Using this conjugate optical technology the same functionality as
radio broadcast is implemented without the power losses you
calculated.
That is, you have yet to show the number means anything.
.

Are you being dense on purpose? *You claimed that transmitting signals
from satellites in space as the same as transmitting power from
satellites in space. *Now you're saying that's not the case. *So now
that you've changed your mind, we agree on that.

haha. Some have suggested that for me. *lol. *You cannot find anything
technically wrong to talk about so you resort to ad-hominem
observations. *Very cute. *Now, I know the sort of fellow I'm dealing
with. *lol.

It's based on your ignoring important physical principles because they
don't fit your story.

I haven't ignored a damn thing!

You certainly left any analysis of the heat sinking and the mass of the
heat sinks out of your calculation the first time.

Meanwhile, you trot out totally
inappropriate analysis and cluelessly rail at me about 15 orders of
magnitude! *lol.

Dude, you're the one who brought up comm satellites. *All I did is
explained the degree to which they are different.

Lets just recap. * We have a 25 km diameter thin film concentrator
illuminating a 400 m diameter array of high efficiency PV cells.

Right. *So the 400 m diameter collector is hit with 3900 times the
intensity of sunlight. *It's gonna ****ing vaporize faster than you can
say lickety split.

Why is it you changed from 2500 concentration factor to 3900 anyway?

Things weren't hot enough for you at 2500x?

You have said that you would have a temperature at the PV cells of 110C,
but the geometry you've described can only radiate 1/2000
of the incoming solar heat at that temperature. *That's as you've
described it, macroscopically, a 400m diameter disk.

No amount of photovolataic and transmitter efficiency can deal with this
amount of heat.

You're speaking to a bipolar pretend-Atheist,

No he's not.

as well as a devout
Republican

No.

of the DARPA all-knowing kind.

Not at all.

Our willie.moon is rather special,

Yes, but not in the same sense you are special Bradly.

and even right a few percent of the
time.

More than you certainly - and if Hugh was being honest he'd admit
there's no real objection he can raise to what I've described. But,
like you Brad, he's not being honest. Which is just too damn bad for
both of you.



* ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Aug 16, 11:08 am, wrote:
On Aug 14, 12:58 am, BradGuth wrote:



On Aug 13, 9:24 pm, Hugh Gibbons
wrote:

In article
,

wrote:
On Aug 12, 8:13 pm, Hugh Gibbons
wrote:
In article
,

wrote:
On Aug 11, 11:21 pm, Hugh Gibbons
wrote:
Fifteen orders of magnitude counts as highly contrasting.

Could be if that number referred to anything. Obviously it doesn't.

I previously described a realistic scenario wherein 150dB of loss
between the transmitter and receiver were tolerable for radio
transmission from a satellitel.

So? You've calculated a number that has nothing at all to do with
power transmission from space. I describe here a power transmission
technique that does not broadcast the power transmitted as you assumed
in your calculation. The technique I've described in detail, uses an
advanced conjugate optic technique to efficiently relay power to any
number of users at the same time without such losses as you computed.
Your calculation is therefore moot.

Using this conjugate optical technology the same functionality as
radio broadcast is implemented without the power losses you
calculated.
That is, you have yet to show the number means anything.
.

Are you being dense on purpose? You claimed that transmitting signals
from satellites in space as the same as transmitting power from
satellites in space. Now you're saying that's not the case. So now
that you've changed your mind, we agree on that.

haha. Some have suggested that for me. lol. You cannot find anything
technically wrong to talk about so you resort to ad-hominem
observations. Very cute. Now, I know the sort of fellow I'm dealing
with. lol.

It's based on your ignoring important physical principles because they
don't fit your story.

I haven't ignored a damn thing!

You certainly left any analysis of the heat sinking and the mass of the
heat sinks out of your calculation the first time.

Meanwhile, you trot out totally
inappropriate analysis and cluelessly rail at me about 15 orders of
magnitude! lol.

Dude, you're the one who brought up comm satellites. All I did is
explained the degree to which they are different.

Lets just recap. We have a 25 km diameter thin film concentrator
illuminating a 400 m diameter array of high efficiency PV cells.

Right. So the 400 m diameter collector is hit with 3900 times the
intensity of sunlight. It's gonna ****ing vaporize faster than you can
say lickety split.

Why is it you changed from 2500 concentration factor to 3900 anyway?

Things weren't hot enough for you at 2500x?

You have said that you would have a temperature at the PV cells of 110C,
but the geometry you've described can only radiate 1/2000
of the incoming solar heat at that temperature. That's as you've
described it, macroscopically, a 400m diameter disk.

No amount of photovolataic and transmitter efficiency can deal with this
amount of heat.

You're speaking to a bipolar pretend-Atheist,

No he's not.

as well as a devout
Republican

No.

of the DARPA all-knowing kind.

Not at all.

Our willie.moon is rather special,

Yes, but not in the same sense you are special Bradly.

and even right a few percent of the
time.

More than you certainly - and if Hugh was being honest he'd admit
there's no real objection he can raise to what I've described. But,
like you Brad, he's not being honest. Which is just too damn bad for
both of you.



~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The all-inclusive and thus birth-to-grave whole truth and nothing but
the truth is hardly ever seen as honest by willie.moo. So, what's
your point?

What would our resident wizard of Oz (aka William Mook) do for
humanity and our frail environment that would pay off and perhaps even
show a nifty profit and/or create that clean energy or product surplus
of whatever within the next decade?

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

In article
,
wrote:


More than you certainly - and if Hugh was being honest he'd admit
there's no real objection he can raise to what I've described. But,
like you Brad, he's not being honest. Which is just too damn bad for
both of you.

You have been dishonest throughout. At multiple points you have lied
about what I said and about what you had previously said. Each time I
asked you for more information about something that was infeasible as
you described it, you added information while claiming it had been there
all along, and sadly, your so-called solutions to these problems never
really addressed the technical reasons why the original problem wasn't
feasible in the first place.

So go ahead. Try to sell that idea to some other engineers and
scientists and see if they don't laugh you out of the room the same way
I did.

Space based power might -- might one day be deployed, though I doubt it.
But if it is, it won't look anything like what you're proposing beyond
involving some photocells and a mirror.

On Aug 17, 12:55*am, Hugh Gibbons
wrote:
In article
,

wrote:

More than you certainly - and if Hugh was being honest he'd admit
there's no real objection he can raise to what I've described. *But,
like you Brad, he's not being honest. *Which is just too damn bad for
both of you.

You have been dishonest throughout.

Nonsense. I have been forhtcoming and have answered all your
questions. You have gone out of your way to derail any honest
discussion of this technology and allowed me to state unequivocally
that using my approach to solar power, we can produce energy at far
less cost than we do presently.

In response you have cut and pasted my response and said things that
you know are not true in an effort to hide this fact.

Now when I call you on that. You start calling me names, hoping
perhaps that people see the argument, and ignore the quite reasonable
technology I've proposed. One has to wonder what your motivation is.

More importantly the facts needed to be re-stated.

So, you are obviously the one lying. For example, you at one point
said I didn't include the mass of the 6.8 km radiator, when I did.
Then later you complained that the size of the 0.4 km receiver was too
small to radiate waste heat, responding as if that were the
radiator.

But these are not the important facts. The important facts are that
we can generate electricity from powersatellites at far less cost than
we can generate energy burning coal. In fact we can make hydrogen
with power satellites and use that hydrogen directly in competition
with coal oil and natural gas, or increase the value of US coal in the
world, balance our payments, and improve our economy, by converting US
coal into liquid fuels for export using hydrogen made in this way.

To recap, the powersat portion, I have proposed here making a
concentrating photovoltaic system from thin film material, using thin
film optics to create a power satellite that masses 20 tons per square
kilometer and beams 40% of the solar energy incident on the satellite
back to Earth at a 400 W/m2 intensity at nearly the 1,100 nm
wavelength used by solar cells.

A watt of solar collector on the ground that generates 1.2 to 1.7 kWh
in a year, will have its output increased to 15 to 21 kWh using such a
satellite - depending on weather. This is a huge increase in
efficiency..

What will it cost?

At $10 million per ton and 20 tons per sq km at these efficiencies,
with 1,366 MW per sq km - we have

$200 million/sq km / (1,366 MW x 0.4) = $0.37 per peak watt

With a 30 year life span and 8.76 kWh per watt per year this is a
total cost of 1/8 cent per kWh!!

At a more reasonable cost of $2 million per ton - this achieved by
resusable launchers, operated efficiently at appropriate high altitude
locations, at launch rates with adequate infrastructure, etc., etc., -
costs drop to 1/40th cent per kWh.

It takes 56 kWh of DC electricity to convert 9 tons of water into 1
ton of hydrogen and 8 tons of oxygen. At 1/40th cent per kWh this
means we can make a ton of hydrogen for less than 2 cents!!!

The heat value of hydrogen when burned is 143 GJ. Hydrogen burns
under all conditions fossil fuels burn. So, an adequate supply of
hydrogen produced more cheaply than conventional fuels, replaces
conventional fuels - at the following cost;

1 ton H2 @ 143 GJ = 6.2 tons coal @ 23 GJ/ton
1 ton H2 @ 143 GJ = 23.4 bbls oil @ 6.1 GJ/bbl.
1 ton H2 @ 143 GJ =140 dt NG @ 1.05 GJ/dt

So,this translates to 14 barrels of oil for a penny, 3 tons of coal
for a penny, or 80 dekatherms of natural gas for a penny1

Obviously, this is the way to decrease the COST OF GENERATION and end
our energy shortages.

Here's the order of battle;

1) build low cost solar collectors and make hydrogen from sunlight
2) combine hydrogen with coal to make liquid fuels

At this point its helpful to know that the world consumes

28.3 billion barrels of liquid fuels
5.5 billion tons off coal

So, without increasing the coal output, we supply 887 million tons of
hydrogen to the coal fired power plants, eliminating CO2 output
there. Then we take the coal, and add another 611 tons of hydrogen to
it, to create 38.5 billion barrels of liquid fuels from them.

Its easy to see that if we eliminate the extraction of oil at this
point, and converted only part of our coal, we would dramatically
decrease our CO2 output while supplyiing sufficient fuels for our
present needs, while at the same time have adequate infrastructure to
supply hydrogen for our future needs.

This is the idea behind my efforts to build coal-to-liquid facilities
at sunny wet coal mines around the world.

http://www.mitrais.com/mining/miningNews060818.asp

(see entry #7 in the list above)

then..

3) augment terrestrial solar with space solar expand hydrogen
production
4) improve optics and deliver more energy by direct beaming

Improved optics and experience allow the beaming of energy directly to
end users. The techniques for sending power efficiently to users on
the ground which I've proposed using are the very same methods
proposed in 1980s for shooting down ICBMs during SDI. While the
'targets' of SDI were trying to escape detection, the receivers here
are trying to be found. While the targets of SDI were being destroyed
by killing pulses of x-ray lasers, these receivers are being powere by
Infrared lasers - despite the differences, the optics and procedures
are the same, excepting with cooperation of the receivers - things are
far less expensive.

The way the satellite works is simple.

The concentrator illuminates a highly efficient photovoltaic generator
that drive an attached free-electro-laser that is built using advanced
micro-electro-mechanical systems. Basically we're making a klystron
tube type cavity, but on a smaller scale - to accelerate electrons in
a way so that they efficiently produce 1,064 nm photons. This sysstem
is attached to a multi-layered nonlinear optical window, that direct
the laser energy efficiently to receivers on the ground.

*At multiple points you have lied
about what I said

No I haven't.

and about what you had previously said.

Not at all. That's why I'm going over what I said here so there's no
argument.

*Each time I
asked you for more information about something that was infeasible as
you described it, you added information while claiming it had been there
all along,

No i didn't. I answered your questions and you started cutting and
pasting things and unfairly presented them in a way that was
dishonest. haha.. When you complained I didn't include the mass of
the 6.8 km radiator, and then later said the 0.4 km diameter emitter
window was too small to radiate away the heat - at that point I called
you on your dishonesty - and clarified ffor other readers what it was
I was doing - now you have droppe any pretense that there are any
technical issues involved, and have sunk to attacking me directly
without any reason whatever = excepting I'm proposing a practical
solar power satellite that will put the oil companies out of
business..

and sadly, your so-called solutions to these problems never
really addressed the technical reasons why the original problem wasn't
feasible in the first place. *

Yes they did. That's why you were reduced to cutting and pasting and
now deflecting attention away from anything technical i have to say.

So go ahead. *Try to sell that idea to some other engineers and
scientists and see if they don't laugh you out of the room the same way
I did.

shrug The big issues Hugh tried to talk about was something he no
doubt read in one of his engineering text books since it has some
merit. Namely, heat sinks in space add to the weight and the cost of
any concentrating system more than is saved by concentrating. This is
a continuation of the canard that silicon panels like 1 solar
environments - which while soundly based in engineering principles,
should be treated as factors, not absolute physical limits. The
Stephan Boltzman law for example accurately tells you how much area
you need to radiate energy at a given temperature in a vacuum. It
doesn't tell you what temperatures and areas and the mass neeed and
so forth. So, its a factor in design that must be observed, saying
that it forever limits what you can do, is a canard - put out by
people who don't want to explore this possibility.

That is, NASA studies of the subject of power satellites have pointed
out that microwaves penetrate clouds and so they refuse to consider
using any shorter wavelength, ignoring that solar panels work
perfectly well when sometimes obscured by clouds.

This limit to microwaves constrains how accurately those beams can be
pointed, and you come up with antenna sizes that are about as big as
the entire satellite.

Next NASA studies have shown that maintaining reasonable operating
temperatures require radiator areas about the same size as collector
areas - again coming to the conclusion that you need really really big
systems.

In the end NASA comes up with the idea that you have simple repeatable
modules made in large quantity that get orbited and assembled easily
on orbit. A nice integrated circuit built around a wafer that has a
PV/klystron/antenna and radiator all sandwiched together with controls
built in. Sweet.

Their system is about 18% efficient throughout - 245 MW per sq km -
and because of environmental concerns of microwaves on the terrestrial
environment - NASA proposes limiting microwave intensity to a range of
10 MW to 100 MW per sq km. So each sq km on orbit requires up to 25
sq km on the ground.

This NASA says could be intercepted by wires strung up over croplands
- sort of like a chicken wire strung up on 10 meter poles - and
farmers could be paid to have them on their property. The microwaves
would be efficiently intercepted and no radiation would reach the
ground. Overflight of the area would be prohibited.

Because of their design choices the weight of the system is about 2
grams per sq centimeter. That's 20 kg per sq m. This is 20,000
metric tons per sq km. At a cost of $10 million per metric ton on
orbit - 1 sq km will cost $200 billion. At a lower cost of $2 million
per metric ton on orbit - which is achievable - this falls for $40
billion- this system is 2,000x more expensive than the system I
propose.

I have proposed the use of thin film optics, high intensity PV,
infrared lasers, improved heat exchangers, increased ground
intensities, all to reduce the mass and ultimately the cost of space
power. I have proposed building far smaller receivers on mined out
lands that need to be reclaimed and which no one lives on. Actually
getting paid to take the land. I have proposed ultimately beaming
power direclty to users, since infrared energy at these power levels,
is not as warming as the sun and the environment already handles many
times the amount I've proposed.

In the end, i have created a system that produces power so cheaply,
conveniently and safely, that it effectively competes with all other
power generation systems that came before.

Why is this so special? From 1870 to 1960 the cost of generation
dropped at an average of 5% per year. When it became clear in the
1940s that a paradigm shift was needed to continue this decline, the
oil companies decided they wanted to run down their reserves first,
before we either got high temp nuclear going or ultra-low cost solar.
So, the oil companies bought up the nuclear companies and made damned
sure they would never be operated in ways that would be cheaper than
coal, and bought up all solar research and made damn sure the entire
paradigm of solar was such that it would be too expensive.

The first step in my system is the concentrator. To concentrate the
sunlight 3,900x on orbit - from 1,366 W/m2 to 5.3 MW/m2.I use a gas
stabilized thin film of very low mass and very high efficiency.

Here are some references for thin film use in space

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_satellite
http://origins.jpl.nasa.gov/meetings...ers/meinel.pdf
http://www.cse.sc.edu/~jtang/OSA_paper.htm

Of course i'm not making a telescope - I'm making a concentrator, so I
don't have to be as good as these guys, so, I can lower the mass of my
system as a result.

Next, the 'target' at the focal point of the optical concentrator is a
PV or photovoltaic device. This PV device is highly efficient - it
converts 45% of its incident energy into electrical current. 20% to
40% of the ineffective photons are reflected away - depending on
details of construction - as described in one of my patents on the
subject;

http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/7081584.html

This means that 15% to 35% of the incident sunlight turns into waste
heat and must be disposed of by some sort of heat sink, and radiator
setup.

I have described the approach I use in my solar power satellite. A
clear molded plastic cavity is filled with water. The water acts as a
lens further concentrating sunlight to 5,000x normal intensity. This
is 683 Watts/cm2

Now the junction temperature in the PV device I'm using is 110C. At
110C heat radiates into space at a rate of 0.12 Watts/cm2 - which
means I have to spread the heat into a much larger radiator.

But not all of it. That's because 20% to 40% of the light is
reflected away by dichroic mirrors as described in my patent and 45%
of the energy is converted to electricity with a multi-spectral stack
of PV devices. 90% of that electricity is converted to laser light by
the attached free electron laser which means 40.5% of the incident
energy is radiated away again.

This leaves 39.5% to 19.5% of the incident energy that must be handled
by the heat sink - a value of 133 W/cm2 to 270 W/cm2 of incident
sunlight. This is well within the capacity of liquid cooled systems.
I manufacture the devices with built in micro-pumps and micro-channels
to assist in cooling. Sink rates of over 500 W/cm2 are achieved.

Even so each sq cm of PV device requires 1,108 cm2 to 2,250 cm2 of
radiator area somewhere. Since each sq cm of PV device requires 5,000
cm2 of collector area anyway - would it be possible to build a thin
film heat radiator that was as light weight as the thin film optics?
This is a natural question to ask.

My original idea was evaporate the water into the atmosphere that
rigidized the concentrator. Further analysis indicated that the best
approach would be to create a small plenum on the back of the
concentrator - in permanent shadow - and evaporate hot water into that
- then collect the cool liquid.

Well, its been thought of and researched. None of the stuff is
available free on the internet. But here's a reference that gives the
abstract

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/lo...rnumber=931437

If you look at the details, and want to reduce mass to a minimum, you
basically slap a sheet of thin film plastc on the backside of the
primary concentrator, evaporate water into it at low pressure, to keep
fluid mass down, and structure the back of the concentrator and inside
of the added plastic so that you had a capillary structure - making a
planar heat pipe - and then dehydrate that heat pipe with an osmotic
film - to get the cool water back into the lens cavity.

.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IsoSkin.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pipe

Now, because the sandwich,is itself a thin repeatable unit and only
one side is illuminated while the other side radiates laser energy -
immersed in a water bath the unit sinks heat through BOTH sides - this
is a heat sink rate then ranging from 67 W/cm2 to 185 W/cm2

Space based power might -- might one day be deployed, though

Depends on the cost and the mass of the system and the cost of the
energy ultimately devliered.

I doubt it.

Following the guidelines of the Earlier NASA studies on this subject,
it would seem that way. But, a careful analysis of advance gossamer
spacecraft and applying this to reducing the cost of solar power
satellites, indicates that even with today's launch costs, we can make
great strides in solving our energy problem. the first step in
creating a low cost terrestrial receiver I am involved with now.
Once that is up and running, I will augment output with solar power
satellites, and then beam power directly to users as needed without
fossil fuels or hydrogen.

But if it is, it won't look anything like what you're proposing beyond
involving some photocells and a mirror.

Nonsense. I will invite you to the launch of my system when its
completed.

Oops!

I said above 56 kWh produces 1 tonne of hydrogen from 9 tons of water
- this should have been 56,000 kWh - that's 56 MWh - and at 1/40th
cent per kWh we have $25 per metric ton of hydrogen - this translates
to

$1 per barrel oil
$4 per tonne coal

which is still a bargain!!

This is what comes being good at math in your head - and posting
before I finished by first cup of coffee Sunday morning! lol.

The overall economics and approach doesn't change.

WE CAN REDUCE COST OF GENERATION - we did it for 100 years - and we
stopped doing it 50 years ago when a paradigm shift (either nuclear or
solar) was needed - and we lacked the leadership to do it.

On Aug 16, 9:55 pm, Hugh Gibbons
wrote:
In article
,

wrote:

More than you certainly - and if Hugh was being honest he'd admit
there's no real objection he can raise to what I've described. But,
like you Brad, he's not being honest. Which is just too damn bad for
both of you.

You have been dishonest throughout. At multiple points you have lied
about what I said and about what you had previously said. Each time I
asked you for more information about something that was infeasible as
you described it, you added information while claiming it had been there
all along, and sadly, your so-called solutions to these problems never
really addressed the technical reasons why the original problem wasn't
feasible in the first place.

So go ahead. Try to sell that idea to some other engineers and
scientists and see if they don't laugh you out of the room the same way
I did.

Space based power might -- might one day be deployed, though I doubt it.
But if it is, it won't look anything like what you're proposing beyond
involving some photocells and a mirror.

I can 100% agree with your informative analogy of lord Mook, not that
I don't tend to over-hype on behalf of my research, discoveries and
various plan of actions that seem perfectly logical to that of a
deductive formulated mindset.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

On Aug 17, 5:23 am, wrote:
Oops!

I said above 56 kWh produces 1 tonne of hydrogen from 9 tons of water
- this should have been 56,000 kWh - that's 56 MWh - and at 1/40th
cent per kWh we have $25 per metric ton of hydrogen - this translates
to

$1 per barrel oil
$4 per tonne coal

which is still a bargain!!

This is what comes being good at math in your head - and posting
before I finished by first cup of coffee Sunday morning! lol.

The overall economics and approach doesn't change.

WE CAN REDUCE COST OF GENERATION - we did it for 100 years - and we
stopped doing it 50 years ago when a paradigm shift (either nuclear or
solar) was needed - and we lacked the leadership to do it.

Perhaps when you become God, all such 'New World Order' things of
cheap and clean energy will suddenly materialize before our
dumbfounded eyes, along with your robotics doing most all of the hard
and risky work.

There's no question that sufficiently modern educated humanity has
wasted decades and trillions upon trillions of our hard earned loot,
not to mention having diverted our best expertise and talents into
provoking of others, causing collateral damage and the demise of far
too many innocent souls, as well as having summarily trashed our frail
environment in the process.

But then you wouldn't have changed the past, not even if you could.

”Whoever controls the past, controls the future” / George Orwell

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth