Re: [TCML] Bremsstrahlung radiation

[Chris Rutherford <chrismrutherford@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Jim,

Thanks for the response, its seems  magnetic energy storage is
becoming viable, far fewer losses...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_magnetic_energy_storage

Thanks

Chris

On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 4:11 PM, jimlux <jimlux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Chris Rutherford wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Just to add a little more context to my question (at the risk of going
>> off topic)...  I was thinking about using highly accelerated heavy
>> ions trapped in a circular orbit as a means of storing energy (in case
>> I wanted to use my Tesla coil where no good power supply was
>> available).  I discovered that if I did manage to store the energy I
>> required, then this would be dissipated as Bremsstrahlung radiation.
>> However I have been thinking that it may be possible to capture this
>> energy and then re-use it to accelerate the ions again, thus
>> re-cycling the energy, allowing the system to hold its 'charge' for
>> longer.  In order to utilize the energy stored in the system for
>> driving my Tesla coil, instead of recycling the Bremsstrahlung
>> radiation for accelerating ions it could be converted in to electrical
>> energy.  What do you think?  Could this work?  Is there a good way of
>> converting x-rays in to electricity?  Any idea on the radius per a
>> given storage capacity KWh? :)
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Chris
>
> Getting perilously close to perpetual motion machines here.
> Quick answer, no, it cannot work, at least in any practical sense.
>
> Orbiting the ions requires a magnetic field, which requires some energy to
> make, and if you use superconducting magnets, you need energy to keep the
> magnets cold.
>
> The bremsstrahlung radiates in all directions, so you'd need to capture it
> and convert it to some other convenient form.  So far, nobody has an
> efficient way to convert energetic photons (which is what that radiation is)
> into electricity.  multijunction solar cells are the ultimate today in doing
> this and they're on the order of 30% efficient, but are optimized for
> visible light photons.  Xray detectors are MUCH worse (you'll see quantum
> efficiencies of 0.05, for instance, and that's without accounting for any of
> the electrical losses, and for single photons, for the most part)
>
> Sure, you can absorb that energy and turn it into heat, and then turn the
> heat into electricity, but then, you're working against the maximum Carnot
> efficiency, which is a function of the hot and cold temperatures.  And, of
> course, any practical scheme for turning heat into electricity has losses on
> top...
> _______________________________________________
> Tesla mailing list
> Tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla
>
_______________________________________________
Tesla mailing list
Tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla