Ok first of all I do have a pretty good idea for a perpetual energy device, but it all depends on one important catalyst, and I haven't been able to find the answer anywhere.
Is there a device, such as a UV light, or other such light source, that could be used to power a solar panel? I know they are designed to take in the rays of the sun, but what exactly is it that is absorbed by these panels from the sun that creates energy?
I read about the photovoltaic effect, but it didn't really answer my question.
If its possible to create energy in a solar panel without the use of the sun, all the while creating more energy then is used to power it, then I think I may have something here. I don't want to explain to much until I know its even feasible to think more into it.
Does the explanation on this page help?
http://rimstar.org/renewnrg/sphowitworks.htm
Some of what you say indicates you already know how it works, so maybe if you explained more of your idea then I could give a better answer.
Quote from: MrKrysis on October 07, 2008, 08:04:11 PM
If its possible to create energy in a solar panel without the use of the sun, all the while creating more energy then is used to power it, then I think I may have something here. I don't want to explain to much until I know its even feasible to think more into it.
When you say "used to power it", is the "it" refering to the solar panel or is the "it" refering to some device you have in mind? Solar panels work by bombarding the electrons with energy, causing them to break free of the atoms. In solar panels, certain wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, light from the sun, does this.
Does this help at all?
-Steve
http://rimstar.org
Now that I read what I wrote, I really didn't explain myself properly before.
I wanted to know if there was something that can be used in lieu of the sun to charge a solar panel. Then how much energy would such a device use as opposed to the power it would create in the solar panel, would it be less, equal, or in some way greater then it?
And i forgot to say thank you, that link you gave was very helpful.
MrKrysis, this thread has got me thinking. We know that artificial light can be used to power things such as calculators and other items that have solar panels.
We have found that we can use pulses of energy to power artificial lights and it uses a lot less energy. I am wondering how must energy can be retrieved from a pulsed light source? Any amount retrieved would add to the overall efficiency of the energy used.
It would make for a good experiment.
I would like to hear what you have in mind.
Quote from: nightlife on October 07, 2008, 10:41:43 PM
We have found that we can use pulses of energy to power artificial lights and it uses a lot less energy. I am wondering how must energy can be retrieved from a pulsed light source? Any amount retrieved would add to the overall efficiency of the energy used.
that man's eye cannot see fast enough pulsing ,makes it to work just fine for light purposes(for example a common fly can see blinking of the TLC tube).Brain keeps an after image of light for some brief moment and "fills in" light gaps.Does a solar panel have man's eye property? i doubt it,but don't say it is impossible neither. I would expect the solar panel to deliver more power when under full light,rather than pulsed one. PV power is proportional to amount of photons it can catch,if u have less photons in pulsed light then it seams reasonable to compare it to a light of a lower intensity...or fast day-night cycles and everyone knows just how much electricity a PV is producing at night :|
PV seams to have a preffered light lenght range,so they will be most efficient under those lights conditions.Its like we cannot see infrared,so it doesn't matter for our eye .
Quote from: MrKrysis on October 07, 2008, 10:17:11 PM
I wanted to know if there was something that can be used in lieu of the sun to charge a solar panel. Then how much energy would such a device use as opposed to the power it would create in the solar panel, would it be less, equal, or in some way greater then it?
Any store bought light that puts out the same wavelengths that the PV panels work with will do. But, there will be heat losses in the solar panel, then more losses in the wiring going from the PV panels back to the light. So the energy going back into the light would be less than the energy being put out by the light. You'd need an external source of energy to make up for the losses. And then you also want some extra energy out to power something else.
But then again, there's Owen P. Barker's solar harness that somehow used magnets to allegedly produce more power from solar panels. See US patent 5,009,243.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=K-EbAAAAEBAJ&dq=5009243
I did a quick and dirty test once with magnets, a solar cell and the sun but got no increace in output other than normal. But it was quick and dirty and hardly comprehensive. My guess was he was increasing the efficiency of the solar cells by using the magnetic fields to clean up the paths for the electrons to move in the cells, decreasing losses due to heat.
Quote from: MrKrysis on October 07, 2008, 10:17:11 PM
And i forgot to say thank you, that link you gave was very helpful.
You're welcome. I tried to make it simple and clear.
-Steve
http://rimstar.org
Hello MrKrysis
I read this and had an idea, not sure if it is possible though.
we use solar panels to collect energy from the photons popping off the extra electron right?
I know that silicon is used in conjunction with phosphorus and boron for a basic panel.
could different elements higher in electrons, two extra electrons instead of one, maybe work for,say, ultraviolet or even gamma or beta radiation?
Why cant we do this for the whole electromagnetic spectrum?
Are photons only for visible light or are they for the whole spectrum?
Quote from: PYRODIN123321 on October 08, 2008, 12:20:17 PM
I know that silicon is used in conjunction with phosphorus and boron for a basic panel.
could different elements higher in electrons, two extra electrons instead of one, maybe work for,say, ultraviolet or even gamma or beta radiation?
I recall reading a few times in the last year of someone finding a way to pop off more than one electron per photon.
Quote from: PYRODIN123321 on October 08, 2008, 12:20:17 PM
Why cant we do this for the whole electromagnetic spectrum?
Are photons only for visible light or are they for the whole spectrum?
The multijunction solar cells do just this. Silicon solar cells capture only a part of the visible spectrum but multijunction solar cells, such as Spectrolab's, capture more of the visible spectrum along with some of the infrared.
-Steve
http://rimstar.org
It's really hard for me to explain much more of what im talking about without giving the whole thing away.
And i'll be perfectly honest with everyone, I knew very little about solar power/energy until yesterday when this idea popped into my head, and I began to research it.
Right from the beginning my I realized the energy output would probably be less then what was used to power the device charging it.
But i had a theory, even before I read about concentrated solar power, that if we used lenses of some sort, could we perhaps magnify the power? Could we take a small amount of light/heat and somehow amplify the intake to be greater then the output?
Of course doing so would increase the overall production cost, but in the long run I think it would save money, if applied to.... well you know what, i pretty much did give away my whole idea already.
My idea basically is that we could create power, that produces itself. By using solar panels, we could charge an energy source to charge the solar panels. ;D
and that in itself would be a perpetual energy device would it not? Well maybe not entirely, because the initial start of the machine would take another energy source. If this is at all possible though, it could be applied to all kinds of technology the world over.
and now because Im bad at keeping secrets my idea is out there, and someone else will probably go forth and utilize it and take all the credit, haha.
also i do realize, that the best solar panels out there now, are only capable of taking in roughly 40% of the suns rays. So maybe I do have a good idea, that just wont be possible for a few more years, when our technology is better.
Although, if we were able to amplify the power, it still may be at least worth an experiment to try it out today.
ha! if u can come up with an energy amplifier u r my master :) sun rays concentrators r not amplyfing energy,just collecting energy from bigger area to make more powerfull light on the smaller area of PV.In that case u have indeed much less costs because PV can be much smaller but has to be cooled down( possibly combined with solar water heater :) ) aja it reminds me that somone on this forum was speaking about all matter radiating energy constantly and about focusing of ambient radiation if my memory is still ok :)
I was wondering the same exact thing when I saw this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTGsM9pplUs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTGsM9pplUs)
More info...
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/luxim-plasma-lifi-light-bulb-led-cfl.php (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/luxim-plasma-lifi-light-bulb-led-cfl.php)
Surround one of these with solar panels maybe?
Peace,
~Golden Mean
Quote from: Golden Mean on October 08, 2008, 08:11:11 PM
I was wondering the same exact thing when I saw this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTGsM9pplUs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTGsM9pplUs)
More info...
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/luxim-plasma-lifi-light-bulb-led-cfl.php (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/luxim-plasma-lifi-light-bulb-led-cfl.php)
Surround one of these with solar panels maybe?
Awsome! Awsome!
That's amazing. Thanks for showing this.
Quote from: ResinRat2 on October 08, 2008, 09:23:20 PM
Awsome! Awsome!
That's amazing. Thanks for showing this.
Agreed!! You're most welcome.
I want to get my hands on one of these plasma bulbs and do some testing. The light spectrum is even BETTER than metal halides and very close to the Sun. I can think of a lot of applications for this technology!
"The future looks BRIGHT!" ~ literally! ;D
Much Peace,
~Golden Mean
Definately will not work solar cells are very inefficiant in the means of converting energy I think If I recall the ones nasa uses that cost tons of cas only have like 22-25% efficantcy now you couple that with conversion... Good luck but I will say there is a couple of companies working on 3rd gen solar that will charge your cell phone off of your home lighting which would be benificial cause your light is normally on several hours of the day as it is...
Free charge for that cell phone or MP3 player not bad imho...
People tend to shun the 3rd gen solar cause it uses organic cells but it is unlike the traditional organic solar cells because the active ingrediant used is dry and does not need to be wet putting to rest the biggest issues with homemade organic panels and even pre third gen production models as they used to have to use a liquid form of some chemical errr I forget the exact name but anyone could make these but... not worth it as the contents evaporate and freeze in the winter you end up with broken panels and so on...
But have a look... There is a couple of companies using this new printed solar technology and one company even reports a possible 15% efficiantcy which is good for just about any solar not to mention production on a massive scale they figure could bring prices down to 10cents a watt according to interviews and articles I have read this would be phenomenal.
I think the names are konarka and nanosolar and there are a couple of other companies out of china I believe as well... These are the people who will bring to market this for home use... As usual it will be industry first! LAME! that doesnt help the econemy at all just helps the rich get richer...
But I guess let the folks with the money pay for the R&D I say then we could scab it up at near bottom line pricing.
-infringer-
There is a company out there that is developing infrared resonant nanoantennae arrays. They are up into the 80's compared to 20's on pvs. Water molecules love to resonate at ir freqs. Glass of water hooked up to a resonant circuit do it?
OK, here is all I know about solar cells, specifically, one of the first solar cells ever built. I have in my possession from my Dad, who used to work at Bell Labs, one of the original solar cells produced to power the telestar, the world's first telecommunications satellite. Now, this is quite old and I am sure is no where near the 30-40% efficient rating of modern cells but, from playing with it even as a little kid and now, I have found that I can increase the output from the cell by using a magnifying glass. This cell is hooked up to a mA meter (the way my Dad made it) and the output doubles with the use of even a crude magnifying lens. This cell also responds very well to the spectrum put out by a simple single LED.
Ever since I was a kid I never understood why installations of solar panels did not use at least a Fresnel lens type of arrangement. I also found that I could take mirrors and angle them to collect even more light and between this and the magnifying lens, I can seriously peg the mA meter. This is just a single, old design cell from the 50's.
Anyway, I liked the suggestion that someone made about finding out what freqs of the light spectrum the cells respond to and then, possibly making other cells that respond to the other freqs. I believe there is much more power to be had here than is being used today. Just my thoughts.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on October 09, 2008, 01:08:31 AM
Ever since I was a kid I never understood why installations of solar panels did not use at least a Fresnel lens type of arrangement. I also found that I could take mirrors and angle them to collect even more light and between this and the magnifying lens, I can seriously peg the mA meter. This is just a single, old design cell from the 50's.
They're starting to do this more now. Instead of having 1 square meter of expensive solar cells, a complete solar panel in other words, to capture 1 square meter of sunlight, they're using a single small solar cell, 1 square inch for example, and a cheaper 1 square meter fresnel lense to capture that same 1 square meter of sunlight. Here's one company (SunCube is the product):
http://www.greenandgoldenergy.com.au/
Spectrolab multijunction cells are up to 40% efficient. I'm not sure which version the SunCube uses, but I think I recall it was in the 30s%.
One issue is heating. The hotter a solar cell gets the less efficient it is, dramatically. The colder the better. When you focus 1 square meter of sunlight on a single cell you get lots of heating. These multijunction cells do turn infrared into electricity so that takes care of some of the heat but I think some cooling is still needed. Another design issue I recall is that the fresnel lense has to focus the light evenly over the solar cell.
But even with 40% efficiency, that means that only 40% of the light what you capture will be turned into electricity and recycled back into powering the lights. The same applies for 99.9%; you have 0.1% less in the next cycle, add that to the next cycle and you're down to 0.2% less, ... It can't be closed loop.
-Steve
http://rimstar.org
Solar arrays are good until the sun ducks behind a cloud or below the treeline.
Now infrared energy stored in water molecular resonance is there all the time. 50 percent of the suns emissions at the magnetosphere is at infrared wavelengths. Why this huge scource of energy is neglected is beyond me. It isn't closed loop until we turn on a lightbulb and start heating the atmosphere again. How many tetrawatt hours can be converted from just a 1/2 mile of gulfstream thermal energy flow?
I agree Sparks,
Seems like there is tons of energy coming in from space, not to mention all the thermal energy from the center of the earth.
Why cant we step up the thermal Infrared energy like a step up transformer-higher frequency lower power.
its a electromagnetic wave right?
Is this even possible?
Im a little foggy on how light is both a electromagnetic wave and a particle.
At what point on the electromagnetic spectrum does a coil interact or does it at all?
Microwaves?
Why cant we make a light antenna array? or is that sorta what a solar panel is?
@Pyrodini
Quantom physics can describe energy in two ways. Either a photon packet or an electromagnetic wave. In either case they are the accepted energy currency of the known Universe.
Water absorbs infrared energy and converts it to lower frequency wavelengths depending on the temperature of the water. This is still a high frequency to catch on an antennae. The antennae on a photovoltaic is actually as small as the holes and electrons created by the dopants. This is a mighty small antennae. Infrared might be better collected by thermal agitation of an ionized gas and concentration of the ionized gas to raise the temperature of the gas by use of magnetic or electrostatic concentrators. Something like a compressorless heat pump. Nano antennaes and circuits made to resonate at such small wavelengths are doable but technically difficult. Another technique may be the reflection of lower frequency wavelengths through the water which would mix with the infrared waves and a special circuit to demodulate the infrared.
@Sparks,
Cool, so the water would be your stepdown transformer?