![](/i/fill.gif) |
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Am 14.11.2013 01:12, schrieb Anthony D. Baye:
> "Samuel Benge" <stb### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
>> Fiber optic cables might even make the setup more accurate.
>>
>> I love the whole idea! Any technology that reduces our need for petroleum
>> products is OK in my book :)
>>
>> Sam
>>
>>
http://blog.stylesight.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/dezeen_The-Solar-Sinter-by-Markus-Kayser_08.jpg
>> http://www.robaid.com/wp-content/gallery/art-n-tech/solar-sinter.jpg
>>
http://static.dezeen.com/uploads/2011/06/dezeen_The-Solar-Sinter-by-Markus-Kayser_09.jpg
>>
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zXQCLKLbX9Y/TiBAvhOq9KI/AAAAAAAAATc/FqUYKP9hV9I/s1600/IMG_1218.JPG
>
> The only thing I can think of that might be a problem is getting a beam of the
> right intensity without melting the optical fibre. The temperature at the focus
> would have to be somewhere between 500 and 1500c
Maybe take a bunch of fibers instead, and at the business end make them
all point at the same spot?
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> Am 14.11.2013 01:12, schrieb Anthony D. Baye:
> > "Samuel Benge" <stb### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> >> Fiber optic cables might even make the setup more accurate.
> >>
> >> I love the whole idea! Any technology that reduces our need for petroleum
> >> products is OK in my book :)
> >>
> >> Sam
> >>
> >>
http://blog.stylesight.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/dezeen_The-Solar-Sinter-by-Markus-Kayser_08.jpg
> >> http://www.robaid.com/wp-content/gallery/art-n-tech/solar-sinter.jpg
> >>
http://static.dezeen.com/uploads/2011/06/dezeen_The-Solar-Sinter-by-Markus-Kayser_09.jpg
> >>
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zXQCLKLbX9Y/TiBAvhOq9KI/AAAAAAAAATc/FqUYKP9hV9I/s1600/IMG_1218.JPG
> >
> > The only thing I can think of that might be a problem is getting a beam of the
> > right intensity without melting the optical fibre. The temperature at the focus
> > would have to be somewhere between 500 and 1500c
>
> Maybe take a bunch of fibers instead, and at the business end make them
> all point at the same spot?
possible. I had thought of that: you could run the cables to a single head
containing a collimator. Even then, the cables might need to be replaced every
so often.
The advantage would be not having to keep your collector next to your sintering
machine. Optical Fibre only loses 5% intensity per 1km, which works out to 1%
every 200m, so with relatively short distances, it shouldn't matter very much.
if you could use the light to drive an actual laser, it might be even more
efficient.
Regards,
A.D.B
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
"Anthony D. Baye" <Sha### [at] spamnomore hotmail com> wrote:
> if you could use the light to drive an actual laser, it might be even more
> efficient.
Has anyone ever converted direct sunlight into a laser? Or by "laser," do you
actually just mean "parallel light beam?"
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Am 14.11.2013 19:23, schrieb Samuel Benge:
> "Anthony D. Baye" <Sha### [at] spamnomore hotmail com> wrote:
>> if you could use the light to drive an actual laser, it might be even more
>> efficient.
>
> Has anyone ever converted direct sunlight into a laser? Or by "laser," do you
> actually just mean "parallel light beam?"
Lasing media are typically pumped (i.e. supplied with energy to emit
actual laser light) by some kind of conventional light source - so why
not sunlight?
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> Am 14.11.2013 19:23, schrieb Samuel Benge:
> > "Anthony D. Baye" <Sha### [at] spamnomore hotmail com> wrote:
> >> if you could use the light to drive an actual laser, it might be even more
> >> efficient.
> >
> > Has anyone ever converted direct sunlight into a laser? Or by "laser," do you
> > actually just mean "parallel light beam?"
>
> Lasing media are typically pumped (i.e. supplied with energy to emit
> actual laser light) by some kind of conventional light source - so why
> not sunlight?
Never said it wasn't possible; I was just wondering it anyone had actually made
it work :\ Also, why would laser light be better than simply using parallel
rays?
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Am 14.11.2013 21:20, schrieb Samuel Benge:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
>> Am 14.11.2013 19:23, schrieb Samuel Benge:
>>> "Anthony D. Baye" <Sha### [at] spamnomore hotmail com> wrote:
>>>> if you could use the light to drive an actual laser, it might be even more
>>>> efficient.
>>>
>>> Has anyone ever converted direct sunlight into a laser? Or by "laser," do you
>>> actually just mean "parallel light beam?"
>>
>> Lasing media are typically pumped (i.e. supplied with energy to emit
>> actual laser light) by some kind of conventional light source - so why
>> not sunlight?
>
> Never said it wasn't possible; I was just wondering it anyone had actually made
> it work :\ Also, why would laser light be better than simply using parallel
> rays?
I guess seriously parallel rays are difficult to achieve in the first
place - with one notable solution happening to be the laser.
To achieve parallel rays with optics - whether conventional or fiber
optics - you either need a sufficiently point-like light source, or one
that's far away enough to appear sufficiently point-like. The sun
doesn't really fit that bill. Light from some other star would probably
be fine, if it wasn't for the lack in intensity.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
"Samuel Benge" <stb### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> > Am 14.11.2013 19:23, schrieb Samuel Benge:
> > > "Anthony D. Baye" <Sha### [at] spamnomore hotmail com> wrote:
> > >> if you could use the light to drive an actual laser, it might be even more
> > >> efficient.
> > >
> > > Has anyone ever converted direct sunlight into a laser? Or by "laser," do you
> > > actually just mean "parallel light beam?"
> >
> > Lasing media are typically pumped (i.e. supplied with energy to emit
> > actual laser light) by some kind of conventional light source - so why
> > not sunlight?
>
> Never said it wasn't possible; I was just wondering it anyone had actually made
> it work :\ Also, why would laser light be better than simply using parallel
> rays?
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/408698/solar-powered-laser/
"They work by focusing sunlight onto crystalline materials, such as
Neodymium-doped Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet..."
I don't see any problem with modifying the system to use an independent solar
collector connected with Fibre-optic cables. There are already collectors like
that used for providing natural light during the day to indoor spaces, and I've
read that the light in the cable is so intense that it can start fires if
connected improperly.
Regards,
A.D.B.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Le 14/11/2013 21:20, Samuel Benge a écrit :
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
>> Am 14.11.2013 19:23, schrieb Samuel Benge:
>>> "Anthony D. Baye" <Sha### [at] spamnomore hotmail com> wrote:
>>>> if you could use the light to drive an actual laser, it might be even more
>>>> efficient.
>>>
>>> Has anyone ever converted direct sunlight into a laser? Or by "laser," do you
>>> actually just mean "parallel light beam?"
>>
>> Lasing media are typically pumped (i.e. supplied with energy to emit
>> actual laser light) by some kind of conventional light source - so why
>> not sunlight?
>
> Never said it wasn't possible; I was just wondering it anyone had actually made
> it work :\ Also, why would laser light be better than simply using parallel
> rays?
Laser has 3 main characteristics (compared to normal light):
1. parallel rays (due to the echo chamber, non parallel rays have been
eliminated) (well, the dispersion cone is very tight)
2. single light-wave (at least very narrow spectrum, multiple rays are
possible but due to pumping it's always an atomic transition of the
electrons of the pumped material, unless a later frequency divisor is
used, or a first laser is used to pump a second one)
3. synchronised phase of the photons
The destructive power (or heating) is far more efficient due to point 3.
Point 1 is just an easier way to a better control.
Analogy: lighting a point with normal light is like having a team of
basketball (or whatever your ball-sport), each with a ball, hitting a
movable target (let's use your favourite political leader of the wrong
party) at random time. You get effect but it's less effective than
having all the balls hitting at the same time. (the purpose being
obviously to have the target moving away with injuries)
--
Just because nobody complains does not mean all parachutes are perfect.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Le_Forgeron <lef### [at] free fr> wrote:
> Le 14/11/2013 21:20, Samuel Benge a écrit :
> > clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> >> Am 14.11.2013 19:23, schrieb Samuel Benge:
> >>> "Anthony D. Baye" <Sha### [at] spamnomore hotmail com> wrote:
> >>>> if you could use the light to drive an actual laser, it might be even more
> >>>> efficient.
> >>>
> >>> Has anyone ever converted direct sunlight into a laser? Or by "laser," do you
> >>> actually just mean "parallel light beam?"
> >>
> >> Lasing media are typically pumped (i.e. supplied with energy to emit
> >> actual laser light) by some kind of conventional light source - so why
> >> not sunlight?
> >
> > Never said it wasn't possible; I was just wondering it anyone had actually made
> > it work :\ Also, why would laser light be better than simply using parallel
> > rays?
>
> Laser has 3 main characteristics (compared to normal light):
> 1. parallel rays (due to the echo chamber, non parallel rays have been
> eliminated) (well, the dispersion cone is very tight)
> 2. single light-wave (at least very narrow spectrum, multiple rays are
> possible but due to pumping it's always an atomic transition of the
> electrons of the pumped material, unless a later frequency divisor is
> used, or a first laser is used to pump a second one)
> 3. synchronised phase of the photons
>
> The destructive power (or heating) is far more efficient due to point 3.
> Point 1 is just an easier way to a better control.
>
> Analogy: lighting a point with normal light is like having a team of
> basketball (or whatever your ball-sport), each with a ball, hitting a
> movable target (let's use your favourite political leader of the wrong
> party) at random time. You get effect but it's less effective than
> having all the balls hitting at the same time. (the purpose being
> obviously to have the target moving away with injuries)
Ah, of course. Makes sense!
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
"Anthony D. Baye" <Sha### [at] spamnomore hotmail com> wrote:
> "Samuel Benge" <stb### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> > clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> > > Am 14.11.2013 19:23, schrieb Samuel Benge:
> > > > "Anthony D. Baye" <Sha### [at] spamnomore hotmail com> wrote:
> > > >> if you could use the light to drive an actual laser, it might be even more
> > > >> efficient.
> > > >
> > > > Has anyone ever converted direct sunlight into a laser? Or by "laser," do you
> > > > actually just mean "parallel light beam?"
> > >
> > > Lasing media are typically pumped (i.e. supplied with energy to emit
> > > actual laser light) by some kind of conventional light source - so why
> > > not sunlight?
> >
> > Never said it wasn't possible; I was just wondering it anyone had actually made
> > it work :\ Also, why would laser light be better than simply using parallel
> > rays?
>
> http://www.technologyreview.com/news/408698/solar-powered-laser/
>
> "They work by focusing sunlight onto crystalline materials, such as
> Neodymium-doped Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet..."
>
> I don't see any problem with modifying the system to use an independent solar
> collector connected with Fibre-optic cables. There are already collectors like
> that used for providing natural light during the day to indoor spaces, and I've
> read that the light in the cable is so intense that it can start fires if
> connected improperly.
It would be awesome if they (or somebody) eventually did it that way.
I wonder how accurate the sintering process can get? The artifacts on the
finished products look directional somehow, like they were partially caused by
convection.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |