Just to be clear, I was referring to the article, and not to the research it reported on.
But yes, point taken. I should have explained my criticisms of that particular article, rather than being generally dismissive of science reporting by non-scientists.
I could have said that I found the article to be confusing and misleading. About our understanding of the atmosphere's electrical potential, and about the particular research reported. But I just made a snide comment, and pointed to the Feynman lecture.
The description in the article is vague and I can't find any information elsewhere, but the reference to the functionality depending on which metal is used for the inner cylinder makes me think that it's actually a voltaic cell using the moist air as a (poor) electrolyte.
The title sounds like magic. That's what I like about this world. We do not have the great wall or dragons, but we are doing things that sound just as magical to them as great walls and dragons sound to us.
Imagine it were possible to scale this up and somehow harness the full lightning energy of a thunderstorm. Say 1 strike per second with each bolt representing 10^9 joules. Then that is a measly 1 GW peak, only available in certain places at specific times of day and parts of the year, not including losses and inefficiencies .
> harness the full lightning energy of a thunderstorm
As in, walk into every chapel and install a device that works with the apparatus for 'catching' strikes? Not sure what they're called, but I know it's tradition of having a chapel higher than all other buildings which is used to capture potential strikes and earth the current through the ground.
One can dream of extracting sufficient electricity to someday run a dependency-free dehumidifier, which can put a damper on the need to run HVAC in much of the world (damp air feels significantly warmer). One can dream.
16 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 47.8 ms ] threadSee http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_09.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
But yes, point taken. I should have explained my criticisms of that particular article, rather than being generally dismissive of science reporting by non-scientists.
I could have said that I found the article to be confusing and misleading. About our understanding of the atmosphere's electrical potential, and about the particular research reported. But I just made a snide comment, and pointed to the Feynman lecture.
Ie. You could maver make more electricity than used by the fan to blow damp air through your system.
As in, walk into every chapel and install a device that works with the apparatus for 'catching' strikes? Not sure what they're called, but I know it's tradition of having a chapel higher than all other buildings which is used to capture potential strikes and earth the current through the ground.
There's a lot of electrical energy swirling around in the ionosphere!
https://books.google.com/books?id=ngAAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA95&lpg=P...
https://books.google.com/books?id=kwAAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA80&lpg=P...
Other weird stuff: http://www.rexresearch.com/1index.htm