Mixing
Hypothetical energy source with higher output than Dyson Sphere
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
For my Science fiction and Fantasy genre book, I need an energy source whose energy output should be much more than even a fully functional Dyson sphere. Can you please suggest some hypothetical concept as an option?
energy
edited 49 mins ago
John Locke
2,043223
asked 1 hour ago
Arpit
11
New contributor
Arpit is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
For my Science fiction and Fantasy genre book, I need an energy source whose energy output should be much more than even a fully functional Dyson sphere. Can you please suggest some hypothetical concept as an option?
energy
edited 49 mins ago
John Locke
2,043223
asked 1 hour ago
Arpit
11
New contributor
Arpit is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
2 Dyson spheres around a pair of binary stars!
– Henry Taylor
1 hour ago
Can you please suggest some other alternative whose energy output could be much higher, like equivalent to thousands or millions of Dyson sphere
– Arpit
1 hour ago
Arpit, Henry Taylor probably did not see your response. For more information, see this post on how to use@mentions
– John Locke
47 mins ago
What are you looking for, higher total energy, higher power (rate that energy is produced), or higher energy efficiency (energy produced vs. energy wasted)
– Cort Ammon
44 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
For my Science fiction and Fantasy genre book, I need an energy source whose energy output should be much more than even a fully functional Dyson sphere. Can you please suggest some hypothetical concept as an option?
energy
edited 49 mins ago
John Locke
2,043223
asked 1 hour ago
Arpit
11
New contributor
Arpit is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
For my Science fiction and Fantasy genre book, I need an energy source whose energy output should be much more than even a fully functional Dyson sphere. Can you please suggest some hypothetical concept as an option?
energy
energy
edited 49 mins ago
John Locke
2,043223
asked 1 hour ago
Arpit
11
New contributor
Arpit is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 49 mins ago
John Locke
2,043223
asked 1 hour ago
Arpit
11
New contributor
Arpit is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 49 mins ago
John Locke
2,043223
edited 49 mins ago
John Locke
2,043223
edited 49 mins ago
John Locke
2,043223
2,043223
asked 1 hour ago
Arpit
11
New contributor
Arpit is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 1 hour ago
Arpit
11
asked 1 hour ago
Arpit
11
11
New contributor
Arpit is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Arpit is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Arpit is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
2 Dyson spheres around a pair of binary stars!
– Henry Taylor
1 hour ago
Can you please suggest some other alternative whose energy output could be much higher, like equivalent to thousands or millions of Dyson sphere
– Arpit
1 hour ago
Arpit, Henry Taylor probably did not see your response. For more information, see this post on how to use@mentions
– John Locke
47 mins ago
What are you looking for, higher total energy, higher power (rate that energy is produced), or higher energy efficiency (energy produced vs. energy wasted)
– Cort Ammon
44 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1
2 Dyson spheres around a pair of binary stars!
– Henry Taylor
1 hour ago
Can you please suggest some other alternative whose energy output could be much higher, like equivalent to thousands or millions of Dyson sphere
– Arpit
1 hour ago
Arpit, Henry Taylor probably did not see your response. For more information, see this post on how to use@mentions
– John Locke
47 mins ago
What are you looking for, higher total energy, higher power (rate that energy is produced), or higher energy efficiency (energy produced vs. energy wasted)
– Cort Ammon
44 mins ago
1
1
2 Dyson spheres around a pair of binary stars!
– Henry Taylor
1 hour ago
2 Dyson spheres around a pair of binary stars!
– Henry Taylor
1 hour ago
Can you please suggest some other alternative whose energy output could be much higher, like equivalent to thousands or millions of Dyson sphere
– Arpit
1 hour ago
Can you please suggest some other alternative whose energy output could be much higher, like equivalent to thousands or millions of Dyson sphere
– Arpit
1 hour ago
Arpit, Henry Taylor probably did not see your response. For more information, see this post on how to use
@mentions– John Locke
47 mins ago
Arpit, Henry Taylor probably did not see your response. For more information, see this post on how to use
@mentions– John Locke
47 mins ago
What are you looking for, higher total energy, higher power (rate that energy is produced), or higher energy efficiency (energy produced vs. energy wasted)
– Cort Ammon
44 mins ago
What are you looking for, higher total energy, higher power (rate that energy is produced), or higher energy efficiency (energy produced vs. energy wasted)
– Cort Ammon
44 mins ago
add a comment |Â
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
The idea of a Dyson sphere is to capture all the energy produced by a star, at the rate the star normally produces energy. Which might take billions of years. One way to get more energy out of it (per unit of time) would be if you could accelerate the burning of the star.
I guess this is what was seen in The Force Awakens, where the bad guys had a weapon that consumed a star and almost instantaneously turned it into blaster beams or something.
Somewhat more "realistically", you might have something shaped like a Dyson sphere that surrounds a star and consumes it (converting all matter into energy) in a much shorter timespan than the normal life of the star. Then you could go looking for another star to consume, and so on.
answered 47 mins ago
Joe
3,3991922
1
But you'd get more power that way, and the question specifically asks for energy.
– nzaman
22 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
A bigger Dyson sphere
You can build a Dyson sphere around a galaxy. Or around TON 618, one of the shiniest quasars known:
The surrounding galaxy is not visible from Earth, because the quasar itself outshines it. With an absolute magnitude of −30.7, it shines with a luminosity of 4×1040 watts, or as brilliantly as 140 trillion Suns, making it one of the brightest objects in the Universe.
Compared to an hypothetical Dyson sphere built around our sun, the TON 618 one would give way more than the output you mentioned in the commenta to your question.
answered 38 mins ago
Renan
36.3k1184186
1
I was going to write an answer about how you could use a supernova to generate more power. They output about 1 foe ($10^44 J$) over 20ish days. Over 20 days, TON 618 outputs 200 foe! That's insane! That quasar literally outshines supernovae!
– Cort Ammon
33 mins ago
Also, relevant XKCD. The hardware to manage more power output than a supernova itself is going to be a non-trivial piece of handwavium itself!
– Cort Ammon
32 mins ago
@CortAmmon that What If is my very favorite one :)
– Renan
30 mins ago
1
... so bright it outshines supernovae by a factor of 200, yet so far away that it's too dim to see with the naked eye by a good margin. Every time I think I have no sense of scale in the universe, the universe kicks my knees out from underneath me and points out that I don't even have a solid concept of what having no sense of scale might be like. I need a new scale for my bafflement at what the universe has in store!
– Cort Ammon
17 mins ago
1
"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
– jdunlop
13 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
I think @nzaman had the right idea- black holes contain an enormous amount of energy, in the form of angular momentum. However, you don't need turbines to harness the energy. As explained by this video, an object that escapes the event horizon by giving up some of its mass will speed up.
The amount that the object speeds up is even more than the mass that the object gives up. This is called the Penrose Process. Here is a screenshot from the video that nicely illustrates the process:
The object enters the black hole and then shoots out, accelerating as it does.
There is also another way to harvest energy from the black hole, and it doesn't involve giving up mass. Shining a laser into a black hole has the same effect. In the process of superradiant scattering, we can use mirrors to make the laser reflect through the black hole over and over. The light continually amplifies, until it is strong enough to be emitted and used as a power source. If the light isn't emitted, it has the potential to create possibly the most destructive weapon in the entire universe. Called the Black Hole Bomb, the light will eventually break free of the mirrors and wreak who-knows-what havoc.
answered 26 mins ago
John Locke
2,043223
You can't escape from the event horizon. It's the ergosphere that you're escaping from.
– Acccumulation
14 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Black holes at the centre of galaxies.
Collect energy by placing a series of giant turbines just outside the accretion disk, or even in it, to be driven by the rotating matter.
If you could somehow couple them to form a tight circle, it would both neutralise the gravity well of the black hole, as well as create another plane of rotation which you can tap for energy.
answered 52 mins ago
nzaman
7,74211340
2
The friction would cause the whole thing to deorbit.
– Renan
51 mins ago
Also if you neutralize the gravity of the hole, you no longer have an accretion disc anyway.
– Renan
50 mins ago
@Renan: Neutralise from the perspective of the turbine ring. As one part of the ring begins to spiral in, the other side will be pushed away from the BH. This will be retarded by the accretion disc particles which will try to push it back in, which in turn will push the sinking area out, so on average it stays in place. Naturally, any known material wouldn't survive this kind of cyclic stress, but if you can afford to build a ring of turbines that big, you have the materials technology too.
– nzaman
24 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
You've not got the "reality-check" tag on this one, so how about...
Vacuum Energy
This is high-octane handwavium. It's almost certainly nonsense, but so is readily harnessing power on the scales you're talking about, so let's roll with it. Vacuum energy is one of the theories behind the energy deficit between observable space and the rate of universal expansion. Its potential scale varies by theoretician from very small (the most likely case) to enormous (the most useful case) to infinite (unlikely, but even more useful for your world).
Now, harvesting the energy responsible for the expansion of the universe might have some localized (or not-so-localized) effects on spacetime, but that could be another fun plot point:
"Preserve the universe!" the activists cried, their placards waving outside the administration building. Inside, the C-suite scoffed. Redshifting of the local cluster had been only 1.4% over the last decade, nothing to worry about.
Assuming you set your reality's version of vacuum energy to the "infinite" or "near-infinite" end of the scale, you can have as much power as you want.
answered 6 mins ago
jdunlop
5,61711035
add a comment |Â
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
The idea of a Dyson sphere is to capture all the energy produced by a star, at the rate the star normally produces energy. Which might take billions of years. One way to get more energy out of it (per unit of time) would be if you could accelerate the burning of the star.
I guess this is what was seen in The Force Awakens, where the bad guys had a weapon that consumed a star and almost instantaneously turned it into blaster beams or something.
Somewhat more "realistically", you might have something shaped like a Dyson sphere that surrounds a star and consumes it (converting all matter into energy) in a much shorter timespan than the normal life of the star. Then you could go looking for another star to consume, and so on.
answered 47 mins ago
Joe
3,3991922
1
But you'd get more power that way, and the question specifically asks for energy.
– nzaman
22 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
The idea of a Dyson sphere is to capture all the energy produced by a star, at the rate the star normally produces energy. Which might take billions of years. One way to get more energy out of it (per unit of time) would be if you could accelerate the burning of the star.
I guess this is what was seen in The Force Awakens, where the bad guys had a weapon that consumed a star and almost instantaneously turned it into blaster beams or something.
Somewhat more "realistically", you might have something shaped like a Dyson sphere that surrounds a star and consumes it (converting all matter into energy) in a much shorter timespan than the normal life of the star. Then you could go looking for another star to consume, and so on.
answered 47 mins ago
Joe
3,3991922
1
But you'd get more power that way, and the question specifically asks for energy.
– nzaman
22 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
The idea of a Dyson sphere is to capture all the energy produced by a star, at the rate the star normally produces energy. Which might take billions of years. One way to get more energy out of it (per unit of time) would be if you could accelerate the burning of the star.
I guess this is what was seen in The Force Awakens, where the bad guys had a weapon that consumed a star and almost instantaneously turned it into blaster beams or something.
Somewhat more "realistically", you might have something shaped like a Dyson sphere that surrounds a star and consumes it (converting all matter into energy) in a much shorter timespan than the normal life of the star. Then you could go looking for another star to consume, and so on.
answered 47 mins ago
Joe
3,3991922
The idea of a Dyson sphere is to capture all the energy produced by a star, at the rate the star normally produces energy. Which might take billions of years. One way to get more energy out of it (per unit of time) would be if you could accelerate the burning of the star.
I guess this is what was seen in The Force Awakens, where the bad guys had a weapon that consumed a star and almost instantaneously turned it into blaster beams or something.
Somewhat more "realistically", you might have something shaped like a Dyson sphere that surrounds a star and consumes it (converting all matter into energy) in a much shorter timespan than the normal life of the star. Then you could go looking for another star to consume, and so on.
answered 47 mins ago
Joe
3,3991922
answered 47 mins ago
Joe
3,3991922
answered 47 mins ago
Joe
3,3991922
answered 47 mins ago
Joe
3,3991922
3,3991922
1
But you'd get more power that way, and the question specifically asks for energy.
– nzaman
22 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1
But you'd get more power that way, and the question specifically asks for energy.
– nzaman
22 mins ago
1
1
But you'd get more power that way, and the question specifically asks for energy.
– nzaman
22 mins ago
But you'd get more power that way, and the question specifically asks for energy.
– nzaman
22 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
A bigger Dyson sphere
You can build a Dyson sphere around a galaxy. Or around TON 618, one of the shiniest quasars known:
The surrounding galaxy is not visible from Earth, because the quasar itself outshines it. With an absolute magnitude of −30.7, it shines with a luminosity of 4×1040 watts, or as brilliantly as 140 trillion Suns, making it one of the brightest objects in the Universe.
Compared to an hypothetical Dyson sphere built around our sun, the TON 618 one would give way more than the output you mentioned in the commenta to your question.
answered 38 mins ago
Renan
36.3k1184186
1
I was going to write an answer about how you could use a supernova to generate more power. They output about 1 foe ($10^44 J$) over 20ish days. Over 20 days, TON 618 outputs 200 foe! That's insane! That quasar literally outshines supernovae!
– Cort Ammon
33 mins ago
Also, relevant XKCD. The hardware to manage more power output than a supernova itself is going to be a non-trivial piece of handwavium itself!
– Cort Ammon
32 mins ago
@CortAmmon that What If is my very favorite one :)
– Renan
30 mins ago
1
... so bright it outshines supernovae by a factor of 200, yet so far away that it's too dim to see with the naked eye by a good margin. Every time I think I have no sense of scale in the universe, the universe kicks my knees out from underneath me and points out that I don't even have a solid concept of what having no sense of scale might be like. I need a new scale for my bafflement at what the universe has in store!
– Cort Ammon
17 mins ago
1
"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
– jdunlop
13 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
A bigger Dyson sphere
You can build a Dyson sphere around a galaxy. Or around TON 618, one of the shiniest quasars known:
The surrounding galaxy is not visible from Earth, because the quasar itself outshines it. With an absolute magnitude of −30.7, it shines with a luminosity of 4×1040 watts, or as brilliantly as 140 trillion Suns, making it one of the brightest objects in the Universe.
Compared to an hypothetical Dyson sphere built around our sun, the TON 618 one would give way more than the output you mentioned in the commenta to your question.
answered 38 mins ago
Renan
36.3k1184186
1
I was going to write an answer about how you could use a supernova to generate more power. They output about 1 foe ($10^44 J$) over 20ish days. Over 20 days, TON 618 outputs 200 foe! That's insane! That quasar literally outshines supernovae!
– Cort Ammon
33 mins ago
Also, relevant XKCD. The hardware to manage more power output than a supernova itself is going to be a non-trivial piece of handwavium itself!
– Cort Ammon
32 mins ago
@CortAmmon that What If is my very favorite one :)
– Renan
30 mins ago
1
... so bright it outshines supernovae by a factor of 200, yet so far away that it's too dim to see with the naked eye by a good margin. Every time I think I have no sense of scale in the universe, the universe kicks my knees out from underneath me and points out that I don't even have a solid concept of what having no sense of scale might be like. I need a new scale for my bafflement at what the universe has in store!
– Cort Ammon
17 mins ago
1
"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
– jdunlop
13 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
A bigger Dyson sphere
You can build a Dyson sphere around a galaxy. Or around TON 618, one of the shiniest quasars known:
The surrounding galaxy is not visible from Earth, because the quasar itself outshines it. With an absolute magnitude of −30.7, it shines with a luminosity of 4×1040 watts, or as brilliantly as 140 trillion Suns, making it one of the brightest objects in the Universe.
Compared to an hypothetical Dyson sphere built around our sun, the TON 618 one would give way more than the output you mentioned in the commenta to your question.
answered 38 mins ago
Renan
36.3k1184186
A bigger Dyson sphere
You can build a Dyson sphere around a galaxy. Or around TON 618, one of the shiniest quasars known:
The surrounding galaxy is not visible from Earth, because the quasar itself outshines it. With an absolute magnitude of −30.7, it shines with a luminosity of 4×1040 watts, or as brilliantly as 140 trillion Suns, making it one of the brightest objects in the Universe.
Compared to an hypothetical Dyson sphere built around our sun, the TON 618 one would give way more than the output you mentioned in the commenta to your question.
answered 38 mins ago
Renan
36.3k1184186
answered 38 mins ago
Renan
36.3k1184186
answered 38 mins ago
Renan
36.3k1184186
answered 38 mins ago
Renan
36.3k1184186
36.3k1184186
1
I was going to write an answer about how you could use a supernova to generate more power. They output about 1 foe ($10^44 J$) over 20ish days. Over 20 days, TON 618 outputs 200 foe! That's insane! That quasar literally outshines supernovae!
– Cort Ammon
33 mins ago
Also, relevant XKCD. The hardware to manage more power output than a supernova itself is going to be a non-trivial piece of handwavium itself!
– Cort Ammon
32 mins ago
@CortAmmon that What If is my very favorite one :)
– Renan
30 mins ago
1
... so bright it outshines supernovae by a factor of 200, yet so far away that it's too dim to see with the naked eye by a good margin. Every time I think I have no sense of scale in the universe, the universe kicks my knees out from underneath me and points out that I don't even have a solid concept of what having no sense of scale might be like. I need a new scale for my bafflement at what the universe has in store!
– Cort Ammon
17 mins ago
1
"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
– jdunlop
13 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1
I was going to write an answer about how you could use a supernova to generate more power. They output about 1 foe ($10^44 J$) over 20ish days. Over 20 days, TON 618 outputs 200 foe! That's insane! That quasar literally outshines supernovae!
– Cort Ammon
33 mins ago
Also, relevant XKCD. The hardware to manage more power output than a supernova itself is going to be a non-trivial piece of handwavium itself!
– Cort Ammon
32 mins ago
@CortAmmon that What If is my very favorite one :)
– Renan
30 mins ago
1
... so bright it outshines supernovae by a factor of 200, yet so far away that it's too dim to see with the naked eye by a good margin. Every time I think I have no sense of scale in the universe, the universe kicks my knees out from underneath me and points out that I don't even have a solid concept of what having no sense of scale might be like. I need a new scale for my bafflement at what the universe has in store!
– Cort Ammon
17 mins ago
1
"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
– jdunlop
13 mins ago
1
1
I was going to write an answer about how you could use a supernova to generate more power. They output about 1 foe ($10^44 J$) over 20ish days. Over 20 days, TON 618 outputs 200 foe! That's insane! That quasar literally outshines supernovae!
– Cort Ammon
33 mins ago
I was going to write an answer about how you could use a supernova to generate more power. They output about 1 foe ($10^44 J$) over 20ish days. Over 20 days, TON 618 outputs 200 foe! That's insane! That quasar literally outshines supernovae!
– Cort Ammon
33 mins ago
Also, relevant XKCD. The hardware to manage more power output than a supernova itself is going to be a non-trivial piece of handwavium itself!
– Cort Ammon
32 mins ago
Also, relevant XKCD. The hardware to manage more power output than a supernova itself is going to be a non-trivial piece of handwavium itself!
– Cort Ammon
32 mins ago
@CortAmmon that What If is my very favorite one :)
– Renan
30 mins ago
@CortAmmon that What If is my very favorite one :)
– Renan
30 mins ago
1
1
... so bright it outshines supernovae by a factor of 200, yet so far away that it's too dim to see with the naked eye by a good margin. Every time I think I have no sense of scale in the universe, the universe kicks my knees out from underneath me and points out that I don't even have a solid concept of what having no sense of scale might be like. I need a new scale for my bafflement at what the universe has in store!
– Cort Ammon
17 mins ago
... so bright it outshines supernovae by a factor of 200, yet so far away that it's too dim to see with the naked eye by a good margin. Every time I think I have no sense of scale in the universe, the universe kicks my knees out from underneath me and points out that I don't even have a solid concept of what having no sense of scale might be like. I need a new scale for my bafflement at what the universe has in store!
– Cort Ammon
17 mins ago
1
1
"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
– jdunlop
13 mins ago
"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
– jdunlop
13 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
I think @nzaman had the right idea- black holes contain an enormous amount of energy, in the form of angular momentum. However, you don't need turbines to harness the energy. As explained by this video, an object that escapes the event horizon by giving up some of its mass will speed up.
The amount that the object speeds up is even more than the mass that the object gives up. This is called the Penrose Process. Here is a screenshot from the video that nicely illustrates the process:
The object enters the black hole and then shoots out, accelerating as it does.
There is also another way to harvest energy from the black hole, and it doesn't involve giving up mass. Shining a laser into a black hole has the same effect. In the process of superradiant scattering, we can use mirrors to make the laser reflect through the black hole over and over. The light continually amplifies, until it is strong enough to be emitted and used as a power source. If the light isn't emitted, it has the potential to create possibly the most destructive weapon in the entire universe. Called the Black Hole Bomb, the light will eventually break free of the mirrors and wreak who-knows-what havoc.
answered 26 mins ago
John Locke
2,043223
You can't escape from the event horizon. It's the ergosphere that you're escaping from.
– Acccumulation
14 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
I think @nzaman had the right idea- black holes contain an enormous amount of energy, in the form of angular momentum. However, you don't need turbines to harness the energy. As explained by this video, an object that escapes the event horizon by giving up some of its mass will speed up.
The amount that the object speeds up is even more than the mass that the object gives up. This is called the Penrose Process. Here is a screenshot from the video that nicely illustrates the process:
The object enters the black hole and then shoots out, accelerating as it does.
There is also another way to harvest energy from the black hole, and it doesn't involve giving up mass. Shining a laser into a black hole has the same effect. In the process of superradiant scattering, we can use mirrors to make the laser reflect through the black hole over and over. The light continually amplifies, until it is strong enough to be emitted and used as a power source. If the light isn't emitted, it has the potential to create possibly the most destructive weapon in the entire universe. Called the Black Hole Bomb, the light will eventually break free of the mirrors and wreak who-knows-what havoc.
answered 26 mins ago
John Locke
2,043223
You can't escape from the event horizon. It's the ergosphere that you're escaping from.
– Acccumulation
14 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
I think @nzaman had the right idea- black holes contain an enormous amount of energy, in the form of angular momentum. However, you don't need turbines to harness the energy. As explained by this video, an object that escapes the event horizon by giving up some of its mass will speed up.
The amount that the object speeds up is even more than the mass that the object gives up. This is called the Penrose Process. Here is a screenshot from the video that nicely illustrates the process:
The object enters the black hole and then shoots out, accelerating as it does.
There is also another way to harvest energy from the black hole, and it doesn't involve giving up mass. Shining a laser into a black hole has the same effect. In the process of superradiant scattering, we can use mirrors to make the laser reflect through the black hole over and over. The light continually amplifies, until it is strong enough to be emitted and used as a power source. If the light isn't emitted, it has the potential to create possibly the most destructive weapon in the entire universe. Called the Black Hole Bomb, the light will eventually break free of the mirrors and wreak who-knows-what havoc.
answered 26 mins ago
John Locke
2,043223
I think @nzaman had the right idea- black holes contain an enormous amount of energy, in the form of angular momentum. However, you don't need turbines to harness the energy. As explained by this video, an object that escapes the event horizon by giving up some of its mass will speed up.
The amount that the object speeds up is even more than the mass that the object gives up. This is called the Penrose Process. Here is a screenshot from the video that nicely illustrates the process:
The object enters the black hole and then shoots out, accelerating as it does.
There is also another way to harvest energy from the black hole, and it doesn't involve giving up mass. Shining a laser into a black hole has the same effect. In the process of superradiant scattering, we can use mirrors to make the laser reflect through the black hole over and over. The light continually amplifies, until it is strong enough to be emitted and used as a power source. If the light isn't emitted, it has the potential to create possibly the most destructive weapon in the entire universe. Called the Black Hole Bomb, the light will eventually break free of the mirrors and wreak who-knows-what havoc.
answered 26 mins ago
John Locke
2,043223
answered 26 mins ago
John Locke
2,043223
answered 26 mins ago
John Locke
2,043223
answered 26 mins ago
John Locke
2,043223
2,043223
You can't escape from the event horizon. It's the ergosphere that you're escaping from.
– Acccumulation
14 mins ago
add a comment |Â
You can't escape from the event horizon. It's the ergosphere that you're escaping from.
– Acccumulation
14 mins ago
You can't escape from the event horizon. It's the ergosphere that you're escaping from.
– Acccumulation
14 mins ago
You can't escape from the event horizon. It's the ergosphere that you're escaping from.
– Acccumulation
14 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Black holes at the centre of galaxies.
Collect energy by placing a series of giant turbines just outside the accretion disk, or even in it, to be driven by the rotating matter.
If you could somehow couple them to form a tight circle, it would both neutralise the gravity well of the black hole, as well as create another plane of rotation which you can tap for energy.
answered 52 mins ago
nzaman
7,74211340
2
The friction would cause the whole thing to deorbit.
– Renan
51 mins ago
Also if you neutralize the gravity of the hole, you no longer have an accretion disc anyway.
– Renan
50 mins ago
@Renan: Neutralise from the perspective of the turbine ring. As one part of the ring begins to spiral in, the other side will be pushed away from the BH. This will be retarded by the accretion disc particles which will try to push it back in, which in turn will push the sinking area out, so on average it stays in place. Naturally, any known material wouldn't survive this kind of cyclic stress, but if you can afford to build a ring of turbines that big, you have the materials technology too.
– nzaman
24 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Black holes at the centre of galaxies.
Collect energy by placing a series of giant turbines just outside the accretion disk, or even in it, to be driven by the rotating matter.
If you could somehow couple them to form a tight circle, it would both neutralise the gravity well of the black hole, as well as create another plane of rotation which you can tap for energy.
answered 52 mins ago
nzaman
7,74211340
2
The friction would cause the whole thing to deorbit.
– Renan
51 mins ago
Also if you neutralize the gravity of the hole, you no longer have an accretion disc anyway.
– Renan
50 mins ago
@Renan: Neutralise from the perspective of the turbine ring. As one part of the ring begins to spiral in, the other side will be pushed away from the BH. This will be retarded by the accretion disc particles which will try to push it back in, which in turn will push the sinking area out, so on average it stays in place. Naturally, any known material wouldn't survive this kind of cyclic stress, but if you can afford to build a ring of turbines that big, you have the materials technology too.
– nzaman
24 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Black holes at the centre of galaxies.
Collect energy by placing a series of giant turbines just outside the accretion disk, or even in it, to be driven by the rotating matter.
If you could somehow couple them to form a tight circle, it would both neutralise the gravity well of the black hole, as well as create another plane of rotation which you can tap for energy.
answered 52 mins ago
nzaman
7,74211340
Black holes at the centre of galaxies.
Collect energy by placing a series of giant turbines just outside the accretion disk, or even in it, to be driven by the rotating matter.
If you could somehow couple them to form a tight circle, it would both neutralise the gravity well of the black hole, as well as create another plane of rotation which you can tap for energy.
answered 52 mins ago
nzaman
7,74211340
answered 52 mins ago
nzaman
7,74211340
answered 52 mins ago
nzaman
7,74211340
answered 52 mins ago
nzaman
7,74211340
7,74211340
2
The friction would cause the whole thing to deorbit.
– Renan
51 mins ago
Also if you neutralize the gravity of the hole, you no longer have an accretion disc anyway.
– Renan
50 mins ago
@Renan: Neutralise from the perspective of the turbine ring. As one part of the ring begins to spiral in, the other side will be pushed away from the BH. This will be retarded by the accretion disc particles which will try to push it back in, which in turn will push the sinking area out, so on average it stays in place. Naturally, any known material wouldn't survive this kind of cyclic stress, but if you can afford to build a ring of turbines that big, you have the materials technology too.
– nzaman
24 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2
The friction would cause the whole thing to deorbit.
– Renan
51 mins ago
Also if you neutralize the gravity of the hole, you no longer have an accretion disc anyway.
– Renan
50 mins ago
@Renan: Neutralise from the perspective of the turbine ring. As one part of the ring begins to spiral in, the other side will be pushed away from the BH. This will be retarded by the accretion disc particles which will try to push it back in, which in turn will push the sinking area out, so on average it stays in place. Naturally, any known material wouldn't survive this kind of cyclic stress, but if you can afford to build a ring of turbines that big, you have the materials technology too.
– nzaman
24 mins ago
2
2
The friction would cause the whole thing to deorbit.
– Renan
51 mins ago
The friction would cause the whole thing to deorbit.
– Renan
51 mins ago
Also if you neutralize the gravity of the hole, you no longer have an accretion disc anyway.
– Renan
50 mins ago
Also if you neutralize the gravity of the hole, you no longer have an accretion disc anyway.
– Renan
50 mins ago
@Renan: Neutralise from the perspective of the turbine ring. As one part of the ring begins to spiral in, the other side will be pushed away from the BH. This will be retarded by the accretion disc particles which will try to push it back in, which in turn will push the sinking area out, so on average it stays in place. Naturally, any known material wouldn't survive this kind of cyclic stress, but if you can afford to build a ring of turbines that big, you have the materials technology too.
– nzaman
24 mins ago
@Renan: Neutralise from the perspective of the turbine ring. As one part of the ring begins to spiral in, the other side will be pushed away from the BH. This will be retarded by the accretion disc particles which will try to push it back in, which in turn will push the sinking area out, so on average it stays in place. Naturally, any known material wouldn't survive this kind of cyclic stress, but if you can afford to build a ring of turbines that big, you have the materials technology too.
– nzaman
24 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
You've not got the "reality-check" tag on this one, so how about...
Vacuum Energy
This is high-octane handwavium. It's almost certainly nonsense, but so is readily harnessing power on the scales you're talking about, so let's roll with it. Vacuum energy is one of the theories behind the energy deficit between observable space and the rate of universal expansion. Its potential scale varies by theoretician from very small (the most likely case) to enormous (the most useful case) to infinite (unlikely, but even more useful for your world).
Now, harvesting the energy responsible for the expansion of the universe might have some localized (or not-so-localized) effects on spacetime, but that could be another fun plot point:
"Preserve the universe!" the activists cried, their placards waving outside the administration building. Inside, the C-suite scoffed. Redshifting of the local cluster had been only 1.4% over the last decade, nothing to worry about.
Assuming you set your reality's version of vacuum energy to the "infinite" or "near-infinite" end of the scale, you can have as much power as you want.
answered 6 mins ago
jdunlop
5,61711035
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
You've not got the "reality-check" tag on this one, so how about...
Vacuum Energy
This is high-octane handwavium. It's almost certainly nonsense, but so is readily harnessing power on the scales you're talking about, so let's roll with it. Vacuum energy is one of the theories behind the energy deficit between observable space and the rate of universal expansion. Its potential scale varies by theoretician from very small (the most likely case) to enormous (the most useful case) to infinite (unlikely, but even more useful for your world).
Now, harvesting the energy responsible for the expansion of the universe might have some localized (or not-so-localized) effects on spacetime, but that could be another fun plot point:
"Preserve the universe!" the activists cried, their placards waving outside the administration building. Inside, the C-suite scoffed. Redshifting of the local cluster had been only 1.4% over the last decade, nothing to worry about.
Assuming you set your reality's version of vacuum energy to the "infinite" or "near-infinite" end of the scale, you can have as much power as you want.
answered 6 mins ago
jdunlop
5,61711035
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
You've not got the "reality-check" tag on this one, so how about...
Vacuum Energy
This is high-octane handwavium. It's almost certainly nonsense, but so is readily harnessing power on the scales you're talking about, so let's roll with it. Vacuum energy is one of the theories behind the energy deficit between observable space and the rate of universal expansion. Its potential scale varies by theoretician from very small (the most likely case) to enormous (the most useful case) to infinite (unlikely, but even more useful for your world).
Now, harvesting the energy responsible for the expansion of the universe might have some localized (or not-so-localized) effects on spacetime, but that could be another fun plot point:
"Preserve the universe!" the activists cried, their placards waving outside the administration building. Inside, the C-suite scoffed. Redshifting of the local cluster had been only 1.4% over the last decade, nothing to worry about.
Assuming you set your reality's version of vacuum energy to the "infinite" or "near-infinite" end of the scale, you can have as much power as you want.
answered 6 mins ago
jdunlop
5,61711035
You've not got the "reality-check" tag on this one, so how about...
Vacuum Energy
This is high-octane handwavium. It's almost certainly nonsense, but so is readily harnessing power on the scales you're talking about, so let's roll with it. Vacuum energy is one of the theories behind the energy deficit between observable space and the rate of universal expansion. Its potential scale varies by theoretician from very small (the most likely case) to enormous (the most useful case) to infinite (unlikely, but even more useful for your world).
Now, harvesting the energy responsible for the expansion of the universe might have some localized (or not-so-localized) effects on spacetime, but that could be another fun plot point:
"Preserve the universe!" the activists cried, their placards waving outside the administration building. Inside, the C-suite scoffed. Redshifting of the local cluster had been only 1.4% over the last decade, nothing to worry about.
Assuming you set your reality's version of vacuum energy to the "infinite" or "near-infinite" end of the scale, you can have as much power as you want.
answered 6 mins ago
jdunlop
5,61711035
answered 6 mins ago
jdunlop
5,61711035
answered 6 mins ago
jdunlop
5,61711035
answered 6 mins ago
jdunlop
5,61711035
5,61711035
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Arpit is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Arpit is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Arpit is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Arpit is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f127872%2fhypothetical-energy-source-with-higher-output-than-dyson-sphere%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
2 Dyson spheres around a pair of binary stars!
– Henry Taylor
1 hour ago
Can you please suggest some other alternative whose energy output could be much higher, like equivalent to thousands or millions of Dyson sphere
– Arpit
1 hour ago
Arpit, Henry Taylor probably did not see your response. For more information, see this post on how to use
@mentions– John Locke
47 mins ago
What are you looking for, higher total energy, higher power (rate that energy is produced), or higher energy efficiency (energy produced vs. energy wasted)
– Cort Ammon
44 mins ago