Superconductive magnet as a source of energy?
Could we charge a superconductive magnet and use it as a source of energy?
electromagnetism magnetic-fields energy-conservation superconductivity
edited Dec 27 '18 at 22:08
Qmechanic♦
101k121831151
asked Dec 27 '18 at 1:13
Marino Klisovich
468
New contributor
Marino Klisovich 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 |
Could we charge a superconductive magnet and use it as a source of energy?
electromagnetism magnetic-fields energy-conservation superconductivity
edited Dec 27 '18 at 22:08
Qmechanic♦
101k121831151
asked Dec 27 '18 at 1:13
Marino Klisovich
468
New contributor
Marino Klisovich 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 |
Could we charge a superconductive magnet and use it as a source of energy?
electromagnetism magnetic-fields energy-conservation superconductivity
edited Dec 27 '18 at 22:08
Qmechanic♦
101k121831151
asked Dec 27 '18 at 1:13
Marino Klisovich
468
New contributor
Marino Klisovich is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Could we charge a superconductive magnet and use it as a source of energy?
electromagnetism magnetic-fields energy-conservation superconductivity
electromagnetism magnetic-fields energy-conservation superconductivity
edited Dec 27 '18 at 22:08
Qmechanic♦
101k121831151
asked Dec 27 '18 at 1:13
Marino Klisovich
468
New contributor
Marino Klisovich is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited Dec 27 '18 at 22:08
Qmechanic♦
101k121831151
asked Dec 27 '18 at 1:13
Marino Klisovich
468
New contributor
Marino Klisovich is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited Dec 27 '18 at 22:08
Qmechanic♦
101k121831151
edited Dec 27 '18 at 22:08
Qmechanic♦
101k121831151
edited Dec 27 '18 at 22:08
Qmechanic♦
101k121831151
101k121831151
asked Dec 27 '18 at 1:13
Marino Klisovich
468
New contributor
Marino Klisovich is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Dec 27 '18 at 1:13
Marino Klisovich
468
asked Dec 27 '18 at 1:13
Marino Klisovich
468
468
New contributor
Marino Klisovich is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Marino Klisovich is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Marino Klisovich 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 |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Yes. The energy expended in producing the magnetic field can be recovered during the field's collapse, which occurs after the current producing the field is shut off.
For example, the amount of energy stored in the superconducting magnets that steer the particle beams in CERN's Large Hadron Collider is equal the the kinetic energy of a fully-loaded jumbo jet going 500 MPH. Shutting the magnets down requires dissipating all that energy, and if anything goes wrong during that process, parts of the collider will get blown to pieces in an instant.
Note that the energy stored in the magnetic field of a superconducting magnet did not get there for free. When running, those magnets and the machinery needed to support them consume as much electrical power as a small city, for which CERN pays the bill.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 3:13
niels nielsen
16.3k42754
Or even worse then blowing things up would be heating up the supercooled magnets.
– Barfieldmv
Dec 27 '18 at 10:12
7
@Barfieldmv Heating the supercooled magnets also blows them up (if not done in a controlled and slow way). That's what happened back in 2008 when it was first turned on and it took two years to fix.
– Graipher
Dec 27 '18 at 11:00
2
the net energy from a lightning strike isn't big enough to justify the cost of collecting it. because of the huge amount of bother in maintaining the liquid helium for the superconducting magnets, I see them as appropriate only in research and experimental settings. this would change when high-temperature superconductivity becomes real.
– niels nielsen
Dec 27 '18 at 17:59
1
this has in fact been considered as a way to temporarily store electrical power, but there are other ways (like ultracentrifuge flywheels) that do not require refrigeration and are portable.
– niels nielsen
Dec 28 '18 at 21:32
1
regarding safety, any energy storage methodology that exhibits similar energy density to gasoline is going to have hazards associated with it. For example, getting into a crash with a flywheel storage system will break the flywheel loose and it will either explode into a million pieces or take off a tremendous speed and strike something expensive. in the case of high-capacity batteries, simply shooting an arrow through it will short-circuit it internally, after which it will explode with great force.
– niels nielsen
Dec 28 '18 at 21:35
|
show 2 more comments
Yes, in the same sense that you can store energy in a battery and then use the battery as a source of energy. See for example this Wikipedia article.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 1:16
S. McGrew
6,5902926
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Marino Klisovich 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
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f450543%2fsuperconductive-magnet-as-a-source-of-energy%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Yes. The energy expended in producing the magnetic field can be recovered during the field's collapse, which occurs after the current producing the field is shut off.
For example, the amount of energy stored in the superconducting magnets that steer the particle beams in CERN's Large Hadron Collider is equal the the kinetic energy of a fully-loaded jumbo jet going 500 MPH. Shutting the magnets down requires dissipating all that energy, and if anything goes wrong during that process, parts of the collider will get blown to pieces in an instant.
Note that the energy stored in the magnetic field of a superconducting magnet did not get there for free. When running, those magnets and the machinery needed to support them consume as much electrical power as a small city, for which CERN pays the bill.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 3:13
niels nielsen
16.3k42754
Or even worse then blowing things up would be heating up the supercooled magnets.
– Barfieldmv
Dec 27 '18 at 10:12
7
@Barfieldmv Heating the supercooled magnets also blows them up (if not done in a controlled and slow way). That's what happened back in 2008 when it was first turned on and it took two years to fix.
– Graipher
Dec 27 '18 at 11:00
2
the net energy from a lightning strike isn't big enough to justify the cost of collecting it. because of the huge amount of bother in maintaining the liquid helium for the superconducting magnets, I see them as appropriate only in research and experimental settings. this would change when high-temperature superconductivity becomes real.
– niels nielsen
Dec 27 '18 at 17:59
1
this has in fact been considered as a way to temporarily store electrical power, but there are other ways (like ultracentrifuge flywheels) that do not require refrigeration and are portable.
– niels nielsen
Dec 28 '18 at 21:32
1
regarding safety, any energy storage methodology that exhibits similar energy density to gasoline is going to have hazards associated with it. For example, getting into a crash with a flywheel storage system will break the flywheel loose and it will either explode into a million pieces or take off a tremendous speed and strike something expensive. in the case of high-capacity batteries, simply shooting an arrow through it will short-circuit it internally, after which it will explode with great force.
– niels nielsen
Dec 28 '18 at 21:35
|
show 2 more comments
Yes. The energy expended in producing the magnetic field can be recovered during the field's collapse, which occurs after the current producing the field is shut off.
For example, the amount of energy stored in the superconducting magnets that steer the particle beams in CERN's Large Hadron Collider is equal the the kinetic energy of a fully-loaded jumbo jet going 500 MPH. Shutting the magnets down requires dissipating all that energy, and if anything goes wrong during that process, parts of the collider will get blown to pieces in an instant.
Note that the energy stored in the magnetic field of a superconducting magnet did not get there for free. When running, those magnets and the machinery needed to support them consume as much electrical power as a small city, for which CERN pays the bill.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 3:13
niels nielsen
16.3k42754
Or even worse then blowing things up would be heating up the supercooled magnets.
– Barfieldmv
Dec 27 '18 at 10:12
7
@Barfieldmv Heating the supercooled magnets also blows them up (if not done in a controlled and slow way). That's what happened back in 2008 when it was first turned on and it took two years to fix.
– Graipher
Dec 27 '18 at 11:00
2
the net energy from a lightning strike isn't big enough to justify the cost of collecting it. because of the huge amount of bother in maintaining the liquid helium for the superconducting magnets, I see them as appropriate only in research and experimental settings. this would change when high-temperature superconductivity becomes real.
– niels nielsen
Dec 27 '18 at 17:59
1
this has in fact been considered as a way to temporarily store electrical power, but there are other ways (like ultracentrifuge flywheels) that do not require refrigeration and are portable.
– niels nielsen
Dec 28 '18 at 21:32
1
regarding safety, any energy storage methodology that exhibits similar energy density to gasoline is going to have hazards associated with it. For example, getting into a crash with a flywheel storage system will break the flywheel loose and it will either explode into a million pieces or take off a tremendous speed and strike something expensive. in the case of high-capacity batteries, simply shooting an arrow through it will short-circuit it internally, after which it will explode with great force.
– niels nielsen
Dec 28 '18 at 21:35
|
show 2 more comments
Yes. The energy expended in producing the magnetic field can be recovered during the field's collapse, which occurs after the current producing the field is shut off.
For example, the amount of energy stored in the superconducting magnets that steer the particle beams in CERN's Large Hadron Collider is equal the the kinetic energy of a fully-loaded jumbo jet going 500 MPH. Shutting the magnets down requires dissipating all that energy, and if anything goes wrong during that process, parts of the collider will get blown to pieces in an instant.
Note that the energy stored in the magnetic field of a superconducting magnet did not get there for free. When running, those magnets and the machinery needed to support them consume as much electrical power as a small city, for which CERN pays the bill.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 3:13
niels nielsen
16.3k42754
Yes. The energy expended in producing the magnetic field can be recovered during the field's collapse, which occurs after the current producing the field is shut off.
For example, the amount of energy stored in the superconducting magnets that steer the particle beams in CERN's Large Hadron Collider is equal the the kinetic energy of a fully-loaded jumbo jet going 500 MPH. Shutting the magnets down requires dissipating all that energy, and if anything goes wrong during that process, parts of the collider will get blown to pieces in an instant.
Note that the energy stored in the magnetic field of a superconducting magnet did not get there for free. When running, those magnets and the machinery needed to support them consume as much electrical power as a small city, for which CERN pays the bill.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 3:13
niels nielsen
16.3k42754
answered Dec 27 '18 at 3:13
niels nielsen
16.3k42754
answered Dec 27 '18 at 3:13
niels nielsen
16.3k42754
answered Dec 27 '18 at 3:13
niels nielsen
16.3k42754
16.3k42754
Or even worse then blowing things up would be heating up the supercooled magnets.
– Barfieldmv
Dec 27 '18 at 10:12
7
@Barfieldmv Heating the supercooled magnets also blows them up (if not done in a controlled and slow way). That's what happened back in 2008 when it was first turned on and it took two years to fix.
– Graipher
Dec 27 '18 at 11:00
2
the net energy from a lightning strike isn't big enough to justify the cost of collecting it. because of the huge amount of bother in maintaining the liquid helium for the superconducting magnets, I see them as appropriate only in research and experimental settings. this would change when high-temperature superconductivity becomes real.
– niels nielsen
Dec 27 '18 at 17:59
1
this has in fact been considered as a way to temporarily store electrical power, but there are other ways (like ultracentrifuge flywheels) that do not require refrigeration and are portable.
– niels nielsen
Dec 28 '18 at 21:32
1
regarding safety, any energy storage methodology that exhibits similar energy density to gasoline is going to have hazards associated with it. For example, getting into a crash with a flywheel storage system will break the flywheel loose and it will either explode into a million pieces or take off a tremendous speed and strike something expensive. in the case of high-capacity batteries, simply shooting an arrow through it will short-circuit it internally, after which it will explode with great force.
– niels nielsen
Dec 28 '18 at 21:35
|
show 2 more comments
Or even worse then blowing things up would be heating up the supercooled magnets.
– Barfieldmv
Dec 27 '18 at 10:12
7
@Barfieldmv Heating the supercooled magnets also blows them up (if not done in a controlled and slow way). That's what happened back in 2008 when it was first turned on and it took two years to fix.
– Graipher
Dec 27 '18 at 11:00
2
the net energy from a lightning strike isn't big enough to justify the cost of collecting it. because of the huge amount of bother in maintaining the liquid helium for the superconducting magnets, I see them as appropriate only in research and experimental settings. this would change when high-temperature superconductivity becomes real.
– niels nielsen
Dec 27 '18 at 17:59
1
this has in fact been considered as a way to temporarily store electrical power, but there are other ways (like ultracentrifuge flywheels) that do not require refrigeration and are portable.
– niels nielsen
Dec 28 '18 at 21:32
1
regarding safety, any energy storage methodology that exhibits similar energy density to gasoline is going to have hazards associated with it. For example, getting into a crash with a flywheel storage system will break the flywheel loose and it will either explode into a million pieces or take off a tremendous speed and strike something expensive. in the case of high-capacity batteries, simply shooting an arrow through it will short-circuit it internally, after which it will explode with great force.
– niels nielsen
Dec 28 '18 at 21:35
Or even worse then blowing things up would be heating up the supercooled magnets.
– Barfieldmv
Dec 27 '18 at 10:12
Or even worse then blowing things up would be heating up the supercooled magnets.
– Barfieldmv
Dec 27 '18 at 10:12
7
7
@Barfieldmv Heating the supercooled magnets also blows them up (if not done in a controlled and slow way). That's what happened back in 2008 when it was first turned on and it took two years to fix.
– Graipher
Dec 27 '18 at 11:00
@Barfieldmv Heating the supercooled magnets also blows them up (if not done in a controlled and slow way). That's what happened back in 2008 when it was first turned on and it took two years to fix.
– Graipher
Dec 27 '18 at 11:00
2
2
the net energy from a lightning strike isn't big enough to justify the cost of collecting it. because of the huge amount of bother in maintaining the liquid helium for the superconducting magnets, I see them as appropriate only in research and experimental settings. this would change when high-temperature superconductivity becomes real.
– niels nielsen
Dec 27 '18 at 17:59
the net energy from a lightning strike isn't big enough to justify the cost of collecting it. because of the huge amount of bother in maintaining the liquid helium for the superconducting magnets, I see them as appropriate only in research and experimental settings. this would change when high-temperature superconductivity becomes real.
– niels nielsen
Dec 27 '18 at 17:59
1
1
this has in fact been considered as a way to temporarily store electrical power, but there are other ways (like ultracentrifuge flywheels) that do not require refrigeration and are portable.
– niels nielsen
Dec 28 '18 at 21:32
this has in fact been considered as a way to temporarily store electrical power, but there are other ways (like ultracentrifuge flywheels) that do not require refrigeration and are portable.
– niels nielsen
Dec 28 '18 at 21:32
1
1
regarding safety, any energy storage methodology that exhibits similar energy density to gasoline is going to have hazards associated with it. For example, getting into a crash with a flywheel storage system will break the flywheel loose and it will either explode into a million pieces or take off a tremendous speed and strike something expensive. in the case of high-capacity batteries, simply shooting an arrow through it will short-circuit it internally, after which it will explode with great force.
– niels nielsen
Dec 28 '18 at 21:35
regarding safety, any energy storage methodology that exhibits similar energy density to gasoline is going to have hazards associated with it. For example, getting into a crash with a flywheel storage system will break the flywheel loose and it will either explode into a million pieces or take off a tremendous speed and strike something expensive. in the case of high-capacity batteries, simply shooting an arrow through it will short-circuit it internally, after which it will explode with great force.
– niels nielsen
Dec 28 '18 at 21:35
|
show 2 more comments
Yes, in the same sense that you can store energy in a battery and then use the battery as a source of energy. See for example this Wikipedia article.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 1:16
S. McGrew
6,5902926
add a comment |
Yes, in the same sense that you can store energy in a battery and then use the battery as a source of energy. See for example this Wikipedia article.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 1:16
S. McGrew
6,5902926
add a comment |
Yes, in the same sense that you can store energy in a battery and then use the battery as a source of energy. See for example this Wikipedia article.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 1:16
S. McGrew
6,5902926
Yes, in the same sense that you can store energy in a battery and then use the battery as a source of energy. See for example this Wikipedia article.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 1:16
S. McGrew
6,5902926
answered Dec 27 '18 at 1:16
S. McGrew
6,5902926
answered Dec 27 '18 at 1:16
S. McGrew
6,5902926
answered Dec 27 '18 at 1:16
S. McGrew
6,5902926
6,5902926
add a comment |
add a comment |
Marino Klisovich is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Marino Klisovich is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Marino Klisovich is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Marino Klisovich is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
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
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f450543%2fsuperconductive-magnet-as-a-source-of-energy%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
