Originally posted by sonhouse
Well sure but if a frog had wings he wouldn't have bumped his butt as my old man used to say.

I think such technologies as fusion power, hot or cold, will be working long before room temperature superconductors come along if ever.

One problem with superconducting energy storage rings is what happens if the rings lose their superconductivity.

What he moon and such, but instead ride an elevator a couple of weeks right up to orbital heights.

One problem with superconducting energy storage rings is what happens if the rings lose their superconductivity.

What happens is you get an explosion.

yes, I knew about that. It is called “magnetic quenching” of the superconductor.
The way I see around it is to put all the superconducting rings in holes in the ground so that if one explodes the damage will be safely confined and also have a general policy to always have many small superconducting rings rather than one big one so you spread your risk to acceptable levels and the chances of you loosing too many at once would be vanishingly small. -so I think at least we can live with this problem for stationary superconducting energy storage rings.

Having said that, the risk of magnetic quenching of a NON-stationary superconductor ring such as in a vehicle such as a car esp as a result of a car-crash would mean for safety reasons you could just about rule out using it to power a vehicle. I think such a room-temperature storage ring, if it was ever created, would be only suitable housed underground for stationary off-the-grid electric storage because of this.

I am aware that nothing like this is going to be made any time soon.

Originally posted by humy

One problem with superconducting energy storage rings is what happens if the rings lose their superconductivity.

What happens is you get an explosion.

yes, I knew about that. It is called “magnetic quenching” of the superconductor.
The way I see around it is to put all the superconducting rings in holes in the ground so that if one ex ...[text shortened]... storage because of this.

I am aware that nothing like this is going to be made any time soon.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone made a weapon out of it. It would explode underwater, in space, in air, no chemical reactions involved. It might even be the basis for a rail gun.

Don't tell Darpa🙂

Originally posted by sonhouse
I wouldn't be surprised if someone made a weapon out of it. It would explode underwater, in space, in air, no chemical reactions involved. It might even be the basis for a rail gun.

Don't tell Darpa🙂

I wouldn't be surprised if someone made a weapon out of it.

great; that's all we need. We go to all that trouble to make a superconductor ring that could solve the energy storage problem and we turn it into a bomb.

Originally posted by humy

I wouldn't be surprised if someone made a weapon out of it.

great; that's all we need. We go to all that trouble to make a superconductor ring that could solve the energy storage problem and we turn it into a bomb.

You heard it first here🙂 I mean, it already is a bomb in disguise....

Aren't you glad I don't work at the Pentagon anymore?

Originally posted by sonhouse
They could be replaced with an underground cable that would carry more energy and could be just buried a few feet underground and eliminate all those hundreds of thousands of very expensive steel and ceramic insulated towers.

Is this because they would operate at higher currents and thus lower voltages?

Originally posted by humy
great; that's all we need. We go to all that trouble to make a superconductor ring that could solve the energy storage problem and we turn it into a bomb.

It's basic physics: anything which can produce or store a lot of energy can, ipso facto, be made to (re-)produce that energy at a time or in a manner which is destructive. Without the risk of bombs or guns, you have no energy device. It's the Kzinti lesson. The best you can do is make it as efficient as possible for energy storage and as little efficient as you can for destruction. But even AA batteries can explode.

Richard

Originally posted by twhitehead
Is this because they would operate at higher currents and thus lower voltages?

With normal conductors, higher currents MEANS higher voltages. With superconductors you only get current as a variable. Voltage is close to zero. So the energy content of the conductor would be a matter of how many electrons go by per second.

Originally posted by sonhouse
With normal conductors, higher currents MEANS higher voltages. With superconductors you only get current as a variable. Voltage is close to zero. So the energy content of the conductor would be a matter of how many electrons go by per second.

So are you saying that superconductors in general need minimal insulation regardless of the amount of energy they are used to transport?