"now you know - it's not Europe"

[doctor100]

What you got wrong is that, to harness energy from a moving magnetic field, you have to use something that doesn't move relative to it, a stator thingy.

But this I could be wrong about, if I'm not mistaken, when the field envelopes the conductor, especially in a vacuum, the most important part is not to keep things immobile but rather to assure that it does not have ability to begin to move in the same direction as the field. if an orbit was maintained, assuming it wasn't a orbit in the same direction as the field's rotation, electric would be produced.

besides, the sheer size of the inductor needed would probably make it collapse on itself.

In space? i doubt it would produce that much gravity, and I think that we can assume that the magnetic field wouldn't do it either; especially if we can assume (I guess here we take that leap) material tech more advanced than today.

Finally, producing electricity in space, whatever the means, isnt a good idea if you plan to use it for domestic use (unless you ALSO want to live in space,

I'm thinking giant massive colonies, not observational research stations, the first can do the second, but the second cannot really do the first.

Also, if in space, the ability to have a superconductor stable and inexpensive (temperature control) makes your electric go much much further than if on earth w/ our power line tech.

Is it easier to build gigantic coils in space with unknown consequences for the planet, or to just build a fusion reactor?

Well, seeing as both are theoretical, I suppose we can't actually tell Personally I always as a rule figure that if it consumes raw material it's less efficient than something that only taps what is already producing movement; but that's my bias


As for unknown effects, i still don't think it would cause statistical difference; between ions, and upper atmosphere movement, and all the rest that magnetic fields do with planets, some of that energy is already being consumed, just in the changing of direction and movement of 'stuff' ; on the other hand if the coils circled the planet entirely there may well be an effect, if we put it on the topside/underside of a ringworld like station/colony.

The field is between 10 to 14 times stronger than earths, so I have difficulty buying it would be consumed all that quickly in the millennial scale. Given human history is only about 3 thousand years old, i don't think we need concern ourselves on any scale much longer than that. If planned for 5,000 years longevity, it would probably last longer, assuming no disaster, and then the people are on their bloody own.

[Idolrevolver]

Is it easier to build gigantic coils in space with unknown consequences for the planet, or to just build a fusion reactor?

Well, seeing as both are theoretical, I suppose we can't actually tell

Fusion reactors have been built, giant orbiting magnetic coils have not. Also, think conservation of energy. Where is the energy coming from?

[doctor100]

Fusion reactors have been built

Reactors yes, generators, no.

think conservation of energy. Where is the energy coming from?

Well, that's actually where this conversation started. Where you going to get energy? Can we take it from magnetic movement? I always assumed that if it moves it can get converted to usable energy (mass, electrons, radiation, electromatic fields, the question remains can there be enough energy for your use).

If i take your question at face value the energy is actually indirectly siphoned off the heat and kinetic movement in the inner planet. I'll see if i can do this without looking it up again; The heat keeps everything liquid (or in this case possibly gaseous), the liquid metal rotates due to the rotation of the planet (corneleous effect?) and with heat. With the liqiud/gaseous flow/rotation of magnetic property elements it will cause the field to not only form, but also to move.

But I'm a social sciences, not physical sciences; I might have this process slightly off, which was why I asked for help.

doctor100

[Idolrevolver]

Fusion reactors have been built

Reactors yes, generators, no.

Fusion is a lot more mature than orbiting megastructure construction.
Do you not think there may be unintended consequences to interfering with a planet's internal fluid dynamics?

[Tropylium]

I thought we were going to harvest energy from the *oscillation* of the magnetic field, not from the general existence of the field? That wouldn't have the stator problem either.

For fusion, how are you guys thinking of arranging the hydrogen intake and helium exhaust? You can't just drop a hose down from orbit, the drag would be terrible. Tho it might be possible to find a jet stream "orbiting" at the same velocity as your station/colony…?

[doctor100]

I thought we were going to harvest energy from the *oscillation* of the magnetic field

yes.

Do you not think there may be unintended consequences to interfering with a planet's internal fluid dynamics?

I've been trying to get a handle on what sort of consequences could result. I admit there may be a distortion of the field, however it does nto seem like it would effect the outer magnetic shielding. I also think it may have a impercevable effect on the rotation of the magnetic source, if orbit of the conductor was in the opposite direction. I don't believe either would be drastic on either a mellianal scale or a planetary scale. Even if it is as large as I am thinking.

Which, what I'm thinking is a 'ring planet' around jupiter. Jupiter becomes the primary light source if settlements are on the inside of the ring (which seems more practical), with day and night being the light and dark side of the planet. The conductors should simply be along the entire ring.

For fusion, how are you guys thinking of arranging the hydrogen intake

While I've played with possibly the hydrogen being mined for fusion genorators as a source of energy around the entire solar system (natural resources), I really haven't figured out how to mine the stuff, though I have thought about it.