Neutrino power extraction feasable?

Blenton
Messages
210
Reaction score
0
I was wondering if we could create a device that could interact with neutrinos and extract their energy to some considerable percentage, would this allow for an almost undirectional and free power source? I'm unable to do a rough estimate of the power per square meter as it seems tying to find out how much energy a single neutrino contains is difficult.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi there,

Blenton said:
I'm unable to do a rough estimate of the power per square meter as it seems tying to find out how much energy a single neutrino contains is difficult.

Not much. A neutrino, eventhough traveling very fast, has very very little mass, therefore kinetic energy. But I agree that the energy would come from the rate of neutrino passing throug the Earth, which is absolutely amazing.

Your idea of extracting the kinetic energy from the particles is not to bad. Before doing so, why don't we try to study these particles, and find a way to stop them. Which at the moment, we know just one way to stop them, which is to put a lot of "heavy" nuclei in a region and wait for a direct hit with a nucleus. You have to know that neutrino interact very little with its environment. Therefore, many problems to solve before even trying to extract its energy.

Cheers
 
Solar neutrinos would have a total energy flux comparable to the solar photon flux. That's a much easier problem to solve, and even so, solar is a fraction of our total energy use. Essentially, the energy density is lower than is practical for many applications. Neutrinos would only be worse.
 
Thats a shame, I thought since there were a huge number of neutrinos passing through us even if they had a fraction of an electronvolt each it could add up to a usable amount.
 
There are probably other ways of energy gaining (economy, efficiency, etc.) - from existing energy production/consumption devices.
 
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...
Back
Top