Solar power without silicon solar cells? New magnetic effect of light into insulators discovered.

‘We’ve all been taught that this doesn’t happen’

From the University of Michigan

William Fisher operates a device that bounces laser light around a transparent box.
William Fisher, a doctoral student in applied physics, performing research on laser-induced magnetism.

A dramatic and surprising magnetic effect of light discovered by University of Michigan researchers could lead to solar power without traditional semiconductor-based solar cells.

The researchers found a way to make an “optical battery,” said Stephen Rand, a professor in the departments of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Physics and Applied Physics.

In the process, they overturned a century-old tenet of physics.

“You could stare at the equations of motion all day and you will not see this possibility. We’ve all been taught that this doesn’t happen,” said Rand, an author of a paper on the work published in the Journal of Applied Physics. “It’s a very odd interaction. That’s why it’s been overlooked for more than 100 years.”

Light has electric and magnetic components. Until now, scientists thought the effects of the magnetic field were so weak that they could be ignored. Rand and his colleagues found that at the right intensity, when light is traveling through a material that does not conduct electricity, the light field can generate magnetic effects that are 100 million times stronger than previously expected. Under these circumstances, the magnetic effects develop strength equivalent to a strong electric effect.

“This could lead to a new kind of solar cell without semiconductors and without absorption to produce charge separation,” Rand said. “In solar cells, the light goes into a material, gets absorbed and creates heat. Here, we expect to have a very low heat load. Instead of the light being absorbed, energy is stored in the magnetic moment. Intense magnetization can be induced by intense light and then it is ultimately capable of providing a capacitive power source.”

What makes this possible is a previously undetected brand of “optical rectification,” says William Fisher, a doctoral student in applied physics. In traditional optical rectification, light’s electric field causes a charge separation, or a pulling apart of the positive and negative charges in a material. This sets up a voltage, similar to that in a battery. This electric effect had previously been detected only in crystalline materials that possessed a certain symmetry.

Rand and Fisher found that under the right circumstances and in other types of materials, the light’s magnetic field can also create optical rectification.

“It turns out that the magnetic field starts curving the electrons into a C-shape and they move forward a little each time,” Fisher said. “That C-shape of charge motion generates both an electric dipole and a magnetic dipole. If we can set up many of these in a row in a long fiber, we can make a huge voltage and by extracting that voltage, we can use it as a power source.”

The light must be shone through a material that does not conduct electricity, such as glass. And it must be focused to an intensity of 10 million watts per square centimeter. Sunlight isn’t this intense on its own, but new materials are being sought that would work at lower intensities, Fisher said.

“In our most recent paper, we show that incoherent light like sunlight is theoretically almost as effective in producing charge separation as laser light is,” Fisher said.

This new technique could make solar power cheaper, the researchers say. They predict that with improved materials they could achieve 10 percent efficiency in converting solar power to useable energy. That’s equivalent to today’s commercial-grade solar cells.

“To manufacture modern solar cells, you have to do extensive semiconductor processing,” Fisher said. “All we would need are lenses to focus the light and a fiber to guide it. Glass works for both. It’s already made in bulk, and it doesn’t require as much processing. Transparent ceramics might be even better.”

In experiments this summer, the researchers will work on harnessing this power with laser light, and then with sunlight.

The paper is titled “Optically-induced charge separation and terahertz emission in unbiased dielectrics.” The university is pursuing patent protection for the intellectual property.

===============================================================

Obviously, this is still in the theory/conceptual stages.  I wouldn’t get too excited just yet. A practical application  of this concept is still years, if not decades off.  But, if it could work, it would be a boon for solar power.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
96 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
RayG
April 14, 2011 5:55 pm

This can’t be correct! We have a consensus of 2,742 physicists! Obviously funded by Exxon-Mobil and the tobacco companies. Its worse than we thought. These people aren’t climate scientists. Deniers all.

Phil's Dad
April 14, 2011 5:59 pm

Input 10 million watts per square centimeter. Output?

George Turner
April 14, 2011 6:29 pm

If you’ve got 10 megawatts/cm^2 (100 gigawatt per square meter), why would you play around with this at 10% efficiency when you could use that intensity to superheat just about any substance and run a conventional heat engine in a combined-cycle at 50% efficiency or more?

April 14, 2011 6:38 pm

“10 million watts per square centimeter” of focused sun light for an output of?
Sounds like a optical version of a Stirling engine.

commieBob
April 14, 2011 6:39 pm

The first thing I thought of was Maxwell’s Demon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon

Retired Engineer
April 14, 2011 6:39 pm

10 MW/cm^2 Hmm… That’s about 100 billion w/m^2 or 100 million x natural light.
Big lens. Or really tiny fibre. All for how much output?
Mostly for another research grant, I suspect.

oMan
April 14, 2011 6:42 pm

Sunlight power density is about 1.4 kW/m^2. To get 10 megaW/cm^2 looks to be about 15 million times the power density. I guess you could get some of that with focusing lenses but do you end up melting the glass fiber?
If it works, very interesting indeed.

April 14, 2011 6:43 pm

Yeah, I see theory all the time, the main theme of this is isn’t it interesting that something that was not thought possible is in fact occurring. I need to understand this a little more from a conceptual standpoint as to the mechanics involved though, I cannot seem to wrap my head around exactly what is occurring here.
I do not think anyone is against solar power, just its current cost, which admittedly has gotten considerably better in the last decade. It just has to drop a bit more.

Jonathan
April 14, 2011 6:43 pm

Simplifying the solar radiation on Earth to 1kw/m^2, we obtain 0.1w/cm^2.
(10 million w/cm^2) / (0.1 w/cm^2) = 100 million suns of focusing power.
I think that “sunlight is not this intense on its own” is a vast understatement.

Kum Dollison
April 14, 2011 6:48 pm

10 Megawatts per sq. Centimeter?
And, the reflector is how large?

tom gannett
April 14, 2011 7:01 pm

I smell another cold fusion story coming.

Brian H
April 14, 2011 7:02 pm

A very appropriate topic for ‘Watts up with that?’ !
I wonder how this will modify those “equations of motion”.

Paul Jackson
April 14, 2011 7:07 pm

Actually this is huge, if only because electro-magnetism is thought to be so well understood and wasn’t. A fresh look a fundamental force may prove interesting.

dp
April 14, 2011 7:24 pm

So thinking outside the box for a moment – something I’m prone to do anyway – one uses this technology to build self-powered space elevators, use them to raise more geostationary collectors to the desired altitude, bring up more fibers, energize them, collect the excess power at ground level, and then sell weekend vacations at outposts along the elevator. It needs a motto – “Higher, ever higher!”
But wait – there’s more!
With all these lifting stations we could haul some light weight plumbing up to the generating stations and force feed CO2 up the pipe and out the far end where the solar wind carries it to the dead sea bottoms of Barsoom and beyond.
Surely there’s a flaw somewhere in my scheme. This is all too simple.
/sarc

ggm
April 14, 2011 7:26 pm

I`m no Electric Universe proponent, but how does this sit with their “theories” ?

Andrew30
April 14, 2011 7:31 pm

I wonder if it is reversible. That would also be very interesting.

DRE
April 14, 2011 7:32 pm

Scientifically, this is probably extremely interesting. Although it wasn’t published as a Physical Review Letter so it’s not super interesting. They seem to be implying that they can get a 2nd order response out of a material that has inversion symmetry. But that’s not clear.
Getting the same response with an orders of magnitude lower intensity, don’t hold your breath.

Matthew
April 14, 2011 7:49 pm

Nifty, but I’ll wait to get excited until I see a prototype that works in regular sunlight on a day that isn’t perfectly clear.

Jeff
April 14, 2011 8:01 pm

so they may someday be able to create a cheap solar cell that has 10% efficiency … I don’t care if its free … won’t amount to a hill of beans for usable energy except for remote locations … just like solar cells today …

jorgekafkazar
April 14, 2011 8:10 pm

dp says: “…Surely there’s a flaw somewhere in my scheme.”
Don’t call me Surely.

April 14, 2011 8:26 pm

“10 million watts per square centimeter”
Right.
Reminds me of the formula for time travel –
“First you start with a small black hole …”

polistra
April 14, 2011 8:29 pm

Andrew30’s question about reversibility probably hits the spot. This sounds to me like a piece of weapons research, carefully couched in non-lethal terms for patents and such.

Jim Butts
April 14, 2011 8:42 pm

Let’s hold off on shutting down Grand Coulee.

April 14, 2011 8:45 pm

polistra says:
April 14, 2011 at 8:29 pm
Andrew30′s question about reversibility probably hits the spot. This sounds to me like a piece of weapons research, carefully couched in non-lethal terms for patents and such.

Future death-ray perhaps? .. hehehe

April 14, 2011 8:47 pm

The picture documents that William Fisher isn’t wearing laser safety goggles while he’s operating the laser and is in fact standing over it in operation. He’s in serious breach of very standard safety precautions, and I’d guess in violation of U. Mich. safety regs. He’s also risking permanent eye injury.
Best of luck to them and their work. It sounds very promising. But someone ought to collar Mr. Fisher.

1 2 3 4