What is WiMax? What is the difference bet Wifi-WiMax-WiBro?

What is WiMax?

    The two driving forces of modern Internet are broadband, and wireless. The WiMax standard combines the two, delivering high-speed broadband Internet access over a wireless connection. Because it can be used over relatively long distances, it is an effective "last mile" solution for delivering broadband to the home, and for creating wireless "hot spots" in places like airports, college campuses, and small communities.
Based on the IEEE 802.16 Air Interface Standard, WiMax delivers a point-to-multipoint architecture, making it an ideal method for carriers to deliver broadband to locations where wired connections would be difficult or costly. It may also provide a useful solution for delivering broadband to rural areas where high-speed lines have not yet become available. A WiMax connection can also be bridged or routed to a standard wired or wireless Local Area Network (LAN). 

     The so-called "last mile" of broadband is the most expensive and most difficult for broadband providers, and WiMax provides an easy solution. Although it is a wireless technology, unlike some other wireless technologies, it doesn't require a direct line of sight between the source and endpoint, and it has a service range of 50 kilometers. It provides a shared data rate of up to 70Mbps, which is enough to service up to a thousand homes with high-speed access.      WiMax offers some advantages over WiFi, a similar wireless technology, in that it offers a greater range and is more bandwidth-efficient. Ultimately, WiMax may be used to provide connectivity to entire cities, and may be incorporated into laptops to give users an added measure of mobility.
     WiMax requires a tower, similar to a cell phone tower, which is connected to the Internet using a standard wired high-speed connection, such as a T3 line. But as opposed to a traditional Internet Service Provider (ISP), which divides that bandwidth among customers via wire, it uses a microwave link to establish a connection.
     Because WiMax does not depend on cables to connect each endpoint, deploying WiMax to an entire high-rise, community or campus can be done in a matter of a couple days, saving significant amounts of manpower. Source:wiseweek  
Difference ???

     While nearly all types of wireless networking can seem confusing, there are some simple things to keep in mind about the difference between the wireless standards known as WiFi, WiMAX, and WiBro™. Each one is similar in that each provides a way to connect to a wireless network for workstation communication or Internet access. Each technology may be seen as an improvement from the previous one as well.

    WiFi, which stands for wireless fidelity, is known as the 802.11 wireless standard. There are a number of sub-series such as the 802.11(a)(b) or (g). The subsequent generations of this technology have increased the speed and range. Its most common use is to provide wireless Internet to users of notebook computers. Even with the advances in WiFi, however, there are a number of limitations.

    WiFi has some inherent disadvantages. For example, while WiFi can work well in localized locations, the routers used for the connections do not have a tremendous amount of range. In most cases, 300 feet (approximately 100 meters) is about the limit of the technology. Therefore, for larger wireless networks and connectivity, another standard was needed. These limitations are one reason municipal wireless networks have largely failed.

    WiMAX, short for Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access, is a different standard known as the 802.16. It allows only so many users on the standard and then will cut off any additional users trying to use the connection. This is different that WiFi, which will allow, theoretically, a limitless number of users on, which in turn will bog down the system. Despite this, the biggest difference is the range. For non-line of sight, the range is 25 square miles (65 square kilometers). For line of sight between the transmission point and receiving antenna, the range jumps up to 2,800 square miles (9,300 square kilometers).

    WiBro™, which stands for Wireless Broadband, is very similar to WiMAX. The transmission speeds are much the same, but the main difference is that WiBro™ can track a receiver that is moving from place to place. It may also be called mobile WiMAX. It is not truly mobile in the sense that it can be used effectively while the receiver is moving at high rates of speed. Rather, it simply means the receiver can move from place to place and experience no degradation in service, as long as the receiver stays within range. WiMAX does not offer this because it needs a stationary antenna in order to receive a signal. 

    One thing to keep in mind about WiBro™ is that it is still under development. As it improves, there may come a time when the receivers will be able to maintain connections even while traveling at high rates of speed. In those cases, it may call for a completely different standard altogether with a completely different name. Source: wisegeek
WiFi vs. WiMax:

   Comparing WiMax to WiFi is akin to comparing apples to oranges. Initially it’s easy to see why the comparison would exist, as most people think WiMax is merely a more robust version of WiFi. Indeed they are both wireless broadband technologies, but they differ in the technical execution and ultimately their business case is very different. In addition to the technical differences that exist, the marketplace difference is that equipment is more or less non-existent for WiMax and certainly not geared towards a residential environment with very high pricing to be expected. It will take at least 2 years to see equipment of mass market uptake pricing.

     WiMax will not be commercially available until the second half of 2005, and even then at a very controlled level. This is primarily due to standardization issues. In fact, it won’t be until 2006 that a robust production and implementation will happen due to the ramp-up period for manufacturers. This is certainly one challenge to the widespread adoption of WiMax. Additionally, WiMax will have issues of pricing, and will remain far more expensive than WiFi. WiMax will be primarily adopted by businesses to replace or displace DSL, and offices that want to cover a lot of territory without entering the world of endless repeaters that are necessary with the 802.11 technologies. It will take some time (2 years) for WiMax to significantly reduce its price-point for residential uptake.  WiMax will not displace WiFi in the home because WiFi is advancing in terms of speed and technology. Each year brings a new variant to the 802.11 area with various improvements.

    Additionally, for commercial deployment, frequency allocation will be an issue. With the three dominant communications players controlling the best frequencies, it will be hard to get the type of traction needed with the remaining companies operating in the frequencies available. WiMax will become extremely robust and displace WiFi as the deployment of choice for commercial deployments, but that won’t even begin until the end of 2006. Based upon the number of public hotspots already deployed, WiMax will not be chosen to replace those as they are up and running adequately and personnel involved understand how to work with the technology. The business case does not exist at the hotspot level. Where it may exist is for wider free use deployments such as city deployments (free ones) and other government sponsored or carrier sponsored (with ultra inexpensive pricing for consumers) deployments. If this happens then its not only WiFi that will be displaced, but cable and DSL will also lose a percentage of their subscriber base. What will cause the displacement is the consumer’s proven desire for a bundled package. Source:

E-cigarette (Electronic Cigarette)

   An electronic cigarette, e-cigarette or vaporize cigarette, is a battery-powered device that provides inhaled doses of nicotine or non-nicotine vaporized solution. It is an alternative to smoked tobacco products, such as cigarettes, cigars, or pipes. In addition to purported nicotine delivery,[1] this vapor also provides a flavor and physical sensation similar to that of inhaled tobacco smoke, while no smoke or combustion is actually involved in its operation.

 

An electronic cigarette takes the form of some manner of elongated tube, though many are designed to resemble the outward appearance of real smoking products, like cigarettes, cigars, and pipes. Another common design is the "pen-style", so named for its visual resemblance to a ballpoint pen. Most electronic cigarettes are reusable devices with replaceable and refillable parts. A number of disposable electronic cigarettes have also been developed.

The electronic cigarette was invented by a Chinese medicine practitioner Hon Lik in China in 2003 and introduced to the market the next year. The company he worked for, Golden Dragon Holdings, later changed its name to Ruyan (meaning "to resemble smoking") and started selling abroad.[2]

Want to read further.... Go to...

OLED VIDEOS

OLED-PRINCIPLE

History

     The first observations of electroluminescence in organic materials were in the early 1950s by A. Bernanose and co-workers at the Nancy-Université, France. They applied high-voltage alternating current (AC) fields in air to materials such as acridine orange, either deposited on or dissolved in cellulose or cellophane thin films.  The proposed mechanism was either direct excitation of the dye molecules or excitation of electrons.^[2][3][4][5]

      In 1960, Martin Pope and co-workers at New York University developed ohmic dark-injecting electrode contacts to organic crystals.^[6][7][8] They further described the necessary energetic requirements (work functions) for hole and electron injecting electrode contacts. These contacts are the basis of charge injection in all modern OLED devices. Pope's group also first observed direct current (DC) electroluminescence under vacuum on a pure single crystal of anthracene and on anthracene crystals doped with tetracene in 1963^[9] using a small area silver electrode at 400V. The proposed mechanism was field-accelerated electron excitation of molecular fluorescence.

     Pope's group reported in 1965^[10] that in the absence of an external electric field, the electroluminescence in anthracene crystals is caused by the recombination of a thermalized electron and hole, and that the conducting level of anthracene is higher in energy than the exciton energy level. Also in 1965, W. Helfrich and W. G. Schneider of the National Research Council in Canada produced double injection recombination electroluminescence for the first time in an anthracene single crystal using hole and electron injecting electrodes,^[11] the forerunner of modern double injection devices. In the same year, Dow Chemical researchers patented a method of preparing electroluminescent cells using high voltage (500–1500 V) AC-driven (100–3000 Hz) electrically-insulated one millimetre thin layers of a melted phosphor consisting of ground anthracene powder, tetracene, and graphite powder.^[12] Their proposed mechanism involved electronic excitation at the contacts between the graphite particles and the anthracene molecules.

    Device performance was limited by the poor electrical conductivity of contemporary organic materials.     However this was overcome by the discovery and development of highly conductive polymers.^[13] For more on the history of such materials, see conductive polymers.

    Electroluminescence from polymer films was first observed by Roger Partridge at the National Physical Laboratory in the United Kingdom. The device consisted of a film of poly(n-vinylcarbazole) up to 2.2 micrometres thick located between two charge injecting electrodes. The results of the project were patented in 1975^[14] and published in 1983.^{[15][16][17][18]}

      The first diode device was reported at Eastman Kodak by Ching W. Tang and Steven Van Slyke in 1987.^[19] This device used a novel two-layer structure with separate hole transporting and electron transporting layers such that recombination and light emission occurred in the middle of the organic layer. This resulted in a reduction in operating voltage and improvements in efficiency and led to the current era of OLED research and device production.

Research into polymer electroluminescence culminated in 1990 with J. H. Burroughes et al. at the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge reporting a high efficiency green light-emitting polymer based device using 100 nm thick films of poly(p-phenylene vinylene).^[20]

Working principle

Schematic of a bilayer OLED: 1. Cathode (−), 2. Emissive Layer, 3. Emission of radiation, 4. Conductive Layer, 5. Anode (+)

       A typical OLED is composed of a layer of organic materials situated between two electrodes, the anode and cathode, all deposited on a substrate. The organic molecules are electrically conductive as a result of delocalization of pi electrons caused by conjugation over all or part of the molecule. These materials have conductivity levels ranging from insulators to conductors, and therefore are considered organic semiconductors. The highest occupied and lowest unoccupied molecular orbitals (HOMO and LUMO) of organic semiconductors are analogous to the valence and conduction bands of inorganic semiconductors.

     Originally, the most basic polymer OLEDs consisted of a single organic layer. One example was the first light-emitting device synthesised by J. H. Burroughes et al., which involved a single layer of poly(p-phenylene vinylene). However multilayer OLEDs can be fabricated with two or more layers in order to improve device efficiency. As well as conductive properties, different materials may be chosen to aid charge injection at electrodes by providing a more gradual electronic profile,^[21] or block a charge from reaching the opposite electrode and being wasted.^[22] Many modern OLEDs incorporate a simple bilayer structure, consisting of a conductive layer and an emissive layer.

    During operation, a voltage is applied across the OLED such that the anode is positive with respect to the cathode. A current of electrons flows through the device from cathode to anode, as electrons are injected into the LUMO of the organic layer at the cathode and withdrawn from the HOMO at the anode. This latter process may also be described as the injection of electron holes into the HOMO. Electrostatic forces bring the electrons and the holes towards each other and they recombine forming an exciton, a bound state of the electron and hole. This happens closer to the emissive layer, because in organic semiconductors holes are generally more mobile than electrons. The decay of this excited state results in a relaxation of the energy levels of the electron, accompanied by emission of radiation whose frequency is in the visible region. The frequency of this radiation depends on the band gap of the material, in this case the difference in energy between the HOMO and LUMO.

    As electrons and holes are fermions with half integer spin, an exciton may either be in a singlet state or a triplet state depending on how the spins of the electron and hole have been combined. Statistically three triplet excitons will be formed for each singlet exciton. Decay from triplet states (phosphorescence) is spin forbidden, increasing the timescale of the transition and limiting the internal efficiency of fluorescent devices. Phosphorescent organic light-emitting diodes make use of spin–orbit interactions to facilitate intersystem crossing between singlet and triplet states, thus obtaining emission from both singlet and triplet states and improving the internal efficiency.

      Indium tin oxide (ITO) is commonly used as the anode material. It is transparent to visible light and has a high work function which promotes injection of holes into the HOMO level of the organic layer. A typical conductive layer may consist of PEDOT:PSS^[23] as the HOMO level of this material generally lies between the workfunction of ITO and the HOMO of other commonly used polymers, reducing the energy barriers for hole injection. Metals such as barium and calcium are often used for the cathode as they have low work functions which promote injection of electrons into the LUMO of the organic layer.^[24] Such metals are reactive, so require a capping layer of aluminium to avoid degradation.

     Single carrier devices are typically used to study the kinetics and charge transport mechanisms of an organic material and can be useful when trying to study energy transfer processes. As current through the device is composed of only one type of charge carrier, either electrons or holes, recombination does not occur and no light is emitted. For example, electron only devices can be obtained by replacing ITO with a lower work function metal which increases the energy barrier of hole injection. Similarly, hole only devices can be made by using a cathode comprised solely of aluminium, resulting in an energy barrier too large for efficient electron injection 

^{VIDEOS: OLED}               

ORGANIC LED-OLED-FUTURE TREND

Defnition:

  Organic LED (light-emitting diode) is a display technology based on the use of an organic substance, typically a polymer, as the semiconductor material in light-emitting diodes (LEDs). A polymer can be a natural or synthetic substance and macro or micro in size. Examples of organic polymers include proteins and DNA. OLED technology was pioneered at Kodak, by Dr. Ching W. Tang. 

   An OLED display is created by sandwiching organic thin films between two conductors. When an electrical current is applied to this structure, it emits a bright light. Because OLED displays don't require backlighting, they can be thinner and weigh less than other display technologies. OLED displays also have a wide viewing angle -- up to 160 degrees even in bright light -- and use only two to ten volts to operate.
OLED displays are used in televisions, laptop and desktop computers, cellular phones, digital video cameras, DVD players, PDAs (personal digital assistants) and car stereos. New technologies that build on the OLED include the FOLED (flexible organic light-emitting display), which promises to bring portable, roll-up displays to the consumer market within the next few years. According to market analysts DisplaySearch, OLED display revenues will grow to $4.5 B by 2011, up from $0.5 B in 2006.

  Wouldn't you like to be able to read off the screen of your laptop in direct sunlight? Your mobile phone battery to last much, much longer? Or your next flat screen TV to be less expensive, much flatter, and even flexible? Thanks to a breakthrough technology called Organic Displays, this could soon be reality.

  Although the technology behind Organic LED (OLED) displays is pure chemistry, the applications are much more everyday - mobile telephone and television screens, laptop and stereo displays, car navigation systems, or even billboards.

  This OLED technology is based on a revolutionary discovery that light-emitting, fast switching diodes could be made from polymers as well as from semiconductors. Starting from a standard LCD glass covered with structured ITO (Indium-Tin-Oxide), the polymer materials are applied by precision ink jet printing. Using this technology, pixels of red, green, and blue material are applied. After the patterned cathode has been applied via metal evaporation, the cell is sealed.

  Philips states that the big advantage of the manufacturing process is its simplicity and therefore its potential for low cost; only a very limited number of process steps are needed. This procedure requires fewer manufacturing steps than the manufacturing of LCDs, and, more importantly, fewer materials are used. In fact, the whole display can be built on one sheet of glass or plastic, so it should be cheaper to manufacture. Philips' thin-film PolyLED technology will enable the production of full-color displays less than 1 mm thick. Combined with a large viewing angle, high brightness and contrast, and full video capability, PolyLED displays are ideal for the next generation of information displays.

  The Kodak EasyShare LS633 zoom digital camera uses Kodak's innovative, award-winning AM OLED technology to display bright, sharp images for better on-camera viewing and sharing from virtually any angle.

  The LS633 camera represented a major milestone in the development and manufacture of OLED displays exhibiting more vivid images and crisper video to consumer electronics. The Kodak display AM550L features 165-degree viewing on a 2.2-inch screen that is up to 107 percent larger than the LCDs on most cameras.

  OLED display technology from Kodak is already found in car audio components manufactured by Pioneer and cellular phones marketed by Motorola and Sanyo . With ongoing research conducted by Kodak and its technology licensees, the applications for OLEDs continue to expand, making it clearly the display technology of the future.

  Not only can they provide brighter, better images at a lower cost, but best of all: Organic Displays use a material with self-luminous properties that eliminates the need for a backlight. While backlighting is a crucial component to improving brightness in LCDs, it also adds significant cost as well as requiring extra power - which, for instance, translates into the heavy batteries in your laptop. With an organic display, your laptop might be less heavy to carry around, or your battery lasts much longer compared to a laptop equipped with a traditional LCD screen.

Polymer LEDs have several inherent properties that afford unique possibilities, such as:

* All colors of the visible spectrum are available

* High brightness is achieved at low drive voltages/current densities

* No viewing angle dependence

* Operating lifetime exceeding 10,000 hours

* High response speeds allow display of high quality video

Advantages of Plastic Electronics

  One big advantage of plastic electronics is that there is virtually no restriction on size. Conventional semiconductor components have become smaller and smaller over the course of time. Silicon is the base material of all microelectronics and is eminently suited for this purpose. However, the making of larger components is difficult and therefore costly. The silicon in semiconductor components has to be mono crystalline: it has to have a very pure crystal form without defects in the crystal structure. This is achieved by allowing melted silicon to crystallize under precisely controlled conditions. The larger the crystal, the more problematic this process is. Plastic does not have any of these problems, so that semi-conducting plastics are paving the way for larger semiconductor components.

With the increasing popularity of LCD screens to replace the conventional picture (cathode ray) tube, PolyLED should emerge as another suitable candidate. A screen based on PolyLEDs has obvious advantages: the screen is lightweight and flexible, so that it can be rolled up. With plastic chips you can ensure that the electronics driving the screen are integrated in the screen itself. Other applications of the PolyLED are luminous information screens of almost unlimited size, for example alongside motorways or at train stations.

Philips and PolyLed

Since the discovery of polymer-based light emitting diode (LED) in 1989, Philips has been working on PolyLED. Today, Philips is the first to ship monochrome PolyLED displays in mass production. Philips Research is now concentrating on the development of PolyLED technologies for next-generation full-color displays and on ways of integrating PolyLEDs into flexible displays.

State-of-the-art

Launched in September 2002, the Sensotec Philishave is the first ever product equipped with a display based on superior PolyLED technology and is prominently featured in the latest James Bond movie, Die Another Day.

In 2002, SANYO, Kodak, and SKD shipped 300 OLED displays for trial use in mobile phones. In order to increase production of low temperature poly-silicon TFT LCD displays, the demand for which currently exceeds capacity and in order to establish a mass production infrastructure required for full scale mass production startup of OLED displays, a factory of Tottori SANYO Co., Ltd. was placed under the control of SANYO LCD Engineering Co., Ltd. in February of 2003. The manufacturing line used for the production of amorphous silicon TFT displays is was shifted over to the production of low temperature poly-silicon TFT displays. Production of Low temperature poly-silicon TFT displays on the converted line began in April of 2003.

Some of the challenges OLEDs have to face:

* Entering a market already dominated by a large CRT-to-LCD panel conversion process

* Breaking into the consumer mindset where viewers are still struggling to understand new technologies

* Ensuring competitive refresh rates, contrast ratios, black levels and overall performance

* Quickly m eeting and exceeding price points set by current LCD/plasma technology leaders

While the last issue may be quickly resolved due the nature of the OLED manufacturing process itself, the first three items have yet to be proven and undertaken. OLED technology has to go from novelty to practical competitor in a market that is constantly evolving to exceed and extend beyond its current boundaries. LCD screens are getting faster and faster, while Plasma displays continue to drop in price and go up in performance (check out some of the latest "real-world" contrast ratios achieved by Pioneer and other manufacturers - they rival or exceed that of many high-end direct view CRTs and RPTVs).

We're not sure how fast OLEDs targeted towards home theater or computer display are going to flood the market (Kodak is banking on it happening quickly), but the dam is under stress and the onslaught of consumer devices, once the manufacturing processes are firmly established and optimized, should make for a fantastic "display" of products - one we're looking forward to monitoring.

videos:

The History of Airbags

   Airbags are a type of automobile safety restraint like seat belts. They are gas-inflated cushions built into the steering wheel, dashboard, door, roof, or seat of your car that use a crash sensor to trigger a rapid expansion to protect you from the impact of an accident.

Allen Breed - History of the Airbag

   Allen Breed was holding the patent (U.S. #5,071,161) to the only crash sensing technology available at the birth of the airbag industry. Breed invented a "sensor and safety system" in 1968, the world's first electromechanical automotive airbag system.   However, rudimental patents for airbags go back to the 1950s. Patent applications were submitted by German Walter Linderer and American John Hedrik as early as 1951.
Walter Linderer's airbag was based on a compressed air system, either released by bumper contact or by the driver. Later research during the sixties proved that compressed air could not blow the bags up fast enough. Linderer received German patent #896312.
   John Hedrik received U.S. Patent #2,649,311 in 1953 for what he called a "safety cushion assembly for automotive vehicles."

Airbags Introduced

   In 1971, the Ford car company built an experimental airbag fleet. General Motors tested airbags on the 1973 model Chevrolet automobile that were only sold for government use. The 1973, Oldsmobile Toronado was the first car with a passenger air bag intended for sale to the public. General Motors later offered an option to the general public of driver side airbags in full-sized Oldsmobile's and Buick's in 1975 and 1976 respectively. Cadillacs were available with driver and passenger airbags options during those same years. Early airbags system had design issues resulting in fatalities caused solely by the airbags. Airbags were offered once again as an option on the 1984 Ford Tempo automobile. By 1988, Chrysler became the first company to offer air bag restraint systems as standard equipment. In 1994, TRW began production of the first gas-inflated airbag. They are now mandatory in all cars since 1998.

Types of Airbags

  There are two types of airbags; frontal and the various types of side-impact airbags. Advanced frontal air bag systems automatically determine if and with what level of power the driver frontal air bag and the passenger frontal air bag will inflate. The appropriate level of power is based upon sensor inputs that can typically detect: 1) occupant size, 2) seat position, 3) seat belt use of the occupant, and 4) crash severity. Side-impact air bags (SABs) are inflatable devices that are designed to help protect your head and/or chest in the event of a serious crash involving the side of your vehicle. There are three main types of SABs: chest (or torso) SABs, head SABs and head/chest combination (or "combo") SABs.

Sorce:

Do u know why we call 'e' as natural no??

e was invented by Leonard Euler, and is sometimes called Euler's constant, but it's proper name is still 'e'. Euler is pronounce "Oiler".

Take the formula a^x, where a is some number. Say 2^x.

2^0 is 1

2^1 is 2

2^2 is 4

2^3 is 8

and so on.

You can draw this on a graph. It starts fairly flat but rises very quickly and quickly goes off the top of the paper.

You can draw a tangent line to this curve (a line which touches the curve). The steepness or slope of this line measures the rate at which the formula is increasing at the place where the line touches the curve.

A remarkable thing happens. For the 2^x graph, at every point on the graph, the rate of increase of 2^x is 0.693 2^x. The rate is proportional to the height of the graph. Positive feedback!

Try the same thing with 10^x. The rate of increase is 2.3 10^x

Same idea.

So if 2^x rises at 0.693 2^x which is less than 2^x

and 10^x rises at 2.3 10^x which is more than 10^x

then is there a number a between 2 and 10 for which

a^x rises at exactly a^x?

Yes there is. That number is e.

You can take logs to any base, but no base seems better than any other. Is there a base which is somehow more natural than 2 or 10? Yes: base e.

The natural log of x is written ln(x)

In my examples above, the mysterious 0.693 is ln(2)

the mysterious 2.3 is ln(10)

Because e^x is that magic function whose rate is equal to itself, it pops up all over the place where there are problems to do with rates.

for More Study click here....

Can We Store Electricity from Lightning?

It is theoretically possible to store and harness the electricity from lightning, and several proposals have been advanced to show how this could be done. There are a number of reasons which make these proposals impractical, however. Lightning is simply not a good source of energy, and there are numerous alternatives which are safer, less energy-intensive, more effective, and readily available. In other words, just because humans can potentially and highly theoretically store electricity from lightning doesn't mean that they should.

On the surface, lightning seems to have a lot of potential as an energy source. It is totally renewable, which is a definite advantage, and it is readily available in some regions of the world. Furthermore, lightning has a lot of energy; a single bolt can power 150 million light bulbs. The idea of harnessing so much energy and storing it is immensely appealing.

There are a number of problems with trying to harness the tremendous energy of lightning bolts. The first is that lightning is highly unpredictable. There is no way to know exactly where and when lightning will strike, so it would be difficult to find a location to turn into a facility for processing lightning for energy. Lightning also delivers its energy all at once, which would require huge batteries and capacitors. Otherwise, the energy would simply blow out any systems established to capture it.

The potential instability in the supply of electricity from lightning is far less of an issue than the infrastructure which would be needed to support the energy collection process. Lightning is so powerful that it would overload all but the most sophisticated and heavy-duty systems, and the wisdom of building and installing such a system would be questionable if it could only harvest the energy from a few lightning bolts a year. Even in areas where lightning is frequent, the cost of the system would probably outweigh the benefit of getting electricity from lightning.

Humans may at some point develop a system which can cheaply and effectively collect and store electricity from lightning. Technological innovation is a natural part of human societies, and advances are constantly being made. 18th century humans would have been astounded by the things developed in the 19th century, for example. Such a development is likely to occur in the distant future, however, making it more important to focus on accessible sources of alternative energy like sunlight, wind, and water.

SOURCE:

Can We Store Electricity from Lightning?

It is theoretically possible to store and harness the electricity from lightning, and several proposals have been advanced to show how this could be done. There are a number of reasons which make these proposals impractical, however. Lightning is simply not a good source of energy, and there are numerous alternatives which are safer, less energy-intensive, more effective, and readily available. In other words, just because humans can potentially and highly theoretically store electricity from lightning doesn't mean that they should.

On the surface, lightning seems to have a lot of potential as an energy source. It is totally renewable, which is a definite advantage, and it is readily available in some regions of the world. Furthermore, lightning has a lot of energy; a single bolt can power 150 million light bulbs. The idea of harnessing so much energy and storing it is immensely appealing.

There are a number of problems with trying to harness the tremendous energy of lightning bolts. The first is that lightning is highly unpredictable. There is no way to know exactly where and when lightning will strike, so it would be difficult to find a location to turn into a facility for processing lightning for energy. Lightning also delivers its energy all at once, which would require huge batteries and capacitors. Otherwise, the energy would simply blow out any systems established to capture it.

The potential instability in the supply of electricity from lightning is far less of an issue than the infrastructure which would be needed to support the energy collection process. Lightning is so powerful that it would overload all but the most sophisticated and heavy-duty systems, and the wisdom of building and installing such a system would be questionable if it could only harvest the energy from a few lightning bolts a year. Even in areas where lightning is frequent, the cost of the system would probably outweigh the benefit of getting electricity from lightning.

Humans may at some point develop a system which can cheaply and effectively collect and store electricity from lightning. Technological innovation is a natural part of human societies, and advances are constantly being made. 18th century humans would have been astounded by the things developed in the 19th century, for example. Such a development is likely to occur in the distant future, however, making it more important to focus on accessible sources of alternative energy like sunlight, wind, and water.

SOURCE: WWW.wisegeek.com