LightSail’s Danielle Fong on the Most Exciting Science
by Danielle Fong
As 2013 was winding down, James Temple of Re/Code asked me about the most exciting science of the past year. That article is available here.
It’s hard to pin down exactly one “breakthrough.” The paradigmatic examples are in fact not what they seem.
For example, Alexander Fleming isn’t even the first one to have discovered or written about antibiotic properties of penicillin (as early as the 1870s the mould was written about). He was in a position to look for antibiotics, given his work on antibacterials during the war. And he made the initial discovery in 1928, abandoned clinical work on it in 1931, restarted in 1934, and continued to try to get a chemist to purify it until the 1940s. The development of antibiotics was not just one thing.
For that matter, the lightbulb was a filament, plus a vacuum, plus a high resistance, plus a whole electrical system — generator, mains, feeders, the works. Bulbs existed before Edison, but he brought a system forth to provide lighting.
And the Wright Brothers weren’t the first ones to have achieved flight, but heavier than air (Zeppelins were first) *controlled* flight. They needed to invent new flying paradigms, wing warping, new engines, new propellors, control systems, developed elevators and wings. They tested in wind tunnels, an invention of their own. It wasn’t just one thing — though there certainly was a moment of truth in the air!
Hence, themes. My two picks for the most exciting things in science last year:
1) Exoplanets! – so many worlds teeming with life, all in the sky, perhaps within reach.
So much happened this year. We are in a galaxy with perhaps 100 billion worlds, 17 billion “earth like.” The galaxy may be a fertile garden of life.
What’s driving all of this is an incredible refinement of the transit technique for the detection of exoplanets, culminating in the Kepler spacecraft.
Researchers are really finding their stride in data analysis and techniques, and a plethora of discoveries have resulted.
These discoveries have helped make it possible to imagine humanity spread throughout the stars, and innumerable worlds, and lifeforms abound, waiting to be discovered.
2) How Genes Really Work
Specifically, steadily increasing control and understanding. Take a look at how many of these advances listed here involve epigenetics or gene therapy or the discovery of an important gene or the sequencing of a new species or the use of genetic modification to understand a new organism.
We’re still only scratching the surface here. But genetics isn’t like computer code; it’s chemistry and systems science and ecology. Genes are regulated by the environment, and other genes, and genes regulate the environment in turn. We’re understanding more and more how to introduce genes into new lifeforms, how they’re expressed, regulated, how they mutate, change, how they fold (we caught a ribosome in mid fold!).
We can now even make machines — it is a stretch to call them robots — but machines, nanomachines, out of DNA. (See video below.)
I’m both excited and disappointed with my two picks. They give us amazing new capabilities — dreamt of for a long time, now made real. But they are not the broad new continents of possibility that some hope for in breakthroughs.
Personally, I think that at least one of three things I’ve been working on in 2013 should be on there, eventually. In the future, perhaps, on whatever Wikipedia page you’d read, you’d read that I came up with the idea in 2013. But since none of it is public, and none of it has been proven yet, you’ll only hear about it in a few years, and if LightSail is any indication, it will be another three years before anyone writes about it as a breakthrough, and another three until it is actually real.
Hallo Danielle,
When do you see your work turning into products applicable to building PV Micro Grods with ESS using CAES
Alaaeldin A. Assal
+49 151 587 80 700
In pilot this year, commercially in two.
I have read about this tech before, the storage of energy in compressed air, But you have a very simple way of solving the problem. There is much work to be done in this area. I found your name and idea when I was looking for a compressed air tank that was shaped like a bagel. I was thinking to build a car or bike that looks like a can on it side or a toaster with ribs made out of made air tanks shaped like toaster. It would have compressed air to run the wheels. If it was in a bad crash it would dump the air with valves, fast like how an air bag gos off. The tail would be concave and the nose would be like a bullet. It would use a deflatable bumper in the front. The idea is to make a train on the road with other cars like this and draft. Like if you line up coca cola cans up on there side. They would use the compressed air around town at slow speeds. On the highway they would link up and also rub on a electric rail on the fast lane. Some of the tech for parking cars could be used to dock with the other cars at speed. This tech could also be used for trucks. This idea is to use a small power storage to bridge the gap in the powered rail or to get to the rail. This would make it cheaper less rails needed also. I like compressed air because it is safe will not burn up or dump acid all over the road. It also does not use rare earth Metals. Any way your idea is great and I want you to know it can also be a link in other safe and planet saving ideas.
Where you at Danielle?! We are waiting to hear more of the innovations at Lightsail! Is it possible that the system is not working so feasibly that you had to lay off employees this year?
No, things are working pretty well. There were minor bumps, and a personnel problem I can’t talk about. Most of our laid off employees were pretty great and i’m sad to see them go, but we’re working better than ever now.
Hi Danielle!
Excellent, exciting work! i know there must be so many doubts and the timelines must seem so far off but this tech is truly exciting and promising. Just imagine the hurdles in the way of bringing more complicated tech to market.
It is the right choice to focus on pragmatic, marketable solutions. Markets aside, your solution for energy storage is simple. What is often overlooked is the power of enthusiasts / small-time tinkerers that implement, test, and prove new technological solutions. You are looking at top-down energy solutions – large-scale industrial solutions that are market-ready and market-competitive- and that is much needed to do because the problems of climate change need to be tackled immediately; however, your tech is conceptually accessible, in a way, to the everyday person (every garage hobbyist has an air compressor) and that means a second avenue for change. If you have a two-pronged approach to implementing this tech – top-down and bottom-up or venture cap market driven and enthusiast/grassroots market driven – it may help! When investors see a strong hobbyist or grassroots adoption of tech the risk goes down for them. Think of all the uses for small scale versions of your compressed air tech! Everyone I know who wants an off-grid house has issues with deep cycle batteries. Look at what’s happened with arduino and rasberry pi in the last few years. Marketable innovation comes from the bottom, too, not just high-tech labs. There are a lot of compelling arguments out there that corporations don’t innovate, or the innovations the make are always small and incremental and never truly game-changing. Significant or revolutionary tech almost always comes from publically funded research (like the internet, GPS, air travel etc) or grassroots hobbyists (e.g. mountain bikes)… I’m not making a strong argument here but check out James Surowecki’s The Wisdom of Crowds. All this to say, keep up the good work and please do what you can to drop this technology in the everyday person’s hands as soon as possible!
Thanks! We will eventually shrink to consumer scale, if all goes well!
Hi Danielle, OK, I confess that I’m out of my depth. But over in that article about LightSail in Fortune’s “Shape the Future” section, you quoted 30kWh/m^3. I can find no way to get to such a number expanding from 300 bar to 1 bar. The work that could be accomplished isothermally at 100% efficiency should be the integral from V1 at 300 bar to V2 at 1 bar times number of moles times R (universal gas constant) times T times natural logarithm of V2/V1. Since T is constant, V2/V1=P1/P2=300 at 300 bar (obviously). When I run those numbers, I get 0.16 kWh/m^3, some 187 times less than your number (I used T=293K and certainly, a higher T would lead to a higher capacity but it’s hard to see how it could be enough). I also stuck with an ideal gas which air is not but, again, it hardly seems enough to make up such a large difference. It seems like a pretty straightforward calculation, where is the error?
I’m sure you have a lot more to do than correct my analysis, but I’ll appreciate it if you can just point me to an obvious error.
Hi there,
I see two mistakes, one big and one small.
First the small one; for an ideal gas expanding isothermally into a one atmosphere environment from a tank a pressure P, the energy out is, ideally
P V * (ln (P/Patm) – 1 + Patm/P)
The reason for this is that you have to displace a certain amount of gas in the atmosphere. Another way of looking at it is that it’s only the ∆P that acts on the piston.
The big mistake —
I think you’re way off in terms of the number of moles.
Since P V = NRT it’s a lot more convenient just to use substitute PV into your equation. 1 bar * 1 liter is 100 j, 300 bar * 1 m^3 is 30 MJ. And plugging into the formula:
E = P V * (ln (P/Patm) – 1 + Patm/P) = 141 MJ or 39.23 kwhr.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=300+bar+*+1+m%5E3+*+%28Ln%28300%29+-+1+%2B+1%2F300%29+in+kwhr
I’m not sure where you messed up your calculation for the number of moles, but I’m pretty sure that’s your problem.