• Please visit and share your knowledge at our sister communities:
  • If you have not, please join our official Homebrewing Facebook Group!

    Homebrewing Facebook Group

Technica Cornucopia

Homebrew Talk

Help Support Homebrew Talk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
1736990551966.png


;)

But...there are US based efforts that might be revealing with time.
For instance: https://www.spacesolar.caltech.edu/
And experiments already conducted in space by the Naval Research Labs (pdf): https://aerospace.org/sites/default/files/2020-10/Vedda-Jones_SolarPower_20201006_0.pdf

Cheers!
 
What could go wrong with a 10's or 100's of Megawatt focused power beam? What is the required area of the collection "antenna" to absorb that kind of power without vaporizing? What is the projected cost per KWH, and how does it compare to terrestrial based solar arrays?

"Though we have greatly improved on solar power in the last few decades, there is one ambitious way we could potentially give it a real boost; moving solar panels slightly closer to the Sun."
Let's see - 22,370 mi / 83,000,000 mi = 0.00027 => 0.027% closer to the sun. That should be worth a few hundred billion dollars.

"... and the fact that it could move around the Earth, perpetually collecting sunlight."
"... geostationary orbit 36,000km (22,370 miles) above the Earth."

These two are kinda mutually exclusive. And, moving around the earth would require multiple ground stations to collect the "downloaded" power. Some of these ground stations would have to be outside of China.

"The energy collected in one year would be equivalent to the total amount of oil that can be extracted from the Earth."

Gotta be talking many terawatts here. or maybe even more. I'd really like to see the analysis for this.

Brew on :mug:
The constituencies of the atmosphere does attenuate energy from the sun. I have no idea how much, but since they can do stuff like propel a spacecraft using only photons while in space, I'm willing to give this sort of thing some leeway
 
The constituencies of the atmosphere does attenuate energy from the sun. I have no idea how much, but since they can do stuff like propel a spacecraft using only photons while in space, I'm willing to give this sort of thing some leeway
I'm aware of atmospheric absorption. I was commenting about a particular piece of technical nonsense that calls the credibility of the article into question. Also, it seems like it would be a lot cheaper to just install more solar panels on the earth to make up for atmospheric absorption and cloudy day effects.

I've not seen anything about photon propulsion that indicates it provides enough force to manipulate a satellite's orbit on a continuing basis.

Brew on :mug:
 
I'm aware of atmospheric absorption. I was commenting about a particular piece of technical nonsense that calls the credibility of the article into question. Also, it seems like it would be a lot cheaper to just install more solar panels on the earth to make up for atmospheric absorption and cloudy day effects.

I've not seen anything about photon propulsion that indicates it provides enough force to manipulate a satellite's orbit on a continuing basis.

Brew on :mug:
Gotcha. I was commenting on the slightly closer to the sun piece, which I think is significant because they are going to be outside of the atmosphere. My photon comment was not related to the strange description of a geostationary orbit that also moves around the Earth.
 
I'm aware of atmospheric absorption. I was commenting about a particular piece of technical nonsense that calls the credibility of the article into question. Also, it seems like it would be a lot cheaper to just install more solar panels on the earth to make up for atmospheric absorption and cloudy day effects.
Bear in mind... Most journalists--even "science" journalists--may not actually know what they're talking about.

I.e. you bring it up with your "moving closer to the sun". Umm... If in geostationary orbit, half its orbit would be while it's farther away from the sun than the Earth. So, it's only "closer" half the time. As we know, the value of it is that it's outside the atmosphere, not that it's closer to the sun. Which the writer ALSO says, so it makes little sense to have said the first bit about putting the panels "closer".

That said, a geostationary orbit still, in a very real sense, moves around the Earth. Its movement relative to a spot on the equator is zero, but it's still circling the earth in its orbit. And a geostationary orbit would have almost 24 hours a day of full and direct sunlight. On Earth, the solar panels are typically in darkness roughly half a day, and even when there is sunlight, during morning/evening time the solar panels are less efficient due to the angle of the sun being less direct and having more atmosphere in the way. In a geostationary orbit, there would be very tiny bit of the orbital arc where the Earth would occlude the sun, but for every other minute of the day the solar panels would be receiving fully direct 100% sunlight--so for the bulk of the day they wouldn't even suffer the morning/evening issues we have within the atmosphere.

All that said, this is probably just China posturing with a crazy idea of what they might do scientifically and for many reasons both technological AND economical, isn't something they will actually do.
 
Math doesn't lie. Math is telling it exists. The great thing is when we "discover" what it is it's verifiable. There will be an eloquent solution/equation. Then you have all the propellor heads say "yea. Of course"

Knowing there is a gap in our knowledge, and eliminating that gap through knowledge, are two completely different things.

In fact, there are likely things we CANNOT understand, thus not attainable. I don't mean we haven't figured it out yet... I mean the entire math of it would not make any sense to us in any way. Our hubris is limitless I think, and the idea that there are things we cannot understand is unacceptable to some. But I get it, heck I've been married 36 years.

Adding a fudge factor like "dark matter" is fine with me. It helps us get past our limits.
 
Knowing there is a gap in our knowledge, and eliminating that gap through knowledge, are two completely different things.

In fact, there are likely things we CANNOT understand, thus not attainable. I don't mean we haven't figured it out yet... I mean the entire math of it would not make any sense to us in any way. Our hubris is limitless I think, and the idea that there are things we cannot understand is unacceptable to some. But I get it, heck I've been married 36 years.

Adding a fudge factor like "dark matter" is fine with me. It helps us get past our limits.
The fudge factor might need assume revising.

https://www.space.com/the-universe/...g-of-the-universe-apart-new-research-suggests
 
Destroy every last copy before the aliens recreate us!

Although it is currently not possible to synthetically recreate humans, plants, or animals from genetic data, there has been some progress in synthetic biology. Thus, the preservation of genomes using 5D memory crystals could one day play a critical role in reviving extinct species (such as us) in the distant future.
 
I did have a gilbert chemistry set. The only thing I remember making with it was caramel (put sugar in test tube, light Bunsen burner, melt). But this thing below... I had no idea it even existed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_U-238_Atomic_Energy_Laboratory#

(btw, anyone wanting to deep dive into a related subject: the "Gilbert" who created my chem set, the atomic set below, the famous "Erector Sets" of my day, the American Flyer train, olympic medals, etc, seemed to be a phenom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Carlton_Gilbert )

1743032625509.png
 
Last edited:
Today you could never sell anything as "dangerous" as those offerings from Gilbert.

I inherited a "College level" Gilbert chemistry set from my dad. It was about 20 inches wide with a blue metal case and opened into three tiers. I don't know what ever happened to that set.
That was the early 60s.
 
Back
Top