...100 MW of Space Solar Power ...per single launch!
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
Next: What is the correct term for this type of chart?
From: Sylvia Else on 13 Dec 2009 19:05 gaetanomarano wrote: > . > . > > Space Solar Power hoax/illusion DEBUNKED article: > > http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/038sspdebunked.html > > . > . > > Why the Ares-1 is already DEAD article: > > http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts2/058ares1dead.html > > . > . Aaagh. More excessive highlighting. Sylvia.
From: Sylvia Else on 13 Dec 2009 19:08 Jonathan wrote: > "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote in message > news:00a09904$0$23357$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >>> Solaren has not provided details on just how its technology >>> works, citing intellectual property concerns. >> Meaning it wouldn't stand up to the inevitable expert scrutiny if they got a >> patent. >> > > Maybe, but keeping a secret could mean fraud or it could mean > a breakthrough, we don't know for sure. If they have a breakthrough, they should get a patent on it, ASAP. As long as it's merely secret, they're exposed to industrial espionage, accidental leaks, you name it. > But the electric company > P G & E, one of the largest utilities in the nation, while considering > the contract should be privy to the details of the technology. It wouldn't be the first time that people who should have known better got taken for a ride. See http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-240493.html which is about the Pixelon video-streaming compression scam. Sylvia.
From: Sylvia Else on 13 Dec 2009 19:10 Uncle Al wrote: > 80% bullshit business plan number for RF > conversion At 80%, the remaining 20%, or 80MW, is heat that has to be got rid of, by radiation alone. Sylvia.
From: Alain Fournier on 13 Dec 2009 20:03 [sci.space.history deleted] Jorge R. Frank wrote: > Alain Fournier wrote: >> As Peter said, a microwave energy beam would be spread over an area >> in the square kilometre range. This is not really for security's sake >> it is because of basic physics making it impossible to focus a microwave >> beam very tightly over long distances. The beam would be survivable >> by an unshielded human being (or more likely by a bird flying through >> it). The electronics in the jetliner are shielded by the hull of the >> plane and will survive the beam even more so than the human wandering >> into the beam. This is not a problem. > > > That's correct. The beam power density will be about one-fourth the > solar constant. Even then, the aircraft hull is a perfect Faraday cage > against the frequencies of the beam. > > The safety issues are overblown (the economic issues are not). Well, some people do over blow the economic issues, but I think we agree here. The problem with the safety issues are not the effective safety per se, but the NIMBY, that they would create. The fact that the technology is safe will not stop an ignorant crowd from screaming about MWs of DANGEROUS RADIATION. Which of course is the same as saying what you said that the safety issues are overblown, but that over blowing can cause real problems. Alain Fournier
From: Uncle Al on 14 Dec 2009 12:15
Sylvia Else wrote: > > Uncle Al wrote: > > > 80% bullshit business plan number for RF > > conversion > > At 80%, the remaining 20%, or 80MW, is heat that has to be got rid of, > by radiation alone. > > Sylvia. Given 0% carbon footprint, 80 MW continuous ground heating cannot add to Global Warming. Besides, it is add over a broad area. It's not like lighting a candle or grilling a steak - both of which are Enviro-whiner atrocities. -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm |