Prev: Diodes for 12v battery charging
Next: Lab power supply
From: jimp on 31 Jan 2010 12:25
In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill(a)peoplepc.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> So how much does it cost
>>
>> >> >> >Can you think of any commodity cheaper than glass slivers or fibers?
>>
>> >> >> Yes.  Big talk.
>>
>> >> > Which is why we are still waiting for your spread sheet on why it
>> >> > should be summarily dismissed.
>>
>> >> Still obsessed with spreadsheets, I see.
>>
>> >> The acquistion cost of base materials is, for most things, a trivial
>> >> cost in total system cost.
>>
>> > Unless you are claiming that it is prohibitively expensive to put
>> > lasers and light sensors in space that's an a fortiori argument for
>> > artificial snow.
>>
>> Your statement: "Can you think of any commodity cheaper than glass slivers
>> or fibers?"
>>
>> The cost of any "glass slivers or fibers" would be a trivial part of the
>> total system cost.
>
> You think a low power space based laser is expensive?

Not especially, but putting a laser in space, along with the aiming and
monitoring stuff is.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: Bret Cahill on 31 Jan 2010 14:15
> >> >> >> >> So how much does it cost
>
> >> >> >> >Can you think of any commodity cheaper than glass slivers or fibers?
>
> >> >> >> Yes.  Big talk.
>
> >> >> > Which is why we are still waiting for your spread sheet on why it
> >> >> > should be summarily dismissed.
>
> >> >> Still obsessed with spreadsheets, I see.
>
> >> >> The acquistion cost of base materials is, for most things, a trivial
> >> >> cost in total system cost.
>
> >> > Unless you are claiming that it is prohibitively expensive to put
> >> > lasers and light sensors in space that's an a fortiori argument for
> >> > artificial snow.
>
> >> Your statement: "Can you think of any commodity cheaper than glass slivers
> >> or fibers?"
>
> >> The cost of any "glass slivers or fibers" would be a trivial part of the
> >> total system cost.
>
> > You think a low power space based laser is expensive?
>
> Not especially, but putting a laser in space, along with the aiming and
> monitoring stuff is.

More than GPS?

After all this only requires one sat. in GSO


Bret Cahill
From: jimp on 31 Jan 2010 16:15
In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill(a)peoplepc.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> So how much does it cost
>>
>> >> >> >> >Can you think of any commodity cheaper than glass slivers or fibers?
>>
>> >> >> >> Yes.  Big talk.
>>
>> >> >> > Which is why we are still waiting for your spread sheet on why it
>> >> >> > should be summarily dismissed.
>>
>> >> >> Still obsessed with spreadsheets, I see.
>>
>> >> >> The acquistion cost of base materials is, for most things, a trivial
>> >> >> cost in total system cost.
>>
>> >> > Unless you are claiming that it is prohibitively expensive to put
>> >> > lasers and light sensors in space that's an a fortiori argument for
>> >> > artificial snow.
>>
>> >> Your statement: "Can you think of any commodity cheaper than glass slivers
>> >> or fibers?"
>>
>> >> The cost of any "glass slivers or fibers" would be a trivial part of the
>> >> total system cost.
>>
>> > You think a low power space based laser is expensive?
>>
>> you think a low power laser would suffice?
>
> How much power is required for _any_ communication, information or
> detection system? The GPS idea was never considered controversial
> _decades_ before it was deployed.
>
> We're not trying to kill anything which was the goal of some space
> based laser ideas.
>
> We just want to see if anything has disturbed some scattered micro
> reflectors either by changing the orientation or shattering it with
> the forces/pressures typical of an adult human wearing a boot.

Which means you have to illuminate a wide spread area, which means you
nead a lot more energy than you do for a tight beam communications system.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: Bret Cahill on 31 Jan 2010 23:51

> >> >> >> >> >> So how much does it cost
>
> >> >> >> >> >Can you think of any commodity cheaper than glass slivers or fibers?
>
> >> >> >> >> Yes.  Big talk.
>
> >> >> >> > Which is why we are still waiting for your spread sheet on why it
> >> >> >> > should be summarily dismissed.
>
> >> >> >> Still obsessed with spreadsheets, I see.
>
> >> >> >> The acquistion cost of base materials is, for most things, a trivial
> >> >> >> cost in total system cost.
>
> >> >> > Unless you are claiming that it is prohibitively expensive to put
> >> >> > lasers and light sensors in space that's an a fortiori argument for
> >> >> > artificial snow.
>
> >> >> Your statement: "Can you think of any commodity cheaper than glass slivers
> >> >> or fibers?"
>
> >> >> The cost of any "glass slivers or fibers" would be a trivial part of the
> >> >> total system cost.
>
> >> > You think a low power space based laser is expensive?
>
> >> you think a low power laser would suffice?
>
> > How much power is required for _any_ communication, information or
> > detection system?  The GPS idea was never considered  controversial
> > _decades_ before it was deployed.
>
> > We're not trying to kill anything which was the goal of some space
> > based laser ideas.
>
> > We just want to see if anything has disturbed some scattered micro
> > reflectors either by changing the orientation or shattering it with
> > the forces/pressures typical of an adult human wearing a boot.
>
> Which means you have to illuminate a wide spread area,

One small angle low power laser beam can scan hundreds of thousands of
square miles.

Are you this stoopid in real life or are you just pulling our legs?


Bret Cahill


 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Diodes for 12v battery charging
Next: Lab power supply