Solar-pumped laser power transmission, a way to dramatically decrease launch costs?
Jonathan
the lasers, not huge solar cell arrays. The lasers would
transmit their beams to other satellites that convert it to, and
beam it down, as microwaves. No need for mile-size
collectors in orbit.
Proceedings of the ASCE Earth&Space 2006 Conference
April 2006
Space Power Grid- Evolutionary Approach To Space Solar Power
"At a higher level, a direct solar-pumped laser could be used to
convert solar energy on the LEO satellites, and transmit the laser
beams to other satellites where the demand for power is greater
(e.g., satellites over the dark side of earth). Recently, development
of such lasers has reached a stage where efficiency of up to 38%
has been shown. These satellites would receive incoming
laser energy using their high-efficiency narrow-band photovoltaic
cells, convert it to microwave, and beam it to Earth. This
architecture has two advantages: the beaming to Earth
could be done at optimal microwave frequencies for maximum
transmission through the atmosphere, without requiring excessive
transmitter size. The laser beams would propagate with very
high efficiency, and require only small collectors. Thus the mass
and overall cost per unit power of the system with this architecture
may be substantially lower than the lower-risk option
presented before."
http://www.adl.gatech.edu/archives/adlp06040601.pdf
And it should be noted, the SPS start up company, Space Energy Inc,
maybe one of the more legitimate commercial attempts at SPS, has
as one of it's technical advisors this guy, and his /current/ specialty
might be a clue of things to come.....
Dr. Richard Dickinson
Space Energy Inc technical advisors
"Mr. Dickinson is one of the world's foremost experts on Wireless
Power Transmission (WPT). President of OFF EARTH-WPT,
Mr. Dickinson was Group Supervisor of the High-Power Transmitter
Group at Goldstone and was NASA's microwave power transmission
specialist on the Solar Power Satellite Reference System team....
.....he is currently involved in studying and designing the solar pumped
laser-power beaming phased array for interstellar missions."
http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/TechnicalAdvisors.htm
s
Uncle Al
>
> I like this idea, Relatively small mirrors would power
> the lasers, not huge solar cell arrays. The lasers would
> transmit their beams to other satellites that convert it to, and
> beam it down, as microwaves. No need for mile-size
> collectors in orbit.
0) Do you know ANYTHING about optics or orbital dynamics? No.
1) Beam divergence.
2) Socket to photon is typically 1% efficient.
3) Lasing media wear out.
4) Conversion inefficiencies.
5) Hardware costs are immense.
6) Alignment specs are unachievable.
7) idiot
>
> Proceedings of the ASCE Earth&Space 2006 Conference
> April 2006
>
> Space Power Grid- Evolutionary Approach To Space Solar Power
>
> "At a higher level, a direct solar-pumped laser could be used to
> convert solar energy on the LEO satellites, and transmit the laser
> beams to other satellites where the demand for power is greater
> (e.g., satellites over the dark side of earth). Recently, development
> of such lasers has reached a stage where efficiency of up to 38%
> has been shown. These satellites would receive incoming
> laser energy using their high-efficiency narrow-band photovoltaic
> cells, convert it to microwave, and beam it to Earth.
[snip crap]
Here's a hint, git: when you see a whore on the side of the road
advertising her wares, you will be disappointed with the empirical
product.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Jonathan
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4B2AE247...@hate.spam.net...
> idiot
>>
Ah, now I see my error. You sure showed me!
Sylvia Else
What's missing, as always, is any detailed costing. It's easy to wave
one's hands around, and conjure up systems that could be made to work
technically. But the bottom line is the bottome line, and as usual, it's
concealed.
Sylvia.
Androcles
"Jonathan" <Ho...@Again.net> wrote in message
news:p5SdndXFAKoISrfW...@giganews.com...
>I like this idea, Relatively small mirrors would power
> the lasers, not huge solar cell arrays. The lasers would
> transmit their beams to other satellites that convert it to, and
> beam it down, as microwaves. No need for mile-size
> collectors in orbit.
What are you babbling about?
Androcles
"Jonathan" <Ho...@Again.net> wrote in message
>
> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:4B2AE247...@hate.spam.net...
>
>> idiot
>>>
>
>
> Ah, now I see my error. You sure showed me!
>
Good. Now shut up.
BradGuth
Whatever anyone else can do, our William Mook can do it better and
cheaper, as long as it never involves his own loot. Space Energy
seems capable enough and willing to risk at least some of their own
loot.
I say we give them matching funds so that the public owns 50%.
~ BG
BradGuth
Considering the billions upon billions of public loot we've given to
mostly Republican sleazeballs, a 50% public investment shouldn't be
too much to ask for.
~ BG
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
> "Uncle Al" <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
Just remember "she" is a virgin 'cuse she says it is so.
Sylvia Else
Well, I wouldn't be so sure about that. Their web site says nothing
about finances that I can see, but the resumes of the directors are
interesting
http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/Directors.htm
It seems likely they'll know more about money, and how to get it, than
about the technology.
Sylvia.
Raghar
> "Uncle Al" <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4B2AE247...@hate.spam.net...
>
> > idiot
>
> Ah, now I see my error. You sure showed me!
>
Actually he did. His points 1 4 6 are relevant.
Jonathan
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:009eff7e$0$8205$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
> Well, I wouldn't be so sure about that. Their web site says nothing about
> finances that I can see, but the resumes of the directors are interesting
Yes, with Middle East connections. That caught my eye.
But here's the official 'pitch' given to potential investors.
It's a pretty nice sales pitch! But I think unless the govt steps in
and provides some sort of protection for investors, it's
still an uphill battle to find the money. But the idea has
clearly taken a large step forward.
http://www.spaceenergy.com/i/flash/ted_presentation
A good point he makes is that it's more a matter
of time, not technology, until a business model becomes
viable. He claims the prototype will cost $300 million.
And that the first 1GW satellite will cost $16 billion.
Which he says is about the same $16 to $23 billion
total lifetime cost of a 1GW nuclear plant. And he
claims it'll take about 5 years to build the first one
once it's financed. Probably all optimistic, but getting
there.
And I like his point where he asks, which would you rather
live next to, nuclear power plant, coal power plant, or
a rectenna?
Sylvia Else
> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
> news:009eff7e$0$8205$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
>> Well, I wouldn't be so sure about that. Their web site says nothing about
>> finances that I can see, but the resumes of the directors are interesting
>
>
> Yes, with Middle East connections. That caught my eye.
> But here's the official 'pitch' given to potential investors.
> It's a pretty nice sales pitch! But I think unless the govt steps in
> and provides some sort of protection for investors, it's
> still an uphill battle to find the money. But the idea has
> clearly taken a large step forward.
> http://www.spaceenergy.com/i/flash/ted_presentation
>
> A good point he makes is that it's more a matter
> of time, not technology, until a business model becomes
> viable.
And when would you prefer to invest - before it's viable, or after?
> He claims the prototype will cost $300 million.
> And that the first 1GW satellite will cost $16 billion.
> Which he says is about the same $16 to $23 billion
> total lifetime cost of a 1GW nuclear plant.
It's easy to invent numbers that suit a particular purpose, and the
particular purpose here could be to get investment. Where are the
detailed costings?
> And he
> claims it'll take about 5 years to build the first one
> once it's financed. Probably all optimistic, but getting
> there.
>
> And I like his point where he asks, which would you rather
> live next to, nuclear power plant, coal power plant, or
> a rectenna?
I might be inclined to go for the nuclear plant, actually. Better the
devil you know.
Sylvia.
Damon Hill
>>
>> And I like his point where he asks, which would you rather
>> live next to, nuclear power plant, coal power plant, or
>> a rectenna?
>
> I might be inclined to go for the nuclear plant, actually. Better the
> devil you know.
My thoughts, exactly.
--Damon
Pat Flannery
Things might be looked at differently if the wind had been from the
north on the day Chernobyl blew up and the radiation cloud had floated
over Kiev:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg/568px-Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg.png
Pat
Damon Hill
news:d-GdnbnI2eJtQ67W...@posted.northdakotatelephone:
No one builds and operates reactors like Chernobyl, and with good
reason. They're built like Three Mile Island, with effective
containment.
I'd much rather live downwind of a reactor than an oil refinery;
those do occasionally blow up with noxious results.
--Damon
Pat Flannery
> No one builds and operates reactors like Chernobyl, and with good
> reason. They're built like Three Mile Island, with effective
> containment.
And it was good three Island Island had that containment, as it
underwent a partial meltdown:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graphic_TMI-2_Core_End-State_Configuration.jpg
At least in the case of a oil refinery, you can tell something is
seriously wrong from all the fire, explosions, and black smoke.
And once you get a few miles away from it, your worst concerns are
exposure to some sooty smoke, and most of that is rising into the
atmosphere due to its heat.
In the case of a major nuclear powerplant malfunction you hear sirens
going off and other than that, everything looks fine. You can't see
where the radioactive steam or air is going, and can be breathing it in
without knowing it as it floats many miles downrange.
Besides, we are discussing powerplants here, not refineries.
A major accident at a oil or coal fired powerplant is going to be a lot
less severe than a refinery fire.
A gas-fired one could create real havoc though if the gas is stored in a
liquid form in tanks rather than piped to the powerplant.
No way I'd live near something like that, as getting simultaneously
frozen and burned to death doesn't appeal to me.
Pat
Jonathan
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
> Jonathan wrote:
>> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
> I might be inclined to go for the nuclear plant, actually. Better the devil
> you know.
>
> Sylvia.
And where will that decision take us fifty years into the future?
When will the third world get their nuclear power plants?
When will the bulk of humanity, living in rural areas, get
their electricity? Or will they warm themselves over the piles
and piles of nuclear waste we'll be sending them?
Space Energy Inc gave their pitch just before the
stock market crashed, giving us a market with very little
interest in risky investments. But what if NASA and DOE
suddenly were given mandates to make Space Solar Power
their primary reason for being?
How would the prospects for Space Energy Inc look then?
Or others like them?
Space Solar Power may not be practical yet from a merely
profit based view. But five years ago no one was even trying,
five years from now so much could change.
Launch costs are going down, oil is going up, and the third
world is turning to coal. All the while the climate continues to
warm. It only takes one bad news day involving a major
oil field to cause our fragile industrial world to come
tumbling down around us. And with the speed and completeness
of the stock market crash we all just witnessed. Only it
won't be the housing market that crashes, but the
industrialized world.
Nuclear power plants are not the answer for the future.
Neither is coal, or terrestrial solar power, or fusion.
Only a completely clean, endlessly abundant, source of
electricity which is /easily available to everyone/ can give us
the future which.....WE DESERVE.
No more first and third world. No more dictatorships.
Plentiful resources for all.
Nothing else but Space Solar Power can give us that future.
Nothing else is as close to becoming reality either.
A solution must have the current reality, and future possibilities
as equal partners. The risk vs future benefits have clearly tipped
in favor of this idea imho.
It's close enough that a convenient (political) breeze could make it
a reality, changing the future like little else.
s
Sylvia Else
> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
> news:00a456ef$0$8082$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>> Jonathan wrote:
>>> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
>
>> I might be inclined to go for the nuclear plant, actually. Better the devil
>> you know.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
>
> And where will that decision take us fifty years into the future?
I'm not saying it's an ideal long term solution. I was just answering
the question.
> Launch costs are going down,
Are they? Significantly? I wonder what the marginal cost of launching
using today's heavy-lift launchers is.
>
> Nuclear power plants are not the answer for the future.
> Neither is coal, or terrestrial solar power, or fusion.
Fusion might. If it ever works, and is economic. Terrestrial solar power
could work if the energy storage problem is solved, and the cost of
the technology significantly reduced (which latter problem the space
solution also has to address).
> No more first and third world. No more dictatorships.
I don't see why abundant electricity would prevent dictatorships.
Indeed, the opposite may be true. Give people a reasonable standard of
living, and they're not likely to be overly concerned about the style of
government, and certainly not enough to try to overturn it with a risk
to their own lives.
Sylvia.
Jonathan
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
> Jonathan wrote:
>> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
>> news:00a456ef$0$8082$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>>> Jonathan wrote:
>>>> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
>>
>>> I might be inclined to go for the nuclear plant, actually. Better the devil
>>> you know.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>>
>> And where will that decision take us fifty years into the future?
>
> I'm not saying it's an ideal long term solution. I was just answering the
> question.
I'm more interested in what's possible, the ideal long term solutions.
Since global warming and energy needs are long term problems.
And there's a very good reason for insisting on the best possible
solution, the ideal. If one settles for what is practical, what is easy
and uncontroversial, a project which asks for little, returns just as little.
That project will not inspire, it will not cross any new boundaries, and
it will fail to become reality, due to the ho-hum goal.
But if the goal is truly loftly, is elegantly difficult from all aspects of
technology, costs and so on. While promising to change the entire
world for the better. That goal will inspire, it will find support, more
over time. That project, the difficult, costly and controversial goal, has
a far better chance of gathering the steam it needs to get started.
One started, once a system has self organized, it will (like Nature)
settle on the best practical solution possible. The problem will
be solved, once the problem solving system has begun.
The loftier the goal, the greater chance for success.
It's within the realm of possibility for NASA to 'Save the Future'.
With an agressive forward looking energy project.
It's time we stop settling for what "THEY" tell us can
and can't be done. It's time for the people to stand up
and demand what is POSSIBLE.
>
>> Launch costs are going down,
>
> Are they? Significantly? I wonder what the marginal cost of launching using
> today's heavy-lift launchers is.
If SSP would become practical, and start-ups and nations to boot would
suddenly produce a dramatic increase in the need for heavy lift, shouldn't
better prices and better launchers follow in a much larger market?
>
>>
>> Nuclear power plants are not the answer for the future.
>> Neither is coal, or terrestrial solar power, or fusion.
>
> Fusion might. If it ever works, and is economic. Terrestrial solar power could
> work if the energy storage problem is solved, and the cost of the technology
> significantly reduced (which latter problem the space solution also has to
> address).
Those are two /huge/ technological problems, each of which appear
to be insurmountable at this point. There are no such intractable
technological hurdles for Space Solar Power aside from the costs
and time needed.
>
>> No more first and third world. No more dictatorships.
>
> I don't see why abundant electricity would prevent dictatorships.
It's communication that's the death of dictatorships.
The US has been flooding various dictatorships with
laptops, smart and satellite phones for several years
now with great success. (SEE IRAN)
http://www.dipity.com/timeline/Rahesabz
> Indeed, the opposite may be true. Give people a reasonable standard of living,
> and they're not likely to be overly concerned about the style of government,
> and certainly not enough to try to overturn it with a risk to their own lives.
It's a mathematical impossibility for dictatorships to provide
stable prosperity. A population is an adaptive system, which
has evolving needs and desires. A dictatorship is a rigid control
structure which cannot possibly adapt at the same rate as the
population. So the two camps are destined to drift apart creating
more stress and conflict over time. It is inevitable for dictatorships
to go out with a bang. The source of most of human misery has
been at the hands of a govt that is acting as a dictatorship, whether
economic, military or religious dictatorships, the result is the same
....horror.
A democracy, with it's infinitely nested compromise mechanisms
bring the people and the govt towards each other over time.
Only a democracy, of any kinds, can deliver a brighter future.
Dictatorships may be fine for limited periods of chaos, but not
for any long term or ideal solution.
>
> Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
> It's within the realm of possibility for NASA to 'Save the Future'.
> With an agressive forward looking energy project.
It would be a mistake to look to NASA for a solution. They're really
into providing jobs for the aerospace industry, by spending money.
Achievement is very much a secondary goal. Give the job to them, and I
guarantee it won't get done.
>>> Launch costs are going down,
>> Are they? Significantly? I wonder what the marginal cost of launching using
>> today's heavy-lift launchers is.
>
>
> If SSP would become practical, and start-ups and nations to boot would
> suddenly produce a dramatic increase in the need for heavy lift, shouldn't
> better prices and better launchers follow in a much larger market?
You might see some improvement, and a large number of launchers better
distribute the development cost (though not if you keep changing them).
But at the end of the day, existing launchers get built once, hurl
themselves and their payloads into space, and are then destroyed. Since
the process of building them, and fuelling them, is expensive, there's a
limit to how much the price can come down.
On a smaller scale, a nice example is the lead-acid battery. The number
made is huge. But they're still damned expensive for what they do.
>
> It's communication that's the death of dictatorships.
> The US has been flooding various dictatorships with
> laptops, smart and satellite phones for several years
> now with great success. (SEE IRAN)
>
> http://www.dipity.com/timeline/Rahesabz
Well, that's communication. Power is something else.
Sylvia.
BradGuth
Perhaps once they get our rich and powerful William Mook on their
side, they'll be all set. Eventually (a couple spendy decades from
now) they'll deliver that wholesale $1/kwhr of clean energy that most
of us can't afford.
~ BG
BradGuth
There's no thorium devil.
~ BG
Sylvia Else
There are two kinds of people. Some regard money as a way of getting
technology, and the others regard technology as a way of getting money.
Sylvia.
BradGuth
Lord Mook (our resident Rothschild trillionaire) claims to be good to
go as is, though obviously wants God like backing plus tax-free
concessions that'll protect and insure that his offshore bank accounts
get stuffed full of our hard earned loot before anyone else get any
direct or indirect benefit.
So, with most it's obviously still money first, technology second, and
absolutely nothing of any hard-core assurances as far as delivering
any benefit break-even or profitable outcome.
I on the other hand would apply existing technology, and get
commercial sponsors to pick up at least half the initial investment.
For example, our NASA claims to have proven and 100% reliable fly-by-
rocket lander technology, that's a good half century better than what
anyone else has to offer, so I'd use that to at least robotic explore
the nasty surface of our moon, as well as I'd park something
substantial within the earth-moon L1(Selene L1), whereas Apollo 13
claimed to be freezing to death.
~ BG
Alain Fournier
> There are two kinds of people. Some regard money as a way of getting
> technology, and the others regard technology as a way of getting money.
You have it wrong there. It should always be in the form: "There are
two kinds of people. Some people X, some people non-X." X can be whatever
you want. If you don't follow that pattern you will always get some people
who don't fit in either category. For instance in your example you have
people who don't have a clue as to what technology is and are in neither
category.
There is one exception to the rule. For counting, instead of having
two kind of people there is three, it goes: There are three kind of
people. Those who can count and those who can't.
Alain Fournier
Jonathan
"Alain Fournier" <alai...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:rpqdnWCYx6PLX6bW...@ulaval.ca...
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>> There are two kinds of people. Some regard money as a way of getting
>> technology, and the others regard technology as a way of getting money.
>
> You have it wrong there. It should always be in the form: "There are
> two kinds of people. Some people X, some people non-X." X can be whatever
> you want. If you don't follow that pattern you will always get some people
> who don't fit in either category. For instance in your example you have
> people who don't have a clue as to what technology is and are in neither
> category.
Right, or X and NOT X. Either/or reduces to set membership
values of only 0 or 1. But if A were to be the people favoring
technology first, and are 40% of the whole. And if B are the people
favoring money first, and is 70% (some of the group may favor both
equally), then we could use use that to give fuzzy values of
A (0.4) and B (0.7) respectively.
The Union, A OR B, would simply be the max of the fuzzy values
which is .7.
The Intersection, A AND B, would be the min of the two fuzzy values
which is .4.
And the fuzzy entropy (always 0 in either/or logic) would be given
by the ratio of (A AND NOT A) / ( A OR NOT A).
A is .4, NOT A is .6 which gives (0.4) / (0.7) ~ 0.57.
s
If we were to say that X is 40% of the people, and NOT X is
60%, then a
Jonathan
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
> On a smaller scale, a nice example is the lead-acid battery. The number made
> is huge. But they're still damned expensive for what they do.
>
The lead acid battery has to be one of the all time great inventions.
The very first rechargable battery, and no one has been able to better it
in some 150 years.
>>
>> It's communication that's the death of dictatorships.
>> The US has been flooding various dictatorships with
>> laptops, smart and satellite phones for several years
>> now with great success. (SEE IRAN)
>>
>> http://www.dipity.com/timeline/Rahesabz
>
> Well, that's communication. Power is something else.
But wherever electricity goes, so does the Internet.
Having access to the 'grid' is becoming the difference
between first and third worlds.
>
> Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>> There are two kinds of people. Some regard money as a way of getting
>> technology, and the others regard technology as a way of getting money.
>
> You have it wrong there. It should always be in the form: "There are
> two kinds of people. Some people X, some people non-X."
I think you're paying too much attention to the logic, and too little to
the sentiment.
Sylvia.
William Mook
Laser Power Transmission
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QAUkt2VPHI
And use it to expand the energy markets
Solar Power - Entering the Market - alkanes - protons - photons
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWiXDu64c0g
Initially Put Up with Chemical Powered Spacecraft
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24390383/mokaerospace-3
transitioning to
Laser Powered Spacecraft
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAdj6vpYppA
Made from Propulsive Skins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzXwctPXT4c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxV2FCUESh0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzG4PEureFg
Which create a diaspora of the human race across the solar system
William Mook
> >>> cheaper, as long as it never involves his own loot. Space Energy
> >>> seems capable enough and willing to risk at least some of their own
> >>> loot.
> >> Well, I wouldn't be so sure about that. Their web site says nothing
> >> about finances that I can see, but the resumes of the directors are
> >> interesting
>
> >>http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/Directors.htm
>
> >> It seems likely they'll know more about money, and how to get it, than
> >> about the technology.
>
> >> Sylvia.
>
> > side, they'll be all set. Eventually (a couple spendy decades from
> > now) they'll deliver that wholesale $1/kwhr of clean energy that most
> > of us can't afford.
>
> There are two kinds of people. Some regard money as a way of getting
> technology, and the others regard technology as a way of getting money.
>
> Sylvia.
Sylvia,
Put them together. Its a self-propagating loop! Technology makes
money. Money makes technology. They go together and the goal is to
have a multiplier (x) greater than one per iteration
V(n+1) = x * V(n)
David Spain
> Put them together. Its a self-propagating loop! Technology makes
> money. Money makes technology. They go together and the goal is to
> have a multiplier (x) greater than one per iteration
>
> V(n+1) = x * V(n)
As opposed to:
V(n+1) = (aV(n) + c) mod m
where:
m > 0
0 < a < m
0 <= c < m
0 <= Vo < m (and if c=0, Vo > 0)
whereby it helps if...
1. c and m are relatively prime
2. a-1 is divisible by all prime factors of m
3. a-1 is a multiple of 4 if m is a multiple of 4.
;-)
Dave
David Spain
> ...I dunno, David. Lemme pull my old D&D Dungeon's Master Screen out
> of storage and see if the numbers add up. I think you may have made a
> mistake, basing everything on a D4 roll instead of a D6.
>
> OM
>
;-)
Dave
David Spain
> As opposed to:
>
> V(n+1) = (aV(n) + c) mod m
>
> where:
>
> m > 0
> 0 < a < m
> 0 <= c < m
> 0 <= Vo < m (and if c=0, Vo > 0) <--
FYI, this is wrong, if c=0, Vo must be co-prime to m.
Sorry.
;-)
Dave
William Mook
The growth factor leading to exponential growth in my original Jan 2
post was based on organic or natural feedback that is known to occur
in nature/society/industry.
What is the natural or organic process that leads inevitably to the
modulo function you claim here? Unintended consequences? Resource
depletion? How does that work? I presume you don't need to know how
exponential growth works in an infinite field of resources right?
I mean, we have reached limits to growth - assuming we stay on
Earth.
Assuming we move off-world, we have not reached limits to growth.
Given the fact that very high living standards lead to ZPG
reproductive rates - exponential growth will stop - if we take the
next step. Also, if that happens after interstellar transport
develops, human density will drop to nearly zero 200 light years from
Earth.
If this is a general rule, and if technical civilizations are more
than 200 light years apart - this answers the Fermi Paradox.
Check it out.
Population is stable in a subsistence culture. As the people
industrialize, their population growth rates rise -peaking about 2%
per year - at about $10,000 per person per year (in 2008 dollars) -
then, as per capita income rises above $10,000 per person per year
population growth rate declines - until it reaches ZPG at $30,000 per
person per year - AND NEGATIVE THEREAFTER.
Since economic growth rates under ideal conditions can be maintained
at 6% or more per year, we can see that unlimited development off
world leads naturally to a situation where population peaks. The peak
will be determined by how fast economic growth is maintained. Any
economic hiccup or reversal leads to massive spikes in population -
until there is a collapse due to depletion or pollution or disease or
war.
Which is another modulo function I suppose.
But I'm more interested in positive visions of the future.
If we could sustain 6% growth rate in our economy today, using off-
world assets, we would see our population peak at 9.12 billions by
2032. (see table below)
The interesting thing
Year Income Population $/Year
2008 $70,000 6.80 $10,294.12
2009 $74,200 6.93 $10,700.89
2010 $78,652 7.07 $11,128.18
2011 $83,371.12 7.20 $11,577.39
2012 $88,373.39 7.33 $12,050.04
2013 $93,675.79 7.47 $12,547.81
2014 $99,296.34 7.60 $13,072.53
2015 $105,254.12 7.72 $13,626.23
2016 $111,569.37 7.85 $14,211.11
2017 $118,263.53 7.97 $14,829.63
2018 $125,359.34 8.10 $15,484.51
2019 $132,880.90 8.21 $16,178.73
2020 $140,853.75 8.33 $16,915.66
2021 $149,304.98 8.44 $17,699.02
2022 $158,263.28 8.54 $18,532.99
2023 $167,759.07 8.64 $19,422.25
2024 $177,824.62 8.73 $20,372.10
2025 $188,494.10 8.81 $21,388.50
2026 $199,803.74 8.89 $22,478.24
2027 $211,791.97 8.96 $23,649.05
2028 $224,499.48 9.01 $24,909.79
2029 $237,969.45 9.06 $26,270.65
2030 $252,247.62 9.09 $27,743.43
2031 $267,382.48 9.11 $29,341.82
2032 $283,425.42 9.12 $31,081.88
After this point, population begins to fall off;
2033 $300,430.95 9.11 $32,982.47
2034 $318,456.81 9.08 $35,066.00
2035 $337,564.22 9.04 $37,359.22
2036 $357,818.07 8.97 $39,894.37
2037 $379,287.15 8.88 $42,710.63
2038 $402,044.38 8.77 $45,856.12
2039 $426,167.05 8.63 $49,390.64
It is unlikely that population will decline faster than 2% per year -
given the fact that people live for more than 50 years. In fact
longevity increases will limit the decline to less than 1% once
universally applied
2040 $451,737.07 8.46 $53,389.33
2041 $478,841.29 8.29 $57,747.64
2042 $507,571.77 8.13 $62,461.73
2043 $538,026.08 7.96 $67,560.65
2044 $570,307.64 7.80 $73,075.80
2045 $604,526.10 7.65 $79,041.17
2046 $640,797.66 7.50 $85,493.52
2047 $679,245.52 7.35 $92,472.58
2048 $720,000.26 7.20 $100,021.36
2049 $763,200.27 7.05 $108,186.37
2050 $808,992.29 6.91 $117,017.91
By 2050 there will be as many people alive then as there are today,
and the world will be generating nearly a quadrillion dollars per
year, and the average family of four will be earning nearly $1 million
per year!
We can have commodity starships and space colonies driven by sun
orbiting solar pumped laser light sail by 2025 - 2050 time frame. Bob
Forward, chief scientist at Hughes Aerospace showed in 1983 that such
vehicles were capable of 1/3 light speed.
So, adjusting our figures for this at 2050
0.2% reduction of underlying population - due to life span exceeding
500 years and
4% per year leaving the Earth to points beyond
and increasing income growth to 8% per year to reflect increasing
automation and robotics
we have the following charts after 2050
Total population continues to decline slowly and income skyrockets
2050 $808,992.29 6.91 $117,017.91
2051 $873,711.67 6.90 $126,632.61
2052 $943,608.60 6.89 $137,037.29
2053 $1,019,097.29 6.87 $148,296.87
2054 $1,100,625.08 6.86 $160,481.58
2055 $1,188,675.08 6.84 $173,667.44
2056 $1,283,769.09 6.83 $187,936.71
2057 $1,386,470.62 6.82 $203,378.40
2058 $1,497,388.26 6.80 $220,088.85
2059 $1,617,179.33 6.79 $238,172.31
2060 $1,746,553.67 6.78 $257,741.57
2061 $1,886,277.97 6.76 $278,918.74
2062 $2,037,180.20 6.75 $301,835.91
2063 $2,200,154.62 6.74 $326,636.05
2064 $2,376,166.99 6.72 $353,473.89
2065 $2,566,260.35 6.71 $382,516.83
2066 $2,771,561.17 6.70 $413,946.07
2067 $2,993,286.07 6.68 $447,957.67
2068 $3,232,748.95 6.67 $484,763.81
2069 $3,491,368.87 6.66 $524,594.10
2070 $3,770,678.38 6.64 $567,697.03
2071 $4,072,332.65 6.63 $614,341.47
2072 $4,398,119.26 6.62 $664,818.43
2073 $4,749,968.80 6.60 $719,442.79
2074 $5,129,966.31 6.59 $778,555.32
2075 $5,540,363.61 6.58 $842,524.79
2076 $5,983,592.70 6.56 $911,750.28
2077 $6,462,280.12 6.55 $986,663.63
2078 $6,979,262.53 6.54 $1,067,732.18
2079 $7,537,603.53 6.52 $1,155,461.68
2080 $8,140,611.81 6.51 $1,250,399.41
2081 $8,791,860.76 6.50 $1,353,137.64
2082 $9,495,209.62 6.48 $1,464,317.29
2083 $10,254,826.39 6.47 $1,584,631.93
2084 $11,075,212.50 6.46 $1,714,832.15
2085 $11,961,229.50 6.45 $1,855,730.19
2086 $12,918,127.86 6.43 $2,008,205.01
2087 $13,951,578.09 6.42 $2,173,207.83
2088 $15,067,704.33 6.41 $2,351,767.99
2089 $16,273,120.68 6.39 $2,544,999.43
2090 $17,574,970.33 6.38 $2,754,107.60
2091 $18,980,967.96 6.37 $2,980,397.00
2092 $20,499,445.40 6.36 $3,225,279.32
2093 $22,139,401.03 6.34 $3,490,282.23
2094 $23,910,553.11 6.33 $3,777,058.92
2095 $25,823,397.36 6.32 $4,087,398.43
2096 $27,889,269.15 6.31 $4,423,236.78
2097 $30,120,410.68 6.29 $4,786,669.06
2098 $32,530,043.54 6.28 $5,179,962.51
2099 $35,132,447.02 6.27 $5,605,570.66
2100 $37,943,042.78 6.25 $6,066,148.61
2101 $40,978,486.20 6.24 $6,564,569.63
2102 $44,256,765.10 6.23 $7,103,943.09
Even so, EARTH population DECLINES dramatically to 600 millions;
Year Earth Off-world Light Years Stars Density/Star
2051 6.62 0.28 0.33 1 0.276
2052 6.36 0.53 0.67 1 0.527
2053 6.10 0.77 1.00 1 0.768
2054 5.86 1.00 1.33 1 0.998
2055 5.63 1.22 1.67 1 1.219
2056 5.40 1.43 2.00 1 1.430
2057 5.18 1.63 2.33 1 1.633
2058 4.98 1.83 2.67 1 1.826
2059 4.78 2.01 3.00 1 2.012
2060 4.59 2.19 3.33 1 2.189
2061 4.40 2.36 3.67 1 2.359
2062 4.23 2.52 4.00 1 2.522
2063 4.06 2.68 4.33 3 0.892
2064 3.90 2.83 4.67 3 0.942
2065 3.74 2.97 5.00 3 0.990
2066 3.59 3.10 5.33 3 1.035
2067 3.45 3.24 5.67 3 1.078
2068 3.31 3.36 6.00 4 0.840
2069 3.18 3.48 6.33 4 0.870
2070 3.05 3.59 6.67 4 0.898
2071 2.93 3.70 7.00 4 0.925
2072 2.81 3.80 7.33 4 0.951
2073 2.70 3.90 7.67 4 0.976
2074 2.59 4.00 8.00 5 0.800
2075 2.49 4.09 8.33 7 0.584
2076 2.39 4.18 8.67 8 0.522
2077 2.29 4.26 9.00 8 0.532
2078 2.20 4.34 9.33 8 0.542
2079 2.11 4.41 9.67 9 0.490
2080 2.03 4.48 10.00 9 0.498
2081 1.95 4.55 10.33 10 0.455
2082 1.87 4.62 10.67 11 0.420
2083 1.79 4.68 11.00 14 0.334
2084 1.72 4.74 11.33 18 0.263
2085 1.65 4.79 11.67 23 0.208
2086 1.59 4.85 12.00 24 0.202
2087 1.52 4.90 12.33 27 0.181
2088 1.46 4.94 12.67 29 0.170
2089 1.40 4.99 13.00 31 0.161
2090 1.35 5.03 13.33 32 0.157
2091 1.29 5.07 13.67 33 0.154
2092 1.24 5.11 14.00 36 0.142
2093 1.19 5.15 14.33 39 0.132
2094 1.14 5.19 14.67 42 0.123
2095 1.10 5.22 15.00 45 0.116
2096 1.06 5.25 15.33 49 0.107
2097 1.01 5.28 15.67 52 0.101
2098 0.97 5.31 16.00 56 0.095
2099 0.93 5.33 16.33 59 0.090
2100 0.90 5.36 16.67 63 0.085
2101 0.86 5.38 17.00 67 0.081
2102 0.83 5.40 17.33 71 0.076
2103 0.79 5.42 17.67 75 0.072
2104 0.76 5.44 18.00 79 0.069
2105 0.73 5.46 18.33 84 0.065
2106 0.70 5.48 18.67 88 0.062
2107 0.67 5.49 19.00 93 0.059
2108 0.65 5.51 19.33 98 0.056
2109 0.62 5.52 19.67 103 0.053
2110 0.60 5.54 20.00 109 0.051
These stars are from actual surveys out to 20 light years.
The important point is that Earth's population in 2110 is still 600
million people - and even though 5.54 billions are off-world, average
per star is only 51 millions! So, an aggressive program of expansion
beyond Earth would not allow populations to accumulate to a level that
would be of military concerns to those remaining on Earth within the
solar system.
That is, the Earth will continue to militarily dominate interstellar
affairs - which should ease the concerns of some who worry about this
possibility.
Dr. Von Braun actually may have set space colonization back a century
by writing his classified PhD thesis for the German high command back
in the 1930s. Here he described how someone who had a permanent base
on the moon, with self sufficient industrial infrastructure to build
rockets could bombard the Earth at will and with this threat and
beyond the means of Earth to retaliate (its much harder to go to the
moon than return from the moon - look at the size of the Apollo rocket
and the LEM) control the world.
This analysis also applies to Mars, and development of the asteroids
in-situ. Not so much to Venus due to its size, or the outer planets
or Mercury, due to the enrgetics and timing of things.
vonBraun's analysis fails completely beyond the Sun. The energy and
resources it takes to span the distance between the stars is large
compared to the success of any military campaign. So, we're safe
again - if we can keep control of developments.
This is achieved by;
(1) capturing rich asteroids and processing them in Earth orbit using
telerobotics;
(2) using solar pumped lasers to propel spaceships from star to star,
and across the solar system, and maintaining control of those lasers;
(3) promoting expansion beyond the solar system so no populations
accumulate around sol
vonBraun's paper remained classified until after 1960s. So, it MUST
have figured prominently in the creation of the OST and missile
proliferation planning of the era prior to that time.
So, this is why I take special care to address this specific
concern.
Using weapons grade fissile materials to build triggers for fusion
pulse spaceships that capture rich asteroids and bringing them into
Earth orbit, and raise industrial satellties - to process those
asteroids by solar powered tele-operated industry and distributed to
everyone on Earth - and allowing everyone on Earth to be employed tele-
robotically from anywhere - resolves many of the issues facing
humanity today. Including deflecting dangerous asteroids away from
Earth or into safe stable orbits.
This, along with power satellites, and global wireless hotspot, is the
first step along a path that leads to the stars relatively quickly.
Building space colonies on orbit from captured asteroids, moving those
colonies across the solar system, with solar pumped lasers, orbiting
close in to the sun, and then beyond the solar system, using laser
light sails, provides a means to move people off-world and out of the
solar system to the stars beyond.
Even at 1/3 light speed - we have the possibility before the end of
the 21st century - of reducing Earth's population to less than 600
millions and the average population per star system to less than 50
millions.
William Mook
reach 200 light year radius in 600 years - in 2650 (we started in 2050
according to the projections). At that point we have the following
figures;
Number of Stars: 108,808
Number of People: 2.07 billions
Which is 19,025 people per star on average and each person .
200 light years is only 1/1,000th the span of the Milky Way!
Another point: At 8% economic growth;
Wealth: 1e+20 times 2050AD income per capita.
Which means each person makes 1 million times more money than the
ENTIRE WORLD makes today. Which doesn't seem possible to us here on
Earth, but to those surrounded by the resources of the cosmos, and
beneficiaries of advanced self-replicating machine systems informed by
super-human AI, whatever they can imagine, they will have. Its
imagining it that will be the issue - which is far different than the
world we face today - where our imaginations are constrained from
birth - for our own good! lol. (it is our abject lack of imagination
that is causing most of our problems today)
As our densities fall, and our population falls, combined with rising
living standards we may at the end of the 21st century build upon the
successful sequencing of the human genome at the end of the 20th
century - by using forensic data - including genetic data gathered
from forensic sources - to RE-CREATE people. Since birth rates are
below replacement level, and wealth is tremendous, challenges are
likely to be tremendous as well. So, re-creating people who have
lived before using genetic engineering, will be appealing from a
sociology and industrial perspective.
Just as ecologies benefit from biological diversity - so too do well
functioning societies benefit from social and biological diversity.
If we get really good at things, our population will not decline - no
one will die - and we will recreate EVERYONE that has lived before -
which will put our population - both natural and synthetics - at 19
billions. Artificials (AI) will grow without bound. This may be an
area of friction if mismanaged - especially as they get smarter than
us.
Even so, the fundamentals won't change. Even AI will expand into a
very large cosmos and see its population density fall.
So, what I'm saying is that even in 600 years we may have 20 billions
- of which 18 billions would be synthetics reconstructed from forensic
data - 2 billions would be naturals - and likely 2 trillions of super-
human AI serving the biologicals - but mostly tending to their own
interests after fulfilling their programming.
Even in this scenario, in 600 years, there are fewer people PER STAR
SYSTEM than live in Dayton Ohio today. As we expand outward, these
densities will fall.
At some point we will create superluminal travel - which is the same
as saying we can travel through time. The simplest way to achieve
this is to send a signal or object to the super-massive black hole at
the center of our galaxy. If we are lucky, it is spinning fast enough
to have time-violating regions -so closed time like loops are
possible. This means a signal can be sent to the supermassive black
hole and it arrives 30,000 years after being sent. It enters a CTL
and emerges 60,000 years before it arrives. It then is broadcast and
is received by a radio telescope at a distant star the moment it was
sent. A similar arrangement at a distant star allows instant
communication.
Or communication through time.
Replace the signals with spacecraft that move very near the speed of
light - and you can travel instantly anywhere.
Replace the supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy with
custom built engineered black holes and you can do this more
conveniently.
Moving anywhere instantly - and anywhen.
Where do we get black holes?
Shaped masses of iron-56 when collided at 1/3 light speed - can be
made to form black holes.
You can do this with arrays of solar pumped lasers large enough to
drive starships from star to star.
Once you have a collection of engineered black holes, it may be
possible to cause them to interact in such a way as to cause decay of
the vacuum - to create other black holes - a self replicating black
hole machine.
If that's possible, then we will have created a new class of
engineered product. Not one based on crude matter - but one based on
charged, spinning, massive points of matter that distort spacetime in
controlled ways - and allow creation of time machines which give us
instant access across the cosmos to ALL OF SPACE AND TIME!
This is likely to happen well before we reach 200 light years from
Earth - well before 600 years from the present day. When it happens,
if it is possible at all, our densities will drop even faster than
reflected in the charts above!
That is, if our speed jumps from 1/3 light speed before 2650 to
infinity - our range of habitation rises from 108,808 stars within 200
light years of Earth to the 40,000 billion billion star systems in the
cosmos - at ANY TIME spanning the 1,000 billion years of interest to
intelligence!
THIS EXPLAINS THE FERMI PARADOX.
Even with 20 billions of us - and 2 trillion super-human AI - there
are 20 trillion star systems per person - and a trillion years within
each star system to play in.
The odds of finding anyone anywhere with this sort of technology - is
nearly non-existent - even if everyone everywhere - has this sort of
technology.
David Spain
> On Jan 5, 9:09 pm, David Spain <nos...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>> David Spain <nos...@127.0.0.1> writes:
>> > As opposed to:
>>
>> > V(n+1) = (aV(n) + c) mod m
>>
>> > where:
>>
>> > m > 0
>> > 0 < a < m
>> > 0 <= c < m
>> > 0 <= Vo < m (and if c=0, Vo > 0) <--
>>
>> FYI, this is wrong, if c=0, Vo must be co-prime to m.
>>
>> Sorry.
>>
>> ;-)
>>
>> Dave
>
> The growth factor leading to exponential growth in my original Jan 2
> post was based on organic or natural feedback that is known to occur
> in nature/society/industry.
>
> What is the natural or organic process that leads inevitably to the
> modulo function you claim here? Unintended consequences? Resource
> depletion? How does that work? I presume you don't need to know how
> exponential growth works in an infinite field of resources right?
>
To William Mook: please ignore this post.
To the rest of the group: ;-)
Dave
Pat Flannery
> To William Mook: please ignore this post.
> To the rest of the group: ;-)
I'm still trying to figure out that wheelbarrow Tony Lance keeps going
on about that has the wheel in the wrong place.
You had better do some math on that also.
Pat
William Mook
wrote:
> "Jonathan" <H...@Again.net> wrote in message
>
> news:p5SdndXFAKoISrfW...@giganews.com...
>
> >I like this idea, Relatively small mirrors would power
> > the lasers, not huge solar cell arrays. The lasers would
> > transmit their beams to other satellites that convert it to, and
> > beam it down, as microwaves. No need for mile-size
> > collectors in orbit.
>
I can't be certain, but I will say that if you move a solar collector
array closer to the sun it will gather more energy for a given size.
For example, something only 3 million km from the solar center will be
1/50th the distance from the sun as the Earth. So, solar intensity is
2,500x greater than at Earth orbit. That's 3.45 megawatts per square
meter. So, to intercept 17 TW of power requires less than 5 square km
of area. At 33% overall efficiency that's 15 sq km.
Using solar power to sail a power satellite to the sun. Something
only 4.4 km in diameter - to power the WHOLE EARTH!
A 4.4 km diameter laser emitter is capable of forming a spot less than
41.6 meters across at Earth Orbit using 1,000 nm wavelength light.
A 400 meter diameter system (1/10th the diam) produces 170 GW (1/100th
the power) and forms a spot reliably 400 meters across (1/10th the
angular resolution). 20 of these satellites would power the entire
Earth. 10 at sol, 10 at GEO.
25,000 comparably sized satellites would be needed to do it all at
GEO.
Since we can use sunlight to propel satellites toward the sun fairly
efficiently, once they're on orbit, this is something we can consider
doing today.
170 GW at $0.043 per kWh generates $7.31 million per hour. That's
$64 billion per year. $12.8 trillion over 20 years.
Compare this to $2,924 per hour and $25.6 million per year and $512
million over 20 years.
The first satellite pays for the entire program to build it from
scratch. The second satellite which is the same size and cost barely
pays for launch cost.
Androcles
"William Mook" <mokme...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fbbddf2d-60ea-4ed3...@k41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 18 2009, 4:43 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q>
wrote:
> "Jonathan" <H...@Again.net> wrote in message
>
> news:p5SdndXFAKoISrfW...@giganews.com...
>
> >I like this idea, Relatively small mirrors would power
> > the lasers, not huge solar cell arrays. The lasers would
> > transmit their beams to other satellites that convert it to, and
> > beam it down, as microwaves. No need for mile-size
> > collectors in orbit.
>
> What are you babbling about?
I can't be certain, but I will say that if you move a solar collector
array closer to the sun it will gather more energy for a given size.
=============================================
It won't be in Earth orbit then.
Pat Flannery
>
> I can't be certain, but I will say that if you move a solar collector
> array closer to the sun it will gather more energy for a given size.
The only place you could do that at and have it stay in the same place
in relation to the Earth would be the Earth/Sun L-1 Lagrangian
point...which isn't stable:
http://www.tau.ac.il/~morris/03411203/chapter4/Lagrange_Points.htm
Pat
Androcles
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote
> I can't be certain, but I will say that if you move a solar collector
> array closer to the sun it will gather more energy for a given size.
You should be certain before you give us your stupid opinion, Pat Flannery.
Pat Flannery
First of, I didn't write the part you quoted, and second, the Lagrange
points aren't "my stupid opinion", but real points in space that have
been already used to position spacecraft in relation to the Sun and Earth:
http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Operations/SEMM17XJD1E_0.html
The L-1 point will get you around 1/100th closer to the Sun than
something placed in Earth orbit, which isn't much in regards to the
solar power a space array could generate, but in any other place it will
be orbiting the Sun at a different rate than the Earth, meaning the
power transfer distance to the Earth will vary wildly during the solar
collector's orbital period.
Also, a laser that could keep a beam tight enough to fire from the
collector to Earth orbit would be very large, and require a very large
parabolic mirror to refocus it on arrival so that it could be used to
generate electrical power for beaming to Earth's surface; the focusing
mirror could end up being larger than a Earth-orbiting solar power
station, and require a lot higher structural strength (read weight) to
keep it rigid enough not to flex out of shape, so that it can properly
focus the beam to a point.
Pat
Androcles
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:Fu6dnYyfV6jkXOvW...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
> Androcles wrote:
>> "Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote
>>> I can't be certain, but I will say that if you move a solar collector
>>> array closer to the sun it will gather more energy for a given size.
>>
>> You should be certain before you give us your stupid opinion, Pat
>> Flannery.
>
> First of, I didn't write the part you quoted,
Well, zeroth off, I sure as hell didn't write the part you attributed to me
with your stupid snipping. I wonder who did?
You should be certain before you give us your misattributions, Flat Pannery.
Pat Flannery
>
> Well, zeroth off, I sure as hell didn't write the part you attributed to me
> with your stupid snipping. I wonder who did?
> You should be certain before you give us your misattributions, Flat Pannery.
Here's the whole posting from you that I replied to:
"William Mook" <mokme...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fbbddf2d-60ea-4ed3...@k41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 18 2009, 4:43 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q>
wrote:
> > "Jonathan" <H...@Again.net> wrote in message
> >
> > news:p5SdndXFAKoISrfW...@giganews.com...
> >
>> > >I like this idea, Relatively small mirrors would power
>> > > the lasers, not huge solar cell arrays. The lasers would
>> > > transmit their beams to other satellites that convert it to, and
>> > > beam it down, as microwaves. No need for mile-size
>> > > collectors in orbit.
> >
> > What are you babbling about?
I can't be certain, but I will say that if you move a solar collector
array closer to the sun it will gather more energy for a given size.
=============================================
It won't be in Earth orbit then.
What exact part of that did you write? The way it's formated, it looks
like this part:
I can't be certain, but I will say that if you move a solar collector
array closer to the sun it will gather more energy for a given size.
=============================================
It won't be in Earth orbit then.
...as everything else has quote arrows on it.
Pat
Androcles
When usenet posts get interrupted by gmail users, in this case Mook,
it prevents Microsoft's Outlook Express from automatically inserting
the indent markers, so I separate what I write with a line of: "=====".
Then you come along and snip (only you know why) and misattribute
who said what. The part I wrote was "It won't be in Earth orbit then",
so your target should have been Mook, not Androcles. The safe
thing to do is not snip. Snipping requires effort on your part and saving
Google even a kilobyte of storage space is a raindrop in the ocean.
This is not 1979 when 16 Kbytes of RAM and a 50 Megabyte hard
drive was state-of-the-art, 30 years have past since then and terabytes
are cheaper than dirt.
Pat Flannery
>
> When usenet posts get interrupted by gmail users, in this case Mook,
> it prevents Microsoft's Outlook Express from automatically inserting
> the indent markers, so I separate what I write with a line of: "=====".
> Then you come along and snip (only you know why) and misattribute
> who said what. The part I wrote was "It won't be in Earth orbit then",
> so your target should have been Mook, not Androcles. The safe
> thing to do is not snip. Snipping requires effort on your part and saving
> Google even a kilobyte of storage space is a raindrop in the ocean.
> This is not 1979 when 16 Kbytes of RAM and a 50 Megabyte hard
> drive was state-of-the-art, 30 years have past since then and terabytes
> are cheaper than dirt.
Terabytes may be cheaper than dirt, but my time isn't, and having to
read through a whole messed up posting to get to one original sentence
at the bottom of it is a waste of it.
So you came up with the ==================================== bit all on
your own, and expect everyone to understand what that's supposed to mean?
The "It won't be in Earth orbit then." part could be your .sig for all
anyone seeing it would know.
You could have just copied and pasted a quote arrow
on it, and it would have ended up looking like this:
"William Mook" <mokme...@gmail.com> wrote in message:
> I can't be certain, but I will say that if you move a solar collector
> array closer to the sun it will gather more energy for a given size.
It won't be in Earth orbit then.
See how much more comprehensible that is for the readers who already
know what the discussion is about, having already read parts of it four
times over?
Besides, anything that both Jonathan and William Mook are discussing is
bound to be pretty comprehension-challenged right from the word go,
without putting extra hurdles in its way. :-D
Pat
Androcles
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> snipped
in message
news:MNCdnVCqtIoYS-vW...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
Androcles restored:
>>
>> Well, zeroth off, I sure as hell didn't write the part you attributed to
>> me
>> with your stupid snipping. I wonder who did?
>> You should be certain before you give us your misattributions, Flat
>> Pannery.
>
> Here's the whole posting from you that I replied to:
>
> "William Mook" <mokme...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fbbddf2d-60ea-4ed3...@k41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 18 2009, 4:43 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q>
> wrote:
> > > "Jonathan" <H...@Again.net> wrote in message
> > >
> > > news:p5SdndXFAKoISrfW...@giganews.com...
> > >
> >> > >I like this idea, Relatively small mirrors would power
> >> > > the lasers, not huge solar cell arrays. The lasers would
> >> > > transmit their beams to other satellites that convert it to, and
> >> > > beam it down, as microwaves. No need for mile-size
> >> > > collectors in orbit.
> > >
> > > What are you babbling about?
>
> I can't be certain, but I will say that if you move a solar collector
> array closer to the sun it will gather more energy for a given size.
> =============================================
> It won't be in Earth orbit then.
>
>
> What exact part of that did you write? The way it's formated, it looks
> like this part:
>
> I can't be certain, but I will say that if you move a solar collector
> array closer to the sun it will gather more energy for a given size.
> =============================================
> It won't be in Earth orbit then.
>
> ...as everything else has quote arrows on it.
>
> Pat
When usenet posts get interrupted by gmail users, in this case Mook,
David Spain
a practical way to convert a laser beam to electricity, unlike a microwave
beam.
?
Dave
Androcles
"David Spain" <nos...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:6u3a151...@ws125.sysdef.com...
of "practical" .
If you have a use for it then I'll do it for you - for my fee, of course.
David Spain
> If you have a use for it then I'll do it for you - for my fee, of course.
And I have a bridge to sell you, for my fee of course....
;-)
Dave
Pat Flannery
Focus it and use it to heat some sort of working fluid for a boiler and
turbine?
This would be pretty clunky due to the fairly low efficiency of the
laser converting electrical energy into a beam, although lasers have
been built that convert sunlight straight into a laser beam with no
intermediary electrical step: http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/19402/
Pat
David Spain
> David Spain wrote:
>> Frankly all this seems academic, I haven't seen anything posted that shows
>> a practical way to convert a laser beam to electricity, unlike a microwave
>> beam.
>
> Focus it and use it to heat some sort of working fluid for a boiler and
> turbine?
Eh? Why bother with the tertiary conversion? That's even less efficient.
If you need to move the SPS closer to the sun, just enlarge the microwave
antenna on the sat to get a tighter beam.
> This would be pretty clunky due to the fairly low efficiency of the laser
> converting electrical energy into a beam, although lasers have been built that
> convert sunlight straight into a laser beam with no intermediary electrical
> step: http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/19402/
We'll that would make more sense, but you still have to do conversion.
Not convinced.
Dave
Pat Flannery
> Eh? Why bother with the tertiary conversion? That's even less efficient.
> If you need to move the SPS closer to the sun, just enlarge the microwave
> antenna on the sat to get a tighter beam.
It would effectivly need to turn the microwave into a maser beam for
that to work, due the far lower waveleangh of the microwaves compared to
light.
To get this up to the point where all the effort is justified due to the
increased solar flux, you are probably going to have to get the solar
collector into something like the distance of Mercury's orbit of the
Sun, and a microwave beam is going to spread all over the place from
that distance on its way to Earth.
Pat
Androcles
I do have a use for a bridge, actually. A gentleman by the name of
Wheatstone gave me one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheatstone_bridge
I could use it to measure the laser generated current for you;
but my fee will be higher than yours, I know what I'm doing.
Androcles
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message news:C6SdnZo-
> Focus it and use it to heat some sort of working fluid for a boiler and
> turbine?
Already doing that, dimwit.
http://www.power-technology.com/projects/Seville-Solar-Tower/
Androcles
"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d3ben5p89p4cmoclp...@4ax.com...
> "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote:
>
> :
> :When usenet posts get interrupted by gmail users, in this case Mook,
> :it prevents Microsoft's Outlook Express from automatically inserting
> :the indent markers,
>
> No. It's when people post through GOOGLE GROUPS (not Gmail) and then
> you reply with OUTLOOK EXPRESS that the problem arises.
What do the think the 'G' in Gmail stands for?
Gmail, Goggle gropes... who cares? And it IS gropes, too. Google
gropes the words you write about to find out what your interests are
and then it can use that data to generate advertising revenue - that's why
it is so successful. We are all being subtly manipulated in the interests
of profit. Why does it spew "-Hide quoted text- -Show quoted text-"?
For our convenience? Don't be naive, that's so it doesn't count the same
thing twice.
> If you can't
I'm stubborn and prefer the devil I know to the devil I don't.
If you can't be convinced not to snip to aid Google in its quest for
key words that will improve it advertising revenue, why don't you
just fuck off?
> --
> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
> man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
> all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
> --George Bernard Shaw
Be reasonable, see it MY way.
Pat Flannery
> What do the think the 'G' in Gmail stands for?
> Gmail, Goggle gropes... who cares? And it IS gropes, too. Google
> gropes the words you write about to find out what your interests are
> and then it can use that data to generate advertising revenue - that's why
> it is so successful. We are all being subtly manipulated in the interests
> of profit. Why does it spew "-Hide quoted text- -Show quoted text-"?
> For our convenience? Don't be naive, that's so it doesn't count the same
> thing twice.
Well that's a whole new Google conspericy theory, and may well explain
why I got spam from Longsun Alloy Company in China that wanted to sell
me windings for the dynamos in my hydroelectric dam a few years back,
and you keep getting that spam regarding bulk purchases of lithium from
the same company.
And I thought that was due to HAARP reading my hard drive from up in Alaska.
It does that you know...the only way to stop it is to cover your whole
house in a Faraday cage, and as soon as you try and do that, THEY show
up disguised as pizza delivery men and drag you away...as they've
already tracked you down on Google Earth, and know about your love of
pizza from your Google Groups postings.
Pat
Androcles
> Androcles wrote:
>
>> What do the think the 'G' in Gmail stands for?
>> Gmail, Goggle gropes... who cares? And it IS gropes, too. Google
>> gropes the words you write about to find out what your interests are
>> and then it can use that data to generate advertising revenue - that's
>> why
>> it is so successful. We are all being subtly manipulated in the interests
>> of profit. Why does it spew "-Hide quoted text- -Show quoted text-"?
>> For our convenience? Don't be naive, that's so it doesn't count the same
>> thing twice.
>
> Well that's a whole new Google conspericy
What's a "conspericy"? Please use English, I never learnt Gibberish and my
time is valuable.
Wayne Throop
Anybody who's interested in accuracy instead of posing.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
David Spain
> To get this up to the point where all the effort is justified due to the
> increased solar flux, you are probably going to have to get the solar
> collector into something like the distance of Mercury's orbit of the Sun, and
> a microwave beam is going to spread all over the place from that distance on
> its way to Earth.
I thought we were talking about L1, not Mercury. We're crossing into
Mookopia at this point, never mind....
Dave
David Spain
> I do have a use for a bridge, actually. A gentleman by the name of
> Wheatstone gave me one.
I'd be more interested to know how you are still alive...
;-)
Dave
Androcles
> "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_u> writes:
>
>> I do have a use for a bridge, actually. A gentleman by the name of
>> Wheatstone gave me one.
>
> I'd be more interested
No you wouldn't. Any snipping fuckwit with a highly original "nospam"
address who is keener to make smart-arse one-liner replies would be
more suited to twitter than a newsgroup, you are not interested or
interesting at all.
*plonk*
Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, because you responded to George
Hammond the complete fruit cake, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.
Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.
There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.
This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.
You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
Update: the last clearance was 25/12/09. Some individuals have been
restored to the list.
I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose
of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits like you.
I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day and fuck off.
Androcles
> "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote:
>
> :
> :"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> :news:d3ben5p89p4cmoclp...@4ax.com...
> :> "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote:
> :>
> :> :
> :> :When usenet posts get interrupted by gmail users, in this case Mook,
> :> :it prevents Microsoft's Outlook Express from automatically inserting
> :> :the indent markers,
> :> :
> :>
> :> No.
Yes it does, you snipping fuckwit.
David Spain
> No you wouldn't. Any snipping fuckwit with a highly original "nospam"
> address who is keener to make smart-arse one-liner replies would be
> more suited to twitter than a newsgroup, you are not interested or
> interesting at all.
> *plonk*
>
Well since I'm *plonk*'ed anyway,
*yawn*
Dave
Pat Flannery
I just pointed out that the only place closer to the Sun where it's
going to stay in the same relative position with Earth is at L-1.
That's only 1% closer to the Sun than putting it in Earth orbit, so it's
not going to net you all that great of increase in solar illumination,
while introducing a lot of problems with power transmission over that
distance (1.5 million kilometers). The only advantage you really get is
not having to worry about it going into shadow at some point during the
day or year. On the flip side Earth is rotating under it, so it can't be
focused on a single surface rectenna like something in GEO can.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Given his posting address, probably via mandrake root extract.
Pat
Pat Flannery
> Well since I'm *plonk*'ed anyway,
>
> *yawn*
Keep an eye on your toilet, there may be a basilisk showing up in it
shortly.
On second thought, keep an eye on your toilet using a remote camera to
be on the safe side, and pay particular note to any spiders fleeing the
bathroom. :-)
Betelgeuse Black
Androcles
Why don't you children go play on twitter?
William Mook
> "William Mook" <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fbbddf2d-60ea-4ed3...@k41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 18 2009, 4:43 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q>
> wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan" <H...@Again.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:p5SdndXFAKoISrfW...@giganews.com...
>
> > >I like this idea, Relatively small mirrors would power
> > > the lasers, not huge solar cell arrays. The lasers would
> > > transmit their beams to other satellites that convert it to, and
> > > beam it down, as microwaves. No need for mile-size
> > > collectors in orbit.
>
> > What are you babbling about?
>
> I can't be certain, but I will say that if you move a solar collector
> array closer to the sun it will gather more energy for a given size.
> =============================================
> It won't be in Earth orbit then.
That is absolutely correct. It will be on solar orbit. The orbital
period will be 24 hours at 3 million km radius. A satellite in the
same orbital plane as the Earth, will see the Earth for all but 54
minutes out of every 24 hours per day. A satellite inclined from the
Earth's orbit 0.3 degrees (20 minutes of arc) will never lose sight of
Earth. A satellite that is launched into Earth orbit and uses its
solar collector as a solar sail to navigate to within 3 million km of
the sun is capable of changing its orbital inclination and in causing
the orbit to precess at a rate one degree per day so as to always be
visible to Earth.
A receiver and reforming satellite will take the laser energy in GEO
and distribute it to users throughout cislunar space using holographic
techniques developed for SDI and used in laser welding equipment
today.
William Mook
> "Pat Flannery" <flan...@daktel.com> wrote
>
> > I can't be certain, but I will say that if you move a solar collector
> > array closer to the sun it will gather more energy for a given size.
>
My opinions are not stupid. You on the other hand, are exceedingly
stupid Pat.
William Mook
> Androcles wrote:
>
> > Well, zeroth off, I sure as hell didn't write the part you attributed to me
> > with your stupid snipping. I wonder who did?
> > You should be certain before you give us your misattributions, Flat Pannery.
>
> Here's the whole posting from you that I replied to:
>
> "William Mook" <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fbbddf2d-60ea-4ed3...@k41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 18 2009, 4:43 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q>
> wrote:
> > > "Jonathan" <H...@Again.net> wrote in message
> > >
> > >news:p5SdndXFAKoISrfW...@giganews.com...
> > >
> >> > >I like this idea, Relatively small mirrors would power
> >> > > the lasers, not huge solar cell arrays. The lasers would
> >> > > transmit their beams to other satellites that convert it to, and
> >> > > beam it down, as microwaves. No need for mile-size
> >> > > collectors in orbit.
> > >
> > > What are you babbling about?
>
> array closer to the sun it will gather more energy for a given size.
> It won't be in Earth orbit then.
>
> like this part:
>
> I can't be certain, but I will say that if you move a solar collector
> array closer to the sun it will gather more energy for a given size.
> It won't be in Earth orbit then.
>
>
> Pat
Pat,
Please trouble yourself to learn a bit about orbital mechanics and
apply them to this case before making dumb ass statement. Then you
will see that there is no requirement for solar power satellites to be
in Earth orbit.
Moving a satellite into orbit around the sun at a radius of around 3
million km increases energy density by 2500x lowering costs by nearly
the same factor. In such an orbit a satellite circles the sun once
every 24 hours. The sun itself is 1.4 million km in diameter, so, it
subtends only 13.5 degrees of the sky - which means that a satellite
in the same orbital plane as Earth would see the Earth for 23 hours 6
minutes out of every 24 hour period. A satellite in an orbit inclined
0.3 degrees from Earth's orbit would see the Earth all the time. The
same solar sailing technique I described to move the satellite from
Earth orbit to solar orbit is easily used to cause such an orbit to
precess 1 degree per day so that the Earth remains visible throughout
the year. Laser receivers and reformers are used to distribute laser
energy holographically throughout cislunar space.
In the end, a handful of reasonably sized satellites, 3 in solar
orbit, 3 in Earth orbit, maintain tens of trillions of watts of
continuous power human industry needs.
This is far from a stupid idea - your objections on the other hand -
are ill-informed and quite deftly described as stupid - so one might
be forgiven for concluding that you yourself are also quite stupid
indeed.
William Mook
> > it prevents Microsoft's Outlook Express from automatically inserting
> > Then you come along and snip (only you know why) and misattribute
> > who said what. The part I wrote was "It won't be in Earth orbit then",
> > so your target should have been Mook, not Androcles. The safe
> > thing to do is not snip. Snipping requires effort on your part and saving
> > Google even a kilobyte of storage space is a raindrop in the ocean.
> > This is not 1979 when 16 Kbytes of RAM and a 50 Megabyte hard
> > drive was state-of-the-art, 30 years have past since then and terabytes
> > are cheaper than dirt.
>
> Terabytes may be cheaper than dirt, but my time isn't, and having to
> read through a whole messed up posting to get to one original sentence
> at the bottom of it is a waste of it.
> So you came up with the ==================================== bit all on
> your own, and expect everyone to understand what that's supposed to mean?
> The "It won't be in Earth orbit then." part could be your .sig for all
> anyone seeing it would know.
> You could have just copied and pasted a quote arrow
> on it, and it would have ended up looking like this:
>
> "William Mook" <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote in message:
>
> > I can't be certain, but I will say that if you move a solar collector
> > array closer to the sun it will gather more energy for a given size.
>
>
> know what the discussion is about, having already read parts of it four
> times over?
> Besides, anything that both Jonathan and William Mook are discussing is
> bound to be pretty comprehension-challenged right from the word go,
> without putting extra hurdles in its way. :-D
>
> Pat
The only one comprehension challenged is you Pat and your idiotic
false-choice regarding Earth orbit.
William Mook
> Frankly all this seems academic, I haven't seen anything posted that shows
> a practical way to convert a laser beam to electricity, unlike a microwave
> beam.
>
>
> Dave
Dave, there is the photo-electric effect and it can be quite efficient
with lasers. Nearly perfect in fact.
That's because photovoltaic cells have a specific bandgap energy.
That energy is associated with a specific wavelength.
For example, silicon has a bandgap energy of 1.11 electron-volts and
the Planck relation says 1,100 nm is the wavelength associated with
that energy. Germanium 0.67 electron volts and the Planck relation
says that photon energy is associated with 1,830 nm is associated with
that energy.
The reason silicon and germanium are only marginally efficient as
solar collectors is because sunlight is a sum of many wavelengths.
Those wavelengths bluer or shorter than the bandgap energy contribute
only the bandgap energy to the operation of the cell. Those redder or
longer than the bandgap energy contribute no energy to the operation
of the cell. Then, on top of it, you have what is known as dark
current subtract from the operation of the cell.
How efficient can these junctions be when illuminated by appropriate
band-gap matched wavelengths?
Nearly perfect! 98% or more at room temperature at solar
intensities. 99.9% efficient at room temperatures at many times solar
intensity.
I have patents on aspects of this.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21832226/Mook-Patent-Solar-Energy-Spectral-Cooling
By efficiently sorting photons by color, using an improved diffraction
technique, and causing photons of appropriate colors to fall on
appropriate semi-conductors, and then connecting the junctions in a
way that allows the electrons to efficiently flow, efficiencies of 60%
and more are achievable using sunlight.
I have conducted research in this area as well.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20024019/White-Paper-to-Mok-FINAL-1
With an efficient power source we next need an efficient laser. Free
electron lasers, operating very much like microwave klystron tubes,
except at higher energies, allow the creation of tunable lasers with
greater than 80% efficiencies.
Silicon bandgaps are very interesting because 1,100 nm is near one of
the infra-red windows in Earth's atmosphere - making it convenient to
beam energy to Earth from space.
Silicon receivers collect the 1,100 nm photons and convert them with
over 90% efficiency to electricity.
Sun --> Electrons ---> Laser ---> Electrons
Low 60% 80% 90% overall 43.2%
High 65% 85% 95% overall 52.4%
Just as phased array techniques may be used to direct multiple
microwave beams anywhere reliably, so too can holographic techniques
be used to direct multiple laser beams anywhere reliably. I have even
pioneered a technique to use 4-wave mixing to allow satellites or
other emitters connect to any number of users at the same time
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QAUkt2VPHI
William Mook
Photoelectric effect is quite efficient when the bandgap energy is
matched to photon energy and load is matched to light intensity so
that it maintains peak power loading.
Androcles
"William Mook" <mokme...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ec69fe16-04e1-4147...@g23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 12, 5:16 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote:
> "William Mook" <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fbbddf2d-60ea-4ed3...@k41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 18 2009, 4:43 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q>
> wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan" <H...@Again.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:p5SdndXFAKoISrfW...@giganews.com...
>
> > >I like this idea, Relatively small mirrors would power
> > > the lasers, not huge solar cell arrays. The lasers would
> > > transmit their beams to other satellites that convert it to, and
> > > beam it down, as microwaves. No need for mile-size
> > > collectors in orbit.
>
> > What are you babbling about?
>
> I can't be certain, but I will say that if you move a solar collector
> array closer to the sun it will gather more energy for a given size.
> =============================================
> It won't be in Earth orbit then.
That is absolutely correct. It will be on solar orbit. The orbital
period will be 24 hours at 3 million km radius.
==============================================
You may find it a tad warm 2 million miles from the sun. It will gather
rather more energy than you wanted, and having a 24-hour year it won't
be in sight of Earth for more than 14 hours each Earth day as it
disappears behind the Sun for 10 hours of that period.
William Mook
Actually Dave, if you weren't such a fucking moron you'd know how to
use the Rayleigh Criterion to calculate angular resolution of an
emitter from any distance you like.
For a circular apeture you have the Airy disc equal to;
sin(theta) = 1.22 * lambda/Diameter
So, a 1 km diameter emitter operating at 1 micron wavelength has an
angular resolution of 1.22e-9 radians while the same 1 km diameter
emitter operating at 10 cm wavelength has an angular resolution 10,000
lager - 1.22e-5 radians.
Applying trigonometry we can see that at 150 million kilometers from
the emitter the spread for the 1 micron wavelength is 183 meters and
the spread for the 10 cm wavelength is 1,830 km.
So, two 300 m dishes - about the size of Arecibo - can efficiently
send a beam of 1,000 nm wavelength IR laser energy 150 million km. A
300 m dish cannot send 10 cm wavelength beam efficiently over 150
million km.
A 300 m solar collector at 3 million km from the sun intercepts 243.8
GW of energy. At 50% overall transmission efficiency this represents
121.9 GW on Earth. About equal to all the nuclear power plants in
America.
Six satellites of this size, three in GEO and three in a solar orbit,
could displace over half the coal fired power plants in the US.
William Mook
One of the great advantages of using holographic techniques to steer
laser beams is that an optical connection may be maintained even when
the two end points are moving relative to one another. So, one
satellite in GEO to receive and redirect laser energy combined with
one satellite in an orbit 3 million km from the solar surface provides
just such a link. The satellite in GEO then redirects laser energy
holographically to any number of users within Cislunar space.
BradGuth
> You start with
>
> Laser Power Transmissionhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QAUkt2VPHI
>
> And use it to expand the energy markets
>
> Solar Power - Entering the Market - alkanes - protons - photonshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWiXDu64c0g
>
> Initially Put Up with Chemical Powered Spacecrafthttp://www.scribd.com/doc/24390383/mokaerospace-3
>
> transitioning to
>
> Laser Powered Spacecrafthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAdj6vpYppA
>
> Made from Propulsive Skinshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzXwctPXT4chttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxV2FCUESh0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzG4PEureFg
>
> Which create a diaspora of the human race across the solar system
Your research and subsequent arguments are entirely worth considering,
but it seems few if anyone cares, other than to topic/author stalk and
bash for all they can muster.
My Google Groups weekly average following is currently "4964 views of
your messages", and that obviously doesn't include outside readers
that are likely worth 90+% of what this greater global Usenet/
newsgroup audience has to offer.
btw, Selene L1 is worthy of being solar illuminated roughly 97% of the
time, and a tethered dipole element could extend a substantial
platform of laser cannons and/or microwave transmitters safely to
within 2r of Earth (closer if you'd dare). Of course there should
also be a substantial tether anchoring this Selene L1 array of solar
collectors to the lunar surface, exactly as I'd specified years ago
for my LSE-CM/ISS that you and others opposed at every turn and on
every possible grounds.
Is there any chance we can work together on behalf of any of this?
~ BG
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "William Mook" <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> period will be 24 hours at 3 million km radius.
> ==============================================
> You may find it a tad warm 2 million miles from the sun. It will gather
> rather more energy than you wanted, and having a 24-hour year it won't
> be in sight of Earth for more than 14 hours each Earth day as it
> disappears behind the Sun for 10 hours of that period.
It would take an enormous amount of energy to put a satellite that far
down into the Sun's gravity well.
It has been difficult enough to get a satellite into the same orbit as
Mercury, which is 35 million miles from the Sun.
BradGuth
You should realize that you're trying to tell the wizard of Oz how to
get Dorothy home.
~ BG
David Spain
> Silicon receivers collect the 1,100 nm photons and convert them with
> over 90% efficiency to electricity.
>
> Sun --> Electrons ---> Laser ---> Electrons
> Low 60% 80% 90% overall 43.2%
> High 65% 85% 95% overall 52.4%
>
Do you have or know of any working lab examples of Laser->Electron conversion
efficiencies of 90+%? Cites or references appreciated.
Isn't there a problem with surface area illumination of the cells with a tight
beam or is the beam dispersion high enough to give a higher surface area
illumination?
How does your proposed Laser illumination compare to solar illumination in terms
of multiples of suns?
>Just as phased array techniques may be used to direct multiple
>microwave beams anywhere reliably, so too can holographic techniques
>be used to direct multiple laser beams anywhere reliably. I have even
>pioneered a technique to use 4-wave mixing to allow satellites or
>other emitters connect to any number of users at the same time
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QAUkt2VPHI
This video was marked private and I couldn't view it.
Dave
William Mook
The sun is 1.4 million km in diameter. An orbit with a 3 million km
radius has a 6 million km diameter. So, the sun subtends only 13.5
degrees of the sky. This means that if you are dumb enough to place
the satellite in precisely the same orbital plane as the Earth orbits,
it will not be visible 54 minutes out of every 24 hours because the
Earth will be behind the sun from the viewpoint of the satellite.
Now, the Earth is 150 million km removed from the sun. By tilting
the orbital plane of the closely orbiting satellite by 7 degrees it
will be visible from Earth even on the opposite side of the sun. The
same technique of solar sailing that brought the satellite from Earth,
is used to maintain a 1 degree per day precession of its orbit so that
the Earth is visible throughout the year 24/7 from this orbit.
Regarding heat. Multi-spectral solar cells are 65% efficient. Free
electron lasers are 85% efficient. So, at the satellites 55.25% of
the energy leaves as laser light. 44.75% of the energy must leave by
radiant heat or reflected away at the outset. This is the heat
balance that drives the temperature. Each square meter of area normal
to the incident radiation receives energy. Twice this area is the
radiating area for a large surface. Stephan Boltzman gives us the
temperature needed.
Alright, at 3 million km from the sun, 3.45 MW is intercepted by each
square meter. 690 kW is reflected away as ineffective light. 1,906
kW is beamed away as laser energy. This leaves 854 kW to be radiated
away by satellite heating over 2 square meters. That's 427 kW per
square meter.
Stephan -Boltzman says temperature and heat flux for a radiant source
are related by
j* = sigma * T^4
So,
T = (j* / sigma) ^(1/4) = (427,000 / 5.67e-8)^(1/4) = 1,656.6K
This is 1,383.7 celsius or 2,522.6 fahrenheit
This is below the melting point of Silicon, which is why I selected
this distances. Of course, the challenge will be to build something
that operates at these temperatures. Here is the list of elements we
have to work with;
We should be able to do something interesting with these 33 elements.
No. Name____ Sym Melting Point
66 Dysprosium____ Dy 1,407 °C (1,680 K)
14 Silicon_______ Si 1,410 °C (1,680 K)
28 Nickel________ Ni 1,453 °C (1,726 K)
67 Holmium______ Ho 1,470 °C (1,740 K)
27 Cobalt________ Co 1,495 °C (1,768 K)
68 Erbium_______ Er 1,522 °C (1,795 K)
39 Yttrium_______ Y 1,526 °C (1,799 K)
26 Iron__________ Fe 1,535 °C (1,808 K)
21 Scandium_____ Sc 1,539 °C (1,812 K)
69 Thulium_______ Tm 1,545 °C (1,818 K)
46 Palladium_____ Pd 1,552 °C (1,825 K)
91 Protactinium___ Pa 1,600 °C (1,870 K)
98 Californium____ Cf 1,652 °C (1,925 K)
22 Titanium______ Ti 1,660 °C (1,930 K)
71 Lutetium______ Lu 1,663 °C (1,936 K)
90 Thorium______ Th 1,755 °C (2,028 K)
78 Platinum______ Pt 1,772 °C (2,045 K)
40 Zirconium_____ Zr 1,852 °C (2,125 K)
24 Chromium_____ Cr 1,857 °C (2,130 K)
23 Vanadium_____ V 1,902 °C (2,175 K)
45 Rhodium______ Rh 1,966 °C (2,239 K)
43 Technetium____ Tc 2,200 °C (2,470 K)
72 Hafnium_______ Hf 2,227 °C (2,500 K)
44 Ruthenium_____ Ru 2,250 °C (2,520 K)
5 Boron_________ B 2,300 °C (2,570 K)
77 Iridium________ Ir 2,443 °C (2,716 K)
41 Niobium_______ Nb 2,468 °C (2,741 K)
42 Molybdenum__ Mo 2,617 °C (2,890 K)
73 Tantalum______ Ta 2,996 °C (3,269 K)
76 Osmium_______ Os 150 3,027 °C (3,300 K)
75 Rhenium______ Re 3,180 °C (3,450 K)
74 Tungsten______ W 3,422 °C (3,695 K)
6 Carbon (diamond) C 3,550 °C (3,820 K)
6 Carbon (graphite) C 3,675 °C (3,948 K)
As we recede from the sun a similar calculation can be obtained
At 10 million km the temperature drops to 907.8 K (1,174.3 F, 634.6 C)
and the list enlarges. Energy density drops to 311.1 kW per square
meter , reflected energy 62.2 kW per square meter, beamed energy 171.9
kW per square meter and half the remainder is radiated away.
At 30 million km the temperature drops to 497.5 K (224.4 C, 435.8 F)
and we enter the realm of today's solid state devices. Energy drops
to 28.1 kW per square meter and reflected energy is 5.6 kW while laser
energy is 15.5 kW per square meter - and heat is half the remaining
flux.
Of course, active cooling of sections, that use radiator temps higher
than these is also possible - and quite likely - given the power
levels and temperatures.
MEMS based refrigeration - powered by the copius energy available - is
well worth the effort.
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7263838.html
That is, say 10% of the total energy is needed to operate a
refrigerator that lets you operate 1/2 the distance otherwise. This
increases your power level by 4x and gives you a 3.6x advantage!
David Spain
> On Feb 14, 2:18 am, David Spain <nos...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>> Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> writes:
>> > To get this up to the point where all the effort is justified due to the
>> > increased solar flux, you are probably going to have to get the solar
>> > collector into something like the distance of Mercury's orbit of the Sun, and
>> > a microwave beam is going to spread all over the place from that distance on
>> > its way to Earth.
>>
>> I thought we were talking about L1, not Mercury. We're crossing into
>> Mookopia at this point, never mind....
>>
>> Dave
>
> Actually Dave, if you weren't such a fucking moron you'd know how to
> use the Rayleigh Criterion to calculate angular resolution of an
> emitter from any distance you like.
I never questioned the impracticality of trying to use a microwave beam at this
distance. These distances (from Mercury, using GEO relay, using solar powered
lasers to power spacecraft, etc.) are all from your prior postings & proposals,
that is what I meant by Mookopia, nothing more...
For the record, I never called you a 'fucking moron', I question the cost of
doing what you propose, but not the theory behind it.
Dave
William Mook
Solar sails are ideally suited for this mission. I am considering
fully reusable vehicles capable of putting 1,000 metric ton payloads
on orbit for very little cost per ton. This sort of vehicle is
required to build any sort of orbital or lunar or Martian
infrastructure. Its well within our capacity to build it.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24390383/mokaerospace-3
There are 10 million millionaires in the world and they control $40
trillion of the world's $58 trillion in liquid wealth. Selling 5,000
tickets to 0.05% of them for $200,000 raises $10 billion - enough to
build a fleet of ships.
Once built, reusable vehicles are useful for a variety of missions.
There are two sorts of orbits.
One involves a slow spiral outward from Earth then inward into the
desired orbit using solar light pressure acting on a satellite orbited
to GEO. That satellite uses solar sails to maintain the orbit so that
it is always visible from Earth as I've described elsewhere.
The other involves using a gravity boost at Jupiter to cancel all
orbital motion, and then using light pressure to hold the satellite at
the desired altitude. Using light pressure to maintain relative
position with Earth.
This limits the mass density of the power sat, but that is a goal of
light sail technology anyway.
Stationary powersats hovering above the solar surface by light
pressure (ideally using the ineffective photons not needed to operate
the equipment) are not only useful for powering planets, like the
Earth, but also useful powering interstellar transport and
interplanetary transport, since the satellite can navigate to always
be between the target and the sun.
Reflecting 20% of the photons at 3 million km from the sun produces a
pressure of 4.6 pascals away from the sun. Thus, 469 grams per
square meter is possible to have at this distance. The solar sail
and controls and so forth will mass 58.5 grams per square meter. This
leaves 410 grams per square meter operating mass. With something like
silicon is means we can plate the sail with 400 microns of solid
silicon material. Thicker using diamond, and thicker still using
structured carbon and silicon.
Trying out the satellite design on a smaller scale makes sense before
building a large system.
A 10 metric ton payload sent to LEO - would cover 21,322 square
meters. It would produce a laser beam 73 GW and be 164.7 m in
diameter and produce a beam at Earth of comparable size if wavelength
is chosen correctly. A similar satellite in GEO would intercept the
laser energy and direct it to users anywhere in cislunar space.
A 1,000 metric ton payload covers 100x the area, is 10x the diameter,
and produces 7.3 TW - about 1/3 of what the world needs. A half a
dozen launches of the larger satellite resolves our energy problems
and earns trillions of dollars for the owners each year, while
unleashing our economy from the constraints and problems of oil.
Reflecting nearly all the energy during transit - except for shipboard
power during transit - would allow light thrust 5x that in normal
operation during transit.
A thin layer of reflective materials - GBO film or aluminized films -
would be discarded once final orbit was achieved in this case. Blow
away a thin reflective layer by switching on the laser beam - and
doing so in such a way as to fix the final orbital parameters - using
the blown away film as propellant.
It would take only a few months for these satellites once launched
into LEO to make their way to their final destination and begin
operations.
William Mook
William Mook
> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Silicon receivers collect the 1,100 nm photons and convert them with
> > over 90% efficiency to electricity.
>
> > Sun --> Electrons ---> Laser ---> Electrons
> > Low 60% 80% 90% overall 43.2%
> > High 65% 85% 95% overall 52.4%
>
> Do you have or know of any working lab examples of Laser->Electron conversion
> efficiencies of 90+%? Cites or references appreciated.
E. F. Zalewski and J. Geist, "Silicon photodiode absolute spectral
response self-calibration," Appl. Opt. 19, 1214-1216 (1980)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ao/abstract.cfm?URI=ao-19-8-1214
> Isn't there a problem with surface area illumination of the cells with a tight
> beam or is the beam dispersion high enough to give a higher surface area
> illumination?
The laser emitter surface is an engineered surface. In a solid state
implementation you have a number of wigglers operating in parallel
across a surface - in phase - in a way that takes the light created
and expands their area to fill the surface - while controlling their
phase in a way that allows well defined beams from that area to be
formed.
> How does your proposed Laser illumination compare to solar illumination in terms
> of multiples of suns?
Well, I have designed systems that operate at GEO - collecting
sunlight at 1,380 W/m2 - and beam energy down to Earth at 680 W/m2 -
in the 1,100 nm band. So you can see diode brightness is not a
problem.
This is the same energy density of sunlight in the IR - and 1,100 nm
is pretty free of dispersion (if there are no clouds) Which is true in
most locations where solar panels would be operating commercially
(that's how the ground stations get built) So, the environmental
impact is doable for testing - and we adjust from there based on data.
Later systems I hope to operate at 20 W/cm2 - once the beam steering
is proven - and this is suitable for mobile applications as well -
forming beams as small as 10 cm across - 1,570 Watts - which is
sufficient for home use - this for terrestrial applications.
Systems that beam energy from near the sun to GEO operate at a native
200 W/cm2 point to point - and are 200 m across and more - 60 GW+
links - for powering larger industrial applications off world - and
for propulsive systems.
Higher intensities are used along with larger areas for terawatt scale
interstellar laser light sail operations.
> >Just as phased array techniques may be used to direct multiple
> >microwave beams anywhere reliably, so too can holographic techniques
> >be used to direct multiple laser beams anywhere reliably. I have even
> >pioneered a technique to use 4-wave mixing to allow satellites or
> >other emitters connect to any number of users at the same time
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QAUkt2VPHI
>
> This video was marked private and I couldn't view it.
>
> Dave
It was marked private. I don't know how that happened. I've marked
it public again.
William Mook
> William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :On Feb 13, 2:48 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote:
> :> "Pat Flannery" <flan...@daktel.com> wrote
> :>
> :> > I can't be certain, but I will say that if you move a solar collector
> :> > array closer to the sun it will gather more energy for a given size.
> :>
> :> You should be certain before you give us your stupid opinion, Pat Flannery.
> :
> :My opinions are not stupid.
>
> BWAAAAAHAAAAHahahahahahahahahahhahhaahhaaa!!!!!!!!
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine
Off your medication again I see.
William Mook
Dave, you said many many things of a hateful and dismissive nature to
me. You questioned many more things than cost.
Even so, a major reason I favor laser over maser is the compactness of
laser systems versus microwave systems. That factor of 10,000 to 1 in
diameter, and similar factor in energy density, is a big plus in
lowering laser based system costs.
The mass of solar pumped lasers is far less than the mass of an
equivalently capable solar pumped microwave system since the laser
system is far more compact for this reason. Costs scale with mass so
costs are far lower too.
Aerospace systems today cost $10 million per ton to create, and $50
million per ton to put into orbit. An integrated light sail
capability is a natural outcome of a solar laser powersat.
So, a 10 ton system operated near the sun generates over 60 GW and
with integral solar sail need only be launched into LEO.
This is 1 kW per $1 - far less than any proposed microwave system -
and far less than any other power source. Double this cost to account
for an orbiting receiver, and double it again to account for the
ground receivers (there may be many using four wave mixing technique
I've developed) and you still have less than $5 for 1 kilo-watt.
A typical US home uses 1 kilo-watt.
US power grid operates at about 1,200 GW so, 20 of these satellites -
and 20 receivers in GEO are enough to replace all today's
generation.
A $12 billion program with $48 billion in ground stations, and
infrastructure investments.
The world's entire need for energy (including mobile applications) is
17,000 GW. Most of this is only 20% efficient - and would be more
than 90% efficient if driven electrically. (automobiles, trucks, heat
engines of every sort) So, 4,800 GW of generation - a total of 80
satellites and 80 receivers in GEO.
A $48 billion program with $192 bilion in infrastructure
investments.
The world spends $2 trillion per year on fuels and generates 40 bilion
tons of CO2 in the process of burning them and is constrained by
depleting supplies.
A $300 million R&D program that leads to a series of expansions to the
levels indicated, provides the potential for massive returns.
Microwave systems do not.
William Mook
In the USA average electricity use is 3,500 watts (all uses) per
person and average cost is $0.08 per kWh. Over the course of a year
$2,454 is spend on electricity by every man woman and child. This
$200 per month doesn't show up in your home energy bill, it shows up
in your tax bill as part of what the governments pay, in your business
bills as part of what businesses pay.
In any case, this much revenue per person represents a present value
of $33,234 per person when the revenue extended (with no price
increases) over 30 years, and discounted at 6.5% discount rate.
It will take five years to design and build a test system. Investors
in this system will take grave risks. Venture Capital types generally
seek 40% per year - doubling their money every two years. A 5.37
multiplier in five years. So, dividing this figure by 5.37 obtains
$6,179 per person.
Agreeing to supply an American town of 148,789 people or more with a
power purchase agreement should be sufficient to attract VCs who would
buy the rights to the revenue stream (but not the underlying
technology) for $300 million cost, provided in 60 installments of $5
million each, along with 60 progress reports. Coming in under-budget
splits the difference with investors and technologist. Going over
budget cedes a portion of additional power sales over and above
already owned by VCs. (A town of 150,000 uses half a giga-watt, the
satellite produces 60+ GW)
In any case, $300 million should be doable as a first step.
Androcles
"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:b2cc07ef-f00e-4bb4...@o26g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
==============================================
I would say it would take an enormous loss of kinetic energy to put
a satellite that far down into the Sun's gravity well, and if anyone
did it would vaporise the satellite in a millisecond.
If N watts per square meter falls on the Earth then
(150million km/3 million km)^2 = 2500N watts per square
meter falls on the satellite if it goes where Mooky wants it,
by the inverse square law.
Think of it as being one foot from a single LED from a bicycle
headlight versus a foot away from a kiln.
http://www.barometerworld.co.uk/jpg/kiln57.jpg
Androcles
========================================================
The Sun subtends 0.5 degrees of sky, same as the moon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter
Try again.
Jorge R. Frank
It subtends 0.5 deg at Earth (r_orbit = 1.5e8 km). He's talking about
what it subtends at 3e6 km, 50 times closer. He's off by a factor of 2,
due to failure to multiply by 2 after taking the arcsin.
r_sun = 0.7e6 km
r_orbit = 3e6 km
theta_sun = 2*asin(r_sun/r_orbit) = 2*asin(0.7/3.0) = 27.0 deg
Androcles
"Jorge R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in message
news:xNadneYdB4zN9uXW...@giganews.com...
Yeah, ya gotta try to teach. I can hold my hand an inch from the side
of a boiling saucepan
>||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||<
1 inch
but I'm damned if I'm going to put it 0.02" away from the hotplate.
>||<
this gap is about 20 thou = 1/50th of an inch.
Doesn't he realise he's in the corona?
http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/~astrolab/mirrors/apod_e/ap010408.html
BradGuth
To disagree with Mook is pretty much the same as disagreeing with
god. So right there you’ve got a problem that’s nearly
insurmountable.
For example, I believe his following statement is being extremely
conservative of anything our NASA does. I’d say at least double those
costs if it’s another all-inclusive birth to grave kind of public
funded investment that usually includes job and benefit immortality
for most everyone involved.
“Aerospace systems today cost $10 million per ton to create, and $50
million per ton to put into orbit. An integrated light sail
capability is a natural outcome of a solar laser powersat.”
Btw, we need to get that average wholesale distributed energy cost
down to $0.01/kwhr, but don’t let any of that get in the way of
investing our hard earned public loot, and we’ll need at least ten
fold more of that clean energy than suggested by William Mook.
Getting ourselves away from Earth is quite another matter, unless it’s
referring to our moon(Selene), its L1 or that our accomplishing Venus
L2 and/or conceivably the planet Venus itself.
~ BG