powering 'flat earth satellites'

Quote from: Lorddave on July 26, 2012, 08:19:13 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 26, 2012, 07:25:12 AM

What exactly is a pseudolite? And... I don't think there's a conspiracy to hide the shape of the Earth. There's no real motive. It can't be for NASA. NASA wasn't around the whole time the shape of the earth was being "hidden."

Nor do I. But that's why I'm not an FEer.

No, you're the Devil.

Exactly. And I know the Earth is round.

Lorddave speaks blasphemy.  He is the devil.  Wait, didn't we already have this thread?

FES is a religion?

No.  But that in no way negates the fact that you speak blasphemy.

Lorddave speaks blasphemy.  He is the devil.  Wait, didn't we already have this thread?

I believe I've seen this in several places. But why not give it another go?

FES is a religion?

Seems that way but...

No.  But that in no way negates the fact that you speak blasphemy.

... I guess not.

No.  But that in no way negates the fact that you speak blasphemy.

I have spoken blasphemy before by who am I blasphemizing by stating the earth is round?

The laser would also be very visible if there are any clouds.

The most efficient conversion for GaAs is at around 800nm. Si, CulnSe2 and GaSi are less efficient, but peak efficiency would be at even higher wavelengths. So, it would not be visible light. 
Having said that, I don't think this is ever going to be efficient enough to use.

Well, the more powerful the laser, the farther it will go before it stops. If you can build one powerful enough to literally burn the atmosphere out of it's way, then you can have a much longer range. But good luck, you might need a nuclear reactor to power it.

Quote from: Lorddave on July 26, 2012, 03:33:52 AM

The laser would also be very visible if there are any clouds.

The most efficient conversion for GaAs is at around 800nm. Si, CulnSe2 and GaSi are less efficient, but peak efficiency would be at even higher wavelengths. So, it would not be visible light. 
Having said that, I don't think this is ever going to be efficient enough to use.

Then it'll light up like a spotlight with a UV scanner and we could easily shoot down any drone.

Well, the more powerful the laser, the farther it will go before it stops. If you can build one powerful enough to literally burn the atmosphere out of it's way, then you can have a much longer range. But good luck, you might need a nuclear reactor to power it.

people already shoot lasers at the moon and back again

Yea. But I want super death laser. Shoot mars and back.

Quote from: Ski on July 26, 2012, 11:25:54 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on July 26, 2012, 03:33:52 AM

The laser would also be very visible if there are any clouds.

The most efficient conversion for GaAs is at around 800nm. Si, CulnSe2 and GaSi are less efficient, but peak efficiency would be at even higher wavelengths. So, it would not be visible light. 
Having said that, I don't think this is ever going to be efficient enough to use.

Then it'll light up like a spotlight with a UV scanner and we could easily shoot down any drone.

   Do you mean IR?

Quote from: Lorddave on July 26, 2012, 01:26:51 PM

Quote from: Ski on July 26, 2012, 11:25:54 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on July 26, 2012, 03:33:52 AM

The laser would also be very visible if there are any clouds.

The most efficient conversion for GaAs is at around 800nm. Si, CulnSe2 and GaSi are less efficient, but peak efficiency would be at even higher wavelengths. So, it would not be visible light. 
Having said that, I don't think this is ever going to be efficient enough to use.

Then it'll light up like a spotlight with a UV scanner and we could easily shoot down any drone.

   Do you mean IR?

IR could do that.

Quote from: Lorddave on July 26, 2012, 01:26:51 PM

Quote from: Ski on July 26, 2012, 11:25:54 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on July 26, 2012, 03:33:52 AM

The laser would also be very visible if there are any clouds.

The most efficient conversion for GaAs is at around 800nm. Si, CulnSe2 and GaSi are less efficient, but peak efficiency would be at even higher wavelengths. So, it would not be visible light. 
Having said that, I don't think this is ever going to be efficient enough to use.

Then it'll light up like a spotlight with a UV scanner and we could easily shoot down any drone.

   Do you mean IR?

No, I just thought 800nm was on the blue end and not the red end.

UV would be better for tans, though.

But whether you use IR or UV, the point is that light is a very bad way to power flying remote control vehicles. 

I still haven't heard a very good reason why.

Are you asking why light would not be an efficient way to power an aircraft?

If so, then first of all, it has to be concentrated and focused at the aircraft's receiver.  And, it has to follow the receiver precisely.

Second reason is that air in not a perfect conduit of light.  In fact, our air is far from that.  Everything in the air blocks light.

Have you ever used a laser? I used a 1 watt blue laser. I saw it reflect off of something almost a mile away. We're not talking about pen-laser pointers here with a red laser. We're talking about high-power, highly focused lasers that can go for very long distances and have pin-point accuracy. Such technology has been tested, in both weaponized lasers, laser detection systems, and now will be tested on powering drones and satellites. Calculations are made for the atmospheric dispersion and deflection. These calculations can be plugged into the computer that is targeting the receiver. It will correct itself.

Let's say you have a veryefficient laser: 30%.  Then the photovoltaic efficiency is topped out around 15%. Even ignoring atmospheric attenuation and far-field divergence (both of which are very real factors despite your attempt to ignore them and can't be "corrected"), you're looking at 4.5% transmission efficiency. That's the high end on a clear day.

I'm talking about accuracy however. The correction for accuracy can be made. I'm aware efficiency corrections can not be made on the fly (no pun intended). You just need a laser than you can vary the power levels on. The farther away the target receiver gets, the more power you'll have to put into your laser.

EDIT: However, if we're talking about space craft, you would not have to increase power as the craft get's farther away, because the only deflection and dispersion will be through the relatively unvarying thickness of atmosphere between the laser and the craft.

you are all arguing if it would work or not. but it has been lab tested and it was so good they just gave up waiting. it was so good in fact that it had more power in it than when it started.

Noone said it would not work. It's simply a photovoltaic cell; of course it will work. We said it was horribly inefficient. The test you're alluding to took place in a wind tunnel. They haven't even tested it outside yet. And the question isn't whether or not it might work. The question was why use such an inefficient system?

Noone said it would not work. It's simply a photovoltaic cell; of course it will work. We said it was horribly inefficient. The test you're alluding to took place in a wind tunnel. They haven't even tested it outside yet. And the question isn't whether or not it might work. The question was why use such an inefficient system?

i think its just the military just showing what it can do to scare those who need spying on. i thought it would be a great way to fuel flat earth satellites. or a good excuse the next time somebody says that a geostationary object cant stay up forever. using technology like this they now can.

The idea of microwave transmission using already existing technology and infrastructure seems much more likely.

Quote from: Ski on July 27, 2012, 03:18:45 PM

Noone said it would not work. It's simply a photovoltaic cell; of course it will work. We said it was horribly inefficient. The test you're alluding to took place in a wind tunnel. They haven't even tested it outside yet. And the question isn't whether or not it might work. The question was why use such an inefficient system?

i think its just the military just showing what it can do to scare those who need spying on.

Nah.  The bad guys will look at it and say "Oh, so the planes take much longer to recharge.  And we can see where the main power point is using an IR camera.  Excellent!"

i thought it would be a great way to fuel flat earth satellites. or a good excuse the next time somebody says that a geostationary object cant stay up forever. using technology like this they now can.

Keeping an object high in the air for a long period of time without any drift is both energy consuming and nearly impossible.  The winds at that altitude are very strong and the constant ice and cold plays havoc on electrical equipment.  Ice buildup on the transmitter dish alone would kill it unless you had a dedicated heater, which would require even more energy.

Geostationary objects are several thousand kilometers off of the surface of the earth though... aren't they? There's no air up there.

Geostationary objects are several thousand kilometers off of the surface of the earth though... aren't they? There's no air up there.

In FET, objects are probably 50,000 feet up. Maybe 60,000. Just above planes.

Ah. Well I was talking about where they really are.