David Hobby wrote:
Or are you worried about energy being beamed down inefficiently, producing
much more heat than just the amount from people using energy directly?
No, even if it was possible to beam energy with 100% efficiency...
it's still energy. It comes down, it must get out. If not,
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 08:24:00 -0300
Subject: Re: For David Brin and the rest of you
From: albm...@centroin.com.br
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
David Hobby wrote:
Or are you worried about energy being beamed down inefficiently, producing
much more heat than just the amount from people
On 9/5/2013 7:24 AM, ALBERTO VIEIRA FERREIRA MONTEIRO wrote:
David Hobby wrote:
Or are you worried about energy being beamed down inefficiently, producing
much more heat than just the amount from people using energy directly?
No, even if it was possible to beam energy with 100% efficiency...
In a message dated 9/5/2013 4:24:09 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time,
albm...@centroin.com.br writes:
where the Mad Scientist tries to destroy the Earth by
placing an enormous mirror or lens in orbit, concentrating solar
energy?
It's not in orbit; it's in London melting parked cars.
On 9/5/2013 4:54 PM, Keith Henson wrote:
The propulsion lasers to get the parts up to GEO at a cost where the
whole thing makes economic sense, those are weapons, game changing
weapons. And if I had to bet, it would be for them to be controlled by
the Chinese. Keith Henson _
Now
It looks like a combination of Skylon, a project being developed in the UK
and big propulsion lasers will get the
cost to under $100/kg to GEO.
Do you have any vidios of lasers holding up, say, a 10kg object, for 20
minutes and keeping it under control. This would be one of the easy
From: Pat Mathews mathew...@msn.com
How much does it cost in energy as well as in dollars?
Substantial. I figured this for an elevator and got that the elevator
had a 3 day payback for the parts and the same for lifting. The
calculated energy investment for a kW of capacity was paid back in
