RE: My new Iraq Analogy (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

farglebargle -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/17/2007 10:47:25 PM)

You said:

quote:

it has never been done.


So, I pointed you to a 15 year old IEEE paper with experimental results of exactly that which you allege was never done.

to which you further responded.

quote:


But it still hasn't been done...and experiments in atmosphere doesn't prove the system.


I'm not sure what you'd consider "Done". The folks ( who are not dimwits ) at the IEEE seem to believe that the beaming of power via microwaves has been "Done". and if doing it in atmosphere is possible, exactly what features of vacuum in space do you think will alter its efficacy?

If you won't accept clear scientific evidence of it being "Done", I'm not sure there's any point in continuing these discussions.

This is like discussing shit with a creationist.

I mean, how do you get the nukes to our GEO stations without detection and destruction?

You have to blast them UP THE GRAVITY WELL towards the station.

Now, even if a single station is destroyed, that's why there's a network.

I feel like I'm trying to describe the utility of the internet to a medieval serf.

Oh, and what's the effect of a 2km diameter solar array in FUCKING GEO? Do the math if you care to, but given the relative distances, I'm pretty sure it's a pointless exercise.




Durus -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/18/2007 6:35:48 AM)

So, I pointed you to a 15 year old IEEE paper with experimental results of exactly that which you allege was never done.

to which you further responded.

quote:


But it still hasn't been done...and experiments in atmosphere doesn't prove the system.


I'm not sure what you'd consider "Done". The folks ( who are not dimwits ) at the IEEE seem to believe that the beaming of power via microwaves has been "Done". and if doing it in atmosphere is possible, exactly what features of vacuum in space do you think will alter its efficacy?

Well see I would consider "done" at least having a satallite beam power to a test station...call me crazy. There is some debate on what is going to happen once the micrwaves hit the earths ionoshpere.

If you won't accept clear scientific evidence of it being "Done", I'm not sure there's any point in continuing these discussions.

Well if you consider that test to prove the concept, then there isn't any point in discussion. You want something to be done badly and you think you found a panacea for all our power problems. Even if it did work, and I have my doubts, it should only be a oiece of the puzzle.



I mean, how do you get the nukes to our GEO stations without detection and destruction? How about intercontinental ballistic missle some of which have the power to get to orbit. Any idea's on how you are going to destroy them? We don't have any space based missle defense...although we do down here.


Now, even if a single station is destroyed, that's why there's a network. It's hard to calculate the disruption that a nuke would have in orbit. Smarter people then I have suggested that one nuke could take out enough satllites to disrupt most communication and gps systems.

I feel like I'm trying to describe the utility of the internet to a medieval serf.
I suprised you can reach the keyboard with an ego that big.

Oh, and what's the effect of a 2km diameter solar array in FUCKING GEO? Do the math if you care to, but given the relative distances, I'm pretty sure it's a pointless exercise.

Nothing...but how many 2km solararrays will be needed? A hundred? A thousand? Are you prepared to state categorically that blocking 2000Km of solar energy from the earth isn't going to effect us in anyway? Maybe it will stop global warming who knows.

It seems to me that you want something so bad you are willing to ignore any flaws. I want what you want...and we have the technology to start doing it tomorrow...but here on earth with less money and fitting in to our current infrastructure.



Sinergy -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/18/2007 6:43:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Durus

There are some exciting cars coming out (tesla sportster) but in five years when the battery needs to be replaced and the person is looking a huge bill and we as a nation have to worry about disposal of batteries with toxic polluting chemicals in them it begins to look like it isn't THE solution at least right now.



Uh, we already deal with disposal of batteries with toxic polluting chemicals in them.

We already have to worry about the toxic emissions, the hydrocarbon emissions, the mercury, etc.

We already have an electricity infrastructure in place.  Europe runs trains almost all over the place on electricity.

The problem is that our political structure in this country are the Corporatocracy's bitch, not the People's bitch, and too many people run along to support the party lines.

And as far as your comment about 100mph cars being popular, please review any energy efficiency upgrades mandated by law (e.g. in the State of California is a good start) and see who the litigants are filing lawsuit after lawsuit to get the laws the people implement thrown out. 

The technology exists to make them better.  We could cut the weight in half using polycarbonates instead of iron, we could do all sorts of things, with the money we used in Iraq we could not only do the research but rebuild the infrastructure from the ground up. 

Sinergy



Sinergy -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/18/2007 6:56:27 AM)

 
I assume by Geo you mean geosynchronous orbit.  This is a satellite that sits at a fixed distance (I want to say 22k miles) from the earth and oscillates north / south so that it is generally in the same position over a specfic place on the planet.  The problem with satellites is that there is a great deal of interfererence with the communication and energy if a satellite gets inside one degree of distance from another.  What this means is that there are 360 geosynchronous slots.  Most are filled, and countries are still trying to argue over the slots or trying to purchase them to do things from the other countries that own them.  France and China a few years ago had an argument over one that was allocated to France and suddenly had a Chinese satellite in it.  What ended up happening is both countries lost control of their satellites.  France was pissed.

Another issue with beaming microwaves or any other energy from a satellite involves the dispersal of the energy signal over distance.  There is a square or two over the distance value, so power drops off fairly quickly as you get further away from it.  Throw in the fact that satellites are, by design, extremely low power devices with limited lifespans, and the idea that a satellite could pump a vast amount of power through our atmosphere seems relatively unworkable.

Most satellits are not Geosynchronous.  The satellite drops into the gravity well, speeds up, catapults around the earth, and shoots back out.  When it is out, it might be months or years before it drops back in again, depending on the length of the orbit. 

RocketScientistergy

p.s.  On a related note, I was reading an article about a scientist who discovered that plants have evolved to use quantum mechanics to increase the efficiency of their usage of solar energy to undergo photosynthesis.  I personally think that improving our energy efficiency down here on earth, allowing the sun to do the work getting us the energy, is a far better approach.  Couple that with wave power, wind power, and one starts using energy that is a function of our planet's motion and will not go away any time soon.

p.p.s.  I used to help design satellites in a former life...



mnottertail -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/18/2007 7:02:38 AM)

Sinergy,

In summary, are you saying, in effect, "If plants can do it, so can we."?

It no longer seems to be an insurmountable challenge, when it is viewed in that respect.

Ron



caitlyn -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/18/2007 7:05:42 AM)

The discussion of individual sciences is not on point.
 
Of course gas is the cheapest fuel. It is the cheapest fuel because oil companies want it that way, and not enough money has been spent on alternatives. Pointing out the flaws in alternatives that have not had proper discovery, is not a well thought-out talking point.



Sinergy -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/18/2007 7:10:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Sinergy,

In summary, are you saying, in effect, "If plants can do it, so can we."?

It no longer seems to be an insurmountable challenge, when it is viewed in that respect.

Ron



Thank you, Ron.

I think very few things in life are insurmountable.  What upsets me with this country / world is that we keep doing the same thing over and over again with limited resources (fossil fuels, nuclear power) in a limited system space, and hoping we wont screw up the world we live on or run out of energy.

But then, I grew up in the time of Kennedy and LBJ and the US Government taking an interest in education our citizens and becoming the premier research and scientific country on the planet, only to see a bunch of right-wing yahoos systematically undercut our future (read: our children's education) in order to further their own personal agenda.

We have the technology to do so, or we can find it throwing .00001% of the money we spent blowing up Iraqis at our schools and research institutions, but instead our government insists we keep playing the same stupid imperialistic and profit mongering game that didnt work out so well for us 20 years ago.

Just me, etc.

Sinergy



OrionTheWolf -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/18/2007 9:44:07 AM)

I find it odd, that insinuation of insults are allowed here, but being direct, like I have in the past, get me a little warning from the mods.

If you have something to say, say it straight. I also believe that the investigations of price gouging have been going on for a while. It will not matter to some until either their agenda is met, they get to actual count the money, or there are laws put in place to prevent people from getting rich.

I say things from my perspective, as does everyone.If your filters, made it into something other than what i actiually said, then there is a problem with your filters, or miscommunication on both sides. If you don't like what I write, there is this little read hand you can click on.

Have a nice day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Orion,

None of us are as smart as you so I am sure you already dismissed their record profits as any indication of price gouging and we also know that whenever Bush investigates his friends and families they do a thorough job.

What's next, an endorsement of Haliburton?



farglebargle -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/18/2007 9:45:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Durus

Well see I would consider "done" at least having a satallite beam power to a test station...call me crazy. There is some debate on what is going to happen once the micrwaves hit the earths ionoshpere.


You say, "Don't do it because it won't work. But then go on to say, well it MIGHT work, but hasn't been tested."

So, stop complaining, get the heavy lift capability worked out, and run whatever experiments you want.

It's not like we don't have the money to use, we used MORE in Iraq SO FAR than this project would cost.

It's a matter of having the BALLS to go and do it.

Oh, and the italics make editing a pain. Just use the regular quoting method.

quote:


How about intercontinental ballistic missle some of which have the power to get to orbit. Any idea's on how you are going to destroy them? We don't have any space based missle defense...although we do down here.


An ICBM going to GEO takes a long time to get there. Um... Don't you think a network of satellites with huge solar collectors and microwave emitters IS a space based missile defense? I mean, you *could* power some huge motherfucking lasers or maser.

quote:


It's hard to calculate the disruption that a nuke would have in orbit. Smarter people then I have suggested that one nuke could take out enough satllites to disrupt most communication and gps systems.


The nuke never arrives. See above.

quote:


I suprised you can reach the keyboard with an ego that big.


I'm the one pushing for the one thing which will get Americans complete and total domination of all access to Space.

It's us or the Chinese.

Maybe it takes a big ego to dream big. I know what in less than 10 years from JFK's challenge we set foot on the Moon.

We couldn't do that TODAY. We can't fabricate the parts. Hell, we don't have enough kids who know how to run a sliderule and mechanical pencil to DRAW the parts.

The Chinese probably could.

quote:


Nothing...but how many 2km solararrays will be needed? A hundred? A thousand? Are you prepared to state categorically that blocking 2000Km of solar energy from the earth isn't going to effect us in anyway? Maybe it will stop global warming who knows.


How many electrical generating stations are there in the US? 1000?

Well, it'll remove all that human generated CO2 people are whining about all the time. I don't know if that's needed or desirable, but it's a side effect. No gasoline, just Plug Ins.

quote:


It seems to me that you want something so bad you are willing to ignore any flaws. I want what you want...and we have the technology to start doing it tomorrow...but here on earth with less money and fitting in to our current infrastructure.


Yeah, but that doesn't guarantee our National Security ( we can't GIVE ground stations to our friends with your proposal ).

What would Iraq be like TODAY if we over threw Hussein, and installed a Ground Station in Baghdad? They'd be our friends. Of course, that raises the question, "Would Hussein have BEEN in power without the petro-trade?"

I know the Saudis wouldn't be able to cause so much trouble without the petro-trade.

And Our Children get the Universe.




Durus -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/18/2007 9:47:11 AM)

Uh, we already deal with disposal of batteries with toxic polluting chemicals in them.
We do not have the infrastructure to deal with 100million electric car batteries.

We already have an electricity infrastructure in place.
There are a lot of places in the US that barely has enough infrastructure to hande power needs now. If we adopted electric car technology wholsale the infrastructure would collapse.


The problem is that our political structure in this country are the Corporatocracy's bitch, not the People's bitch, and too many people run along to support the party lines.
The problem is that people are government's bitch.

And as far as your comment about 100mph cars being popular, please review any energy efficiency upgrades mandated by law (e.g. in the State of California is a good start) and see who the litigants are filing lawsuit after lawsuit to get the laws the people implement thrown out. 
Think about what you are saying. Passing a law doesn't make technology appear of car companies asses. 

The technology exists to make them better.  We could cut the weight in half using polycarbonates instead of iron, we could do all sorts of things, with the money we used in Iraq we could not only do the research but rebuild the infrastructure from the ground up.
You want to make cars lighter using more polycarbonates so we use less petrochemicals??/!  What's the point of driving a light car that uses less gas when you use more then the equivalent saved energy in making the car?



farglebargle -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/18/2007 9:57:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy


I assume by Geo you mean geosynchronous orbit. This is a satellite that sits at a fixed distance (I want to say 22k miles) from the earth and oscillates north / south so that it is generally in the same position over a specfic place on the planet. The problem with satellites is that there is a great deal of interfererence with the communication and energy if a satellite gets inside one degree of distance from another. What this means is that there are 360 geosynchronous slots. Most are filled, and countries are still trying to argue over the slots or trying to purchase them to do things from the other countries that own them. France and China a few years ago had an argument over one that was allocated to France and suddenly had a Chinese satellite in it. What ended up happening is both countries lost control of their satellites. France was pissed.


It is the most important thing in our National Interest and the future of our Children.

The telecommunication's bitches can go use the terrestrial fiber. It's got lower latency anyway.

quote:



Another issue with beaming microwaves or any other energy from a satellite involves the dispersal of the energy signal over distance. There is a square or two over the distance value, so power drops off fairly quickly as you get further away from it. Throw in the fact that satellites are, by design, extremely low power devices with limited lifespans, and the idea that a satellite could pump a vast amount of power through our atmosphere seems relatively unworkable.


Not these satellites. They're solar converters, so they HAVE as much juice as they need. And I don't think about building them on earth, or even in LEO then boosting them... I figure we sent good old american Union tradesfolk, some mechanical engineers, and enough raw materials right to the jobsite in GEO for them to fab up whatever's needed to get the job done.

Remember. Once we get people to GEO, they go to the Moon for the weekend.

Then we own the Universe.




Durus -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/18/2007 10:16:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

The discussion of individual sciences is not on point.
 
Of course gas is the cheapest fuel. It is the cheapest fuel because oil companies want it that way, and not enough money has been spent on alternatives. Pointing out the flaws in alternatives that have not had proper discovery, is not a well thought-out talking point.

Oil company's wants do not effect the amount of global oil resources. It was used becasue it was (and still is) cheap and plentiful. When it is neither cheap nor plentiful we will stop using it. That isn't a talking point it's a plain simple fact. Ironically when we do discover an viable alternative it will likely be the evil oil comapanies that do it. Not being made up of stupid people they know that oil won't last forever and as a result they spend more money then anyone else on research.




caitlyn -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/18/2007 10:24:25 AM)

Wind is cheap and plentiful.
 
I don't see the oil companies as evil ... they are just trying to make a buck.
 
Question to you though. Don't you think the vast majority of Americans want less reliance on oil, and want the government to spend more money on alternate energy sources?
 
If you answer yes, the government should concern themselved less with the oil lobby, and concern itself more with doing the will of the American people ... right?



Durus -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/18/2007 10:44:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Wind is cheap and plentiful.
 
I don't see the oil companies as evil ... they are just trying to make a buck.
 
Question to you though. Don't you think the vast majority of Americans want less reliance on oil, and want the government to spend more money on alternate energy sources?
 
If you answer yes, the government should concern themselved less with the oil lobby, and concern itself more with doing the will of the American people ... right?


There are serious problems with wind energy...but even if it did work all it would give us is electricity. We don't use oil to generate electricty generally speaking. Replacing our electrical infrastructe with anything other then what we are using now (mostly coal and nuke plants) doesn't solve the problem of oil dependence as we are using that primarly to fuel transportation.

I don't want the government spending money on anthing that isn't constitutionally mandated.



Sinergy -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/18/2007 10:58:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Not these satellites. They're solar converters, so they HAVE as much juice as they need.



Never said they did not, however, distance squared makes insanely high amounts of energy to push power.  I am still puzzled why we cannot let the sun do the work pushing the energy through our atmosphere.  Remember that all of this energy needs to be stored on site and collected to be sent down.

quote:



And I don't think about building them on earth,



You and I differ here; I spent years as a systems engineer, raw science is a lovely thing, but the rubber meets the road out in feasibility and applicablility of science. i.e. technology.

Now, from the standpoint of building them in situ.

Consider the mass of the satellites you are talking about using.  All of that mass needs to be lifted into space from the ground.  Then it needs to be put together, then it gets blown apart by ions and space detritus and falls apart after 50 or so years, turning into more space detritus.  This new space detritus gets together with the other space detritus and continues to destroy other satellites.  And so on, and so on.

My point is that it is a difficult solution which might work for the short term, but the long term outcomes are generally not all that great, farglebargle.  On earth, we can go in with our swiss army knife and fix it, move things around, replace parts, etc., and scrap it / recycle it when we are done.  In space, we cannot.

As far as owning the universe, until humans figure out how to keep people alive outside the earth's magnetosphere, I am not ponying up much money to make it happen.  The best idea I read was to encase a space ship in a 1-2 meter thickness of water, although the mass of water required to make that happens boggles the imagination.

Sinergy



caitlyn -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/18/2007 11:19:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Durus
There are serious problems with wind energy...but even if it did work all it would give us is electricity.


Well, you are back to talking about problems with technology that hasn't been fully developed.
 
It doesn't matter than wind power, replaces coal. We can start using electric cars, if the will is there to do so. It doesn't matter that there will be batteries to dispose of. We can come up with a solution, is there is a will to do so.
 
That is the only point ... we have to have the will, and we have to have a government that will do the will of the majority. Pointing out small or even large problems, does nothing but pile on more of the same bullshit that ruins progress. Is that where you see yourself? You seem like a reasonably intelligent person. Do you really want to be in shoes that do nothing more than stamp out any chance to make a positive change?



Durus -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/18/2007 12:09:28 PM)

Which hinders progress more, a person pointing out a an obvious problem with a project or working on a project, ignoring the problems, until it is obvious that it will never work? Do you really think that a "positive" attitude will make something work that can't work?

Why do you want to replace coal? If you were to replace coal why wouldn't you replace it with nuclear power? Change for the sake of change is misguided. Positive change takes careful consideration of the possibilities.

We could use electric cars if we had the will to do so. We could start walking if we had the will to do so. The point is that electric car technology would cause as many problems as it solves so it isn't, at this time, a (complete) solution to our problems. (hydrogen is a better solution in my opinion)

A government that does the will of the majority is a direct democracy. We live in a constitutional republic that limits the power of government to that which is enumerated in the constitution.



mnottertail -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/18/2007 12:20:14 PM)

quote:

Which hinders progress more, a person pointing out a an obvious problem with a project or working on a project, ignoring the problems, until it is obvious that it will never work? Do you really think that a "positive" attitude will make something work that can't work?


It is unclear that this is a proper caging of the discourse.


Gasoline used to be dumped in the Ohio River and it was constantly ablaze.  Why was it dumped?  It wasn't good for anything.

Spark plugs were invented by a dentist.  What good were spark plugs before there were need for them?  Anything until that invention that was used was unworkable. 

V8 engines were impossible, until jobs were laid on the line, and a man said make it work. 

The ideas flow when one goes thru the iterations of what won't work, what may work, and what is possible.

Without Star Trek, there would be no Star Wars, without Jules Verne there would be no space.

Without someone looking at the obvious data before them and explaining how what may be percieved as constant and linear, could be variable and curved the earth would still be flat.

So I do not accept your view as stated. That is the lowest common denomination of the vast possibilites that are sparked by imagination.

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

Ron



Durus -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/18/2007 12:59:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

Which hinders progress more, a person pointing out a an obvious problem with a project or working on a project, ignoring the problems, until it is obvious that it will never work? Do you really think that a "positive" attitude will make something work that can't work?


It is unclear that this is a proper caging of the discourse.


Gasoline used to be dumped in the Ohio River and it was constantly ablaze.  Why was it dumped?  It wasn't good for anything.

Spark plugs were invented by a dentist.  What good were spark plugs before there were need for them?  Anything until that invention that was used was unworkable. 

V8 engines were impossible, until jobs were laid on the line, and a man said make it work. 

The ideas flow when one goes thru the iterations of what won't work, what may work, and what is possible.

Without Star Trek, there would be no Star Wars, without Jules Verne there would be no space.

Without someone looking at the obvious data before them and explaining how what may be percieved as constant and linear, could be variable and curved the earth would still be flat.

So I do not accept your view as stated. That is the lowest common denomination of the vast possibilites that are sparked by imagination.

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

Ron

I wasn't discussing imagination.I was stating that ignoring obvious problems is going to cause more problems then if you dealt with those problems up front.

Let me give you an few examples. The air force is working on a laser gunship. While there are no lasers compact and powerful enough to do much of anything, the airforce decided that contemporary, underpowered lasers, were enough to get the targetting system working. They have determined that by the time they get the system working that the laser technology will have matured enough to do some damage.

A counter example would be to decide to build a laser gunship with contemporary high powered lasers and someone (such as myself) saying "You know that you don't have the airlift capability to haul that around right?"

I'm not argueing for the status quo but the application of reason so we don't get led down a primrose path.

(as an aside I just got a 35mW laser that is kewl)



farglebargle -> RE: My new Iraq Analogy (8/18/2007 4:21:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Not these satellites. They're solar converters, so they HAVE as much juice as they need.



Never said they did not, however, distance squared makes insanely high amounts of energy to push power. I am still puzzled why we cannot let the sun do the work pushing the energy through our atmosphere. Remember that all of this energy needs to be stored on site and collected to be sent down.

quote:



And I don't think about building them on earth,



You and I differ here; I spent years as a systems engineer, raw science is a lovely thing, but the rubber meets the road out in feasibility and applicablility of science. i.e. technology.

Now, from the standpoint of building them in situ.

Consider the mass of the satellites you are talking about using. All of that mass needs to be lifted into space from the ground. Then it needs to be put together, then it gets blown apart by ions and space detritus and falls apart after 50 or so years, turning into more space detritus. This new space detritus gets together with the other space detritus and continues to destroy other satellites. And so on, and so on.


The builders are also the maintenance crew. Remember. This isn't the old, build it, launch it, pray nothing goes wrong.

There are PEOPLE ONSITE, so over those 50 years, the things that break -- get fixed.

quote:



My point is that it is a difficult solution which might work for the short term, but the long term outcomes are generally not all that great, farglebargle.


I would call access to the rest of the universe a desirable long-term outcome. We get it as gravy with this plan.

quote:


On earth, we can go in with our swiss army knife and fix it, move things around, replace parts, etc., and scrap it / recycle it when we are done. In space, we cannot.


This is a very important point. WHY CAN'T WE? Because we send "astronauts" who need to work in shitty suits.

Get rid of the shitty suits, and send real engineers and construction workers and they *can* move things around, replace parts, etc...

And we *can* recycle it. Don't *ever* neglect the usefulness of being able to lift large masses to orbit cheaply.

quote:



As far as owning the universe, until humans figure out how to keep people alive outside the earth's magnetosphere, I am not ponying up much money to make it happen. The best idea I read was to encase a space ship in a 1-2 meter thickness of water, although the mass of water required to make that happens boggles the imagination.

Sinergy


Workers are cheap.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875