...100 MW of Space Solar Power ...per single launch!

Jonathan wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
Solaren has not provided details on just how its technology
works, citing intellectual property concerns.
Meaning it wouldn't stand up to the inevitable expert scrutiny if they got a
patent.


Maybe, but keeping a secret could mean fraud or it could mean
a breakthrough, we don't know for sure.

If they have a breakthrough, they should get a patent on it, ASAP. As
long as it's merely secret, they're exposed to industrial espionage,
accidental leaks, you name it.

But the electric company
P G & E, one of the largest utilities in the nation, while considering
the contract should be privy to the details of the technology.

It wouldn't be the first time that people who should have known better
got taken for a ride. See

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-240493.html

which is about the Pixelon video-streaming compression scam.

Sylvia.

Uncle Al wrote:

80% bull**** business plan number for RF
conversion

At 80%, the remaining 20%, or 80MW, is heat that has to be got rid of,
by radiation alone.

Sylvia.

eric gisse wrote:
Jonathan wrote:

[...]

Solaren has not provided details on just how its technology
works, citing intellectual property concerns. But it expects that
its space solar power can convert to RF energy with greater
than 80 percent efficiency, and expects similar conversion
efficiency for converting the RF energy back to DC
electricity on the ground in California.

hahahahahahahahahahahahah

If both numbers summed to 10% I would be impressed. Instead I'm insulted for
being lied to so blatantly.

Is the technology 'not existing' an 'intellectual property concern'?

[...]

I don't find those numbers to be too out-of-range, it's only 64% overall
efficiency - though they are perhaps a bit higher than I'd use.

But a 50% overall efficiency of a GEO-to-Earth microwave energy transfer
system should be obtainable without stretching the technology too much,
and 64% is not totally unreasonable, just a lot more expensive.

I believe 80+% overall efficiency has been achieved in terrestrial testing.

A 7 mile diameter rectenna with a further 4 mile exclusion zone in say
the Mojave desert, supplied by a suitable satellite, could easily
provide 100 gigawatts of power, enough to power all of California's
electricity needs with a bit left over, though you might have to move a
few people and tortoises or whatever; and there are lots of other places
on the Earth's solid surface which are about as desolate.

(Hmmm, not just deserts, central Australia springs to mind ... that's
big and empty)

You wouldn't want to stay there too long, but it wouldn't kill you in
seconds, more like hours, or a lot longer with suitable protection (or
years, in the outer zone, even with no protection) - the microwave
energy per unit area in the center is about the same as the energy from
the noonday sun ... except it's there 24/7.


Solaren's apparent/implied overall launch, ground and equipment
costings, on the other hand, I do not believe at all.


-- Peter Fairbrother

[sci.space.history deleted]

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

Alain Fournier wrote:

As Peter said, a microwave energy beam would be spread over an area
in the square kilometre range. This is not really for security's sake
it is because of basic physics making it impossible to focus a microwave
beam very tightly over long distances. The beam would be survivable
by an unshielded human being (or more likely by a bird flying through
it). The electronics in the jetliner are shielded by the hull of the
plane and will survive the beam even more so than the human wandering
into the beam. This is not a problem.


That's correct. The beam power density will be about one-fourth the
solar constant. Even then, the aircraft hull is a perfect Faraday cage
against the frequencies of the beam.

The safety issues are overblown (the economic issues are not).

Well, some people do over blow the economic issues, but I think we
agree here.

The problem with the safety issues are not the effective safety per se,
but the NIMBY, that they would create. The fact that the technology
is safe will not stop an ignorant crowd from screaming about MWs of
DANGEROUS RADIATION. Which of course is the same as saying what you
said that the safety issues are overblown, but that over blowing can
cause real problems.


Alain Fournier

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
That's correct. The beam power density will be about one-fourth the
solar constant. Even then, the aircraft hull is a perfect Faraday cage
against the frequencies of the beam.

As long as it's all metal, yes.
But with the increasing use of non-metallic composites in aircraft
structures that might bear some looking into.
When they were designing the B-2 stealth bomber, one area of concern was
how a lightning strike would affect its composite skinning.

Pat

Sylvia Else wrote:

Uncle Al wrote:

80% bull**** business plan number for RF
conversion

At 80%, the remaining 20%, or 80MW, is heat that has to be got rid of,
by radiation alone.

Sylvia.

Given 0% carbon footprint, 80 MW continuous ground heating cannot add
to Global Warming. Besides, it is add over a broad area. It's not
like lighting a candle or grilling a steak - both of which are
Enviro-whiner atrocities.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm

In sci.space.history Jonathan wrote:
Maybe, but keeping a secret could mean fraud or it could mean a
breakthrough, we don't know for sure. But the electric company P G
& E, one of the largest utilities in the nation, while considering
the contract should be privy to the details of the technology.

Even if they were/are, PG&E, while do doubt staffed by some very
inteligent folks, are not known to have "space" as part of their core
competency. They know electricity, boilers, fision, coal, gas, oil,
wires, even I suspect photovoltaics, but are new to rocket science.

rick jones
--
firebug n, the idiot who tosses a lit cigarette out his car window
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

In sci.space.history Pat Flannery wrote:
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
That's correct. The beam power density will be about one-fourth
the solar constant. Even then, the aircraft hull is a perfect
Faraday cage against the frequencies of the beam.

As long as it's all metal, yes. But with the increasing use of
non-metallic composites in aircraft structures that might bear some
looking into. When they were designing the B-2 stealth bomber, one
area of concern was how a lightning strike would affect its
composite skinning.

Given it is, presumably, on the verge of its maiden flight, and unless
is a complete flop will vastly outnumber the B2 in numbers of
passenger miles flown, mentioning the Boeing 787 is probably
worthwhile.

rick jones
--
Wisdom Teeth are impacted, people are affected by the effects of events.
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

"Rick Jones" wrote in message
...
In sci.space.history Jonathan wrote:
Maybe, but keeping a secret could mean fraud or it could mean a
breakthrough, we don't know for sure. But the electric company P G
& E, one of the largest utilities in the nation, while considering
the contract should be privy to the details of the technology.

Even if they were/are, PG&E, while do doubt staffed by some very
inteligent folks, are not known to have "space" as part of their core
competency. They know electricity, boilers, fision, coal, gas, oil,
wires, even I suspect photovoltaics, but are new to rocket science.

rick jones

Everyone else is new to rocket science except Rick Jones,
he's been around rockets since 1814.

"And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave."
-- Francis Scott Key, 1814

You'll be 200 years old in 4 years, Jones. No wonder you
know so much about rocket science.

In sci.space.history Androcles wrote:
Everyone else is new to rocket science except Rick Jones,
he's been around rockets since 1814.

"And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave."
-- Francis Scott Key, 1814

Francis always did have a way with words.

You'll be 200 years old in 4 years, Jones. No wonder you know so
much about rocket science.

Your flattery of those of us in the peanut gallery is apreciated, if
perhaps premature...

Phil: Well maybe the *real* God uses tricks, you know? Maybe he's not
omnipotent. He's just been around so long he knows everything.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107048/quotes

'cause I ain't there, yet.

rick jones
--
I don't interest myself in "why". I think more often in terms of
"when", sometimes "where"; always "how much." - Joubert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...