Intel cuts electric cords with wireless power system

[Drizzt]

Now that's a strawman.
I'm not saying "it definitely is 100% feasible"
I'm saying scientific investigation should be done to see if it's feasible. And I'm saying that your argument doesn't really hold.

Your post makes me want to chuck my q6600 and get a phenom more then any of your showdowns with maroon1.

 

[zedman3d]

This topic has like 120 posts, 90% of which are in this argument we are all involved in... lol.

 

[zmatt]

Now that's a strawman.
I'm not saying "it definitely is 100% feasible"
I'm saying scientific investigation should be done to see if it's feasible. And I'm saying that your argument doesn't really hold.

You have said that there will definitely be major problems with efficiency, and that there will definitely be major problems with interference from the atmosphere or planes.
I posted arguments to show why yours were invalid. That doesn't mean I hold the stance that it is definitely 100% feasible. I don't. Hence I'm not holding a position that requires proof.

Science: the process of finding facts using empirical evidence

Hypothesis: an idea posited that has yet to be tested
Whether a hypothesis is worth considering or testing depends on whether the idea is falsifiable, and the likelihood of it generating scientific knowledge.

In this case, the hypothesis is the idea of using solar panels in orbit, to then transfer their power to Earth, without using wires.
I've simply tried to show here that the idea, given our current knowledge, might be possible, and that it warrants further testing.

That, and I just saw your argument against it and it didn't seem to add up.

You never gave proof to the contrary, you just shot people down by asking empty questions. When dealing with a project so huge as this one does not have to prove it wont work, they have to prove that it will. And so far I haven't seen that.

 

[Luke]

^exactly. You can't just say, it will work, its possible, there will be little if not no power loss at our current tech with out saying possible ways to doing it, i have said many things that could result in power loss. You have not said one thing about why that would not happen, or why it would work.

You're saying there will be major problems, yet at the same time it may be viable.....

What the heck are you talking about dude. I have been saying, that at our current knowledge, we could not do this, it is impractical with our transfer methods, then i said, in the future, with more research done we may find a way to make it possible with less, if not no power loss. You can not put that down, its a cold hard fact that we will improve on the methods. This whole debate i have been saying that, you people don't seem to realize that.

 

[grkbar]

having wireless power is gonna be one of the hardest things to accomplish in the history of mankind.

wireless power can accidentally effect other electronics by accident, omg that would be terrible!

Also, if power became available wirelessly, than you would have people boycotting large power companies who currently supply electricity to homes. It would be just as easy to get power (electricity) as it is to get a wifi access point now adays. So watch out for some kind of strict law/regulation on this an far more in-depth encryptions to keep "unwanted" leechers out. Just my small take on this ground breaking news that we will not see for 50 years

 

[Apokalipse]

You never gave proof to the contrary

Okay, you really didn't understand what I said.
I don't hold the position that it definitely is 100% viable. I hold the position that further scientific investigation into its viability needs to happen.

I also just happened to think your arguments as to why it wouldn't are not solid, hence why I argued against them.
i.e. I'm not arguing that it's definitely 100% viable. I'm arguing that your arguments as to why it isn't are not valid.

you just shot people down by asking empty questions.

No, I shot down arguments that I don't think hold their ground, by asking people to back up claims, and providing counterpoints to some particular points.

When dealing with a project so huge as this one does not have to prove it wont work, they have to prove that it will.

Hence my position is that further scientific investigation is needed. That, however, doesn't automatically make arguments against its viability valid.

^exactly. You can't just say, it will work

And I haven't. I've just been arguing against arguments that I don't think are valid.

What the heck are you talking about dude.

there is going to be major problems with that, like planes, highly charged clouds, ect .

not all radiation will interact very easily with everything.

?!? huh? i was agreeing with you.

How is that not contradictory?

 

[Luke]

^dude, i SAID THAT if we improve the mothode IT MAY BE ABLE TO GET AROUND THOSE PROBLEMS!!!!!!! i was saying that with our current thinking of the ways we could transfer the power, it would be IMPRACTICAL!!!! not when we have improved it!

 

[zmatt]

Ok ill go down the lsit of problems we have with it.


#1 putting such a large platform into space will be very expensive and will take a long time. Look at the international space station, it still isn't done. Solar farms on earth are very large so one can assume solar farms in space will have to be as large as the ones on earth. That translates into tons of payload. And it is very expensive to put things into space.

#2 assembling such a rig will be a huge undertaking requiring record breaking space walks that involve a large number of astronauts. The likely hood of failure at some point is very high. Space walks are extremely difficult and taxing


#3 Solar panels aren't exactly "rugged". NASA have had problems on missions before where solar panels have failed and have put missions in jeopardy, and is with only one or two panels. It wouldn't be difficult for a micrometeorite to go through a panels and knock it off line.

#4 Solar panels are very inefficient at power generation. The best and most expensive panels get around 30% efficiency. Also there isn't much extra light in orbit that we couldn't easily get by staying on the ground.


#5 Our means of power transference simply aren't practical. A giant umbilical is out of the question, physics doesn't work that way. Electromagnet waves could work but wireless energy transference is still in its infancy even though Telsa discovered it 100 years ago. And even then you will need to pick which form of electromagnetic waves you want to use. RF is heavily controlled and would end up interfering with countless devices. Gamma radiation will kill you. Infrared is line of sight, and unless you want to use geostationary orbit but it has some severe limitations. Geostationary orbit is very high up so it is expensive to get stuff there, and there is a latency with communications. It is also very difficult to stay in geostationary orbit so you would spend a lot of time using your maneuvering thrusters , which can be refueled by return trips, but rocket fuel is also expensive. Microwaves are used by radar, so there is interference there, and microwaves at that wattage level would start to "cook" things, like a microwave oven. In fact most if not all forms of electromagnetic radiation will becomes dangerous in the megawatt range if not before. I remember someone wanting to use a laser. That would constitute an orbital weapon. DvD lasers which operate in the milliwatts can set paper on fire. A laser in the megawatts would do much more than that. Trying to capture the energy of such a laser is just suicide.


#6 Also, things in orbit only have a limited operational lifetime. Things fall out of orbit, they break down, they lose power. Whatever happens eventually it will become to impractical or impossible to maintain.




So to rap this up I will ask you this question. What investor would in good faith put money into a multibillion dollar power station that dosent give any technological advantages over standard systems in place and which will also die in 15-20 years?
Answer: Nobody.

Now stop believing everything you see in Gundam and arguing just because you can.




This could all change down the road with improved technology. But my point is and has been. If we tried it TODAY we would fail miserably.

 

[Apokalipse]

^dude, i SAID THAT if we improve the mothode IT MAY BE ABLE TO GET AROUND THOSE PROBLEMS!!!!!!! i was saying that with our current thinking of the ways we could transfer the power, it would be IMPRACTICAL!!!! not when we have improved it!

I was saying that the particular problems you said would happen (with interference, efficiency) won't necessarily happen in the first place
Interference: Not all types of electromagnetic energy does interact easily with everything.
efficiency: Every form of energy transformation is not 100% efficient, and due to a lack of experimental evidence, we don't know that it's going to be less efficient than those widely used energy transfrmations

so if they're not problems to begin with (which is what I said and you apparently told me you agreed with), you don't need to 'work around' them (which, if you did understand and agree with me, you wouldn't be saying they necessarily needed to be 'worked around')

Of course that's not to say other issues can't occur. But I just don't think those particular ones are necessarily going to happen.

#1 putting such a large platform into space will be very expensive and will take a long time.

Regular power stations aren't exactly free though.

#2 assembling such a rig will be a huge undertaking requiring record breaking space walks that involve a large number of astronauts. The likely hood of failure at some point is very high.

That all depends how they design it

#3 Solar panels aren't exactly "rugged".

I'm sure they could improve on this

#4 Solar panels are very inefficient at power generation.

So is an internal combustion engine, and they're extremely widely used.

Also there isn't much extra light in orbit that we couldn't easily get by staying on the ground.

Visible light, perhaps. But that's just a small fraction of the electromagnetic energy coming out of the sun, and much of that is filtered out by the atmosphere.

#5 Our means of power transference simply aren't practical.

Our current means of power transferrence aren't practical.

Electromagnet waves could work but wireless energy transference is still in its infancy even though Telsa discovered it 100 years ago.

So was every technology we have at one point.

And even then you will need to pick which form of electromagnetic waves you want to use.

"I'll pick that one!"

RF is heavily controlled and would end up interfering with countless devices.

If they utilise the same frequencies

Gamma radiation will kill you.

Actually, most of it will pass harmlessly through you (through the comparatively enormous spaces between the atoms) as if you aren't even there.
And even if there was enough of it to increase the amount of interaction so that it is harmful, to kill you, you'd still have to be standing in the way.
Though, all this doesn't mean gamma radiation is the ideal type to use, if we even use electromagnetic energy.

Infrared is line of sight

all electromagnetic energy travels in a straight line, unless affected by something, such as hitting an object, or a very strong gravitational force.

and unless you want to use geostationary orbit but it has some severe limitations. Geostationary orbit is very high up so it is expensive to get stuff there

depends how you go about doing it.

and there is a latency with communications.

this is energy transformation though.

It is also very difficult to stay in geostationary orbit so you would spend a lot of time using your maneuvering thrusters

Unless we develop better ways of controlling them

Microwaves are used by radar, so there is interference there

If you use the same specific frequencies. But you could easily just... not.

and microwaves at that wattage level would start to "cook" things, like a microwave oven. In fact most if not all forms of electromagnetic radiation will becomes dangerous in the megawatt range if not before. I remember someone wanting to use a laser. That would constitute an orbital weapon. DvD lasers which operate in the milliwatts can set paper on fire. A laser in the megawatts would do much more than that. Trying to capture the energy of such a laser is just suicide.

If you stand in front of it, and the type of electromagnetic energy interacts enough with your body, yes.

#6 Also, things in orbit only have a limited operational lifetime. Things fall out of orbit, they break down, they lose power. Whatever happens eventually it will become to impractical or impossible to maintain.

Again, depends how you design it.
Voyager has laster much longer than it was originally supposed to, and to this day is providing valuable information to scientists about the outer solar system.

So to rap this up I will ask you this question. What investor would in good faith put money into a multibillion dollar power station that dosent give any technological advantages over standard systems in place and which will also die in 15-20 years?

That's begging the question.

This could all change down the road with improved technology. But my point is and has been. If we tried it TODAY we would fail miserably.

Whose saying we should try doing this right now?

 

[Luke]

^wow, that was a lot of quotes, u spent a lot of time on that. My argument has also been with the technology of today. Also I'm not gonna try to explain more on what i was agreeing with, because i can't really lay it out more. I was agreeing with you one one point, but not on the others. But everything in ur last post i agree with, for the most part.