We discussed laser power beaming a while back. Microwave power beaming looks even more impresive.

 

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

Microwave power beaming looks even more impresive.

Sabine isn't so sure:

 

12 hours ago, dmwalker said:

Sabine isn't so sure:

 

She never is. 😁

But of course microwave power beaming isn't just for transmitting power from space based relays. There are other applications. 

Hmmmmm..... I didn't want to be the downer on this one, but again, I immediately thought of environmental and possibly even health concerns.

Above and beyond that, just as with the concept of space elevators, I'm not sure the human race is mature enough to have such nice things. For one, such a constellation would make a fine target for terrorists and hostile nations, and the people who became too dependant upon it might eventually find themselves very vulnerable to threats and blackmail regarding its possible destruction....

Plus, it's already getting surprisingly crowded up there and full of rapidly speeding garbage. Remember the cascading calamity in the movie Gravity? 😬

Ouch.

53 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

I immediately thought of environmental and possibly even health concerns.

 

So did the scientists and engineers concerned. as they said in the video, limits have been set by international standards bodies, for what a safe power density is, and they don't exceed those limits. They can implement interlock systems to instantly shut off the power if the beam is interrupted, but that was not necessary for the test because the power density was safe. 

 

53 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

 I'm not sure the human race is mature enough to have such nice things. For one, such a constellation would make a fine target for terrorists and hostile nations, and the people who became too dependant upon it 

 

If you are talking about solar being beamed from space, that's just one of the possible applications. And of course, that applies to any form of power generation. Its never a good idea to be dependent on any ONE form of power generation, a mix is the way to go. 

Edited October 5, 20232 yr by martin-w

25 minutes ago, martin-w said:

So did the scientists and engineers concerned. as they said in the video, limits have been set by international standards bodies, for what a safe power density is, and they don't exceed those limits. They can implement interlock systems to instantly shut off the power if the beam is interrupted, but that was not necessary for the test because the power density was safe. 

I'm going to consider those all too likely (considering history) to be famous last words......

I would want to see massive studies from all over the spectrum regarding this, to counter blue-sky promises from people seeing potential weapons, or wandering around with big ol' dollar signs in their eyes while contemplating sucking lustily at the financial faucet of their respective countries for decades to come.

I can already imagine the various lobbyists ears pricking up......

Anyways..... If somebody like mister Musk wants to finance something like that from private resources, I would watch with interest, but only after multiple scrupulously unbiased studies from around the globe agreed this looked like a sensible road to travel, taking all alternatives into account.

25 minutes ago, martin-w said:

That applies to any form of power generation. Its never a good idea to be dependent on any ONE form of power generation, a mix is the way to go. 

I keep in mind the euro countries hastily looking for alternatives for the russian oil they got too reliant on. I've seen enough at this point that I endeavor to (as much as I'm able) avoid underestimating the ability of human ambition and financial incentives, to overcome and outlast simple caution.

Edited October 5, 20232 yr by HiFlyer

The Doomsday clock is ticking!  ⏰ 

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

I'm going to consider those all too likely (considering history) to be famous last words......

 

Why? That's very pessimistic. Pretty much every technology that's ever been invented has had those that fear it could be detrimental, and yet there you are, with lots of electrons powering your home  and the very computer you are using now. The world is full of technology and not all of it has a significant, detrimental impact, to the extent that its a showstopper. we could of course abandon all technology and live in caves. 

 

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

I would want to see massive studies from all over the spectrum regarding thi

 

I would want studies too, and that's what always happens with new technology, in fact there would be numerous regulations and standards to comply with. Like the power density  they have already complied with that's already based on "studies".

 

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

I keep in mind the euro countries hastily looking for alternatives for the russian oil they got too reliant on.

 

As I said, its never a good idea to rely on one energy source. Euro countries didn't rely on one energy source of course, but they did choose one source that was a bad idea.

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

Why? That's very pessimistic. Pretty much every technology that's ever been invented has had those that fear it could be detrimental, and yet there you are, with lots of electrons powering your home  and the very computer you are using now. The world is full of technology and not all of it has a significant, detrimental impact, to the extent that its a showstopper. we could of course abandon all technology and live in caves.

🤔

Yes, there are good technologies that were questioned. There are also many bad ones that were not questioned adequately until too late.

(We might start with something like asbestos) Sometimes because at the time we did not even know the correct questions to ask: a big reason for the careful regulatory environment that now exists!

Another basic example: High levels of microplastics were recently found in a sealed cave that supposedly nobody has visited in decades, testament to the ubiquitousness of our industrial pollution. Have plastics been beneficial to modern society?

Yes.

Did we also rush ahead and use them in practically everything, only to find now they are complicit, according to studies, in damage and death in animal and human cells, that I would not be the least bit surprised will come back to haunt us?

Also yes.

Is that a pessimistic viewpoint? I don't believe so, when even to a cursory glance, the literature is full to the brim with unintended consequences and sheepish whoopsies from overconfidence in our own cleverness, or maybe just simply not caring, leading to things we and/or our descendants will have to deal with for decades or centuries; assuming none of then eventually turn out to be species-fatal. (Human sperm counts may have dropped by as much as 50% worldwide over the last few decades)

Sensible caution and a taking things (at this point) with large doses of salt is in no way suggesting that we should be retreating to caves. But it does point to a species maturing and learning from its mistakes, hopefully to the degree that unlike a hapless pooch for instance, it doesn't keep jumping at the first attractive shiny object that catches its eye...

(Which, given our history, might very easily turn out to be a glass christmas ornament that it would be really unwise to try ingesting)

Edited October 5, 20232 yr by HiFlyer

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

There are also many bad ones that were not questioned adequately until too late.

 

Well yes, but we don't abandon all technological advancement because there have been technologies that had negative aspects, otherwise we'd be living in caves. What we do is comply with regulations, research, do the best we can, as required, and then take action if there's an issue that arises after the fact. And no, not many "bad ones" as in the majority, some. 

And that's exactly what will happen with this new beaming technology, whether by laser or microwaves, as they are actually doing, guidelines regarding power density will be obeyed, research will be done, authorization where required will be applied for and when the regulators deem it safe it will be deployed. I mean its not like they are thrusting this upon us without bothering to research.

 

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

Sensible caution 

 

Who said they aren't being sensibly cautious? I'm not sure what else you want them to do. 

And nobody said they are going to deploy this technology literally everywhere and that we will end up living in a microwave soup. There are specific niches where this technology will be useful. They aren't going to beam microwaves through your wall to power your TV. 

 

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

it doesn't keep jumping at the first attractive shiny object that catches its eye.

 

Nobody is doing that. This technology was first demonstrated effectively back in the 1970's. They aren't exactly rushing. 

 

Quote

Did we also rush ahead and use them in practically everything, only to find now they are complicit, according to studies, in damage and death in animal and human cells,

 

Nobody rushed ahead with plastics. They were first invented in 1907. Its taken 116 years for plastics to have become so prevalent. Its an inevitable consequence of technology that sometimes there will be issues to deal with. The key is to act as soon as issues arise, and that's something we need to be better at. the alternative is to don grass skirts and go and live in the jungle with no technology at all. 

 

Edited October 5, 20232 yr by martin-w

26 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Well yes, but we don't abandon all technological advancement

You would have to point out to me where I suggested that.

28 minutes ago, martin-w said:

the alternative is to don grass skirts and go and live in the jungle with no technology at all

The alternative is to stop and think. Something that we require even from children, who are prone to shoving anything interesting into their mouths right away.

Edited October 5, 20232 yr by HiFlyer

32 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Nobody rushed ahead with plastics. They were first invented in 1907.

I actually thought it was earlier, as a replacement for ivory, after which an explosion of new discoveries found even more artificial substances that grew almost exponentially until another massive expansion during World War 2 And ever since. 

It reminds me of our use of nanomaterials, which are already showing up in the e nvironment, or of silicon, probably from pots and pans, already detectable in our bodies.

A lot of this heedlessnes has been justified by arguments very similar to yours, equating careful advancement to no advancement at all, or even retrograde advancement.

I think that's a logical fallacy with big and obvious holes in it.

Also, I'm sitting outside in the grass with my dog and some stray cats, painstakingly typing this, so expect mistakes.

 

Starting to drift off-topic!  You know what that means! 

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

They were first invented in 1907

 

55 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

I actually thought it was earlier, as a replacement for ivory,

I hope I'm drifting off topic in a good way. 

"In 1855, the first man-made plastic, nitrocellulose (branded Parkesine, patented in 1862), was created by Alexander Parkes from cellulose treated with nitric acid and a solvent."

"John W. Hyatt, a blacksmith's son born here in 1837, invented celluloid, the first modern synthetic plastic, in 1869. He originally developed the material as a substitute for ivory in the manufacture of billiard balls."

Celluloid was just a modified version of nitrocelluose so not entirely synthetic since they both used cellulose obtained from wood pulp, so natural origin. You could say that Bakelite, invented in 1907, was the first all synthetic plastic. I suppose it all depends on your definition of "synthetic".

Edited October 5, 20232 yr by dmwalker