quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

<pinky on lips> give me a BILLION dollars, and I will let you have the power

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

<pinky on lips> give me a BILLION dollars, and I will let you have the power

I dont need a billion dollars... my soft, full, talented lips are worth sooooo much more.. that is where true power lies..

quote:

Niccolo Machiavelli
Severities should be dealt out all at once, so that their suddenness may give less offense; benefits ought to be handed out drop by drop, so that they may be relished the more.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrazyCats

Tesla was broke well before he ever started on the global energy/communication antenna. He was financially backed by Westinghouse. Unfortunately, the combination of smear campaign and back room deals from Edison Labs kept the vastly superior wireless electric technology suppressed for just a little under a century. MIT is just now starting to work with some of Tesla's simpler designs. (That nifty charging mat for cell phones and other tech toys? That's an MIT redesign of Tesla's work with more modern materials.)

The trouble with mad scientists is that they usually don't do what they do for money, so it can be rather had to monetize their inventions. That was what Westinghouse faced. If he did manage to finish it, which he was very close to doing when they pulled the plug, they would have only received high brand recognition from basically inventing wireless internet/global power delivery. They would not have been able to really charge for its use the way Edison was able to charge for the use of his tech. Business doesn't always run on what is actually superior technology, or what would be best for the world. Business runs to gain money. The problem with Tesla wasn't his technology, it was his business model. Which really sucks, because we would have been far more advanced today if the better technology won out.

As far as wireless energy transmission, there are a few other alternatives to microwave beams and radio waves, which would have a pretty large downside of becoming deathrays, as well as the minor issues of signal degradation, interference, and redistribution. We could easily take a page from Tesla and piggy back the power on electromagnetic sphere covering Earth. Unfortunately, there could be some unforeseeable consequences with this idea, since the only tests run on the effects were done about a century ago, and science was a little less rigorous at the time.

Space Solar power has potential. Fortunately, it's problems are solvable, and it has far less limitations as far as energy harvesting is concerned. The sun's light is far weaker here on Earth's surface than in space. We have an atmosphere and the aforementioned electromagnetic shell protecting us from really high powered, wide spectrum light. The reason earth based solar arrays are so expensive is simply because of the number of them needed to collect anything useful. A good analogy would be two rain buckets. The one in the desert would have to be very large and very efficient, while the one in a rain forest could very nearly have a hole in it while still being sufficient.

To be fair though, it would either have to be pretty far from Earth, or really sturdy, because the amount of floating junk around our planet would decimate current photo-voltaic arrays. Even distance from Earth would not truly solve that issue as micro-asteroids can do levels of projectile damage that would make tanks envious. The ones on the ISS and other space stations are hardy but they need constant repair. (Though I may be wrong there, it has been a while since I have heard anything about solar arrays on the ISS.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

It's bullshit.

The transmission of power is nasty.  We're talking of a massive amount of power transmitted through radio waves or some similar medium.  I once read an analysis of this which proposed beaming the power down by microwave.  Talk about a massive health risk, and to top it off, the analysis projected that the temperature would be raised a degree or two by this.  That will cause all kinds of issues, as Al Gore has stated.

quote:

Niccolo Machiavelli
Severities should be dealt out all at once, so that their suddenness may give less offense; benefits ought to be handed out drop by drop, so that they may be relished the more.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrazyCats

Tesla was broke well before he ever started on the global energy/communication antenna. He was financially backed by Westinghouse. Unfortunately, the combination of smear campaign and back room deals from Edison Labs kept the vastly superior wireless electric technology suppressed for just a little under a century. MIT is just now starting to work with some of Tesla's simpler designs. (That nifty charging mat for cell phones and other tech toys? That's an MIT redesign of Tesla's work with more modern materials.)

The trouble with mad scientists is that they usually don't do what they do for money, so it can be rather had to monetize their inventions. That was what Westinghouse faced. If he did manage to finish it, which he was very close to doing when they pulled the plug, they would have only received high brand recognition from basically inventing wireless internet/global power delivery. They would not have been able to really charge for its use the way Edison was able to charge for the use of his tech. Business doesn't always run on what is actually superior technology, or what would be best for the world. Business runs to gain money. The problem with Tesla wasn't his technology, it was his business model. Which really sucks, because we would have been far more advanced today if the better technology won out.

As far as wireless energy transmission, there are a few other alternatives to microwave beams and radio waves, which would have a pretty large downside of becoming deathrays, as well as the minor issues of signal degradation, interference, and redistribution. We could easily take a page from Tesla and piggy back the power on electromagnetic sphere covering Earth. Unfortunately, there could be some unforeseeable consequences with this idea, since the only tests run on the effects were done about a century ago, and science was a little less rigorous at the time.

Space Solar power has potential. Fortunately, it's problems are solvable, and it has far less limitations as far as energy harvesting is concerned. The sun's light is far weaker here on Earth's surface than in space. We have an atmosphere and the aforementioned electromagnetic shell protecting us from really high powered, wide spectrum light. The reason earth based solar arrays are so expensive is simply because of the number of them needed to collect anything useful. A good analogy would be two rain buckets. The one in the desert would have to be very large and very efficient, while the one in a rain forest could very nearly have a hole in it while still being sufficient.

To be fair though, it would either have to be pretty far from Earth, or really sturdy, because the amount of floating junk around our planet would decimate current photo-voltaic arrays. Even distance from Earth would not truly solve that issue as micro-asteroids can do levels of projectile damage that would make tanks envious. The ones on the ISS and other space stations are hardy but they need constant repair. (Though I may be wrong there, it has been a while since I have heard anything about solar arrays on the ISS.)