4 ms·

A wavelength that doesn’t penetrate the troposphere will make it impossible. You don’t seem to take your own idea very seriously… You are confusion implausible

by _hypx 4y ago

A wavelength that doesn’t penetrate the troposphere will make it impossible. You don’t seem to take your own idea very seriously… You are confusion implausible with impossible. Sure, it is not “impossible.” It is just absurdly unlikely. I mean seriously, you will need lasers on the order of hundreds of MWs in power, beaming to tens of thousands of planes flying at any given time. It doesn’t take much effort to realize the sheer cost and unreliability of such an idea. And your appeal to “long time horizon” is just an excuse to not think through the issue. At long time horizons, other ideas become viable, and ones that are much more practical.

pfdietz 4y ago
The aircraft could get to altitude on batteries, then switch over to beamed power. You need to expand your imagination when you're trying to rule out a technology: you are arguing all possible ways to do it don't work. This is difficult task and one you are not taking seriously. Facile dismissals of the kind you are spouting here are not sufficient. You are the one who is writing checks his thinking can't cash.
- _hypx 4y ago
  Now it becomes doubly complex. The is both an self propelled vehicle while also able absorb many MWs of power from lasers or whatever. Sorry, but you are one fantasizing here. Everyone can imagine what this is. You're the one who actually thinks this is possible for a real aircraft. Again, the alternative is simply figuring out a greener fuel. So no matter how much you insist that over a long enough time horizon that this is possible, it will be quickly displaced by far more plausible ideas first. As a result, it's highly unlikely to happen on any time frame.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    Yes, aircraft are complex. I'm glad you realize this. It's not a justification for facile dismissal of possibilities. Yes, a green fuel is another possibility. I'm not ruling that out. Perhaps you could also refrain from ruling out a possibility when you don't have a good argument?
    - _hypx 4y ago
      Again, your idea is vastly more complex. It falls in the same category as aerial battery swapping and global spanning vactrains. Sure, it could be done, but under any realistic scenario, it is not going to happen. It is far more likely that we will find a much simpler solution in the meanwhile, such as a greener fuel, rendering this idea totally unnecessary and uneconomical. No one is "ruling it out," merely pointing out that it is absurdly unlikely. In fact, the only reason you are even giving your idea credence is because it is so far from reality that you can handwave the details. There are no serious studies nor experimental vehicles to criticize. Just a vague idea of how it might work on paper, with no hard challenges since you are free to imagine whatever technology you want. No one has even built any mechanism of beaming MWs of power via lasers before, but you are allowed to imagine such a system anyways. And apparently, a global network of such systems with built-in redundancies, all already working in your mind. The whole idea reminds me of the space elevator, which was another grand concept that works on paper, but was only seen as plausible until people started doing real calculations on it. Meanwhile, in the real world, real engineers have to overcome real world problems that are encountered in the development of real systems. These things only look hard because you have to see the gory details of real technologies. But in reality, they're far simpler than the crazy ideas you sometimes hear about. Which is why the greener fuel idea is far more plausible. It is far simpler, but only looks more complex because people have to solve the real world problems of it.
      - pfdietz 4y ago
        Yes, the idea is more complex. "Vastly?" I think not. Nor are your attempts at analogy there at all persuasive. You are vigorously handwaving and arguing by bald assertion. Your objection to ME handwaving is obtuse. I am not the one claiming it is impossible. I don't have to show all possible ways it might be done don't work. Don't resort to the usual crank attempt of defending your initial claim by insisting I disprove it. You are obligated to explain in detail why the idea can't work. I don't think you can, your huffing and puffing notwithstanding. I think you could become more persuasive if you retreated to a time limited claim, say the next 30 years. The best argument would not be complexity, but rather the cost of the orbital lasers.

by _hypx 4y ago

pfdietz 4y ago

The aircraft could get to altitude on batteries, then switch over to beamed power. You need to expand your imagination when you're trying to rule out a technology: you are arguing all possible ways to do it don't work. This is difficult task and one you are not taking seriously. Facile dismissals of the kind you are spouting here are not sufficient. You are the one who is writing checks his thinking can't cash.

_hypx 4y ago
Now it becomes doubly complex. The is both an self propelled vehicle while also able absorb many MWs of power from lasers or whatever. Sorry, but you are one fantasizing here. Everyone can imagine what this is. You're the one who actually thinks this is possible for a real aircraft. Again, the alternative is simply figuring out a greener fuel. So no matter how much you insist that over a long enough time horizon that this is possible, it will be quickly displaced by far more plausible ideas first. As a result, it's highly unlikely to happen on any time frame.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Yes, aircraft are complex. I'm glad you realize this. It's not a justification for facile dismissal of possibilities. Yes, a green fuel is another possibility. I'm not ruling that out. Perhaps you could also refrain from ruling out a possibility when you don't have a good argument?
  - _hypx 4y ago
    Again, your idea is vastly more complex. It falls in the same category as aerial battery swapping and global spanning vactrains. Sure, it could be done, but under any realistic scenario, it is not going to happen. It is far more likely that we will find a much simpler solution in the meanwhile, such as a greener fuel, rendering this idea totally unnecessary and uneconomical. No one is "ruling it out," merely pointing out that it is absurdly unlikely. In fact, the only reason you are even giving your idea credence is because it is so far from reality that you can handwave the details. There are no serious studies nor experimental vehicles to criticize. Just a vague idea of how it might work on paper, with no hard challenges since you are free to imagine whatever technology you want. No one has even built any mechanism of beaming MWs of power via lasers before, but you are allowed to imagine such a system anyways. And apparently, a global network of such systems with built-in redundancies, all already working in your mind. The whole idea reminds me of the space elevator, which was another grand concept that works on paper, but was only seen as plausible until people started doing real calculations on it. Meanwhile, in the real world, real engineers have to overcome real world problems that are encountered in the development of real systems. These things only look hard because you have to see the gory details of real technologies. But in reality, they're far simpler than the crazy ideas you sometimes hear about. Which is why the greener fuel idea is far more plausible. It is far simpler, but only looks more complex because people have to solve the real world problems of it.
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      Yes, the idea is more complex. "Vastly?" I think not. Nor are your attempts at analogy there at all persuasive. You are vigorously handwaving and arguing by bald assertion. Your objection to ME handwaving is obtuse. I am not the one claiming it is impossible. I don't have to show all possible ways it might be done don't work. Don't resort to the usual crank attempt of defending your initial claim by insisting I disprove it. You are obligated to explain in detail why the idea can't work. I don't think you can, your huffing and puffing notwithstanding. I think you could become more persuasive if you retreated to a time limited claim, say the next 30 years. The best argument would not be complexity, but rather the cost of the orbital lasers.