Slashdot Mirror


Things You Can Do With A Giant Fresnel Lens

Ant writes "Here is a link where this guy always wanted Edmund Scientific's Giant Fresnel Lens. 'Melts asphalt in seconds!' the ad said. When he went to graduate school he met several other people with the same enthusiasm for aimless destruction through bizarre means, and just enough combined cash to make it happen. Thus the reign of terror began."

469 comments

  1. Basu Gasu Bakuhatsu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Basu Gasu Bakuhatsu :chiyo:

  2. EEK! by intekra · · Score: 5, Funny

    Lets hope this doesn't get into the wrong hands! This can be worse than WMD's!

    --
    [intekra] - [www.plex.nu]
    1. Re:EEK! by Dizzle · · Score: 5, Funny

      It already is because this actually exists.

      --
      -Dizzle
      "I most likely AM so interested in myself."
    2. Re:EEK! by OrthodonticJake · · Score: 4, Funny

      I know; I just finished with the AP Physics B test, and I thought I was rid of specific heats forever. Why, God?? Why won't they die?

      --
      I regularly report MSN spam to the Hotmail admins.
    3. Re:EEK! by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Funny

      because you haven't used the lens on them yet!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    4. Re:EEK! by netmask · · Score: 1

      flaimbait? That was hillarious and true.

    5. Re:EEK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AP Physics B is for pussies. I took both of the AP Physics C tests back in my day. Take a college-level course on wave theory, and we'll talk.

      Pussy.

  3. Burnination by OneFootIn · · Score: 5, Funny

    And to think, when I was a kid I had to settle for burning ants with a magnifying glass.

    1. Re:Burnination by edoc · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is what happens when you don't grow out of those times! On a positive note at least you have some change of getting laid.

    2. Re:Burnination by bergeron76 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Heh! When I was in High-school we took things a step farther by taking Mr. Bouknecht's overhead projector lens out of the housing. [I'm quite certain] it's a true Fresnel Lens - but the point is that it was like a magnifying glass on steroids. We had to be careful just walking out into the parking lot with it because if it caught a friends leg and the sun at the right angle, they'd be in a world of hurt.

      Aaahh, fun times being a juvenille. My advice to the next generation though - be as mischievious as normal, but don't do anything stupid or anything that will get you thrown in jail. Be intelligent with your "inevitable" delinquency [you call it rebellion] - we've all been there - however don't get anyone hurt or needlessly damage property.

      Life is much more exciting as an experienced adult making thousands of dollars a month. Trust me on this one all you guys. Science is fun, but it can also be very dangerous... Be safe - because if you go to jail or die, the guy you hate will likely reproduce and you never will. And that would suck.

      --
      Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
    3. Re:Burnination by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Funny

      when I was a kid I had to settle for burning an ant

      Now you can burn like......two ants!

    4. Re:Burnination by Skjellifetti · · Score: 5, Funny

      Science is fun, but it can also be very dangerous... Be safe

      My father once caught me making gunpowder using a chem lab kit he'd bought me and an old mortar I'd found in the garage. His first reaction was "Idiot kid!" Then it was "Oh, wait, that's what I used that mortar for when I was a kid. Let me show you how to do it safely." Basically wet the ingredients down so it doesn't accidentally catch fire while you are grinding it. I suspect he'd learned that one the hard way. I'm big on the safety angle with my kids now, too. In my case its a result of an experiment with some gasoline and an Estes rocket engine when I was a teenager.

    5. Re:Burnination by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 2, Informative

      I bought an 11" square fresnel lens (from Edmund's) when I was about twelve. The most refractory material I was able to melt was filings from a nickel coin, which were (and I suppose still are) mostly copper.

      The temperature you can achieve is mainly determined by the ratio of the diameter of the lens to the focal length. A larger lens with the same ratio lets you heat up larger objects, but it won't get small objects much hotter. A penny was much too large for my lens to have a visible effect on.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    6. Re:Burnination by Thing+1 · · Score: 2, Funny
      [...] however don't get anyone hurt or needlessly damage property.

      I'd love to see the attempt at explaining to the cops how you needfully damaged that property...

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  4. The list should be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Things You Can't Do With a Giant Fresnel Lens! It's much shorter!

  5. Nice picture of a giant fresnel lens in action by PissingInTheWind · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Right here: Cooking with Light.

    --

    A message from the system administrator: 'I've upped my priority. Now up yours.'
    1. Re:Nice picture of a giant fresnel lens in action by danharan · · Score: 2, Funny

      Seeing as how the person who did this first works for SCO, should I be concerned if I want to copy his idea? :)

      Though seeing as how he lets people use it at the burning man festival, he doesn't quite seem like the type to do that... sounds like a very neat guy.

      --
      Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
    2. Re:Nice picture of a giant fresnel lens in action by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      He in fact is a very neat guy. He is typical of the old school Santa Cruz geek, which is to say he is atypical and good-natured and -hearted. At least, far as I can tell.

      I've known or been around a number of geeks who worked for SCO in the old days, and they were all really cool, knowledgeable people. And, I've been sloshed at the Armory a few times. :)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Nice picture of a giant fresnel lens in action by NuclearDog · · Score: 0

      I like how the image gallery controls are conviently located over the image. (Firefox/0.8)

      ND

      --
      This statement is forty-five characters long.
    4. Re:Nice picture of a giant fresnel lens in action by RollingThunder · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wonder if it would be possible to have a reflector added in to that, so that you can heat the bottom of the frying pan, for a nice even heat. I'm guessing that most mirrors would absorb too much energy themselves, though, and heat up too much.

    5. Re:Nice picture of a giant fresnel lens in action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you in any way related to JBoss ?

  6. Ants by eightball01 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now the ants really don't stand a chance!!!

    1. Re:Ants by wankledot · · Score: 5, Funny

      Even ants the size of horses.

      --
      My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
    2. Re:Ants by antdude · · Score: 4, Funny

      DOH! :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    3. Re:Ants by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Not even the giant ones? Bet you were thinking of the other ones...huh?

      --
      What?
    4. Re:Ants by edoc · · Score: 1

      Even horses the size of ants!

    5. Re:Ants by whovian · · Score: 0

      Protect the Queen!
      Which one's the Queen?
      I'm the Queen.
      No you're not.
      Freedom!
      Horrible, horrible freedom!

      --
      To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
    6. Re:Ants by servognome · · Score: 1, Funny

      I for one pity our ant overlords.

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    7. Re:Ants by madbastd · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ants? I'm more worried about the humans.

    8. Re:Ants by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well you know what they say, you're either part of the solvent, or part of the solute. (Actually, I think it was part of the solution, or part of the precipitate, but I think it's equally valid either way. Perhaps moreso my way.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Ants by weeboo0104 · · Score: 1

      More importantly, our giant, alian, ant overlords don't stand a chance!

      (but in case it's a cloudy day, I for one still welcome our giant ant overlords.)

      --
      It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
    10. Re:Ants by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 1

      I thought we were supposed to be welcoming our new insect overlords.

      Then again, even if we do destroy them with a giant Fresnel lens, we won't stop there. We'll just build bigger and bigger lenses until we build a Fresnel lens so big it will destroy us all!

      --
      ... I'm addicted to placebos
    11. Re:Ants by togtog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I cannot see a mod, regardless of how trollish, modding this Redundant and not funny, so either it was a mistake or someone is really smoking the crack. Just my non-annoyamouse 2 bits.

    12. Re:Ants by avgjoe62 · · Score: 1

      You know, this gives a whole new meaning to the term "Fire Ant Mound"

      --

      How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

    13. Re:Ants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I for one welcome our new insect overlords- TO OUR TERRIBLE FRESNEL DEATH BEAM. Take that, master race of giant space ants!

    14. Re:Ants by jeefy · · Score: 1

      the boys overseas could use this against those deadly camel spiders

    15. Re:Ants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Deadly camel spiders? All they can do is scare you or give you a good pinch if you corner one.

      Anything that eats scorpions is welcome in my book! My younger brother (who was over in iraq the last time we were there ) used to regale us with tales of how many scorpions were to be found in the desert there, and of the soldier who didn't kick the side of the latrine hard enough before sitting down. When he dangled something below the rim, the scorpion stung it. *empathetic cringe of horror*

      My brother was part of a medical chopper unit, the sort of people called for just such an emergency. He said the swelling had to be seen to be believed - and that seeing it caused him to spend a good deal of time beating on the latrine every time he used it through the remainder of his stay in the Gulf!

      Thanks, I'll take the Camel Spiders anyday.

      *orders up one of the used 11" lenses mentioned in the posting* Thanks for the well-linked post, I've been looking for one this size for years! I've even bookmarked the places where I can get even larger ones in case I get some spare cash anytime soon.

    16. Re:Ants by zcat_NZ · · Score: 2, Funny

      "If you're not part of the solution, your're part of the precipitate" .. the usual non-chemist version is s/precipitate/problem

      --
      455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
    17. Re:Ants by gykh · · Score: 1

      MUA Ha ha ha ha!

      Finally - a weapon with which to overthrow our New Insect Overlords!

      Buuuuuuurn!

    18. Re:Ants by Reziac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How can I buy a solution if I'm insolvent? ;)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    19. Re:Ants by JDWTopGuy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because we'll, like, totally burninate them!

      --
      Ron Paul 2012
  7. Ideas by panxerox · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Mount it in front of your monitor for a really big image Write your name in the side of someone's car Wipe your harddrive permanently There has to be a way to increase solar cell output with these (not at direct focus of course mabey larger area at 25% focus)

    --
    "It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
    1. Re:Ideas by DoraLives · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Wipe your harddrive permanently

      I daresay this may be the long sought for absolutely sure method for permanently removing data from a hard drive in such a way that nobody, not even the NSA will be able to recover it.

      Job well done, guys!

      --
      Is it fascism yet?
    2. Re:Ideas by timmi · · Score: 1

      I seem to remember something to that effect, but the diagram showed solar panel "Strips" that were covered by a lens that was like a half circle above and wider than the panel.

    3. Re:Ideas by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      How about using it as a heat source for a steam turbine?

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    4. Re:Ideas by jd_esguerra · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm no expert in solar cells, but would it really be possible to increase output of a solar cell just by focusing light to s smaller spot ? If you are focusing light (energy) from a lens that is a square meter in area down to a cell with a 1-cm square area , how is that different than having a cell of 1 square meter in area ? Unless there are marked efficiency differences between a 1-m^2 sensor, and the 1-cm^2 sensor, the energy "captured" would be approximately the same, right ?


      Your energy output is going to be equal (in ideal sense, but always less-than that in reality) to the solar energy that hits your light collecting optics, be it a big-ass lens or a photovotaic cell. Its a thermodynamics issue.



    5. Re:Ideas by timmi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's more efficient because it's cheaper. the chost prohibitive compinent of the system os the solar cell, whereas the lens and the litle bit of mechanics to keep it aligned is relatively cheap, (or at least that was the case when the idea was widely talked about)

    6. Re:Ideas by servognome · · Score: 1

      I doubt it would work, all the lens does is concentrate the same amount of energy to a small spot. You could boil the water in the cm^2 spot, but it wouldn't be an efficient way to get power. Also, the steam would reduce the efficiency since it would absorb some of the light.

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    7. Re:Ideas by Punboy · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, but the more solar energy the cells recieve, the higher the output. You may get the same output from 1-m cell as you would from a 1-cm cell under a fresnel lens, but then again it is the same. Meaning you get the same energy in a 1/100 the area.

      --
      If you like what I've said here, and want to read more, go to http://www.krillrblog.com
    8. Re:Ideas by QuantumSpritz · · Score: 1

      Solar Panels typically have a lot of surface area not devoted to photovoltaic cells - some type of lensing could be used to focus the light that would normally hit the unused portions onto the reactive areas. Or, if a cell is more efficient with more light coming in, then that's another possible use right there.

    9. Re:Ideas by jd_esguerra · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Right. A smaller cell that could absorb the focused light would be more efficient and probably cleaner and more efficient to produce or operate. The issue I was addressing is that you can't really increase the output from the solar cell because you are still limited by the amount of light entering it. Consider this: A flashlight (with beam having a low divergence angle) is shining on a large perfectly efficent solar cell. All of the light is converted to energy. If the same (wide) beam is focused down to a perfecly efficient solar cell that is 1/100 the area of the larger cell, you will see the same energy. To obtain the full energy of the flashlight's beam, the lens would have to be at least as big as the beam cross section at their intersection in space. A cell of that same area as the lens would (theoretically) receive the same power from the flashlight.

      So I agree with timmi. But remember that the ore optics you have in your system, the less light will reach the photovoltaic cell. Optics are not perfect. (By the way, mirrors are lighter than lenses, and are easier to build and control.)

    10. Re:Ideas by jd_esguerra · · Score: 1

      Yep. So why (aside from manufacturing polution and high sensor cost) add an extra lossy optical component when you can use a sensor of the same size directly ? I figure that cooling the sensor would be an issue too. Lets not remember that the point of this article is to detroy stuff !

    11. Re:Ideas by edheler · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here are a few references to increasing solar cell output with Fresnel lenses. Enjoy!

    12. Re:Ideas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I daresay this may be the long sought for absolutely sure method for permanently removing data from a hard drive in such a way that nobody, not even the NSA will be able to recover it.

      That is, until they pull a Mr. Burns and block the sunlight over your house.

    13. Re:Ideas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no! and to think i'll never have a use for all these other flame-giving devices in my household.... waiit....

    14. Re:Ideas by uberdave · · Score: 4, Interesting

      From one of the articles: "Cylindrical Fresnel lenses provide a 7:1 concentration, allowing a single multijunction GaInP2/GaAs/Ge cell to collect solar energy equivalent to that gathered by seven cells."

      In other words, a fresnel lens does not help in terms of energy gathering. On a cost or mass per area, it does.

    15. Re:Ideas by simcop2387 · · Score: 1

      i think the big issue is cost, it could be alot easier to get a 10m x 10m lens than get 10m x 10m of cells

    16. Re:Ideas by cmacb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually the last time I opened up a hard drive I noticed the recording surface was no longer the dull iron oxide I remember from long ago, or even the shinier material they used later but something that looked more like a mirror. It would probably be a mistake to aim a large lense at one of these.

    17. Re:Ideas by magarity · · Score: 1

      There has to be a way to increase solar cell output with these

      The trick is keeping it focused. The combined solar cell / lens assembly would need to be on a motorized gymbal that tracked the sun's arc across the sky perfectly. Otherwise the lens would be focusing the sun's rays off to the side of the cell except for a small time each day and that would hardly be an increase in efficiency.

    18. Re:Ideas by Cornelius+Chesterfie · · Score: 1

      Since the beginning of time, man has yearned to destroy the sun!

    19. Re:Ideas by dmaxwell · · Score: 2, Interesting

      but something that looked more like a mirror. It would probably be a mistake to aim a large lense at one of these.

      No biggie. Just make some big spots on the platter with a Sharpie. Once a spot gets white hot, the shininess of surrounding material won't matter much.

    20. Re:Ideas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems it was already noted that solar thermal is REAL solar power, so I won't bother being redundant, but it seems panxerox is suggesting using this in conjunction with PV. This has also been done to death. The problem is that you're producing very high temperatures and you significantly reduce the life of your PV cells.
      There was a slashdot story about three months ago about a building designer that offered a curtain wall material that included fresnel assisted PV cells. It' not something that has been overlooked and it is an interesting idea, but there are many technical details to be concerned and durability is not the least of these.

    21. Re:Ideas by Trogre · · Score: 1

      By the way, mirrors are lighter than lenses, and are easier to build and control.

      I thought the whole point of a fresnel lens was that it isn't a lens in the strict sense. Because it is made up of an array of thin prisms, it's much lighter than its solid glass counterpart.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    22. Re:Ideas by KeithManning · · Score: 1

      If you had a 1m^2 solar cell you wouldn't use a mirror that focused 1m^2 of light into a 1cm^2 dot, you would use a much bigger mirror that focused 25m^2 of sunlight onto the original 1m^2 solar cell.

  8. A good use by KoriaDesevis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Maybe not very practical, but it might make a good paint remover. I have seen work crews remove paint from wood surfaces with a heat gun that looked like a big hairdryer, so I would think this type of lens would be helpful for stripping paint off metal surfaces such as water towers and so forth.

    1. Re:A good use by YomikoReadman · · Score: 1

      Saying that using this might not be practical for stripping paint is like saying a screen door on a submarine isn't a practical exterior hatch. They destroyed a penny with it, among many other things, and in theory they could melt quartz.

      --
      I have no regrets, this is the only path.
      My whole life has been "UNLIMITED BLADE WORKS"
    2. Re:A good use by taniwha · · Score: 1

      well stripping paint from titanium might work (got and old Blackbird that needs painting?) ... but a wood surface? maybe you need more insurance .....

    3. Re:A good use by nuclear305 · · Score: 1

      I think those crews were merely trying to remove the paint from the surface, not completely obliterate both the paint and the wood surface.

      That would be like burnings ants with a giant fresnel...oh....damn....

    4. Re:A good use by blindbat · · Score: 1

      >helpful for stripping paint off metal surfaces

      and for stripping metal off metal surfaces :)

    5. Re:A good use by conJunk · · Score: 1

      sorry, but i (for one) doubt it... ive used those paint remover things lots o times (and done my share of playing with lenses [smirk] )... most of what they do has to do with the hot air blown across the paint, drying it out rapidly, causing it to curl, not just baking it via the application of energy

    6. Re:A good use by PornMaster · · Score: 1

      Until, of course, you get a bit of the light reflected from the metal below, and it shines in your eye?

    7. Re:A good use by monkeyfinger · · Score: 1

      Light passing through a lens converges on the focal point and spreads out past that point. If it was focused on a reflective surface then the light would be diverging upwards from that point, so the closer your eye was to the focal point the more intense it would be.

      The real danger would be if the reflective surface came between the lens and the focal point, the converging light would hit the mirror, be reflected upwards and continue converging until it formed a focal point in mid air. Nasty.

    8. Re:A good use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real danger would be if the reflective surface came between the lens and the focal point, the converging light would hit the mirror, be reflected upwards and continue converging until it formed a focal point in mid air. Nasty.

      What's so nasty about that? So the air in a small spot gets heated up. Oh, dear, hot air! Flee!

  9. Terrorism... by Mz6 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wonder what his Terrorist Quotient is?.

    --
    Hmmm.
  10. A use for AOL CD's by ErichTheWebGuy · · Score: 4, Funny

    A friend and I were discussing what to do with all of our AOL CD's. We both came up with the idea that you could make a similar device out of them.

    Welcome! You've got fire!

    --
    bash: rtfm: command not found
    1. Re:A use for AOL CD's by clone22 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I entered that idea in a contest a couple of years ago, but the lamp won.

      Since each CD is an individual reflector you can mount each one independently on a flat surface with a wedge or two to direct light to the focal point.

      --
      Ask me about my vow of silence!
    2. Re:A use for AOL CD's by karnal · · Score: 1

      Yea, but the fun would come when you get all of the CDs mounted, and then have to adjust each and every one to get the maximum amount of light to said focal point.

      That would be a lesson in patience.

      --
      Karnal
    3. Re:A use for AOL CD's by John+Harrison · · Score: 2, Interesting

      paper-mache' concave surface should do the trick.

    4. Re:A use for AOL CD's by OneDeeTenTee · · Score: 1

      Mount them to individual two axis tilt servos and make them self focusing.

      If you want, add a motion sensor to the system and you've got sunflowers!

      --
      Stop the world; I need to get off.
    5. Re:A use for AOL CD's by SomeGuyFromCA · · Score: 3, Interesting
      --
      if the answer isn't violence, neither is your silence / freedom of expression doesn't make it alright
    6. Re:A use for AOL CD's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was wondering when somebody would make that cockeyed reference.

  11. All we need now are... by Fiz+Ocelot · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sharks with...giant Frensel Lenses attached to their heads!

    1. Re:All we need now are... by Texas+Rose+on+Lava+L · · Score: 1

      Uhhh... the Sharks needed to put out the Flames. This would only make them even bigger and more powerful.

      Damn Calgary.

    2. Re:All we need now are... by bn557 · · Score: 1

      Haha, how many Hockey fans do you think there are on slashdot? ;)

      --
      Humans are slow, innaccurate, and brilliant; computers are fast, acurrate, and dumb; together they are unbeatable
    3. Re:All we need now are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am going to go with two. Him and you.

    4. Re:All we need now are... by SomeGuyFromCA · · Score: 1

      Three.

      Damn road ice advantage...

      --
      if the answer isn't violence, neither is your silence / freedom of expression doesn't make it alright
    5. Re:All we need now are... by Cecil · · Score: 1

      Canada's first stanley cup game in 9 years, Calgary's first in 15. Besides, who doesn't like to root for the underdog (and Calgary was certainly the underdog all the way through the playoffs, and will continue to be in the Stanley Cup series)

      Besides, I am a Calgarian. GO FLAMES GO! :)

    6. Re:All we need now are... by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but who needs sharks? Greeks work just as well.

      It's nice to know that modern nerds are following in the footsteps of such as Archimedes...

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    7. Re:All we need now are... by Texas+Rose+on+Lava+L · · Score: 1

      Tell me about it. If the Sharks had won game 6, I was going to suggest that they play game 7 in Calgary instead of going back to San Jose.

      Also it looks like we have 4 hockey fans here, counting the Flames fan that replied to my original post.

    8. Re:All we need now are... by devnullify · · Score: 1

      GO FLAMES GO!

      Really is sad not to see Vancouver up there though...

    9. Re:All we need now are... by monkeyfinger · · Score: 1

      Sharks with...giant Frensel Lenses attached to their heads!

      Shouldn't that be "frickin' giant Frensel Lenses attached to their frickin' heads!"

    10. Re:All we need now are... by Inthewire · · Score: 1
      RYS:
      Panel 1
      -----------------
      KNOWLEGE
      INSIGHT
      STRATEGIES
      NEWS

      Panel 2
      -----------------
      Top-Notch
      intelligence
      For
      Mission-
      Critical
      Business
      Decisions
      -- Ad on Slashdot for an OSDN product

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
    11. Re:All we need now are... by Cecil · · Score: 1

      *grin* How some of these people get jobs in ad-copy writing I'll never know.

      Actually, that goes for any job field. Far too many ignorant people in the world.

  12. Choice quote... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It seems when you are wearing #12 arc welding lenses, you can't see much short of the sun and whatever is in the lens' focus. (Like your hand on fire.)"

    This one doesn't seem to have any pictures. It may actually survive the slashdotting for a short while.

  13. Giant Fresnel Lens ... by john82 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Meet Brood X of the 17-year Periodical Cicada.

    Snap! crackle! pop!

    Why waste such a monster on mere ants. I realize there are some of you out who would think of a certain movie and popcorn (lots of popcorn), but you've got to agree this is more unique.

    1. Re:Giant Fresnel Lens ... by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 1

      I read an article the other day about a guy in Bloomington, IN that caught some cicadas, sauteed them in butter and garlic, and got hives.

      So don't eat 'em. But burn away!

    2. Re:Giant Fresnel Lens ... by Naikrovek · · Score: 1

      he had an allergic reaction and was taken to the hospital. he did not get hives, but he almost died.

    3. Re:Giant Fresnel Lens ... by alannon · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind the guy had shellfish allergies and shellfish are basically just bugs that live under water. I suppose that wouldn't be obvious for some people, though.

    4. Re:Giant Fresnel Lens ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was a really great movie. ...1985:Real Genius. Mitch meets Chris and Lazlo and learns what college and being smart is all about. I missed this one in theatres, but rented it a lot. I haven't seen it in a few years (some of the technology might seem a bit dated), but it's a really fun ride. They use a laser (millitary targeting type) to fill the evil nasty professors house with massive amounts of popcorn. All the bad guys lose, all the good guys win, and tears for fears sings 'everybody wants to rule the world' at the end. Wow this film was stuck in the middle of the 80's, now 19 years old. How do I remember all of this.... I'm not *THAT* big of a geek am I?

    5. Re:Giant Fresnel Lens ... by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 2, Funny

      but you've got to agree this is more unique

      Important note from the grammar police...

      The phrase "more unique" has recently been replaced by the more concise term "uniquer".

      Similarly, the phrase "most unique" is now "uniquest"

      Check out the difference between absolute and relative terms :-)

    6. Re:Giant Fresnel Lens ... by Bilestoad · · Score: 1

      Yes; shrimp, crab, lobster, etc. are the cockroaches of the sea. And just like cockroaches, they're crunchy if you don't peel them!

    7. Re:Giant Fresnel Lens ... by Cruciform · · Score: 1

      unique indicates something is one of a kind... so how can you describe something more or less unique?

      and then quibble about how to say it?

    8. Re:Giant Fresnel Lens ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some forms of droll humour easily miss their target in a 'net medium.

    9. Re:Giant Fresnel Lens ... by Paleomacus · · Score: 1

      yummmm, crunchy [drool]

    10. Re:Giant Fresnel Lens ... by mph · · Score: 1
      unique indicates something is one of a kind... so how can you describe something more or less unique?
      Hope the whoosh bird didn't drop a present as he flew over your head.
    11. Re:Giant Fresnel Lens ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you're getting a sense of humor!

  14. w00t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    jibba jabba

  15. If only I had this as a kid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is just like the magnifying glass and ant game only this scales up to poodle sizes. Oh well. If I ever have a son...

    1. Re:If only I had this as a kid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is just like the magnifying glass and ant game only this scales up to poodle sizes. Oh well. If I ever have a son...

      or DAUGHTER!!!! Speaking as a female optelectronics grad student. I want one of those lenses.

      --Martine

    2. Re:If only I had this as a kid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah but would a daughter want to burn poodles?

    3. Re:If only I had this as a kid by edheler · · Score: 1

      Oh god, lord help us!

    4. Re:If only I had this as a kid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So 'boys are boys' - attitude raises its ugly head again.

    5. Re:If only I had this as a kid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      post-op trannies still count as sons, Martin

  16. Mindless by Roland+Piquepaille · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Chalk actually burns under this thing.

    Chalk burns eh? Creative chemistry, more like it. Here's another fun thing you can do: drop your "burnt" chalk in a glass half-full of water, let it bubble, and put your finger in it. Let me know how it feels.

    So do aluminum cans. They smell really bad.

    Aluminium doesn't smell bad when it burns. I suspect whatever soda pop chemicals remaining in the can do.

    It seems that normal concrete will start emitting plumes of smoke just before it pops

    As would burning tar, or any other heavy petroleum derivate.

    * Mike's car.

    Well, not yet. But it's plastic, so it would go up in no time at all. Or maybe we could just shrink-wrap the body around the frame.


    Try focusing the lens on the round plastic thing that smells funny, on the rear side of the car...

    Seriously, this article is all about playing with a new destructive toy and not much about using the toy in question to do interesting science-related experiments.

    1. Re:Mindless by Siva · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here's another fun thing you can do: drop your "burnt" chalk in a glass half-full of water, let it bubble, and put your finger in it. Let me know how it feels.

      aw, at least explain for those of us who lack the chemistry knowledge and the stock of burnt chalk what will happen...

      --

      Keyboard not found.
      Press F1 to continue.
    2. Re:Mindless by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      It's called fun. Not every damn thing has to be 100% correct down to it's smallest detail.

      Relax, have a drink, get laid, something!

    3. Re:Mindless by DoraLives · · Score: 5, Insightful
      this article is all about playing with a new destructive toy and not much about using the toy in question to do interesting science-related experiments.

      Yeah, and I guess it shouldda been Smiley Captioned for the Humor Impared, too.

      --
      Is it fascism yet?
    4. Re:Mindless by geekoid · · Score: 1

      True, but there will be people who will post links to other interesting things.
      That will make it worth while.

      Now if you will excuse me, I have some carpenter ants to take care of...

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Mindless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lighten up Roland. I was going to describe the huge dump I just took, but now that you mention it, there's little or no scientific value in that discussion. You're the reason people beat up geeks.

    6. Re:Mindless by Cecil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Seriously, this article is all about playing with a new destructive toy and not much about using the toy in question to do interesting science-related experiments. ... you say that like it's a bad thing?

    7. Re:Mindless by modecx · · Score: 5, Informative

      1) Aluminum cans have a thin coating of plastic on the inside to provent the soda's acid from etching the aluminum. 2) they have all sorts of paint on the outside. That's what smells bad. Not left over soda.

      But, onto the other point: many geeks like high amounts of kinetic energy. It's true. Often, this love tuns into the irrational lust for wanton destruction of random objects. Sometimes, something is learned by the results, sometimes not. But it's the journey that's important (fun).

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    8. Re:Mindless by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Informative
      Chalk is limestone. If you burn it, you get lime (calcium oxide). Add water, and you get calcium hydroxide. It's a very strong antacid.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    9. Re:Mindless by Lehk228 · · Score: 5, Informative

      antacid= Base, which is worse for skin than acid, Acid you will feel and pull your hand away because the human body can feel the burn from acid, a base will eat through your skin and you will just feel "slippery" s it turns your flesh into soap

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    10. Re:Mindless by mlh1996 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ok, working from memory here, and being lazy, so I'm not going to bother balancing equations:

      Chalk (Calcium carbonate) + Oxygen -> Calcium oxide + Carbon dioxide
      Calcium oxide + Water -> Calcium hydroxide

      Calcium hydroxide is a strong base, so putting your finger in it will probably result in severe alkali burns.

      --
      Lack of creativity is no excuse for not having a .sig
    11. Re:Mindless by mlh1996 · · Score: 4, Funny
      But, onto the other point: many geeks like high amounts of kinetic energy. It's true. Often, this love tuns into the irrational lust for wanton destruction of random objects.

      Which leads to my observation that, when presented with a large electromagnet, a REAL geek immediately constructs a railgun

      I mean, really. Is there anything more beautifully destructive than a railgun?

      --
      Lack of creativity is no excuse for not having a .sig
    12. Re:Mindless by trauma · · Score: 1

      Interesting? More like borderline troll IMHO.

      Aluminium doesn't smell bad when it burns. I suspect whatever soda pop chemicals remaining in the can do.

      The original claim was never that aluminum smells bad, it was that aluminum cans smell bad. Aluminum cans typically have paint on the outside, and used ones may have residue. You're knocking down a straw man here in order to sound smart.

      As would burning tar, or any other heavy petroleum derivate.

      Asphalt, which contains the types of substances you mentioned, is in some circle referred to as a type of concrete. The more common usage refers to the substance made of calcium compounds and sand (NOT petroleum products), and used for sidewalks. Note that the article specifically mentions a sidewalk, and refers to asphalt seperately in the introduction. Sidewalks do not have tar in them. Again, this strikes me as a disingenuous argument.

      I agree that the article was shallow and unscientific (although I personally believe it was intended that way, in a humorous vein), but your criticisms lose much of the weight they might have carried had you not chosen to misquote it and obtusely argue points not made in the article itself.

    13. Re:Mindless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I suspect whatever soda pop chemicals remaining in the can do.

      You suspect wrong. Aluminum cans are coated with vinyl on the inside, hence the terrible smell.

    14. Re:Mindless by (H)elix1 · · Score: 1

      1) Aluminum cans have a thin coating of plastic on the inside to provent the soda's acid from etching the aluminum. 2) they have all sorts of paint on the outside. That's what smells bad. Not left over soda.

      But, onto the other point: many geeks like high amounts of kinetic energy. It's true. Often, this love tuns into the irrational lust for wanton destruction of random objects. Sometimes, something is learned by the results, sometimes not. But it's the journey that's important (fun).


      Saw the words Aluminum ... high amounts of kinetic energy.... and mistook lust for rust. Yes indeed, they are on the pathway to zen. (grin)

    15. Re:Mindless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As would burning tar, or any other heavy petroleum derivate.

      I hate to nitpick your nitpick, but concrete is not made with tar. You are thinking of asphalt.

    16. Re:Mindless by stormcoder · · Score: 1

      Antacid = Buffer. Acid + Base = Much heat and salt.

      --
      Sorry my bullshit sensor overloaded.
    17. Re:Mindless by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful
      It seems that normal concrete will start emitting plumes of smoke just before it pops
      As would burning tar, or any other heavy petroleum derivate.

      concrete: "A hard, strong construction material consisting of sand, conglomerate gravel, pebbles, broken stone, or slag in a mortar or cement matrix."

      I do not think that word means what you think it means. It seems as if you are confusing concrete with asphalt or tarmac(adam).

      Guess what, setting shit on fire is fun! If you are relatively responsible about it and don't light shit on fire accidentally and/or let things get out of hand (note: many forest fires grow from the cooking campfires of the incompetent) then really, who are you harming? Well, anyone breathing the vapors. But besides them?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:Mindless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Seriously, this article is all about playing with a new destructive toy and not much about using the toy in question to do interesting science-related experiments."

      I think that's why it was in the "toy" category.

    19. Re:Mindless by trewornan · · Score: 1

      Everything you say is true however . . .

      School "blackboard" chalk is Calcium Sulphate (i.e. not real chalk), it's a common mistake to assume that anything labelled chalk really is chalk. Not that this guy is necessarily making this mistake - but bear it in mind.

    20. Re:Mindless by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      In the words of the immortal Sgt. Hulka:

      "Lighten up, Francis."

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083131/

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    21. Re:Mindless by whimsy · · Score: 1

      Calcium carbonate burns to calcium oxide and carbon dioxide.

      Repeat after me: everything has a vapor pressure. Yes, even Al2O3.

      Concrete is mostly calcium silicates, NOT hydrocarbons. We are likely seeing these "mythical" plumes of metal oxide smoke again. You're thinking of asphalt.

      Why ya gotta hate on him just 'cause he got a bigger lens than you, hm?

    22. Re:Mindless by TXG1112 · · Score: 1

      It seems that normal concrete will start emitting plumes of smoke just before it pops

      As would burning tar, or any other heavy petroleum derivate.


      You're thinking of asphalt. Concrete is a mixture of portland cement, sand and stone. Portland cement is mainly lime, which presumably is what is burning and popping.

      --
      I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own.
    23. Re:Mindless by LighthouseJ · · Score: 1

      a base will eat through your skin and you will just feel "slippery" [a]s it turns your flesh into soap

      I'm reminded in the movie Robocop in the end when Murphy goes after Clarence Boddicker and something happens and they get nuclear waste spilled on them. Later they pop out of nowhere and jump on Murphy's car with their skin hanging off their face.

    24. Re:Mindless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well done, Roland. A guy with a name like yours would have been assumed to be an absolute cocksucker without any extra help, but you've gone and proved it without a doubt.

      Are you actually French, or do you just enjoy acting that way?

    25. Re:Mindless by stewartjm · · Score: 1

      Aluminium doesn't smell bad when it burns. I suspect whatever soda pop chemicals remaining in the can do.

      It's more likely that the plastic lining on the inside of the aluminum can is the source of the smell.

    26. Re:Mindless by Invidious · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You've never gotten a caustic burn, have you? Naw, you're just repeating what you've heard.

      Lemme tell you, you can feel the burn from alkali materials. It doesn't "just eat through your skin." First, it makes your skin slippery as it interacts with the upper, dead layers of your skin. Then, as it starts to get into the living layers, it starts to itch. That's about as far as has happened to me, but after it starts to itch, it starts to burn. Then you've probably got some real damage.

    27. Re:Mindless by nogaro · · Score: 1

      As would burning tar, or any other heavy petroleum derivate. While asphalt has petroleum in it, concrete does not, unless you are referring to a petroleum based sealer.

    28. Re:Mindless by gr3g · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't know what you were doing in chemistry (probably wearing the proper equipment) but lye burns like all hell once it gets through the first couple layers of skin.

      --
      "It has always been this way and it won't change, god bless the fucked up USA" The Briefs
    29. Re:Mindless by anethema · · Score: 1

      It's true. A strong base will 'burn' just as much as a strong acid. Drink some Drain-O and tell me it doesnt hurt. Lye is another good example of a medium-strong base. Wet your skin down and throw some lye on it. Your opinion will change VERY fast :)

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
    30. Re:Mindless by zushiba · · Score: 1

      Seriously, this article is all about playing with a new destructive toy and not much about using the toy in question to do interesting science-related experiments. How much stuff is there in the urban world that hasnt been burnt? What scientific experiement could be preformed that would be of any use? The only thing one could do with a giant lens like that is burn things, be it food, water for power or just random crap.

    31. Re:Mindless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, you're a knob...

    32. Re:Mindless by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      Actually steel holding tanks for some of the strongest acids out there are coated with aluminum to protect the steel from acid.. I don't think coke cans would need to protect aluminum from acid. Aluminum oxide forms readily on aluminum and seals the aluminum from damn near anything, its a rust that prevents rust.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    33. Re:Mindless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      All your BASE are belong to us!

    34. Re:Mindless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Err..

      All your ANTACID are belong to us!

    35. Re:Mindless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lemme tell you, you can feel the burn from alkali materials

      No shit. Talk to any girl who's left her Nair (basically, dilute calcium hydroxide) on a minute or two too long.

      Thanks to all the moisturizers and lotions that's in it, it doesn't just "wash away" instantly either...In fact if the water is too warm, it tends to open the pores exacerbating the burn.

    36. Re:Mindless by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      You can make a small railgun with a straw, a length of wire, a power source and a needle (ideally a load of needles, otherwise you need to go and find it after each shot). Fun, and only slightly destructive.

      Once you scale it up to ball bearings, you can be quite destructive. This is especially true if you use multiple coils to accelerate the ball, but then you're suck with timing issues.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    37. Re:Mindless by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      I didn't say you would never feel it, you just won't feel it untill it starts doing real damage, while acid you will feel before it does as much. and when i said eat through skin I was referring to the NaOH crystals i worked with, which, while absorbing water from the air were such a powerful base that, if spilled on a benc and wiped up with a sponge the sponge was severely pitted.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    38. Re:Mindless by Reziac · · Score: 1

      The Gallatin County fire dept. (Bozeman MT) used to do practice burns for grass fires on the airport's back lot. One day they failed to notice that they were doing their practice burn at the edge of the old runway, which is asphalt -- and caught fire. Being it was essentially an oil fire, thus stubborn, it took them three days to put it out. Ooops! A little more practice than they had in mind...

      They also placed timed incediaries in abandoned structures and used them for "realtime emegency practice". Across the road from me was an old fenced-off gravel pit that the county used to store impounded vehicles. For some unknown reason, the fire dept. moved an abandoned house into the gravel pit and loaded it with their timed incediaries -- then forgot about it. A few nights later, here's a merry blaze at 2am -- not only burning up their practice house, but also severely scorching the impounded cars. Expensive Ooops!!

      If you ever need an arsonist, now you know where to find a pro ;)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    39. Re:Mindless by dhalgren99 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, didn't that guy see Fight Club?

      (At least I think that's what that scene was all about...)

    40. Re:Mindless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      "But, onto the other point: many geeks like high amounts of kinetic energy. It's true."

      Yes, Yes, Yes: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/

    41. Re:Mindless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, this is true. However, because the carbonic, citric, and all other kinds of acids sodas contain they have to use a thin coating of vinyl. Aluminum cans aren't thick enough to form enough oxide to protect the inside (and the acid's interaction with the aluminum makes A VERY VERY bad taste). This is also true with beer.

      It's suprising how much aluminum isn't in an aluminum can. The largest distrubution is at the top (the opener, and the rim), and at the bottom. The middle of the can is amazingly thin--the plastic coating and the paint on the outside are THICKER than the aluminum.

      A little score of the plastic coating will eventially lead to a failure in the structure of the can--doubly so if there is any weight on it (something that cans are designed to withstand very well)

    42. Re:Mindless by eblum · · Score: 1

      Do you mean formic acid?

    43. Re:Mindless by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1
      You don't need the oxygen at all. What looks like burning is a thermal decomposition.

      CaCO3 -> CaO + CO2

      The second equation is correct:

      CaO + H2O -> Ca(OH)2

      The burns depend mostly on the concentration of the solution. Lime burns are well known injury between brickmasons; very nasty when that stuff gets into eyes during slaking the lime.

  17. ooh! ooh! by jpellino · · Score: 1

    just remembered we have one of these - 6' diameter - someone thought it would help with solar collectors back in the 80's - gotta dig this out!

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  18. I have one of these. by Qender · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I found one of these at my school last year. The first thing I did was take it to the parking lot to set paper on fire. The asphalt under the paper burned. I also melted pennies with it, and it can make holes in soda cans. Is there anything else anyone thinks I should burn with it? it's in my garage.

    1. Re:I have one of these. by DoraLives · · Score: 1
      Is there anything else anyone thinks I should burn with it? it's in my garage.

      Burn the garage!

      --
      Is it fascism yet?
    2. Re:I have one of these. by DustMagnet · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Is there anything else anyone thinks I should burn with it?

      Glass softens and flows not much hotter than the zinc melts. In the article pennies melted in seconds, so glass should be easy.

      I know enough about glass to warn you it might explode while heating and cooling. It can even "explode" after it's been cool for a while depending on the annealing. Try small peices over copper.

      --
      'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
    3. Re:I have one of these. by panck · · Score: 1

      i think you should mount it on your shoulders above your head, and then you can walk around town and threaten to focus on people.

      --
      "What thou shalt not, I shalt did!" -Bart Simpson
    4. Re:I have one of these. by ShaunC · · Score: 3, Funny
      Is there anything else anyone thinks I should burn with it? it's in my garage.
      That depends. Do you happen to live near Lindon, Utah?
      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    5. Re:I have one of these. by krumms · · Score: 1

      Ralph: This is my swing set. This is my sandbox. I'm not allowed to go in the deep end. [points to large rock] That's where I saw the leprechaun!

      Bart: [sarcastically] Right, a leprechaun.

      Ralph: He told me to burn things.

      From here

    6. Re:I have one of these. by Gunnery+Sgt.+Hartman · · Score: 1

      Why not try a couple older (pre '85) pennies on top of an aluminum can. The two probably won't mix and do what they should, but it would be fun to try.

      --
      [ ]
    7. Re:I have one of these. by Qender · · Score: 1

      How about a whole stack of pennies!

      http://img69.photobucket.com/albums/v209/qender/ pe nnies1.jpg

      These pennies are very innocent looking, "La la la, we are pennies" ...and all of a sudden... SOLAR DEATH!

      http://img69.photobucket.com/albums/v209/qender/ pe nnies2.jpg

      EAT CONCENTRATED PHOTONS LINCOLN!

      http://img69.photobucket.com/albums/v209/qender/ pe nnies3.jpg

      Figures the US government is too cheap to use copper anymore. What you see running down the side of the lavarock is zinc.

    8. Re:I have one of these. by Qender · · Score: 1

      oops, that url should not have a space in the word pennies.

  19. Laser Communications by Rob+Carr · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Besides destorying things, these fresnel lenses cand be used for all sorts of constructive fun.

    A perfect example is a laser communication system. A laser beam can be modulated and used to transmit audio. The receiver needs to collect as many photons as possible from the laser transmitter - hence the use of the fresnel lense. Signals can be bounced off clouds - I've heard of transmissions going over 60 miles!

    The Amatuer Radio Laser Communications Page has a good primer that has a link to a lot of the basics. And no, you don't need a ham license - although it helps!

    --
    This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
    1. Re:Laser Communications by jarich · · Score: 1
      Okay, someone clever figure out much WiFi bandwidth you can get out of this type of rig! :)

      I know, not ~enough~ to be worth it, but enough to be fun?

    2. Re:Laser Communications by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
      Signals can be bounced off clouds

      ...as long as you keep a careful eye on the clouds, because if they suddenly disperse, you'll be focussing daylight on your receiver...

    3. Re:Laser Communications by Rob+Carr · · Score: 2, Informative
      ...as long as you keep a careful eye on the clouds, because if they suddenly disperse, you'll be focussing daylight on your receiver...

      To keep down the S/N ratio, most long-range laser comm experiments are done at night. I suppose safety is another good reason for working after the sun goes down!

      --
      This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
    4. Re:Laser Communications by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      just gonna take a wild guess here, plastic/glass lenses probably dont focus radio waves (wifi) very well

    5. Re:Laser Communications by smyle · · Score: 1
      The receiver needs to collect as many photons as possible from the laser transmitter - hence the use of the fresnel lense.

      The way a laser works, is all photons are already going parallel to each other (within the bounds of the length of the lasing medium), so you can refract the whole beam, but not focus it much further.

      ...unless... *thinking* ... you are talking about a pair of them, with the receiver being physically separated from the transmitter like so (using my *ahem* 1337 ASCII art 5ki11z):
      =---->R
      R<----=
      Where '=' is the transmitting laser, '-' is the beam, '>' is the lens, and 'R' is the receiver. So the distance between the lens and R is very short in comparison with the distance rom the laser and the lens, thus compensating for my parenthetical statement above. Was this what you had in mind? That might work.

      ...and if what I'm saying makes no sense, realize that I'm living by my .sig at the moment.

      --

      Sleep is just a poor substitute for caffeine, anyway. -Bob Lehmann

    6. Re:Laser Communications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've transmitted audio via a laser beam, you don't need any special lens at all provided the laser is strong enough and you aim it at the receiver properly. It gets really fun when you bounce the laser around the room multiple times with mirrors before the laser reaches the receiver, or send the beam through a rotating fan blade.

    7. Re:Laser Communications by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
      Ah, OK. But, judging by the way the original guys were playing with their Giant Fresnel Lens, it might not occur to them to play with lasers at night...

      Mmmm, lasers at night - reminds me of a guy I used to know who, for a while, had to work evenings because he was igniting balloons full of gas in the parking lot and taking holograms of the fireballs... Serious research, apparently... I should be so lucky. :)

    8. Re:Laser Communications by Rob+Carr · · Score: 1
      So the distance between the lens and R is very short in comparison with the distance rom the laser and the lens, thus compensating for my parenthetical statement above. Was this what you had in mind? That might work.

      You're correct. Sorry for not being so clear.

      I'm thinking of using the large fresnel lense to concentrate the light received. Laser light is parallel in an approximation. Longer, more expensive lasers are better, short cheap ones far less. (Guess which ones I use - here's a clue - they have small lenses to help focus the laser light!) But no matter what, laser light eventually diverges. Hence a lense can be valuable.

      When you bounce the laser light off a cloud, the beam diverges pretty rapidly. No surprise there.

      If you want to bounce a laser off the corner reflectors on the moon left by the Apollo astronauts, this is a significant problem. Divergence can be so bad that the laser light scattered back by the lunar surface can overwhelm the signal of the light bounced back from the corner reflectors.

      --
      This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
    9. Re:Laser Communications by Reziac · · Score: 1

      My first thought was "solar heating/electricity generation" -- are they used in such structures?

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  20. I, for one... by 3)+profit!!! · · Score: 0

    I, for one, welcome our new Fresnel lens overlords!

  21. Hanging wall art by G4from128k · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Hanging a Fresnel Lens in front of a white wall projects a nicely focused image of the room onto the wall. Depending on the arrangement of the room and windowage, its poosible to watch the world pass by on projected image. The optimum distance from wall to lens is approximately the focal length (or a little farther if the subject is close to the lens.

    Just make sure the sun never gets to the lens or it will burn an arc across the wall.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
  22. Oh great by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now the Dept. of Homeland Security is going to order various municipalities to block the sun.

    --
    What?
  23. If you like burning up stuff with a lens... by PissingInTheWind · · Score: 4, Funny

    you'll love this flash game: Ant City

    --

    A message from the system administrator: 'I've upped my priority. Now up yours.'
    1. Re:If you like burning up stuff with a lens... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      haha., keep playing until the tanker comes along.

  24. a giant fresnel fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and it's aaaaalll mine!

  25. Scaled Up by StuWho · · Score: 1

    IANAPH but it the lens was say 300 feet by 300ft, would it still be possible to focus the light to a 1cm point? And if so, does the size of the lens increse the temperature?

    --
    "If you think nobody cares if you're alive, try missing a couple of car payments." Earl Wilson
    1. Re:Scaled Up by jd_esguerra · · Score: 2, Informative
      IANAPH but it the lens was say 300 feet by 300ft, would it still be possible to focus the light to a 1cm point? And if so, does the size of the lens increse the temperature?

      Probably not, and yes. A lens of that size would be extremely difficult to build and operate. Instead, you'd use an array of smaller lenses, or even better, mirrors. If you look at large telescopes, most use mirrors in part because of weight issues and manufacturing issues with lenses over say 1-meter.

      The size of the lens does increase temperature, or at least the energy density at the focal point. A bigger lens (or mirror) can capture and direct more solar energy.

    2. Re:Scaled Up by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      Yes, increasing the size increases temperature, all the lens does is take the solar energy striking Area[lens] and put it on Area[focal_point]. What you describe would be really fucking badass, especially if you could direct it by running it through another lense to make the light rayx come out approximately (within a few hundredths of a degree) parralel, you would have a very destructive light weapon which could be directed by (very high quality) mirrors (low quality mirrors would absorb too much energy and be destroyed) In fact your collector would get (in an area getting average solar exposure) about 54 million Watts (72,000 HP)

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    3. Re:Scaled Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Millions of watts? How did you come across that number?

    4. Re:Scaled Up by plover · · Score: 1

      Thank you, Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Great idea.

      --
      John
    5. Re:Scaled Up by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      based on the figure of 1 calorie/minute/inch squared... oh shit, actually i did the calculation based on 1 calorie /second, so divide my figures by 60 and you still have a badass device

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    6. Re:Scaled Up by cbr2702 · · Score: 1

      "300 feet by 300ft, would it still be possible to focus the light to a 1cm point"

      Pick a unit system and stick with it!

      Anyway, a lense can be made to focus as accurately as you want (or far more accurately than 1 cm, at least) but the problem here is really that plexiglass is not very rigid, and a 100x100 meter lense that bends out of shape is not very useful.

      As for the increase in temperature, the poster's lense is around 1 square meter. Your improved lense is around 10,000 square meters. If you do manage to keep the focal area to 1 square centimeter, then the energy concentrated by the lense is 10,000 times greater, and if there were not problems with heat dissipation, the temperature could be made that high.

      --


      This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
    7. Re:Scaled Up by StuWho · · Score: 1
      Thank you all for taking the time to answer my question. To quote one respondant - a 300ft by 300ft lens is "one badass lens" indeed!

      Goddamn! I'd love to see it focussed on a house! You could slice the bastard like a joint of bacon!

      --
      "If you think nobody cares if you're alive, try missing a couple of car payments." Earl Wilson
  26. Higher standards by KalvinB · · Score: 1

    Burning things has been done again and again and really isn't Slashdot (any news really) worthy.

    Unless you find a way to pull a MacGyver with it and foil some terrorist plot or something I can't say I'm too impressed.

    Ben

  27. $99 for the cheap fresnel... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Could you do something serious with this? Put the damn thing in a rig that follows the sun, and a small steam turbine under it, just how much juice could it provide?

    I wish I knew the math to this, but damn, if it could provide even a small fraction of the power I use during the daytime... (by this, I mean 5-10%)

    Anyone want to impress me with their math/physics skills?

    1. Re:$99 for the cheap fresnel... by nelsonal · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you follow the sun perfectly you could figure on about 1 kW of light (cheesy rule of thumb) hitting your turbine. Assume 30% efficiency and you have 300W of electric power generated for an average of 12 hrs per sunny day. Three light bulbs (or 6-8 florescents) or one fully loaded computer (300 W power supply, no electric heat, iron, or oven. Oh and you'll need a capacitor bank to handle your inductive load when motors start. Go grab your power bill and see how many kW/hrs you use in a month and then figure out how many fresnel lens/turbine array's you would need to achive that power. Storage would be a mofo, although you might be able to sell it into the grid in your area.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    2. Re:$99 for the cheap fresnel... by Roland+Piquepaille · · Score: 5, Informative

      I wish I knew the math to this, but damn, if it could provide even a small fraction of the power I use during the daytime... (by this, I mean 5-10%)

      - In bright summer daylight, at noon the sun provides 1200W/m2

      - This fresnel lens is 80x100, so captures 1200 * 0.8 = 960W at best

      - A good steam engine, with a condenser and exhaust reheater provides has an efficiency of about 30%, so it would give 960 * 0.3 = 288W in mechanical power

      - A good alternator, going at its preferred RPM (not necessarily that of the steam engine's prefered RPM, but let's assume) has an efficiency of about 90%, so it would give 288 * 0.9 = 260W

      So you'd get 260W in the best possible conditions, in the brightest of days, in summer, at midday. Throw some clouds and, assuming the entire thing doesn't stall and stays at its nominal efficiency (not likely, but let's assume), you get about 6 times less power, so about 43W

      In short, you're better off with solar panels: perhaps a little less efficiency for the same price, but more surface and a lot less aggravation.

    3. Re:$99 for the cheap fresnel... by mikeophile · · Score: 1
      A steam engine can get a theoretical 22% efficiency so from a one square meter frenel focusing around 80% of the light striking it, you could get around 200 watts of power on a good day.

      YMMV

    4. Re:$99 for the cheap fresnel... by gatzke · · Score: 2, Interesting


      Can't you use fresnel along with photvoltaic to improve the power of the photovoltaics? Maybe not this size of fresnel, but smaller, cheaper ones to get a boost on your cells.

      I could be wrong...

    5. Re:$99 for the cheap fresnel... by Roland+Piquepaille · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Can't you use fresnel along with photvoltaic to improve the power of the photovoltaics? Maybe not this size of fresnel, but smaller, cheaper ones to get a boost on your cells.

      If you pair a photovoltaic panel to the same size fresnel lens, no because you'll just have concentrated the same amount of light on a tiny bit of the photovoltaic panel instead of having the same power spread on the entire surface. You can however increase the power to a smaller panel, because then you concentrate on this smaller surface the power gathered by the larger lens.

      There's a limit to how much you can concentrate the solar light onto the solar panel before destroying the panel though. For this to work, you'd probably have to keep the solar panel out of the lens' focal point, and if your lens is really big, cool the panel with water or something (their efficiency is higher when they're cool).

    6. Re:$99 for the cheap fresnel... by eclectro · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have given much thought to this, and in fact have done the math. Though it is a hassle to repeat here.

      I came up with a general number -- 1.5 kilowatts, this is about the amount of energy you would need to propel a small car (like a volkswagon beetle, old variety). This is about the same as a small gasoline engine could provide.

      While it looks like a lens like this might be able to provide the power, there are a number of issues that need to be addressed.

      One is continual focus of the lens. The position of the sun changes, as does the direction you drive, so you need to be able to quickly move the mirror. If the mirror has to swing around too much, you will lose energy to whatever you are powering pretty quickly.

      Another is clouds. You need to have a backup plan (coal? :) ) if you have an overcast day. This will vary from place to place though.

      Along the same lines, the sun is quite low in the horizon during the winter (at least for northern latitudes) and you will have difficulty getting meaningful energy/focusing consistently from solar energy. Also don't forget, you need to drive at night.

      Ideally, you would have a fuel cell as backup. But fuel cell technology is a _long_ way from being practical.

      As good as this lens is, I am pretty sure that it would fall short of the necessary 1.5 kw to work.

      But I continually think about a solar car, and plan on building one someday, even if I have to create the practical tech to make it work.

      As an aside, fuel cells by themselves are not that efficient as some have made them out to be - about 30% to 45% (at least the common ones I know about). The high efficiency would come from cogeneration (such as steam) that uses the waste heat from the fuel cell for power. In an arrangement like this, efficiency can be around 80%.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    7. Re:$99 for the cheap fresnel... by Roland+Piquepaille · · Score: 1

      I came up with a general number -- 1.5 kilowatts, this is about the amount of energy you would need to propel a small car (like a volkswagon beetle, old variety).

      Even small older cars like the VW beetle have engines that put out between 20 and 40kW. That much isn't needed to cruise, only a minimal part of the engine's power is needed to overcome air and tire friction at the speeds such cars typically go, but the engine needs to be able to accelerate the car from standstill in a reasonable amount of time.

      That's the idea behind hybrid cars: they have smaller engines that couldn't accelerate the car alone, but they charge up batteries that are able to provide temporary power surges for accelerations. Smaller engines == smaller gas consumption.

      Anyhow, that's not quite 1.5kW :-)

    8. Re:$99 for the cheap fresnel... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      Following the sun could be done somewhat simply, I'd think. Might be better to precalc the best direction, based on calendar date, than to try and "sense" the direction.

      Wouldn't need to store it, I'd still be on the grid, and use grid power at night (use it less then, anyway).

      Wouldn't need to power my entire home on it either... if it reduced the electric bill even a few bucks a month, how long would it take to pay for itself?

      Last year, with hurrican Isabel, we were without power for 12 days (almost the last in the city to get it back). Even 250 watts would have been a godsend.

      And I do have a shed outside that's going to get a flat roof (for some satellite dishes, say 5 or 6 of them) and it wouldn't be much to expand the size of that flat roof, and have room for 2 or 3 of these. Could be fun...

      Some design considerations do come to mind. Would have to be shielded, so leaves don't blow into into the focus, and burn the thing down. Would imagine that the steam turbine portion of things would have safety valves, so that a particularly sunny day doesn't blow up the boiler. And as you said, a bank of caps. If the lens is $99, how much could the rest be done for?

      Only truly expensive part, is the generator-safe hookup for incoming power. Don't those run $1500+ ?

    9. Re:$99 for the cheap fresnel... by Naikrovek · · Score: 1

      if you can super-cool the cell to counteract the super-heating that the lens causes, it will work.

      solar cells work well under heat, but they do not work well while melting.

      if you can find a way to keep the cell cool, you can put the cell right at the focal point (or as much of a focal point as it will take to cover the entire cell) and it will generate as much electricity as an array of cells the size of the focusing lens, if you build it out of the same cells. keep in mind that once you increase the voltage you have to beef up the leads on the cell, or you'll melt them just from the amount of current.

      anyway, if you had a cell that was designed with this in mind, yes you could focus the entire lens right on the cell and get a good amount of electricity out of it.

      but it is easier just to use an array of cells in direct unfocused sunlight.

    10. Re:$99 for the cheap fresnel... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Honestly, if you just want backup power you're better off with a gas generator and a bunch of tanks of gas.

      In theory you could rig something solar, but in a storm it would be useless, and it would probably cost a fortune and need maintenance.

      250W of generation will amount to about 3 cents an hour. That's about $22 a month. And if you run it nonstop you'll need to be oiling it, replacing parts, etc.

      You'd probably do better with just solar panels.

      It really is hard to beat the economics of a big coal-fired power plant...

    11. Re:$99 for the cheap fresnel... by ThisIsFred · · Score: 1

      I see some fantastic potential for heating water without the complexity or cost of panels of semiconductors.

      --
      Fred

      "A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
      -RMS
    12. Re:$99 for the cheap fresnel... by Siva · · Score: 1

      Storage would be a mofo, although you might be able to sell it into the grid in your area.

      funny you should mention that...i was just reading up on a regional program we have access to here that lets you receive power from renewable sources for a small rate increase. one site i was reading also discusses incentives for installing your own solar or wind equipment:

      "The way you can sell your electricity to the local utility is through a process known as net metering, where the meter runs in one direction when you are taking electricity from your utility's wires and then runs in the other direction when you are providing extra electricity to the utility. Your local utility must offer net metering as long as your system generates 25 kilowatts (KW) or less, if you are a Narragansett Electric customer, and as long as all of the net-metering capacity within the utility's service area totals no more than 1 megawatt (MW)."
      http://www.green-e.org/RI/RI-producingyourown.htm

      neat. too bad the equipment is several thousand dollars...maybe 10 years from now. :)

      --

      Keyboard not found.
      Press F1 to continue.
    13. Re:$99 for the cheap fresnel... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      22 a month thats almost my WHOLE bill! hmmmmmm....

      Also part replacment would be fairly rare. Also all you really need is a old motor and some sort of 'turbine'. If its one thing I learned in my 6th grade science (about a zillion years ago) power + wire = magnet, orrrrr wire + magnet = power...

      It really is the basis of ALL power generation in the world. Even the gas turbine is just turning a set of magnets over some wire.

      Now for me its probably useless. But I know a guy who has been trying to figure out what to do with all the extra water from a stream that goes near him. This might be a good use? Course dumping that much energy (heat) into the water may dork something else up. A more closed system might be in order. Also getting the motor up to speed could be a problem. But if they are really melting zinc I doubt it will be. The steam would FLY through the system.

      Ill mention it to him. He might just give it a shot. Even if he doesnt we could have fun planing it :)

    14. Re:$99 for the cheap fresnel... by bluGill · · Score: 1

      250W costs 3 cents for an hour from the grid. If you have a generator it costs substantially more.

    15. Re:$99 for the cheap fresnel... by crisco · · Score: 1

      What if you didn't put the cell at the focal point but used a larger cell and put it 1/3 of the way up towards the lens. You'd still get away with smaller cells but wouldn't heat them up nearly so much. You'd still have to deal with aiming the thing and what not, I wonder if the money saved with a smaller cell would outweigh the disadvantages of an aiming mechanism and the increased complexity.

      --

      Bleh!

    16. Re:$99 for the cheap fresnel... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't impress you with my math and physics skills, but I do believe that you would have to take 'steam turbine' out of your setup in order to get anything at all. The amount of energy you can get out of a solar setup of this size would barely make any steam at all (_if_ any at all). You would have to scale up considerably to get to a reasonable efficiency.

      There may be other ways to do the job, but that's a very lucrative market waiting for a solution.

    17. Re:$99 for the cheap fresnel... by LordMyren · · Score: 1

      i agree, but got a 1000w car inverter. i need a deep cycle battery before i can actually use it though. more money.

      this is where i'd complain about gas prices. but i'll just put a wind generator on my car instead. :-p

    18. Re:$99 for the cheap fresnel... by LordMyren · · Score: 1

      neat. too bad the equipment is several thousand dollars...maybe 10 years from now. :)

      heh, not for 25 KW it doesnt.

      when cars fly

    19. Re:$99 for the cheap fresnel... by LordMyren · · Score: 2

      mirrors are more effective

    20. Re:$99 for the cheap fresnel... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has been said a bazillion times, but I guess you missed it. Just because your computer power supply is rated to supply X watts, does not mean it is always consuming X watts. It only consumes enough to provide the power to meet the current demand.

      Few desktop PCs come anywhere near a sustained 300w consumption. Probably closer to 100w, although those new Intel cpus are little furnaces.

    21. Re:$99 for the cheap fresnel... by eclectro · · Score: 1

      No, I did not mean to imply a comparison between the number 1.5kw and what an actual VW engine was.

      Briefly reviewing my numbers, 1.5 kw does seem quite low, and I must have been thinking of something else. You would probably need a minimum 5 kw, and even then it probably would be more golf cart than car. To have the VW act like a typical car you would need to have 15kw.

      I probably remembered the decimal place wrong, i.e 1.5kw versus 15kw, as it has been a while since I had the calculator out.

      I knew if I was wrong, some slashdotter would correct me, which has been the case :)) It was either that or I was thinking of some wind assist :))

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    22. Re:$99 for the cheap fresnel... by Daktaklakpak · · Score: 1

      get some solar panels of equal surface area and you'll have something which is more efficient

    23. Re:$99 for the cheap fresnel... by thogard · · Score: 1

      I knew a guy who bought some pannels from a research project in the CA desert. They came with a book of the logs of power produced every 10 minutes for years. He took them to Minisota and in the winter they produced almost 2x the power they had produced in the sunny desert.

    24. Re:$99 for the cheap fresnel... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Some design considerations do come to mind. Would have to be shielded, so leaves don't blow into into the focus, and burn the thing down. Would imagine that the steam turbine portion of things would have safety valves, so that a particularly sunny day doesn't blow up the boiler. And as you said, a bank of caps. If the lens is $99, how much could the rest be done for?

      I think all of these issues can be solved relatively easily, actually.

      First issue is the leaves. Well, this thing is running at such a hot temperature that a few burning leaves are (a) not going to burn for very long and (b) not going to burn near as hot as the running temperature already is. So as long as they don't fall on something flammable, there is no problem. So basically, make big metal base to collect stuff that catches on fire and then falls, and then you're done. Or put the entire thing inside a big plastic dome so it's a closed system and leaves can never get there.

      Second issue is keeping the steam turbine part from overloading. This is actually quite easy. Normally, you keep the vaporization chamber at or very near the focal point of the lense to get maximum heat. But if it's too hot, all you need to do is move the lense slight further away from the vaporization chamber. The focal point will then be in mid-air above the chamber and the light will be less concentrated, thus leading to a lower temperature. This probably can be regulated pretty easily by a computer or even a simple analog circuit. It's just a feedback loop where higher temperatures move the lense further away, and lower temperatures move it closer.

      Storing energy is a little tougher. If you live on a hill and have two ponds, one 10 m higher than the other, you could pump a million liters of water (1000 cubic meters) from the lower one to the upper one. By doing so, you'd be storing m*g*h = 1000000 * 9.8 * 10 joules of energy, which equates to about 27 kilowatt hours. My electric bill says I used about 1200 kilowatt hours last month, so about 40 per day, so I figure 27 kilowatt hours is enough to get you through the night. Of course, this is assuming 100% efficiency... :-)

      But you're right that you don't have to be totally self-sufficient to get some benefit from it. You probably just need enough energy storage to get your through big but quick power drains when motors switch on, etc. Still, I'm not 100% sure why can't just solve that problem with a big flywheel, since you are already spinning a generator. That is, assuming you do it like the power company and keep the generators running in sync (i.e. in phase) with the rest of the power grid.

    25. Re:$99 for the cheap fresnel... by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      I've often wondered why we don't use more focused light to heat water for power generation. I've seen lots of water heating supliment systems, but never seen one that had a parabolic mirror focusing several inches (many centimeters) of light on the pipe. It seems like this would be much easier to impliment than semiconductor arrays (you also have the benefit of generating 60Hz AC power rather than DC. Seems like people could spend a few thousand on a system like this and generate a decent portion of their power needs. How much could a steam turbine and several hundred feet of pipe and silver paint cost? In commercial solar generation they use something similar to melt salt which is later used to heat water as electric demand rises.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    26. Re:$99 for the cheap fresnel... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Also a significant gain in fuel economy from hybrid cars is due to regenerative braking.

      If normal cars had regenerative braking they'd do a lot better. But it's probably easier to do regenerative braking if you get to leverage electrical stuff, than if you somehow rigged some flywheels/springs or something to a nonelectric/nonhybrid vehicle.

      --
    27. Re:$99 for the cheap fresnel... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      There is a home heating method which essentially is a big water heater with radiation pipes (essentially the same as the old hot water heat method, but using the same water heater as is hooked to your faucets). Occurs to me that a fresnel lens could be used to heat the main tank directly, which then heats everything else, and thermostat control on too-sunny days would consist of just an opaque panel that slid over the lens to cut off some/all of the sunlight.

      Here in the SoCal desert, even during winter (when temps tend to hover around freezing) we have mostly sunny days, so it might well be a practical supplement to other forms of heat.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    28. Re:$99 for the cheap fresnel... by starm_ · · Score: 1

      I'm wondering if solid state heat conversion device could be used instead of turbines. We see more and more solid state refrigerators. These are made with chips. When you apply a voltage to these chips they create a temparature gradient. (Normally used for cooling) But when you apply a temperature gradient you get electricity. You could focus the sunlight on one side of the chip, cool the other side (heat sink, fan, water cooling, etc), and get electricity. I wonder what kind of efficiency you could get.

    29. Re:$99 for the cheap fresnel... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      Did some research. Steam turbines are out of the question for less than 250 horsepower. And for small-sized stuff like we'd want, I'd say there is a max of 5horsepower steam engines (traditional piston). Trouble is, you'd have trouble even doing a 1hp engine with a 9ft dia solar furnace. I like the idea, but I'm a bit disouraged.

      Still, this might save a bit on water heating (certainly a not insignificant fraction of a power bill). Bypass the cold water intake on the water heater, and pump already warm/hot water into the heater. The thermostat on the thing keeps it from heating it more, and when the solar array isn't working, you'd still be able to make hot water.

    30. Re:$99 for the cheap fresnel... by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      If your building it could also suppliment a radiant heat system (hot water through the floor material). Radiant heat means that your floor is always warm and the heat rises to the rest of the house. Most are currently powered by waste oil or gas.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    31. Re:$99 for the cheap fresnel... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      True. But I don't want heat at the exact time this priduces the most of it. I want hot water year round.

      There's gotta be a way to take advantage of this.

    32. Re:$99 for the cheap fresnel... by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      There are a few hot water suppliments. AFAIK they connect in line prior to the hot water tank (bringing warm to hot water to the inlet of the tank. The devices I've seen around here appear to be about 10-20 yrs old and are about 6 ft tall and 2 ft wide, but most houses have two. This isn't the worlds greatest link but it gives you an idea of the size required.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    33. Re:$99 for the cheap fresnel... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you live in a windy area, you would be better off with a wind generator. They are extremely cheap to make (all you need are some magnets, some wire to make coils, a prop, and misc hardware to put it together).

      Check google, there are some interesting sites devoted to making wind generators.

  28. This is plain sick... by k.ellsworth · · Score: 1

    ... I need one... My inner kid thinks, with a little magnifier i fried some ants, whit this i can fry/burn many BIGGER things... like: -fish -rats -big spyders -5.25" floppies -SCO stock... (worthless actually) wow i need one... added on my wish list.

    --
    Putting a windows cd backwards, plays evil messages, but it gets worse, putting it right, installs windows.
  29. Vinyl Siding and Frensel Lens Don't Mix by auburnate · · Score: 1

    Its funny to see the lenses leaning against the vinyl siding of that house. Although the focal point is off, it would be funny/ironic in the cosmic karma sense if that lead to the burning down of that house!

    1. Re:Vinyl Siding and Frensel Lens Don't Mix by acidrain69 · · Score: 1

      As you said, the focus is way off. The Lense against the house doesn't burn it donw for the same reason punching someone's arm doesn't slice it off, but using a sword/knife could. It's all about how much energy you put into the surface area.

      --
      -- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
  30. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  31. wow, the lense isn't that big (+ob. cluster joke) by real_smiff · · Score: 1
    i had no idea the sun was so powerful. what would happen with.. a beowulf (sp.?) cluster of these? :p shame the good ones cost 224 USD :/. probably a good thing. i'd only damage my eyes, wallet and god knows what else.

    PLUS... i live in Britain. just how often could i use this (and how much less power would i have?). i've often been to Australia & NZ and have seen how much more powerful the sun is out there...

    very geeky btw.

    --

    This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.

  32. hahahahaha by geekoid · · Score: 1

    In the colony, ants burn YOU!

    hahaha.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:hahahahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh that was just fucking hilarious, moron.

      Next time: TRY FUCKING HARDER YOU ASSHAT!

  33. Link doesn't work anymore... by antdude · · Score: 1

    File exists, but access forbidden by user

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    1. Re:Link doesn't work anymore... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You can still access it by copy/pasting the link.

    2. Re:Link doesn't work anymore... by antdude · · Score: 1

      Mucho bien! That worked. :)

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  34. fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fp

  35. But can we stop "Them!"? by turnstyle · · Score: 1

    Regular ants, maybe, but how about Them!?

    --
    Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
    1. Re:But can we stop "Them!"? by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Damn, you're the second one I caught reading my mind today! Post timed almost to the second.

      --
      What?
    2. Re:But can we stop "Them!"? by antdude · · Score: 1

      turnstyle: Cool link. I credited you for the link on my personal Web site. :)

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  36. Would this be possible? by Fiz+Ocelot · · Score: 4, Funny
    Would it be possible to build a giant one, say 100 square feet, and focus it into a fiber optic type of cable, essentially using it for a cutting laser?

    Or what if you had a few massive ones in space, could you focus enough energy for use in a fusion reactor? You'd amplify all of that free energy and I don't really know what I'm talking about. Perhaps you could attach it to a shark's head.

    1. Re:Would this be possible? by pedantic+bore · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It wouldn't work as a laser per se, because the light would not be coherent. Only the light beams that are more or less parallel to the end of the fiber would find their way through the cable (although this could be increased with a few more lenses along the way).

      As far as the fresnel-lens-in-space idea is concerned, it scares the crap out of me. If the thing gets knocked out alignment (maybe dinged by some of the tons of space junk already in orbit you suddenly have a death ray tracing random patterns across the planet, with no off switch (short of destroying the lens).

      --
      Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
    2. Re:Would this be possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ah. what you need is a coloured gel. suspended half way up between a.. pair of african swallows?

    3. Re:Would this be possible? by mikeophile · · Score: 3, Informative

      Something like this?

    4. Re:Would this be possible? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      you do realize that 100 square feet is 10 feet by 10 feet, hardly fusion reactor level, now 100 feet square would be impressive

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    5. Re:Would this be possible? by stephenisu · · Score: 1

      You won't get much of a deathray if the focal point is a short distance, then you transmit the energey via a microwave beam that can be cut off if trajectory is interupted.

      --
      Sigs? We don't need no stinking sigs!
    6. Re:Would this be possible? by Wes+Janson · · Score: 1

      That sounds...absolutely awesome. Assemble it on the moon, launch it up into lunar orbit, and aim it at the Earth. Mwuahahahahah!

    7. Re:Would this be possible? by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      It has nothing to do with coherence.. beams are still "parallel" so to speak.. just out of phase.

      a laser has very little to do with a beam.. common misconception. Take your average laser pointer.. take out hte columnating lens (used to create the beam) and you are left with... a laser LED, washing a room with coherent light.

      Focusing light into fiber optics will work fine.

    8. Re:Would this be possible? by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      Thanks to your tax dollars, something similar is being used at the National Ignition Facility which is a HUGE facility dedicated to starting a fusion reaction by throwing as much energy into a central chamber as possible (all using lasers of course)

      From what I see, they are not using fresnel lenses, but, rather, some sort of synthetic-diamond prism.

      Remember that fresnel lenses aren't all they're hyped up to be. They are large, thin, and cheap. Those are the advantages which come primarily at the expense of optical quality. A conventional lens this size would need to be several feet thick, effectively weighing a couple thousand pounds.

      Also, imagine polishing such a beast into the proper parabolic shape (not semicircular). It would take several years and millions of dollars. Most telescopes (the hubble included) don't have lenses that thick (alright.. . the hubble has a mirror - convex/concave lenses and mirrors are quite similar optically)

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    9. Re:Would this be possible? by dmaxwell · · Score: 1

      If you are trying to focus an assload of sunlight on something, why bother with lenses at all? A huge parabolic mirror could be built about as cheaply as a fresnel. We're talking about some curved plastic and a shiny coating. If you want to get fancy, cut a hole in the center and mount a secondary mirror for convienient aiming, sensing, and easy mounting for sun tracking.

      All that said, I'm not so sure about starting fusion with a sunlight.

    10. Re:Would this be possible? by lactose · · Score: 1

      eh, there are plenty of lasers that produce light in beam form. the LED lasers are the odd ones that need a comunating lens.

    11. Re:Would this be possible? by Too+Much+Noise · · Score: 1

      The beam angle in a laser is dictated by the parameters of the resonant cavity. Diode lasers have the 2 main factors wrong: small aperture (i.e. strong diffraction) and small cavity length (i.e. the 'beam' is not very 'parallel' to begin with).

    12. Re:Would this be possible? by Phanatic1a · · Score: 1

      could you focus enough energy for use in a fusion reactor?

      No. No matter how large your focusing array is, you can't get the temperature at the focus to exceed 6000 degrees, since that's the temperature of the sun itself. And you'd need a *really* big mirror or lens to get that hot.

    13. Re:Would this be possible? by pedantic+bore · · Score: 1
      Wrong... By focussing the rays, it's easy to get something hotter than the source. (although in this case, "easy" means "the mathematics are easy", non "practical") For this particular exercise:

      1. Figure out how much energy the sun is emitting. Imagine all this energy is coming from a point source at the center of the sun.
      2. Divide the total energy by the surface area of the sun. This gives you "heat" at the surface of the sun. Call this S.
      3. Divide the total energy by the surface area of a sphere with its center at the center of the sun and its ratius the radius of earth's orbit. This gives you the amount of energy per unit area that is falling on your orbital fresnel lens. Call this E.
      4. If you have a fresnel lens that has a focus ratio of greater than S/E, then the energy at the focus will be greater (per unit area) than that at the surface of the sun.
      5. Profit!
      --
      Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
    14. Re:Would this be possible? by sploxx · · Score: 1

      No, the grandparent is right. The maximum you can get is thermal radiation equilibrium, i.e. surface temperature=sun's temperature. And 6kK is too less to start fusion.

      While your geometrical arguments seem intuitive, they contain a fallacy. If the surface you concentrate the rays on to get hotter than the sun, the surface would radiate back to the sun, with is clearly impossible.

    15. Re:Would this be possible? by MemoryAid · · Score: 1
      Except that it's not impossible to radiate back to the sun. I can shine a flashlight at the sun, essentially doing the same thing. Now, if my flashlight were hotter than the sun, it would still be absorbing energy from the sun, although it would be radiating energy more rapidly (per unit area, or whatever) than the sun itself. The impossible part is getting anything that hot by only using the sun's radiation.

      To state your explaination another way, imagine a target at the center of a sphere that is at 6 kilokelvin. How hot will it get? It will reach thermal equilibrium.

      On the other hand, we could get the target that hot and then heat it further with electricity generated from solar cells at an adjacent facility. Then, once the fusion is started, it can keep itself going with its own heat.

      --
      Language students: Don't try to learn English here. This ain't it.
    16. Re:Would this be possible? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      "All that said, I'm not so sure about starting fusion with a sunlight."

      In Soviet Russia, fusion starts sunlight for you.

      Hang on...

      --
    17. Re:Would this be possible? by Phanatic1a · · Score: 1

      Imagine all this energy is coming from a point source at the center of the sun.


      The sun is not a point source, which has the physical effect of limiting your maximum concentration factor, which in turn limits your maximum concentration temperature to 6000 degrees.

      If the first step in your process is to assume a non-physical state, and then proceed on that basis, you're pretty much doomed. Imagining the sun as a point source doesn't make it one.

    18. Re:Would this be possible? by syukton · · Score: 1

      Space is interesting. The solar constant is about 1367 W/m^2. The solar constant is the amount of incoming solar radiation from the sun, sometimes called "insolation."

      There's quite a bit of power to be had in space, and the closer you get to the sun, the more power you can conceivably get. How much? I'm not sure.

      Problem is, telling people you've got giant lenses orbiting the earth that can beam down high intensity beams of light which can conceivably be hijacked by any spacefaring folk. As the X-prize is showing us, this can potentially be (in a very james-bondish way, at that) the territory of anyone with a good quantity of both brains and money, and motivation to get into space, of course.

      That kind of thing just makes people nervous, I think. You'd have to keep the focused energy in space. Which is really, in and of itself, a reason to go to space, but that's kind of chicken-and-eggish. sorry.

      Better question: What would you do with zero gravity and a 1000 m^2 (about 10,760 ft^2) array of lenses providing you with ~1.36 megawatts of solar radiation? I mean, there is the obvious goal of vandalizing the moon to further any desired political agenda, but other than that? Mine the moon with lasers and build a space station, or something?

      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
  37. ...and? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Playing with a toy is the POINT of a toy. I have a new Radeon 9800 Pro that, I am made to understand, has a pretty bitching vector unit that can be used for scientific calulations, rendering and the like. It is not used for any of these educational pursuits, however, and is instead used to render lightsabers which I then use to cut up bad guys it also renders. In other words, I bought it as a toy.

    It doesn't sound to me like they ever intended to do much science, it sounds like they intended to fuck around and burn shit, which they did with a high degree of success.

    1. Re:...and? by maxbang · · Score: 1

      ...which they did with a high degree of success

      Yep. I'd say within a third or even fourth degree. Whichever one is the degree that means the flesh has burnt from your bones, that's the one.

      --
      I also reply below your current threshold.
    2. Re:...and? by Siva · · Score: 1

      luckily, IIRC, those are the least painful, since the nerves are gone as well.

      --

      Keyboard not found.
      Press F1 to continue.
    3. Re:...and? by hashwolf · · Score: 0

      "has a pretty bitching vector unit that can be used for scientific calulations"

      Actually I was wondering if I could use a GPU as a "coprocessor" by:
      1) Using a common PCI card for video output
      2) Building a 'math' library that accesses the GPU through the AGP interface.
      3) Using such library to have some really accelerated math intensive computing/processing.

      I'll give this some more tought this summer anyways.

      Then we could calculate the effects of the fresnel lens in a few seconds without buying one ;)

      --
      - "They misunderestimated me."
    4. Re:...and? by devnullify · · Score: 1

      I seem to remember reading about a couple of projects already trying something along those lines. The names escape me.

  38. The more popular name.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Scourge of All Ants!

  39. OK OK! Enough ant comments! by antdude · · Score: 1

    Maybe it was a very bad idea for me to submit this story. [grin]

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  40. Possible source of free lenses by cybermace5 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not as big, maybe 14 inches across, but overhead transparency projectors have a big square fresnel lens in the base. Since a lot of businesses, schools etc have moved to LCD projectors, you might be able to find an old overhead that no one cares about. Still concentrates a lot of light; you can't look at the spot and it'll burn lots of things. Probably not metal, though.

    Cooking idea: Take a length of thin all-thread and turn it with a slow motor, with a matching nut fastened to a board so that the all-thread and motor are slowly pulled along. Spear a few hot dogs on the all-thread and set the lens to a medium concentration. Spin up the motor, and the sun will cook the hot dogs in a spiral....

    --
    ...
    1. Re:Possible source of free lenses by mythogen · · Score: 1

      Those will burn metal. We used to burn things into the old cars hanging around the auto tech shop with the fresnel lens from the overhead.

    2. Re:Possible source of free lenses by falcon9x · · Score: 0

      I looked at the local university surplus selling area, and their overheads were $75. They were old too. I checked with my old high school, and they didn't have any available. It seems that these are harder to find than necessary.

      The reason for the interest in the fresnel isn't to burn things (I actually never thought of that...), but because I'm working on a DIY LCD projector, and a fresnel is a key component in focusing as much light as you can through the LCD. Incidentally, tempered glass is also a key component due to the heat from the focused light.

    3. Re:Possible source of free lenses by jpmkm · · Score: 1

      You can get a letter-sized fresnel sheet magnifier at Office Max or maybe even WalMart or somewhere like that for probably less than $5. Might not be big enough for what you need but they are easily available if you can't find them anywhere else.

    4. Re:Possible source of free lenses by cybermace5 · · Score: 1

      Well, I was thinking more along the lines of broken projectors, and places you just happen to run across an unused projector rather than someone in the business of selling them. I got mine because I worked in a college A/V department and we could strip down equipment that was heading for the dumpster.

      --
      ...
    5. Re:Possible source of free lenses by Graymalkin · · Score: 1
      --
      I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
  41. I'll have you know... by y2imm · · Score: 1

    It's at least $0.01 per 10.....Americans...*shakes head*.....

    1. Re:I'll have you know... by The_Chicken_205 · · Score: 1

      $0.01 per 10 Americans? :D

      --
      I need a new sig...
    2. Re:I'll have you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I share you disappointment. I too was shocked,
      shocked and saddened that the authors did not
      know the current exchange rate off the top of
      their head. Tsk. tsk. Physicists like that
      will never an arbitrager make.

  42. CTY hijinks with a giant fresnel lens... by silentbozo · · Score: 1

    When I was at a summer camp back in Junior High, I temporarily "liberated" a large magnifying lens meant for magnifying television sets. The damn thing required two of us to maneuver it into position, and in the intense summer sunlight we toasted salsa until it turned black, carved letters out of concrete on the sidewalk, and liquidated several nickels (they may look solid, but don't touch them - the inside can be quite runny and extremely hot.)

    I now have two fresnel lenses, not quite that large, which I eventually will be using to set up a solar-powered forge. Also, I now have welding glasses and gloves, two things that would have come in handy when we were roasting coinage.

  43. Mirror by slycer9 · · Score: 1
    --
    Don't park drunk, accidents cause people.
  44. reality.sgi.com by d_p · · Score: 1

    Some guys at SGI did some stuff like this in the 90's and had a page on reality. They melted pennies and other cool stuff. I have been looking for a mirror of that site but it seems to be gone for good.

  45. That's something I always wanted to try by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I used to quite enjoy absing ants with a little 5x7 fresnel lens (as well as fireworks, water, a shovel, and, well anything else pretty much). I saw these giant ones in ES and figured they would be the ultimate ant-abuse. You could probably create a fairly wide circle in which the temperature would be sufficient to roast an ant. So rather than zapping them one by one, blanket a colony and watch the burnination.

  46. I love Edmund Sci !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a kid I lived a half hour from the Barrington, NJ headquarters. They had a massive warehouse open to the public that was stocked with everything including motors, telescope parts, electronic components and even a bin of Jabba the Hut heads.

    I picked up my first (and last) fresnel from the Ed Sci outlet, but quickly had it confiscated by my mother when I set the lawn on fire.

  47. Re:wtf by timmi · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's pronounced fer-NEL and it's spelled Fresnel because it's named after the french guy who invented it.

  48. Hmm, The Ant Equivalent by Danny+Dale+the+Not-S · · Score: 5, Funny

    of a Nuclear Bomb.

    Imagine kicking over an ant hill, then frying thousands of the little fuckers with each sweep of the beam when they come pouring out. Considering you can melt nickels and cut soda cans in half with this thing, it's possible you can actually [i]glass[/i] that anthill!

    Just make sure it's fire ants. Those bastards deserve it...

    --

    Almighty Railgun
    You Speak a Lethal Gospel!
    Bloody Gibs Follow.
    1. Re:Hmm, The Ant Equivalent by super+awesome · · Score: 1

      hahahaha..that's hilarious if I only I were a mod.

      --

      m y k a r m a i s m o r e p o s i t i v e t h a n y o u r s.
    2. Re:Hmm, The Ant Equivalent by protohiro1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You could always use the and neutron bomb-boiling water. My mother used to do this to get rid of ants nests and it was a little frightening. Basically a kettle of boiling water kills all the ants instantly.

      --
      Sig removed because it was obnoxious
    3. Re:Hmm, The Ant Equivalent by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of 007's latest movie.

      Gentlemen, I give you Icarus!

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  49. And remember by Flower · · Score: 3, Funny

    Do not taunt giant Fresnel lens.

    --
    I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
    1. Re:And remember by Jestrzcap · · Score: 1

      If giant Fresnel lens begins to smoke cover head and seek shelter.

      --
      "I have great faith in fools: Self confidence my friends call it." ~Edgar Allan Poe
  50. Froogle by supz · · Score: 1

    Oooooh. The first thing I did after reading that, is check out froogle:

    http://froogle.google.com/froogle?ie=utf-8&oe=ut f- 8&q=fresnel+lens&btnG=Search+Froogle&scoring=p

    Is 7x11 inches good enough to burn anything cool?

    1. Re:Froogle by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      hell yes. 7x11 inches will generate upwards of 300F temperatures on a focal area of about 1/8" square. but you will need welding goggles or else you wont be able to look at the dot.

  51. The Warper by mcguyver · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://www.noah.org/acidwarp/warper.html
    A frenzel lense + acidwarp = good times in a college dorm room. A 10 foot wide light show on your wall is pretty cool. People seemed to like it but covering your computer with a lense and a cardboard box was a little nerdy.

    Or...you cal sell these on eBay!
    175" DIRECT BIGSCREEN BIG SCREEN HOME THEATER TV KIT
    Sell kits to create 175" large TVs on eBay! The 175" 6.5x Lens Home Theater Kit is amazing! Simply put, it is a Projection unit that when attached to your ordinary TV will project the image up to sizes of 175".
    /sarcasm

  52. Avoid antabuse at all costs by plover · · Score: 4, Funny

    A buddy who was in the army was busted for showing up drunk, and they made him take antabuse. According to him, when you're taking it drinking even the smallest amount of alcohol makes you puke puke puke.

    --
    John
    1. Re:Avoid antabuse at all costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, they should try that on Jeb Bush's daughters...

    2. Re:Avoid antabuse at all costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My uncle has a bit of an alcohol problem, to the concern of his other six siblings, but he usually tackles it with Antabuse.

    3. Re:Avoid antabuse at all costs by p51d007 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Antabuse was widely perscribed via court order to keep people from drinking. Heck, even listerine would set it off and you'd get violently sick. I've worked in law enforcement for 20 years and I think they quit using it because it was considered "cruel"......well, if it kept them from drinking and getting behind the wheel of a car and killing someone, I think it was a good thing, but the ACLU always thinks otherwise ;)

    4. Re:Avoid antabuse at all costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Considering that the reaction can severely injure or kill the person taking antabuse, regardless of whether he/she had any intention of driving drunk, I'd say that it shouldn't be involuntarily administered to anyone.

      Seriously, something that turns a commonly available substance that the person is likely to want to ingest into a potent poison is definitely not a good idea. I'd be surprised if you could find many ethical doctors willing to endorse such a "treatment".

    5. Re:Avoid antabuse at all costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woah, the description of that stuff reminds me of this old Twilight Zone episode I saw. This guy wanted to stop drinking and he was given a pill... well little did he know, that when he drank the creature inside the pill (now in his stomach) would grow and get stronger... And if he kept drinking it would eventually tear him apart or something to that effect.

    6. Re:Avoid antabuse at all costs by lawngnome · · Score: 1

      Ahh, that was a good twilight zone ep - too bad it was one of the 80's "color" eps, shame they never made it to dvd...

  53. Slightly more usable Fresnel lenses. by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

    Canon just came out with a new lens that uses Fresnel tech, or at least pseudo Fresnel. See the new 70-300 DO on canon EF lens site

    It's no a perfectly flat fresnel, but it does do ladder step stuff to put a 300MM zoom in a failry small package.

    1. Re:Slightly more usable Fresnel lenses. by uberdave · · Score: 1

      It's not about the zoom, but about the lens area. The lens you quoted is roughly 50cm^2. The one in the article is 10000cm^2, or about 200 times more powerful than Canon lens.

  54. Not really by chamblah · · Score: 2, Informative

    Aluminium doesn't smell bad when it burns. I suspect whatever soda pop chemicals remaining in the can do.

    And very possibly the paint they use to put the logo etc... on the can. He also stated that the aluminium can smelled really bad, not the aluminium that the can was made of. So when referencing to the can in that way would mean everything involved that makes it an aluminium can.

    Seriously, this article is all about playing with a new destructive toy and not much about using the toy in question to do interesting science-related experiments.

    While the expierments they did were fun, then did put some science into it.

    The FAQ

    Impressive as destroying a penny may seem, I estimated that we may have only managed to get maybe 10 percent of the available energy hitting the lens (roughly 1kW) into the penny:

    * Mass of a zinc penny: 0.0025 kg
    * Specific heat of zinc: 390 J/kgK
    * Melting point of zinc: 419.58 degC
    o Thus 20degC to about 420degC takes 390 J
    * Latent heat of fusion for zinc: 1.1x10e5 J/kg
    o Thus to melt the penny takes about 275 J
    * We heated the liquid zinc considerably as well, but I will ignore that.
    o Total energy in the penny: > 665 J
    * It takes something under or around 6 seconds to melt a penny:
    o 665 J / 6 sec gives us a lower limit of about >= 111 Watts
    * Sunlight at the earth: 1365 W/m^2
    * Transmission of the earth's atmosphere: maybe 65-70% at this angle with some clouds?
    * Area of the lens is about 1.1m^2
    o Power on the lens: approx. 1000 W
    o Power to the penny >= 10.0%

  55. The Voice Of Experience, '72 by cmholm · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Ah, jr. high science fair. Back in '72, Edmunds' lens was only about 1.5' square. I found a design for a 4' tall wood test rig at the library, which wisely suggested a kiln brick at the focal point. I chiseled out a small pit to hold samples, and went to work.

    It made a great project, the most sophisticated object I had built up to that point. It blew as a science experiment, since I didn't have a plan of action other than to melt things, nor a thermometer that could measure it's limits. In retrospect a turkey probe might have worked. I did succeed in liquifying a number of types of solder.

    I only rated a participation ribbon at the fair, but one of the science teachers took it off of my hands for $75, recouping my (dad's) material expenses and then some.

    --
    Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
  56. Hey Ant! by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1
    You better come out!

    (Only those with the most woefully deprived childhood would see this comment as Offtopic...)

    --

    They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
  57. 50-inch Fresnel lens...for free! by tokachu(k) · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You can get a free Fresnel lens by doing a bit of dumpster diving. If anyone has thrown out a 50" projection TV, the lens is yours!

    NOTE: This HAS happened; I am NOT being sarcastic. I took the Fresnel lens out from the trash and stuck it under my bed, wondering what I could do with it. Now I know! (perhaps I should just eBay it for $100)

    1. Re:50-inch Fresnel lens...for free! by lightray · · Score: 1

      Now you know?

      It wasn't inherently obvious, or accidentally discovered, that you could burn stuff with a giant fresnel lens? And you knew what a fresnel lens was in the first place?

  58. Imagine ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these things!

  59. Aimless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This destruction is anything but aimless.

    (Just ask Archimedes, he'll tell you.)

  60. ideas for a good target platform? by khallow · · Score: 1

    I noticed a big part of the problem with using this thing was that whatever the target was on tended to get destroyed first. What would make a good platform or stage for something like this. Second, suppose I wanted to melt something that burns in air. Any ideas on how to keep the air becoming oxidized? Maybe put in a little charcoal.

  61. Possible use as power source? by Cirrocco · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If this thing is capable of creating such intense heat (with, as far as I can tell, very little environmental impact such as that created when making solar panels) then perhaps it could be used as an alternative (and portable) power source?

    I need to look into this. Heat energy can be converted into electric energy, even if it isn't all that efficient.

    1. Re:Possible use as power source? by luckyguesser · · Score: 1

      The problem with using the fresnel lens' capabilities as a source of power is that the lens' output is focused heat. For most things, heat is not useful.. in fact, it's a byproduct of most engines. To gather energy from the heat, you'd also need something as rudamentary as a "portable steam engine"... and it would be slow.

      --


      The power of Christ compiles you.
      A Random Blog
    2. Re:Possible use as power source? by bhima · · Score: 1

      Then you are wanting a sterling engine hooked up to an alternator.

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    3. Re:Possible use as power source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Thermocouples are solid state and will generate electricity from differences in temperature. A company called Hi-Z produces some nice looking modules. Some interesting applications and specs are available at their site.

    4. Re:Possible use as power source? by m1chael · · Score: 0

      Combined with a form of fusion, the machines had all the consentrated light beams they would ever need!

      The truth is out there... somewhere... there? No.

      --
      I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.
    5. Re:Possible use as power source? by syukton · · Score: 1

      How would you do it? steam engine? minto wheel? thermo-electric generator? a generic steam turbine, maybe? Some nuclear power plants generating ~800 megawatts of power use steam turbines. Wouldn't that be something... a homebrewed steam turbine powered by the sun.

      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
  62. Our First Line Of Defense Against Giant Ants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice to know we're actually prepared for arthropod terrorism.

  63. No minor annoyance. by Obscenity · · Score: 1

    Perhaps the government will put a large one in space, and fry you on the spot if you don't pay your taxes!

    --
    OMG OMG OMG WTF OMG WTF BBQ STFU RTFM, OMFG OMG OMG OMG ROFL LMAO OMG WTF STFU ROFLMAO
    1. Re:No minor annoyance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they already do that. What do you think the StarWars program is REALLY for ?

    2. Re:No minor annoyance. by EvanED · · Score: 1

      See The Onion's Our Dumb Century, p. 139 (Friday, Feb 3, 1984), "Congress Approves Orbiting Homeless Incinerator"

  64. An Obligatory Quote by Exatron · · Score: 1

    Ah, yes, mindless destruction. Good for the spark I always say.
    - Megatron, "Nemesis, Part II"

    --
    "I think so, Brain, but 'instant karma' always gets so lumpy." - Pinky
    "Decepticons FOREVER!!!" - Ravage
  65. another place you can get one.. by Mark19960 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Projection tv's use them!
    since I repair them for a living, ive actually done this.
    its quite fun, but do be careful!
    I like using the fresnel from a 60" projection tv the most :)
    I have burned up phone books in no time with it, and I have tried cans, I got one to melt.
    next time you see a projection tv in the trash, get the lens.
    the lens will be the innermost of the 2 (or 3, if there is a protective screen)
    have fun!

  66. Movie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Oh, that movie. The first thing I though of was the "Triplets of Belleville" and the pollywog popcorn.


    Yeah, the giant laser. I saw one once at a surplus place. I was tempted to get it. Giant dye laser with humonguous low L capcitors that probabl cost a fortune. Made from scratch. Probably by an IBM engineer that wanted to build his own rather than buy one. I could tell because IBM at the time had all these model makers, machinists whose job it was to make things for the engineers. The 1/4" aluminum plates weren't cut from 1/4" aluminum sheet. No, they were machined from solid aluminum stock. Totally over engineered. Sure sign of an in house IBM project.

  67. first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    first post?

  68. So I'm reading this to my wife... by jbellis · · Score: 5, Funny
    ... and I come to the $99 part. The first thing she says is, "You can't have one."

    "But a professor," I try to explain...

    "You can't have one."

    1. Re:So I'm reading this to my wife... by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      Your subject was your first mistake.

      Remember, it is far easier to ask forgiveness than ask permission.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    2. Re:So I'm reading this to my wife... by rhuntley12 · · Score: 1

      Explain that it can be used to create power, therefore your powerbill could be lowered. Then buy her some wine and hope she forgets that you promised to make power and not just burn things.

    3. Re:So I'm reading this to my wife... by Too+Much+Noise · · Score: 1
      "But a professor," I try to explain...


      That could as well have read "But mom!..."
    4. Re:So I'm reading this to my wife... by bwalling · · Score: 1


      Remember, it is far easier to ask forgiveness than ask permission.


      Well, you're certainly more likely to get what you wanted!

    5. Re:So I'm reading this to my wife... by Geekbot · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the time I told my wife about the article I read on here about making ball lightning in the microwave.

      I also ended up getting banned from going to see my brother for a month since he has a microwave too.

  69. Chalk "Burning" is really a decomposition by ZombieEngineer · · Score: 1

    CaC03 + Heat => CaO + CO2

    Happens around 200'C from memory.

    ZombieEngineer

  70. Ant Farm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lock up your ant farms boys, no six legged antennae equipped critter is safe around these guys!

  71. there seem to be no replies by luckyguesser · · Score: 1

    I had time to read the whole page before coming back here and discovering that there were not yet any comments... /. starving for worthy stories???

    --


    The power of Christ compiles you.
    A Random Blog
    1. Re:there seem to be no replies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ah... there they are
      (looks around nonchalantly)

    2. Re:there seem to be no replies by Patty+Cakes · · Score: 1

      Muahaha...maybe it would help if wait.... no..it's too late. Too late for help.

    3. Re:there seem to be no replies by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Imagine thousands of pasty-pale skinned slashdotters out in the Sun for the first time in years, holding plastic lenses not part of their eyewear.

      Maybe that's why :).

      Remember Slashdotters - always use protection...

      SPF50 (what else - we're talking Slashdot here right?).

      --
  72. Obligatory "Death Star" reference by Cirrocco · · Score: 3, Funny

    I can't believe, with all the talk of putting one in space, nobody has used the words "DEATH" and "STAR" just yet.

    Glad I'm the first. I think.

  73. mirrors by Unknown+Poltroon · · Score: 1

    Also, i could be worong, but telecopes with a glass lens also tends to split the light up to a degree like a prism, while the mirrors jsut reflect and concentrate it, so yo get a clearer image.

    --
    All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
  74. O_o by micronix1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    there goes my plastic army men collection

  75. Focus energy for interstellar travel by Zirtix · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I read a paper once that advocated the following strategy for getting to Proxima Centauri in a span of ~50 years. The plan is this:

    1) Construct array of solar panels near Mercury (or whatever)
    2) Beam resulting gigawatts of power to the Moon using small lasers/masers
    3) Collect the power and use it to feed a very large laser
    4) Point laser at a huge fresnel lens orbiting Jupiter (say)
    5) Point fresnel lens at a solar sail, accelerating it to ~0.1c quite quickly

    The lens allows your laser beam to stay focused at long range (like 4 light years). Of course it would take centuries to build the kit needed, but once it's running you can send lots of payloads for little cost (solar sails are 'cheap' to make). There are also solar sail strategies for interstellar return journeys!

    I like solar sails, generally. Sustainable space travel!

    1. Re:Focus energy for interstellar travel by aarondsouza · · Score: 1

      I'm not being a smartass, I really don't know the answer to this question: How would you slow down the payload of this solar sail once it reaches its destination? Doesn't it take the same amount of energy?

      --
      "In mathematics, it's not enough to read the words -- you have to hear the music"
    2. Re:Focus energy for interstellar travel by sholden · · Score: 1

      The solar sail on the ship is disconnected and accelerates away from the ship reflecting the light back to the ship and deccelerating the ship via a second smaller solar sail facing the other way.

      At least that's how it was done in "The Flight of the Dragonfly" by Robert L. Forward.

    3. Re:Focus energy for interstellar travel by Civil_Disobedient · · Score: 1

      I suppose you could use the gravitational attraction of large planets or stars to "pull" your craft, which would slow it down (slowly). I think a more important question would be "how do you steer the damned thing?"

  76. build your own spiral fresnel reflector by lightray · · Score: 2, Informative

    You can also build your own giant spiral fresnel reflector at home.

  77. Quotation by HyperCash · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Quotation at the bottom of /. after I read this article was:

    "Is something VIOLENT going to happen to a GARBAGE CAN?"

    I think there is more to that fortune program than is generaly acknowledged.

    --HC

    --
    So I'm jump'n up and down screaming show me the money.
  78. "found" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "I found one of these at my school last year"

    Heh heh, just like that car I found outside your house last summer.

  79. Maybe this was the secret by earthforce_1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Behind the Strategic Defence Initiative missile shield. A giant magnifying glass in space, to burn incoming missiles, or enemy cities.

    --
    My rights don't need management.
  80. popping concrete et al by SuperBanana · · Score: 3, Informative
    It seems that normal concrete will start emitting plumes of smoke just before it pops
    As would burning tar, or any other heavy petroleum derivate.

    Concrete doesn't contain the slightest amount of petroleum. You're thinking of -asphalt-, which is entirely different.

    What smoked was contaminants on the surface of the concrete, and possibly some stabilizers. It popped because of the moisture in the concrete expanded- concrete doesn't handle much except external compression very well.

    Aluminium doesn't smell bad when it burns. I suspect whatever soda pop chemicals remaining in the can do.

    No, more likely the label ink.

  81. It's being done! by MarcQuadra · · Score: 5, Informative

    that's actually how some solar power stations work. They have a bunch of mirrors that aim the sunlight to a glass globe filled with water, the water boils out and powers a turbine, condenses out and returns to the globe via a valve and pump.

    Overall it works better than solar cells because it's so simple and you harness the heat energy rather than the light itself, but therer's only economy to it on a large scale, you need enough space to get a huge amount of water to constantly boil. Also, it's significantly harder to get this thing working on less-than-ideal days; solar cells still collect juice on slightly cloudy or overcast days, but this method doesn't work nearly as well.

    Still, a good way to apply solar energy when in conditions that permit. I'd like to set up a small unit with a fresnel lens and 'boiling globe' to generate hot water (which I'll pump through a radiator) for my house in the winter. The problem I see is with safety, that beam has to be EXACTLY where I want it or I'll burn the house down.

    --
    "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
    1. Re:It's being done! by jamesshuang · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They're building a huge pane of glass on the Australian desert. This pane of glass is supended a few feet off the ground, which is painted black. The air between the glass and the ground is heated, and since hot air rises, it travels toward a chimney at the center of this contraption. As it moves through the chimney, a large turbine generates the necessary power. This odd design works extremely well, but requires very bright, sunny locations that don't mind a glass pane a square mile wide!

    2. Re:It's being done! by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sounds like it has a lot of advantages - like simplicity. The turbine of course is full of stuff that can break, but the rest of the whole operation has no moving parts, which is a big plus. Scaling up has to be fairly easy as well - just add a turbine and extend the size of your glass farm.

      Regular solar arrays need to have panels or mirrors that track the sun - lots of stuff to break over a large area, fancy focusing algorithms and sensors and motors...

      Often simple is best with stuff like this - that's how many home solar heating systems work - forget completely replacing the grid, just pipe some water through panels on the roof to heat it up...

    3. Re:It's being done! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      I'd like to set up a small unit with a fresnel lens and 'boiling globe' to generate hot water (which I'll pump through a radiator) for my house in the winter.
      What you want already exists, except with water-filled panels with regular glass on the roof, instead of a fresnel lens. I think it's called passive solar, or maybe solar-thermal (as opposed to solar-electric), or something. It's a good way to replace your water heater (instead of your power meter :) )
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    4. Re:It's being done! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention the chimney is going to be the tallest man-made structure on Earth. I shit you not. It will put mildura on the map.

    5. Re:It's being done! by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "solar cells still collect juice on slightly cloudy or overcast days, but this method doesn't work nearly as well."

      In fact the reverse is true. Infra red penetrates clouds better than visible light so even on cloudy days you can still generate. You simply size the field of mirrors to account for lowered sunlight.

      Solar II uses large tanks of hot salt and stores the heat for generation during the evening or very overcast days. It's a far cheaper and more efficient way of generating electricity than photovoltaic cells.

      --
      Deleted
    6. Re:It's being done! by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      You all may be interested to know that in about 1990, I tried to sell this concept through a company called "Cambridge Intellectual Properties Ltd" in Cambridge, England, run by an American called Herman (or Hyman) Gross.

      After refusing to sign contracts in which I would have agreed to all accounts being kept in the Cayman Islands, and other dubious things, I let it lapse. It seems they did not let it lapse. About 5 years later, I saw a film, director named something Gross, showing the system being demonstrated in Spain.

      Moral of this story: Some people are unspeakable sh*te, with no redeeming features.

      Incidentally, there is a far better way of extracting the energy than a chimney and turbine. I just put those in the papers to illustrate the concept. Obviously I won't reveal it here. And to those who say "Why did you not patent it?" Look at the dates! A patent would have expired by now!

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    7. Re:It's being done! by stor · · Score: 1

      Yes it's called a solar chimney. A prototype was built in Manzanares, Spain that apparrently ran with minimal maintenance for a number of years.

      It apparently generates power throughout the night too :)

      Googling for "Solar Chimney" will give you plenty of results.

      Cheers
      Stor

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
    8. Re:It's being done! by nojayuk · · Score: 1

      There was a "gimmick" science-fiction story based on this idea written back in the Sixties and published in Analog. The story was called "Shortstack" after the story's main character, Short, and written by Walt and Leigh Richmond. The story used the upward rush of the hot air to keep the flexible plastic chimney erect and at night powered the turbine to pump air up to maintain the chimney's integrity.

      Nowadays we'd use Viagra.

    9. Re:It's being done! by AgentSmit · · Score: 1

      Saw this on tv once. Since I will be in Spain this summer, I will certainly pay a visit to Manzanares to see it for real. Can't wait :).

    10. Re:It's being done! by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Err... No.

      If you are talking about the one built in the 80-es in the south of France (which is the biggest built so far), it uses an Archimedes mirror. It is the same concept as a Frenel Lens, but only by reflection - multiple synchronized _flat_ mirrors. Note the _flat_. As a result:

      1. The focus can be altered in real time
      2. It does not suffer from the problem of most spherical lens/mirrors which can focus the Sun only on 17" (angle mins) due to the fact that it has finite size. These mirror systems always focus it on a sector the size of a single mirror segment.
      3. In fact the bloody thing is a perfect weapon. Its first use is attributed to Archimedes directing troops to use polished sheets of copper against the roman fleet. In btw, it takes a very small number to get very far. 32 assuming Mediteranean/Subtropical sun intensity will put wood on fire, 56 will melt metals, 100+ will put a whole trhough everything including tank armour plates.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
  82. WMD? by xeon4life · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It sounds cartoonish, but what if someone discovered how to concentrate the suns rays to a specific point on the earth using a similar, but bigger lens.

    All that would be needed is a big enough lens and a geostationary satellite, it wont even need to be manned.

    Just a thought.

    -Xeon

    --
    Real programmers can write assembly code in any language. -- Larry Wall
  83. pfft by ShadowRage · · Score: 3, Funny

    I melted asphalt with good 'ol gasoline.

  84. Alternative for the cheap fresnel... by dpilot · · Score: 1

    This approach doesn't scale well. There are cheaper ways to focus light. Try a search on 'nonimaging solar collectors' on google.

    Even with a stock fresnell lens, it's possible that an array of smaller lenses would work better. It's also possible that the focal spot of this giant lens is just *too* hot for practical use, and the array of smaller lenses would be better.

    It's pitifully small compared to this one, but I once managed to get a defective fresnel lens from an overhead projector. The fan failed, and heat of the bulb made a 1" distortion a little off-center. Makes it useless for imaging, but doesn't hurt it's energy concentration much.

    Of course it's only 1/9 the area, but cost me $99 less. I haven't used for decades, since my brother-in-law and I were snapping ants on the sidewalk. (First thing I thought of, first time I played Ant City.) But it's still down in the basement, ready for the sun.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    1. Re:Alternative for the cheap fresnel... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      Not sure it would have to scale well. I wouldn't intend to blanket my property with hundreds of these, and go off the grid. Even 5% of my daytime power requirements would be a boon, and amounts less than that an interesting, if not so productive, project.

      Imagine the power going out for 3-4 hours (which happens at least twice a year here) but being able to keep a few lights on, or a TV. That's not something to turn your nose up at, especially if it doesn't mean a $4000 generator and $2+ per gallon gasoline.

      And besides, I'm not a genius or anything. Others talk of ~25% steam turbine efficiency. Is there anything else practical, that has a higher efficiency?

    2. Re:Alternative for the cheap fresnel... by dpilot · · Score: 1

      There have been some interesting developments very recently in solar cells. "Legacy" solar cells have all been single band-gap, which in practice means that they can only convert on frequency of light into electricity, and efficiency drops off as you deviate. Until recently, efforts have been focused on reaching the theoretical maximum efficiency for that bandgap, and to make them as cheap as possible.

      The new development is in splitting the band-gap, so energy conversion can happen at two (or more) frequencies. In the case of the double-gap materials, the immediate effect was to double efficiency.

      Not here yet, but a very important step.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  85. Hello by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hrm, random destruction, count me in.

  86. in front of your monitor by dpilot · · Score: 1

    Shades of "Brazil"

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  87. Thanks a freaking lot! by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1

    Great. Now I know what 'original film' the Sci-Fi channel will try feeding me next month.

    After 'Dinocroc' and 'Boa vs. Python' I'll have 'laser sharks' to enjoy.

    --
    "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
  88. Watch Your Eyes by OceanWave · · Score: 5, Informative

    One thing that cannot be overstated is the use of eye protection. And, whatever is selected for that application must handle IR as well as visible light. (Nearly all of the UV is absorbed by the plastic the lens is made out of, so it is not much of a factor.)

    Using such a lens, to focus solar radiation, can produce power densities equivalent of a Class-IV laser; where the warnings typically read "avoid exposure to direct or scattered radiation". Even if focused to a spot size of 4cm^2--at an estimated 1kW--the power density would still fit 2.5W/mm^2. This is the same level as a 10W laser, with 2mm beam focus.

    Granted that the focus is only at one point, it is easy to overlook when scattered radiation--from a "point" source--can be dangerous.

    As the article states, use very heavy welding goggles, and maybe have some sunglasses on under those! It is also recommended to ensure that the goggles cover the infrared parts of the spectrum effectively.

    Also note: laser safety goggles would be ineffective for this application, due to the fact that they typically use dichros, which typically are not very "wide-band". They reflect very specific wavelengths--very efficiently. But, since solar radiation is very wide-band, a lot of it will still get through.

    1. Re:Watch Your Eyes by cmowire · · Score: 3, Informative

      Generally, you want either a gold-coated welding lens or an extra gold UV shielding glass to view this sort of phenomena...

      http://yarchive.net/metal/welding_filter_glass.h tm l

    2. Re:Watch Your Eyes by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Funny

      I stqred at 1t qnd ny eyys wOR k jus t fiin .

  89. Surprised no one mentioned... by Dirk+Pitt · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...the original uber-cool use of the Fresnel lens, namely, in the first actually useful lighthouses.

    1. Re:Surprised no one mentioned... by Wes+Janson · · Score: 1

      I've been to the St. Augustine lighthouse numerous times. Their original fresnel lense was destroyed back in the '60s by some pesky kids using a .22 rifle. After that incident it was some time before it was replaced and restored. What's interesting is standing right underneath the lense when it turns on at night. The first time I was up there waiting, I seriously expected the light to be blindingly bright. But it was more like a room lightbulb than a miniature sun. The lense concentrated the light so effectively that a rather weak illumination source was all that was needed. You can see the beam from 10+ miles away (I'm tempted to say 16 or 21 maximum) and anyone who lives in or has visited St. Augustine has seen the lighthouse at night.


      PS: The lighthouse restraunt down below the lighthouse has some excellent food, and last time we were there they were offering everything for a quarter: 1 pancake, 1 egg, etc. Beautiful view down on the water as well.

    2. Re:Surprised no one mentioned... by Bahumat · · Score: 1

      The Shipwreck Museum on tip of the Upper Penninsula in Michigan has a terrific Fresnel lens from the old lighthouse. It's lit inside with only a tiny 40W bulb, and explained to us years ago by the tour guide that any stronger of a light within it and they risked burning the walls!

      Good stuff.

      --
      "To pass through the jungle; silence, courtesy, ferocity, as the occasion demands." -- Kamau, "Proper Passage"
  90. Ooh, I used to have an 18" fresnel- cheap and fun. by Behrooz · · Score: 1

    I used to have a 18" fresnel lens, Dad gave it to me when I was about 12. Fun fun fun once you got some dark goggles.

    Even with the smaller version, I was able to melt zinc pennies, although it took a little while. With the lens in a frame, I got a really nice pinpoint focus, so i'd imagine that the peak energy flux at target was comparable to (though much smaller in area) that of the big lens they have.

    Needless to say, even the largest and most impressive ants in the yard vaporized in moments.

    As long as you get them dark goggles to go with it, I'd recommend this as a toy for *any* pyromaniac child. Oh yes indeedy...

    --
    "We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
  91. Cool, but if you want destruction on the cheap by rspress · · Score: 2, Informative

    Find the biggest "beauty mirror" you can. These things have a regular mirror on one side and a 5X mirror on the other. Use the 5X side to focus a beam of destruction wherever you wish.

  92. A New Weapon In First Person Shooters... by NoThumbsForMe · · Score: 0

    *Player 2 gets railed by Player 1's Gigantic Mofo Fresnel Lense.*

    Frag Count: 121313
    Death Count: Do-You-Think-That-Its-Possible-To-Kill-A-Man-Who-W ields-A-Gigantic-Mofo-Fresnel-Lense-Bitch?

    --
    now stand up and smell your chair...
  93. Is anyone reminded... by chgros · · Score: 1
  94. Toes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It can heat toes up to a blistering 39804304834083408 degrees.

  95. Re: Melting Glass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uh, the fact that glass is transparent may make it difficult to melt using light.

  96. Childhood Anecdote by donscarletti · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Back in primary school we were given Fresnel lens of about half that size (still obscenely huge) as souvenirs by a short sighted tour guide. Needless to say they were confiscated immediately by the teachers so they would not be used during the course of the excursion. The problem is that they were redistributed on our first day back home, back in a sleepy drought riddled town in western New South Wales, Australia.

    Lucky the fire on the oval was able to be contained, otherwise I would have lost more than my Fresnel lens.

    --
    When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
  97. ancient art of temple building by cybersk4nk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    this article is interesting because it reminds me of something i read in an old history book on mayan temples. apparently, some of them have rock cut so exactly and perfectly, a knife blade will not fit between the seams. i remember reading (or watching on tv once) about how some scientists/archeologists theorized that the maya used focused sunlight to cut the rock (specifically, big gold encrusted sun discs), and how preposterous others thought of the idea. i even remember that some scientists tried it out once with gold polished mirrors, and it failed utterly. now that we know a giant fresnel lens can burn ashphalt and make concrete crack and pop, i wonder if the maya came up with a similar technique based on a more primitive (or more advanced) fresnel-like lens. anybody want to carve up some rock to test the theory? it would make for some fun mad science to prove an old theory.

  98. Archimedes by vlad_petric · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Legends say that Archimedes wreaked havoc through the Roman invasion fleet trying to conquer Syracuse with giant lenses.

    While it's very hard to verify this legend, one thing we know for sure is that Syracuse was conquered via land, and Archimedes ingenuity had an important part to play in defending Syracuse from the sea.

    So yeah, this is stuff that matters, but hardly "news"

    --

    The Raven

    1. Re:Archimedes by WillWare · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The I heard it, he didn't use lenses, he used mirrors. He got the army to issue polished metal shields to all the soldiers, that could be used to cast shield-sized reflections onto the sails of approaching ships. If all the soldiers put their reflections on one spot on the sail, it would set the sail on fire.

      I think you're right that this story is probably apocryphal. It's hard to imagine that good mirrors would have been inexpensive enough in those days to make this practical. It's also difficult to imagine how they got coordinated enough to get all the reflections onto one spot.

      --
      WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
    2. Re:Archimedes by TheLink · · Score: 1

      With a bit of practice why not? Get everyone a nice very flat polished piece of metal (easy enough in those days). Each soldier/archer just aims his reflection patch on the beach or something, wiggles it to confirm it's his, then moves it at the ship to burn.

      Either that or stick out a sight or hand so that the main part of your beam hits the sight/hand and it's all aligned with the target. This will probably work better.

      One "shield" doesn't do anything, but 500 would. I doubt getting 500 or more would be a prob. If you have the whole army out, it doesn't matter even if 10% have bad aim.

      In those days if a few ships in front of yours suddenly caught fire, you'd start feeling more than a bit nervous about this invasion thing...

      Anyway more than a few attackers may get blinded too.

      --
    3. Re:Archimedes by WillWare · · Score: 1
      Get everyone a nice very flat polished piece of metal (easy enough in those days).

      It's easy enough to polish the metal, but I'm not sure about getting it flat enough. You want the reflection to stay together over a distance of maybe a half-mile or a mile, and you're doing this with, what, Bronze Age technology? I don't rule it out as a possibility, but if I were in Archimedes' position, I don't know how I'd get good enough flatness.

      Assuming they could get the flatness, I guess the aiming wouldn't be that hard. The idea for each guy to wiggle his reflection on the beach could work just as well on the target, and might help with the blinding idea. It also occurs to me that it might be even more effective to ignite masts rather than sails. (Help for nautically challenged: Sail = big hunk of cloth, mast = thick wooden stick that holds it up)

      --
      WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
  99. Really genuis-like! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    More unique than an airbourne plasma laser and phase-conjugate mirror? Next you're going to be telling us you can drive a 10-inch spike through a board with your penis!

  100. Mental picture by Molina+the+Bofh · · Score: 1

    Somehow I can mentally picture Dr. Evil with a giant fresnel lens orbiting Earth and demanding one hundred terabillion dollars.

    --

    -
    Roses are #FF0000, Violets are #0000FF, find / -name '*base*' |xargs chown -R us && mv zig greatjustice
  101. Welcome! by scatter_gather · · Score: 2, Funny

    Your'e on fire!

  102. Open Source project for Giant Fresnel Lenses by swschrad · · Score: 1

    use them to carefully review SCO filings and license claims ;) in the hot midday sun :-D in Jamaica >8-D

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  103. Edmunds Scientific is gone, gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    this guy always wanted Edmund Scientific's Giant Fresnel Lens.

    I grew up about a 45 minute drive from Edmunds Scientific in NJ. I used to get my father to drive me there a couple times per year. I built a telescope, ground the 8" mirror myself, with parts and books I got at Edmunds. I remember the back room full of surplus electronics and optics for cheap, too.

    Now I have a 5-year old boy. Damn I miss Edmunds.

    1. Re:Edmunds Scientific is gone, gone by Markarian421 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Try American Science and Surplus (sciplus.com), much more amusing catalog, and way cheaper than Edmunds.

  104. Re:Bravo - we have sunk to a new low! by Shivantrill · · Score: 0

    So how is this off topic? I would consider the entire topic "off topic".
    Our moderators must lean towards beavis and butthead thinking. This explains alot about their scoring!!

    --
    Karma, We don't need no stinkin' karma!
  105. Re: Melting Glass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    No, it's easy, providied you're not dumb enough to just put a piece of glass on the ground and shine the beam at it. Like most hot, melty things, molten glass is best heated in a crucible. Crucibles, surprisingly enough, are opaque and usually the right color to absorb heat - that is, they are blackened.

  106. Solar furnaces by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Solar furnaces like this one: http://www.imp.cnrs.fr/foursol/1000_en.shtml look like fun too :)

    The setup can produce 1000kW of heat in a very small area, and temperatures of up to 4000 Celsius.

  107. With a very big fresnel lens you can... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    do all of those things promised in the hundreds of spam messages you get every year.

    You really can have a bigger bust, even of you didn't have a bust previously...

    You really can make other parts larger as well but some things you must already have one of...

    you can make your investments larger - or at least make the fine print on your investment portfolio "Holy Roman Empire" sized...

    You can watch your favorite movies and television shows on a giant screen for only a few dollars... you may need to add a cardboard box and a little creative energy but it will be possible...

    Not to mention that you'll be able to cook your food almost instantly on bright sunny days as well as anything else you were unfortunate enough to accidentally direct the focal point of the lens at... then perhaps those parts won't be a large as they once appeared...

  108. projection tv lens by thebig_j · · Score: 1
    My brother has the lens out of our 18 year old projection TV. It is 40 inches across and he can fuse dirt together into glass. It also requires dark sunglasses or a light welding mask.

    He's 13...we make sure he keeps it under his bed or someplace dark when its not in use.

  109. The trick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    isn't keeping it focused, Solar panels already do this, just add a tripod to hold the lens. The real trick, is disipating all that extra heat, as the more ambiant heat in the cell the worse its conversion ratio.

  110. Re:Would this be possible? DEATH RAY! by kyoorius · · Score: 1

    A long time ago, I tried this with a 12" lens and some fiber optics bought from Radio Shack (yes, they did have a fiber optic kit... 15+ yrs ago!)
    There was no significant heat felt at the other end of the strand. The fiber optic was made of plastic though... That medium may not have been optimal for transfer of light/heat in the IR range.

    My other idea (keep in mind, I was only 14 at the time) was to build a system of mirrors and lenses utilizing the fresnel lens to concentrate sunlight to a point, then bounce it off a mirror into another set of lenses which would project the light at a distant focus... thus resulting in a DEATH RAY.

  111. make cool toys by LordMyren · · Score: 1

    build a kickass projector

    it takes two.

  112. Fresnel Lens - not just for light by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I recall reading an article in a Canadian electronics magazine back in the mid 80s where the author created a satellite "dish" based on Fresnel theory. It wasn't a dish at all, but a large plywood Fresnel lens that focused the (C-band) satellite signal onto a feed horn behind the plywood (as opposed to a dish where the feed horn is located in front at the focal point). I don't remember if the plywood was painted with a metallic paint.

    I think the mag was Electronics Today and the author may have been Steve Rimmer or David Stringer. Those guys used to do all kinds of crazy things, like mounting a dozen larger speakers (covered with sheet metal) to the front of a VW van and hooking them up to a frequency generator and amplifier. They used this rig to distort the bounced signal from a police radar gun tricking it into displaying a speed of their choice

  113. Useful for art by robsteele · · Score: 1

    The pictures show a penny welded onto a brick. If you hold your mouth right you can see the head of a bearded bald guy wearing sunglasses.

    --

    Consequences ensue.
  114. The cheapest! by teamhasnoi · · Score: 1
    Go to a drug store and grab a page magnifier for the old folks - they cost 2 or 3 bucks and can easily smoke wood in a second or two.

    Use to wood burn and start fires while camping - great fun for 12 year olds.

  115. Could you stack these? by Freaek · · Score: 1

    So you have a big one at the top, and then get progressivly smaller ones below it to increse the burnination capability?

    Something I may have to try someday anyways

    1. Re:Could you stack these? by Markarian421 · · Score: 1

      No. You would gain nothing, other than maybe changing the focal length.

  116. Economy model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't want to shell out the $$$ for one of these just go down to your office supply shop and pick up one of those flexible magnifiers the size of a sheet of notebook paper. They cost a couple of bucks. People who can't see very well use them to read phone books etc. They work great. Middle of winter with the sun low in the sky and a soaking wet beach log started to smoke instantly. So, for the price of one 35" lens one could buy a hundred of them. Tape them together to make a nice flexible array and presto, almost 6 square metres of power. Why fry one ant when you can cook the whole colony?

  117. To quote the wise master Butt-Head... by el-spectre · · Score: 1

    Whoa! Think of the things we could do with THIS!

    --
    "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
  118. Ain't no oil in concrete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems that normal concrete will start emitting plumes of smoke just before it pops As would burning tar, or any other heavy petroleum derivate. Yo, Yo- you're thinking of asphalt, aka TarMacadam. Concrete is made from Portland Cement and aggragate, sucka.

  119. And how would that work? by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A 5x mirror is CONVEX. You need a CONCAVE mirror to focus.

    1. Re:And how would that work? by rspress · · Score: 1

      I believe they are concave.....they must be because they have fried to a crisp just about anything I put in the beam.

      That was over twenty years ago but I am sure it was a 5x mirror. I guess I will have to buy one next time I am at the store to check it out......I feel sorry for the neighbors cat ;-)

    2. Re:And how would that work? by rspress · · Score: 1

      BTW....I think you have it backwards. Concave will magnify, convex will shrink. Think of the mirrors they use in stores and also focal points.
      This page will explain it:
      http://physics.bu.edu/py106/notes/Spherical.html

  120. Melted? by scottgfx · · Score: 1

    I read the synopsis and thought it said "he melted several other people". I'm glad I went back and reread. Whew!

    --
    It's mandatory to wash your hands before returning to the land of Dairy Queen.
  121. Fresnel my ass! by Kevin108 · · Score: 0

    Portsmouth, VA owns one that came from a place called Hog Island. It stayed in our materials warehouse for 30 years until they built a pedestal in the harbor for it last year. It was walled up in a corner of the warehouse. I got to tear down the wall and since I knew it was a classic, nearly one-of-a-kind that was going to be forever displayed in a high profile place...I took my opportunity to be photographed with my butt on it. :-)

    --

    It's a perfect time for being wasted.
    A perfect time to watch the stars.
    - Burden Brothers, "Beautiful Night"
  122. Re: Melting Glass by BlueUnderwear · · Score: 1
    Alternatively, if you lack a Fresnel lens and a suitable crucible, but you do have a pencil mine and a microwave oven you can melt glass with those.

    Just put a tall drinking glass in the microwave oven. Rest the pencil mine on top of the glass. Close door, switch on.

    The pencil mine will eat its way through the glass all through to the bottom.

    Note 1: Fill a small amount of water into the glass (or into a different glass), in order to absorb excess energy, or you'll nuke your nuker.

    Note 2: Yes, the pencil mine does get hot enough to dent the glass platter that comes with the nuker. Stop in time before the mine actually reaches the bottom of the drinking glass.

    --
    Say no to software patents.
  123. Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... or does their first target remind you of someone? (Hint: WWJBurn)

  124. I'll second that by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    Having been a chemistry major in my earlier years of college, I can vouch for that. I've had acid and base burns both, and they feel about the same.

    Also, if you catch light amount of sulfuric acid on your fingers quickly enough, you get the same slippery melting skin effect before it gets down to the nerves. I tell you, that was a scary moment of realization, but I got it before it did any serious damage.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    1. Re:I'll second that by Reziac · · Score: 1

      From another chemistry major... some people's skin seems more susceptible than others. I have very thick, tough skin, and I could stick my finger into the Chromerge (or the lye for that matter) without ill effect. Other people would get a drop on themselves and run screaming for the shower.

      [For the audience: Chromerge is sulphuric plus chromic acids, generally used as glass cleaner.]

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  125. Thanks but... by lewko · · Score: 1

    Thanks for trying to suggest a productive use for this technology, but dude.... We're talking about destroyin' stuff!

    --
    Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
  126. This is not informative... by aepervius · · Score: 1

    As other pointed out Base hurt you as much as Acid. I had a colleague in my labor which had the unfortunate luck to try our "shower" [a special high pressure water shower to wash up somebody as quickly as possible from liquid substance. It has enough pressure to maintain an adult on the ground...]. He got a base on him 9-10 molar concentration (NaOH If I remmember correctly). By the time we moved him under the shower 5 meter away from where he was he had started screaming that it burn like hell on the few part of skin splashed... The lab was a mess afterward, with 5-6 cm of water everywhere.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  127. How about storing electricity? by NigelJohnstone · · Score: 1

    I read the thread higher up about heating air and driving a turbine, but then you get electricity in the middle of the day, how about this instead:

    Boil water
    Steam rises
    Condense it higher up
    Save the water for its potential energy to generate the electricity during the evening when you want it.

    In other words Light->Heat->Potential Energy Store -> Electricity later.

    So when its sunny you make your potential energy and use it when you want the electricity.

    1. Re:How about storing electricity? by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

      One problem, you're basically talking about the distillation process, which actually generate very little power. Another way you can do it is using photovoltaic cells (I know, inefficient, but still generate more power then the two staged, condensation and turbine electric generator, and much easier to set up) and rechargeable batteries.

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
    2. Re:How about storing electricity? by NigelJohnstone · · Score: 1

      "you're basically talking about the distillation process, which actually generate very little power"

      Are you sure? Surely what I'm suggesting would simply capture the heat into potential energy.

      A number of traps up the column would capture the water as it condenses up the column. Sure you are left with water half way up the column that is very hot, but further lenses and further evaporation would drive the water in those traps further up the column. So that heat isn't wasted.

      I wonder if you couldn't improve it further by insulating the topmost water trap to keep it as hot as possible (when the water falls you want to re-evaporate it, so the hotter it is the better).

      When you drop the water again to generate the electricity, the water would warm up a little too, ready for driving up the column again.

      So where is the energy being lost in this system? Even the stray heat from the generator you could use to warm up the water waiting to be evaporated.

  128. Lindon, Utah by xixax · · Score: 1

    So can we like point this at parts of Utah?

    Xix.

    --
    "Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
  129. Been there, done that... by morzel · · Score: 1
    ... been posted on slashdot.

    See here.

    --
    Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.
    [Zappa]
  130. so many bad jokes... by whathappenedtomonday · · Score: 1
    and so few people realizing that the sun can ultimately solve our energy problems - and that it doesn't tend to create more problems than it solves, like most other forms of energy production.

    read more.

    --
    I hope I didn't brain my damage.
    1. Re:so many bad jokes... by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

      Actually that idea has been around for several decades, but the idea wasn't wide spread because of several reason.

      1. Location location location...
      One of the requirement for powerplant is that it must supply a estimatable amount of power at a stable, continuous rate. Solar powerplant depends on a clear, cloudless sky. And seasonal changes might cause problem where electric supply if lower in winter (shorter daylight hours).

      2. Maintainance...
      Solar powerplants are quite expensive to maintain due to the large amount of mirror needed to focus enough sun's energy to the boiler that drives the turbine, or the large amount of photovoltaic cells needed.

      3. Efficiency
      Both photo-voltaic and steam turbine are somewhat inefficient.

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
  131. Re: Melting Glass by drsmithy · · Score: 1

    WTF is a "pencil mine" ?

  132. Re: holograms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...for a while, had to work evenings because he was igniting balloons full of gas in the parking lot and taking holograms of the fireballs..."

    Are you certian that they were holograms and not schrilian (sp?) photographs?

    Any links to his work?

    I'm very interested,

  133. Other concept... by Dr.+GeneMachine · · Score: 1
    Take one old parabolic satellite antenna, remove the receiver. Coat the internal surface of the parabolic dish with reflective tape. Polish. Carry it UPSIDE DOWN until you intend to use it. The focal area of these things is incredibly small. We got about 1.5 kW per square centimeter in the focal point (by rough calculation). Additionally you can use the receiver mount to hold things you want to go up in flames in a rather spectacular way.

    And... don't look into mirror with remaining eye...

    --
    This comment does not exist.
  134. Getting burnt by a lens in class by nazgul000 · · Score: 1

    In seventh grade, during a physical science class, a friend of mine thought that it would be a funny joke to focus the sun onto my back using a Fresnel lens from an overhead projector. In the minute or so it took for me to notice (when the beam hit my skin), he had very efficiently burned through three layers of clothing!

    Good times.

  135. selfdestruction by mr4k · · Score: 1

    Can it self-destruct itselft? By placing something like a mirror in front of it, it could theoretically melt itself?

    1. Re:selfdestruction by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

      Highly doubtful, since the lens themselves merely bend light and let it through, and focal point on the lens will merely cause the lightbeam to scatter once they pass through the mirror (or turn into a tight beam... i think that's what will happen. Then scatter out because of interference).

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
  136. AGHL Re:I have one of these. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are they supposed to do when they mix?

    You're not thinking thermite are you?

    'Cause you would be wrong.

  137. Page Updated Due to Slashdotting by fdiskne1 · · Score: 1

    As of this morning, his update log read:

    Updated 2003.03.19

    slashdotted 2004.05.21

    --
    But why is the rum gone?
  138. arson by giminy · · Score: 1

    wouldn't a giant lens be the ideal arson tool? Since it leaves no chemical evidence, there's nothing to really tie it to the arsonist.
    Of course, the trouble is that you have to burn everything in broad daylight, when everyone can see you...

    --
    The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
    1. Re:arson by TheLink · · Score: 1

      No. Coz you have to be close whilst it burns stuff and people might notice.

      Best are probably cigarettes and various other stuff - low tech but works fine. Plenty of people legitimately carry cigarettes and associated stuff.

      If you want tech, maybe a powerful laser/maser could work - but not many people can afford those.

      Or a lens made of ice pointed at some kindling :).

      --
  139. Re: Melting Glass by BlueUnderwear · · Score: 1
    WTF is a "pencil mine" ?

    The bit of graphite that is inside the pencil.

    You can buy them separately for use in rechargeable ("automatic") pencils.

    --
    Say no to software patents.
  140. Heat Loss is why less energy was absorbed by nuggz · · Score: 1

    The likely reason that it seems like like they weren't getting everything to heat up was heat loss.
    The two obvious paths, air, and sidewalk have some loss. But radiant heat loss will be quite significant. This is why despite insane amounts of energy being put onto the penny, you were losing insane amounts of energy.

    Maybe the doctorate isn't in heat transfer.

  141. there's a face there! by f64 · · Score: 1

    aaah! there's a face in the image!.

    they have burned the ants on mars? what gives?

  142. If you were trying to trigger ECHELON by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...under lab conditions, you would post this article.

  143. Could this be the answer to our POWER CONSUMPTION? by Rooked_One · · Score: 1
    Think about it.... This thing can heat things ultra fast, with just a little sunlight. Why not use this to super heat water and create steam, in a more effecient, and far less radioactive way, than our nuclear reactors do?

    I guess you have to take the whole "what if its not sunny one day" factor into account. YOU MAKE THE CALL!!

  144. Re: holograms? by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
    Hmmm... He said something like "lighting up balloons full of gas and taking photos of the fireball illuminated by laser". Maybe I just assumed "hologram", or maybe he said it in order to avoiding having to explain "schrilian".

    Umm, I think it was something to do with evaluating gasification of coal as an alternative to natural gas. He was working as an industrial chemist for British Gas at the time, but last I heard he was somewhere in Africa doing missionary work. His work may be patented or "trade-secreted" for all I know...

  145. The Face on Mars by PetoskeyGuy · · Score: 1

    Melted Penny

    Face on Mars

    Now we know how it must be a hoax, or a really big Martian penny.

  146. BrookGPU by odie_q · · Score: 1

    You mean something like this?
    BrookGPU

    --
    ...ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
  147. More curious by TheLink · · Score: 1

    If you increase the lens size and the focal point was in mid air, would you be able to _hear_ something? Even though air is quite transparent, at those energy densities wouldn't it start to get pretty hot and expand?

    Get a big enough one and you might get a thunderclap if you ramp it up suddenly?

    I figure a similar thing could happen with those huge lasers - get thunder like from lightning. Even more interesting is if that 747+huge laser ever shoots past a thundercloud towards a target.

    The target could get zapped by a laser (ouch), and also get hit by the lightning discharges (ouch) down the laser-ionized air.

    That could be a way to assassinate people and make it look like an "act of God" eh?

    --
  148. where? by mausmaki · · Score: 0

    Where can i get one of these?

  149. If i remember correctly.... by daclink · · Score: 1

    its not just visible light you can bend with these things (unlike magnifying glasses), if you make the rings the correct width you could focus any wavelength of light. E.g. microwaves :)

    daclink

  150. TV enlarger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It looks like those plastic magnifying things you could get out of the back of magazines to "Enlarge your TV" I remember seeing one in some guys trash (I was a kid 79'ish). When I didn't think it would be good for anything I left it leaning against an old black metal water heater, same trash pile. When I got home from school the water heater was at the other end of the block, about 40 yards. Now it all makes sense.

  151. I got one from Grandstand "Astro Wars" by ayjay29 · · Score: 1

    If you have one of these (Grandstand Astro Wars) lying about, you'll find a great fresnel lens inside. I was a kid when I discovered it, so I'm not sure of the dimensions, but it was danm powerful. Even in England, it could set wood alight easily.

    --
    Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated up.
  152. solar cell concentrator? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Informative

    This lens, or the current replacement model (35" radius) at $225, seems cheaper than a m^2 solar cell. How about mounting the lens over a small cell? Where can I find the efficiency curves for solar cells, graphed across the total incident light wattage? If the curve peaks above the ~400W:m^2 incident on my roof at noon, I can mount the cell to intersect the cone of focused light, along the way to the focal point. Judging from the experimental results at the "Fresnel Destruction" site, the focal point itself probably offers "nonlinear" power transfer (exploding cell). But somewhere in between might be a cheaper solar collection array. OTOH, if cells' max transfer efficiency is at below 400W:m^2, maybe it's time to consider this concentrator on a glass/water->steam/turbine. In which case, where are the efficiency curves for that apparatus?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:solar cell concentrator? by cr0sh · · Score: 1
      As you note, use of a concentrating lens (or mirror setup, either way) on a solar cell, if at the focus, will quickly lead to the destruction of the solar cell. We are talking major heat at the focus - larger lens and mirror arrays can easily heat steel to the melting point - a solar cell would have no chance.

      If you wanted to pursue this, though, you could use the lens to focus more light on the cell(s), provided that the cells are not at the focus, but are in front of or behind it, then mount the cells with heat conductive epoxy to a large heat sink (depending on thermal transfer rates, the heatsink may be either passive or active, if active, air-cooled or water-cooled). There have been experiments using these systems, but most have been abandoned because of the need to have an expensive and heavy (not to mention difficult to design) tracking system to track the sun from sun-up to sun-down (dual-axis tracking with end-of-day return to home).

      If you wanted to use the focal point heat to change to electricity direction, look into building thermopiles - these can be built from various metals welded together (find a set of old Popular Mechanics Do-It-Yourself encyclopedias - ST-TI, page 2646, "Fun With a Homemade Thermopile") - use the heat of the solar concentrator on the the pile to generate electricity.

      These piles work on the peltier principle - two disimilar metals, when heated, produce an electric current (similarly, when electricity is run through the wires, one wire gets cooler, the other hotter - which is why you should never use copper and alluminum wire together in a high-current electric circuit, like in houses, because of fire issues - this is also the principle behind a peltier cooler, BTW, but I don't think you would get much output if you used such a device in reverse, but hey - give it a shot!).

      Finally, on the steam generator - you won't get great efficiency - you need to generate the steam, then pipe it away from the concentrator to the turbine or engine, which will incur heat losses through the piping. Then the mechanical losses, and finally the losses inherent in the generator. If you got 20% efficiency, I would be very surprised. I am not trying to discourage you, though - remember, any efficiency is good efficiency when it comes to solar, simply because the "fuel" (or input energy) is free - if you are only getting 20% efficiency, then build five collectors!

      All of these designs have the issue of needing to track the sun - not impossible to build, but not easy, either. The electronics are dead simple, but the drive mechanism can be a pain because it has to move so slow. Then there is skew and "hunting" issues (though at the slow speed these are less likely to show).

      --
      Reason is the Path to God - Anon
  153. 1hp = 746 W by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I came up with a general number -- 1.5 kilowatts, this is about the amount of energy you would need to propel a small car (like a volkswagon beetle, old variety). This is about the same as a small gasoline engine could provide.


    According to google's calculator, it takes 746 watts to make one horsepower. That means 1.5 kW is barely more than two horsepower. You might be comfortable driving a car with a two horsepower engine, but I certainly am not, and I doubt your state licencing agency would be, either. FWIW, the honda insight hybrid (considered by many to be an example of sacrificing power for efficiency) has a combined horspower of 73 horsepower; i.e. approximately 54 kW. That's what it takes to power a tiny, ultra-light (all aluminium) vehicle safely on US roads.
  154. Sony projection televisions have the best... by mrmeval · · Score: 1

    The front lens on a Sony PTV is the lenticular, it can be thrown away after seperating it from the freznel behind it.

    It is clearer than any other lens used in rear projectors. They were also MUCH heavier than any other manufacturers.

    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
  155. Re:wtf by Liquid+Len · · Score: 1

    Maybe you'll be happy to know that in french, it's pronounced "Fre-Nel". The "s" does not have any function.

  156. Not one geek thought of a Forge???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, atleast one person would have thought you could hit a large ceramic crucible that had some carbon soot at the focal point and refine some ore with it the very least some old truck springs to melt down and cast into a mold...

    Lasers and Solar energy how pathetic!

    Check out PopSci they tweaked a microwave oven to turn into a VERY hot kiln....

  157. Fresnel lenses for telescopes by Auriam · · Score: 1

    Actually, I see a lot of people disclaiming the idea of using lenses for telescopes (too heavy, fresnels don't focus well, mirrors are cheaper and lighter) - however, this page (at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) describes a concept for a space telescope using a *five-meter* segmented fresnel lens as the objective, two spacecraft separated by a few km, and a smaller (movable) lens as an 'eyepiece', in effect creating a huge refracting telescope. Quote from the site: "Diffractive telescopes using Fresnel lenses fabricated on thin membranes offer several advantages over telescopes using mirrors; thin membrane lenses are lightweight, packageable and space deployable. Transmissive diffractive lenses are much less sensitive to surface deformations compared to mirrors, and the chromatic effects due to the diffractive primary can be completely compensated for." So, there's a use for 'em - cheap, large-scale space telescope objective lenses which are relatively robust compared to mirrors - no "Hubble trouble" with these. And if manufactured in segments, as LLNL is doing, it's easy to create *very* big lenses which fold up into a small space..

  158. Fresnel lenses for space telescopes by Auriam · · Score: 1
    I see a lot of people discrediting the idea of using lenses for telescopes (too heavy, fresnels don't focus well, mirrors are cheaper and lighter) - however, this page (at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) describes a concept for a space telescope using a five-meter segmented fresnel lens as the objective, mounted between two spacecraft (separated by a few km - now that's a big focal length!), and a smaller (movable) lens as an 'eyepiece', in effect creating a huge refracting telescope.

    Quote from the site:

    "Diffractive telescopes using Fresnel lenses fabricated on thin membranes offer several advantages over telescopes using mirrors; thin membrane lenses are lightweight, packageable and space deployable. Transmissive diffractive lenses are much less sensitive to surface deformations compared to mirrors, and the chromatic effects due to the diffractive primary can be completely compensated for."

    So, there's a use for 'em - cheap, large-scale space telescope objective lenses which are relatively robust compared to mirrors - no "Hubble trouble" with these. And if manufactured in segments, as LLNL is doing, it's easy to create *very* big lenses which fold up into a small space.. take a look at the demo lens at the bottom of the page.. wonder how many pennies THAT thing'd melt. ;)

  159. Searchlight reflector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I used to have a surplus searchlight reflector about 28 inches in diameter. I never made a mounting for it, just angled it approximately. To aim accurately, I held a twig and passed it through where I thought the focus was; it ignited, and I blew out the flame. The smoke made a 3-D shape that made it quite easy to aim accurately (until the earth's rotation threw off the aim again). I burned some slate with it, but the spatter stuck to the glass...

    Enby in Waltham

  160. It is illegal to destroy currency by fingerfucker · · Score: 1

    As far as I know, it is illegal to destroy currency, whether paper or coin (in the U.S. that is) and I believe similar laws are standard in most developed countries.

    ----- Title 18 United States Code, Section 331 Whoever fraudulently alters, defaces, mutilates, impairs, diminishes, falsifies, scales, or lightens any of the coins coined at the mints of the United States, or any foreign coins which are by law made current or are in actual use or circulation as money within the United States; or Whoever fraudulently possesses, passes, utters, publishes, or sells, or attempts to pass, utter, publish, or sell, or brings into the United States, any such coin, knowing the same to be altered, defaced, mutilated, impaired, diminished, falsified, scaled, or lightened - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both ----

    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/331.html

    http://www.usmint.gov/consumer/18USC331.cfm

    Original research on this topic: here

    1. Re:It is illegal to destroy currency by Markarian421 · · Score: 1

      The key is "fraudulently" -- I can't imagine what fraud one could commit by modifying currency with a giant Fresnel lens? It's been long established that modification of currency for purposes of art are permitted.

    2. Re:It is illegal to destroy currency by fingerfucker · · Score: 1

      One could convert one foreign currency to another. Literally.

  161. Augustine Fresnel by boristdog · · Score: 1

    Funkadelic! I was just reading about Augustine Jean Fresnel last night. You know his brother wrote the story that became the famous opera "Carmen"? He developed Fresnel lenses while working at a lighthouse. Died of tuberculosis. Here endeth the lesson.

  162. PLEASE PROVIDE "BUY NOW" LINK. by ClioCJS · · Score: 1
    My fresnel lens is only 14 inches, and I got money burning a hole in my pocket.

    But I could be burning that hole in my pocket with a fresnel lens. PLEASE PROVIDE ORDERING LINK.

    --
    -Clio
    Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
    Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com