Slashdot Mirror


19-Year-Old Makes Homemade Solar Death Ray

An anonymous reader writes "Concentrated solar power has the potential to generate immense amounts of energy — but it can also be amazingly destructive. American student Eric Jacqmain has assembled over 5,800 mirrors into his own parabolic 'solar Death Ray'."

317 comments

  1. Mythbuster 3.0 by martijnd · · Score: 2, Informative

    Looks like the mythbusters can redo this myth one more time.

    1. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by juasko · · Score: 1

      Just my toughts to, I'm pretty sure mythbusters could succed on many oterh things they busted with some engineering.

      I would e.g. love to try to stop a moving vechle again with duct tape. They really taped that ductape fence so it would break. I'm pretty sure I would be able to tape it differently so that i would take that inpact. Either braking the concrete again or stopping the car. But I'm sure if correctly taped neider the duct tape or the concrete would break.

    2. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by Antarius · · Score: 0

      My first thought exactly.

      But then I realised: They argued that it wasn't possible with the technology available at that time.

    3. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by Kokuyo · · Score: 2

      Which is bullshit. All this dude needed was a parabolic dish (and Archimedes WAS a mathematician) and reflective material. Polished metal would probably have done the trick. The mirrors on this dude's project aren't perfectly clean, either. Any imperfections due to less reflective materials could have been compensated by a larger size.

      The only problematic thing is the focal point. Having it at a fixed distance isn't ideal for attacking movable objects.

    4. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by J_Darnley · · Score: 1

      Solar Ray 3.0 has already been done. They still couldn't set fire to the boat/sail.

    5. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by arivanov · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That is why the legend says soldiers with polished sheets of metal. From there on the quality of aiming at the focal point depends on how good is sarge with the baton and the "give me 80 pushups in full gear" aim correction method.

      Realistically a trained squad can aim and keep aimed around 40-80. Probably a 100 tops. That is more than enough to blind _ANYONE_ on the attacking ship in the days before sunglasses. I doubt that this would have been enough to set it on fire though. In any case, with the captain, skipper and most of the crew blind while facing catapults throwing burning tar buckets and 1m diameter stone balls the ship was as good as burning anyway.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    6. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by somersault · · Score: 2

      I'm sure if correctly taped neider the duct tape or the concrete would break

      That depends a lot on how fast the vehicle is moving.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    7. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by davaguco · · Score: 0
      --
      Please google and research "peak oil" a bit. You will discover this crisis is a lot worse than they have told you
    8. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by CProgrammer98 · · Score: 5, Funny

      That depends a lot on how fast the vehicle is moving.

      Is that an African or a European vehicle?

      --
      And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour Isaiah 3:5
    9. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by aBaldrich · · Score: 1

      AND how heavy it is.

      --
      In soviet russia the government regulates the companies.
    10. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by Zemran · · Score: 2
      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    11. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      They're kind of hit-and-miss in the science department. The most glaring example to me was their "can a bullet fired into the air come down with enough force to kill" episode.

      I think they briefly mentioned at the end that there was something called a ballistic trajectory that might influence things. And that there had been several recorded cases of bullets coming down with enough force to kill someone.

      wtf guys?

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    12. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Every time someone (like the kids at MIT) thinks they've "proven" this myth, Jamie and Adam invite them on and they inevitably fail under real-world conditions (especially when they're forced to use ancient materials like polished copper).

      I don't know why people are so determined to believe this obvious myth/exaggeration as fact. Just because some ancient genius did amazing things doesn't mean that EVERY story about them is true.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    13. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by redemtionboy · · Score: 2

      I will believe the myths about Archimedes over the attempts of Jamie and Adam any day. They definitely are smart, but they are no Archimedes. This is a man who died as the result of refusing to leave the city as it was sacked by Romans because he was busy working on an equation. As such, any rumors of his greatness that we cannot currently prove, I will simply call it lost technology. There are so many things about ancient civilizations in human history that we know they did, but still can't figure out how they did it.

    14. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by frozentier · · Score: 2, Insightful

      wtf guys?

      The "WTF" is that it's not a bunch of scientists, it's just entertainment television and nothing more. There's some math and science involved, but the actual purpose of the show is just to have something fun and interesting to watch.

    15. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by rawler · · Score: 2

      I too have a problem with the many occasions where they "bust" a myth due to failing to reproduce, while there are credible documented occasions of it actually happening.

      That, and all the myths related to human performance, where an "X" gets to represent either an average X, or the best possible X. Especially when many of the myths includes some notion of super-human abilities. Congratulations, you just proved superman/santa-claus/hellboy doesn't really exists. Bravo.

      If nothing else, the amount of changed verdicts in the revisits shows pretty clearly that while fun to watch (when they doesn't mess up completely), Mythbusters isn't an exact science.

    16. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      wtf guys?

      The "WTF" is that it's not a bunch of scientists, it's just entertainment television and nothing more. There's some math and science involved, but the actual purpose of the show is just to have something fun and interesting to watch.

      It's frustrating though because they don't really emphasize that they are cutting corners on their "research" and they are usually very definitive when stating their conclusions. Also, the show is on the Discovery Channel, which gives it an air of legitimacy to the average individual.

      Why are we reading about this whole solar focusing thing every few months anyway? Did people not play with this "technology" enough when they were 5 years old and burning ants? At least give us a blurb about how they are using this concept to melt salt for energy generation and storage. Stories about 19-year-olds making "death rays" on some artsy-fartsy eco-architecture website is a little lowbrow, even for /.! Especially when the kid actually took the time to glue 5800 little mirror fragments to a satellite dish. You can buy a 24" parabolic mirror from Edmund Optics for $80. Or you can glue and polish a sheet of aluminum to the dish for $1.

    17. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by elrous0 · · Score: 2

      Okay...it's okay to love your ancient heroes, just don't LOVE your ancient heroes.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    18. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by Plekto · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Often they "Bust" something that they consider to be highly implausible or statistically unlikely even if there have been one or two cases of it actually happening. The show is focused upon "can this happen under normal or slightly abnormal circumstances" more than "if the right set of circumstances happen at the right time and everything goes as wrong as possible..."

      But concerning the solar "death" ray, the real issue was that while you can easily make one out of modern materials, they didn't have modern mirrors or modern optics 2000 years ago. They've taken this into account.

      Besides, where are you going to get to see a canon made out of duct tape?

    19. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      Because they used a bunch of untrained kids, not soldiers whose jobs revolved around burning things as a team. If you watch the netting, you can see that a lot of the kids were aiming stupid.

    20. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by GooberToo · · Score: 2

      "if the right set of circumstances happen at the right time and everything goes as wrong as possible..."

      Right, but that's one of the things they consistently screw up. They can't even maintain their own objective metric from show to show. All too often, things they manage to confirm they say, "busted", when in fact, its, "plausible". Furthermore, they've even had a few conclusions which they confirmed when in reality they showed it was busted. Its as if they don't even understand the material they've supposedly spent time demonstrating.

      Furthermore, when there is a lots of real world, documented examples, and their conclusion is "busted", when in fact its extremely, "plausible" and well documented.

      The truth is, using their own metric, they've clearly documented they have no clue what the hell, "busted", "plausible", and, "confirmed", mean. Perhaps for next Christmas, people should send them dictionaries.

    21. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 1

      I've never been content with their attempts at the death ray. I love mythbusters for the entertainment, but they're really bad at science. They leave out ALL KINDS of variables and possibilities, and seem to only want to test some particular specific implementation. They try to talk science, but there's really very little academic integrity or rigor to their testing.

      I thought it was especially odd that Obama came on the program, talked to them, said he "wanted them to revisit the death ray" and then they just redo the exact same experiment but with a bunch of kids, and then declare it busted yet again. Waste of time.

      --
      GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
    22. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by GooberToo · · Score: 4, Informative

      I had to follow up with an example that shows their stupidity.

      Bimp burns.
      Bimp with hydrogen burns fast.
      Bimp with thermite burns slower than just hydrogen but still burns considerably faster than simple material.
      Bimp burns super faster with hydrogen + thermite, which accurately reproduces historic tragedy. The conclusion of intelligent people is hardly surprising; accelerent do exactly that and thermite clearly works as an accelerent with hydrogen (likely the extra O being provided).Their conclusion - busted. WTF!?!?! But if you ignore their stupidity which is their "conclusion", the reality is, they absolutely "confirmed" the myth, which was thermite (their coating) played a significant role in the speed of destruction. Its literally impossible to view the material with any other conclusion and yet they believe they busted it. Seemingly, they came to a conclusion which isn't even remotely supported by the available material or their tests. WTF?!?

    23. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Realistically a trained squad can aim and keep aimed around 40-80. Probably a 100 tops. That is more than enough to blind _ANYONE_ on the attacking ship in the days before sunglasses. I doubt that this would have been enough to set it on fire though. In any case, with the captain, skipper and most of the crew blind while facing catapults throwing burning tar buckets and 1m diameter stone balls the ship was as good as burning anyway.

      I personally believe that you're hitting spot on. I believe they used the mirrors to blind people and allow for easier approach and application of Greek Fire. Then, the survivors simply saw mirrors being used, likely felt the heat and the temporary blindness, saw fire everywhere from the chaos, and assumed they were cause and effect. Likely those who were close enough to know the truth were too crispy to refute the new found myth.

    24. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      I remember reading a sci-fi book a long time ago, I think it was "Ringworld", where there were plants with shiny surfaces, that, if you were airborne over them, they would turn their leaves in response to your position, and actually focus the sun's rays on you, all of several hundred acres like that - instant crispy! Real dangerous.

    25. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by guruevi · · Score: 1

      And if he left, he could've done the equation all over again and not died and maybe gave us some more good things. Just because he was smart doesn't mean he was not an idiot. Also it doesn't mean because he was smart that he was a magician (although back in the day the difference might have been small), there is no evidence that he got really good mirrors and even if he did there is no way that a bunch of soldiers holding up mirrors would put a boat on fire. Yes it's possible to make a heat ray using the sun's energy especially with our technology but it's not possible at that distance against a moving target as it was recounted in the myth which is what the Mythbusters proved.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    26. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by HaZardman27 · · Score: 1

      I look at it purely as entertainment, and make my own decisions on whether their tests were conclusive or not. I believe the show still has some benefit based on it being much more intellectually stimulating to your average TV viewer than most of the trash people watch.

      --
      Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
    27. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Ironic that someone criticizing someone else for being stupid, cannot manage to spell "blimp" repeatedly.

      Watch http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbusters-clips-hindenburg.html again.
      The "myth" that they were testing (remember, this is formulated as a binary pass/fail for their show) is that it wasn't the hydrogen but was the skin that caused the blimp to burn as fast as it did.

      Using exactly the results you list:
      Simple fabric burns.
      Hydrogen with simple fabric burns.
      Thermite fabric (no H2) burns faster, but still not to the point of the event.
      Thermite + H2 = boom.

      Ergo, the myth that it was JUST the skin, was in fact busted.
      Jaimie discusses at the end that the skin clearly was an accelerant, and had a significant impact, but the specific of the myth was shown to be untrue.

      Not sure why this was too complicated to understand.

      --
      -Styopa
    28. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by matt_gaia · · Score: 1

      Yes, but if you remember the actual episode, which was re-run a month ago or so, they noted that the last burn was one that would *not* have been from a mixture that they would have applied to the Hindenburg (e.g. a formula loaded up with much more thermite than normal). Their last test was their usual "let's over-do the situation and see if we can blow some stuff up" test they keep for the end.

    29. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate them a little more every time someone mentions their name. Because they're too incompetent to reproduce results it's impossible. I can see them doing a myth on the Sistine Chapel, "Well we weren't able to reproduce the painting so ugh..Michelangelo didn't do it. BUSTED!"

      I hate them.

    30. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      I can see that. Though there are two parts to the myth. First, yes, can it be done at all, I think the answer is clearly yes, since this sort of solar furnace is used. The bigger question is... can it be implemented.... using nothing more than ingenuity and tools available to Archimedes?

      There are a couple of problems with it as a "Defensive Weapon". Aside from weather conditions, you need the ships to pass through the fixed focal point, or, you need the move the focal point to the ships.

      My problem with calling it busted is...it has been made to work. Clearly accounts of technical details, unless sketched and painstakingly documented by the principle inventor, tend to not get better over time. Was it soldiers with shields? Or was that a hasty description of some sort of mounted mirror device with a person working it. (for focus)

      I could imagine devising some sort of aiming device to take the angle of the sun into account to aim each mirror individually, if the device could allow a man to line up the spot without burning his eyes, then it seems that a stationary ship isn't even needed.

      However, if a ship can be set on fire in 10 minutes, then it can be set alight. The power of such a device increases with the number of mirrors, perhaps he just had a lot more of them setup than anyone has come to expect? Though, the observation that such a device could easily blind the crew of a ship is definite possibility too.

      Seems pretty doable to me.... at least, if you have a whole town full of people who are scared of the Romans... and leaders who are willing to listen to the smart guy.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    31. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I didn't know that knowledge of spelling was a measure of intellect.

    32. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      I could imagine devising some sort of aiming device to take the angle of the sun into account to aim each mirror individually, if the device could allow a man to line up the spot without burning his eyes, then it seems that a stationary ship isn't even needed.

      Please design and build such a device using materials available at the time. Assuming your soldiers have flat reflective shields, the device would just need to be designed so that the normal to the shield is facing a point exactly between the sun and the ship. Assume the ship is 500 meters away, and the shield is 1 meter across. Your soldier needs to hold the shield steady to 1 part in 1000, or 0.057 degrees (aka 3.4 arcminues). So you'll want the aiming device to be accurate to that amount. Remember, both the sun and the ship are moving, so this can't be a static aiming device. I think meshed brass gears and pivoting mirrors (unsilvered for the one pointing at the sun) are the way to go. No imaging optical allowed. Alignment to the shield is going to be tricky. Once you've got it built, contact Adam and Jamie, I'm sure they'll let you test it on the show.

    33. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well there's a lot you don't know. Now go sit in the corner and play with your crayons Johnny.

    34. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by scottv67 · · Score: 1

      I'm hoping that Jamie and Adam can talk Grant Imahara into building a robot that can review your posts for spelling errors.

    35. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by scottv67 · · Score: 1

      >to your average TV viewer than most of the trash people watch.

      I can not, in good conscience, stand idly by while you insult fine tel-uh-vision programming such as Sons of Guns. Sir, I demand satisfaction! We shall duel with silenced shotguns (or grenade launchers - it's your choice) at dawn!

    36. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by sexconker · · Score: 1

      King says "HEY Archimedes! Make me a weapon!"
      Archimedes says "Okay."
      Archimedes goes home and works on some shit for a while.
      Two months later he comes back to the King to present his new weapon.
      He passes out a dozen mirrors to the guards and has them aim them at the King.

      King says "WTF is this shit? It's slightly annoying."
      Archimedes says "Exactly! If we were outside in the sun, you'd have to close your eyes! And if we had 10,000 troops, we could set ships on fire! No army would dare approach our coast!"

      King says "...during a sunny, hot, dry day. Archimedes you fuckwit, this is the Mediterranean. And they'll be in the ocean. Go build me a mechanical ass fucker so I can punish you with it."

    37. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by kdemetter · · Score: 1

      Since you are talking about a duel , i was wondering :

      What would the effect be of placing 2 'solar death rays' against each other , in such way that the beams point to each other ?

    38. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe not, but being able to use the spell-checker is.

    39. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Can you think of a simpler, more obvious test?

      Certainly, there are brilliant people that couldn't spell at all, but as a preliminary immediate judge, yeah, it's one of the best yardsticks I can think of.

      --
      -Styopa
    40. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by JordanL · · Score: 1

      If you can't be troubled to spell check/type accurately, why should I be troubled to care about what you have to say? You clearly don't care about what you had to say enough to even hit a single button... and you expect me to consider the content?

    41. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 2

      If you had paid attention to what they demonstrated, you would have seen that a bullet fired straight up and then falling straight down, is subjected to gravity and the resistance of the air as it passes though it.

      The surface area of the bullet acts as a parachute, slowing the bullet to its maximum dropping speed. It also forces the bullet into a horizontal position.

      You'd get a nasty thump on the head from a .308 round, and would barely notice a .22 round hitting your head.

      The recorded cases of death are from bullets describing an arc from muzzle to impact. The energy of the bullet is maintained by the spinning of the round and that it's not expending it's kinetic energy by fighting against the pull of gravity and the friction of the air for the entire muzzle to impact time frame, as it would when fired straight up.

      The physics are simple enough. Unfortunately, the physics are not simple enough for the average American viewer.

      Drop a .308 bullet off a 20 floor, 50 floor or 100 floor building. It will hit the ground with the same force, as the terminal velocity will be the same.

      --
      Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    42. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by Rubinstien · · Score: 1

      I've only seen one of the episodes in which they attempted to set a boat on fire with a solar reflector. They did manage to make a lot of smoke, but no flame. There were a few obvious things that might have worked against the effort simply because they were *not* made from "ancient materials". The boat itself was wooden, but painted. Ancient boats would almost certainly have been coated entirely in pitch. They didn't nail things together then, they actually drilled holes through the planks and tied them together with cords, then coated the entire works in pitch to seal out water and to prevent rot (we use paint mostly for the latter purpose). If you've ever played with a lens and asphalt as a kid, you know it is relatively easy to set it on fire, compared to other materials. I used to take a dab of hot tar and put it on the side of an empty soda can, which made it then easy to heat that spot enough to punch a hole in the can and/or set the paint on fire.

      In other words, I don't think it is unreasonable to propose that they are missing some important variable.

    43. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by juasko · · Score: 1

      Yeah was typing on a Windows XP IE7 system used to Safari on OSX that have spell checks implemented, I know I'm in great need of them. MS just don't want to work my way.

    44. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by juasko · · Score: 1

      That is the principal of an lacer. But you would not achieve that with that

    45. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by juasko · · Score: 1

      Hey it's archimedes you'll talk about, probably much more clever than any on myth busters.

      Humans has gotten more stupid since that time, we have gathered more information and store more information. But in general ancient people solved problems on everyday basis that we today think we need rocket scientists to do.

      Just consider "who want to be a millionaire" question; what is bigger the moon or an elephant.

    46. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by juasko · · Score: 1

      Newton wrote backwards, and that is no myth.

    47. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by Plekto · · Score: 1

      It's not a matter of being clever. It's raw, hard science and engineering.

      You need to have an incredibly uniform and shiny surface, even if you have the shape and physics correct. This means one of two things has to happen:

      1 - You are using mirrors. This means that you need optically transparent glass. Unfortunately, their technology back then only allowed for essentially stained glass or the equivalent. (You can thank Egypt for this bit of technology, btw). So while they might have understood the concept, there was a massive technological hurdle to overcome.

      2 - You could do it with coating a suitable surface with something highly reflective, but that would require electroplating it to achieve the uniformity and shine that you'd require. polished refined metal just isn't shiny enough(say, bronze plates or similar). While there is some evidence that they *might* have possibly used primitive batteries for electroplating, nothing suggests anything of this scale was ever devised. We don't even have examples of them using it for jewelery, let alone industrial scale siege machines.

      My guess is that he created something like this to merely blind the enemies. Given that it would make you feel noticeably hotter in addition to blinding you and confusing you, a myth about it being a "death ray" seems likely given how superstitious people were back then.

    48. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Did people not play with this "technology" enough when they were 5 years old and burning ants?

      Yeah. I had a four foot Fresnel lens when I was a kid. I got hold of some firebrick and made a fairly capable solar furnace.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    49. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by PaladinAlpha · · Score: 1

      A fire.

    50. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      Right, but you're missing my point entirely. They were testing the "myth" that a bullet fired into the air could come down with enough force to kill someone. They tested this by simulating a bullet being fired and returning straight up and down.

      - They're changing the myth to suit their experiment, not basing their experiment on the myth
      - They're ignoring the body of preexisting documented evidence

      What they really tested was the "penny dropped off the Empire State building" myth, which I think they covered before?

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    51. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      wtf guys?

      The "WTF" is that it's not a bunch of scientists, it's just entertainment television and nothing more. There's some math and science involved, but the actual purpose of the show is just to have something fun and interesting to watch.

      It's frustrating though because they don't really emphasize that they are cutting corners on their "research" and they are usually very definitive when stating their conclusions. Also, the show is on the Discovery Channel, which gives it an air of legitimacy to the average individual.

      The average individual believes in astrology and the Gambler's Fallacy.

      In a world of popular TV designed to attract "the average" Darwin Award candidate, that makes the (flawed, incomplete, unrigorous) application of the scientific method which the MythBusters present a breath of fresh air. They're not perfect exemplars for science education, but they are a damned sight better than the overwhelming majority of the dreck out there. One of these days I'll have to watch more than 30 seconds of an episode of one of the CSI-family programmes so I can have a justified shouting-at-the-TV fit.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    52. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 1

      WIll a bullet fired into the air kill someone when it comes down.

      If it's fired at an angle, yes, it can. They explicitly stated that and cited some documentation for that fact.

      They did the preliminary experiment in an attempt to determine the terminal velocity of a falling bullet.

      The discrepancy between their results and reality led to the 'bullet fired straight up' experiment.

      Which demonstrated that a bullet falling straight down, even from a height of over ten thousand feet (if I recall correctly) has a decidedly non-lethal terminal velocity.

      Again, the physics of a straight up vertically fired bullet are radically different than that of a bullet fired at an angle. As they demonstrated.

      The physics are simple. As they demonstrated.

      --
      Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    53. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by juasko · · Score: 1

      They had silver, thay had glass, why do you think they where not able to produce highly reflective surfaces.

      Our class to day isnt' that transparent either. Just look at the edge of the glass, it's extremly green du to the amount of iron in it. The reason u think it's clear is that it's thin. There are more modern glass like optowhite, which is much clearer than our normal glass used in mirrors and windows. Optowhite glass you find that some Aquarium thank keepers use. It's light blue in color rather than dark green normal glass is.

      Electroplating is a basically chemical reaction well available back then, not sure though how well they had knowledge about it. Though alchemist of that time probably had knowledge of that allready. Try some sodium bicarbonate in some water and dip your silver into it. Check back after a while and see your shiney silver.

      And guess what Egyptians used sodium bicarbonate.

      We usually think way to little of our ancestors. But the real situation is that we have no idea today how they produced what they produced. Or how they where able to have knowlege about things that they had knowledge about. Today we are only speculating in how they built their constructions like the pyramids. But the truth is we have no clue at all.

    54. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by vandamme · · Score: 1

      I had a nice 18 inch parabolic mirror once. I could burn holes in aluminum cans. It's all about how good the focus is. Kind of useless, though; you couldn't cook food with it. Better to have a diffuse focus.

    55. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      But I bet he bothered to spell correctly. (Well, insofar as any spelling was standardized at that time.)

      --
      -Styopa
    56. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by Plekto · · Score: 1

      The glass that they made back then was highly opaque like stained glass, at best(and about as uniform). They simply lacked the technology to make anything remotely usable as either a lens or to make a functional mirror. That meant that they had to use polished metal(since we don't have any evidence of electroplating - and using sodium bicarbonate to clean and/or polish the silver is as best as they could have done)

      (from glassonline.com)
      "It was the Romans who began to use glass for architectural purposes, with the discovery of clear glass (through the introduction of manganese oxide) in Alexandria around AD 100. Cast glass windows, albeit with poor optical qualities, thus began to appear in the most important buildings in Rome and the most luxurious villas of Herculaneum and Pompeii."

      The issue is that the technology to make clear glass simply wasn't something that they had at the time. Opaque glass was known (since about 1500BCE), but let's say he had the idea to use blown glass somehow (which would have been clear enough).

      "A major breakthrough in glassmaking was the discovery of glassblowing some time between 27 BC and AD 14, attributed to Syrian craftsmen from the Sidon-Babylon area. The long thin metal tube used in the blowing process has changed very little since then. In the last century BC, the ancient Romans then began blowing glass inside moulds, greatly increasing the variety of shapes possible for hollow glass items."

      Archimedes lived from 287 BC – c. 212 BC.

      Mythbusters tried it, even with modern mirrors and simply failed. It would require modern materials and modern knowledge of math and science to achieve. As smart as he was, there's no way that he could have overcome all of the missing technology by himself.

      A good analogy to this is Tesla's famous "death ray". Supposedly he figured out how to make a particle beam weapon in 1937. But scientists using computers and technology that he didn't have at the time have tried for roughly seven decades to come up with something like it. With no results. I suppose some day(apparently within 20-30 years) we'll have the ability to make something like that, but the fact remains that it will require technology that simply didn't exist back then.

    57. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This is ridiculous. Spelling nazis will never think outside the box for anything, destined to live their robotic lives recanting others laws and will refuse to believe that these laws can be 'broken' right in front of their eyes. I'm so sick of your type, fueling so many on the internet to become like you, thinking they are helping the world by pointing out spelling mistakes. Some people just don't care about spelling, for the RIGHT reasons. Maybe you are mad on a level because your brain doesn't understand a lesson that transcends words, when pointed out in a different way than you are used to seeing. Think beyond your education to what is really happening here.

      Spelling (important as it may be to have your thoughts valued as worthy by members of big business, academia, etc) is not really as big of a deal as you spelling nazis make it out to be. What's important (IMO) is that you speak the truth and use correct logic in your arguments. People that seriously think that bad spelling is a sign of stupidity have failed to see the point of modern language: to describe your view to others as quickly and accurately as possible. If minor spelling mistakes cause you to fail to see the others point of view accurately, then yes that can be a problem. But if from the context you understand the misspelled word, PLEASE just move on and don't degrade the message and add to the blinding noise of the internet (or a conversation). Your argument that a statement with bad spelling should be devalued is like saying we should only value science that's written in English (or whatever language you understand without translation). Or to be more accurate in my analogy, its like saying that EVEN IF WE PROVED A THEORY CORRECT IN OUR LOGIC that the proof is incorrect because we made a mistake in the math (even if we can still prove it true with the correct math of course). Don't devalue logic due to translation problems. Basically you are saying that, if one is uncaring enough to not spell check, then one is uncaring enough to not use correct logic, which is a logical fallacy in itself. Think before you correct spelling. Is it really worth it to you? You can't undo the fact that it was typed or written wrong the first time. If the reader doesn't care enough about spelling, you don't have to read his argument. You can live in inorance to all that don't fit your definition of properly educated, or w/e you believe. But others might take what they can get from the post and try to see the other's point of view. Sorry for the rant, there are just WAY too many of you on the internet saying the same exact thing for what I believe are all the wrong reasons.

    58. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by Angeret · · Score: 1

      Yup, Ringworld it was. "Sunflowers" were slow moving but, like zombies, relentless in their onward march. The reason they crisped anything moving is that organic ashes made good plant food and generally there was enough live stuff in the plants' path to make for a good nutrition source by the time they got there. Nice system, nasty if you were in that path - but at least it would have been fairly quick. There was more about them in a followup novel "Ringworld Engineers". Awesome reading and a fair bet that HALO came from that concept.

    59. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      Right, but you aren't getting that

      1) the myth doesn't revolve around a bullet fired straight into the air, just into the air, since
      2) it would be impossible as a matter of practice for anyone to actually fire a bullet straight up without mechanical assistance

      which is exactly what they had. Measuring the terminal velocity of a falling bullet was a pointless exercise since it's a situation that would never actually occur except in a lab. Or, I guess, if you dropped the bullet off the Empire State Building =p

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    60. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      recanting others laws

      "others'". (Note the apostrophe.)

      academia, etc)

      "etc.". (Note the period/full stop.)

      see the others point of view

      "other's" or "others'", depending on whether you were referring ot a singular "other" or plural "others".

      live in inorance

      "ignorance".

    61. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      I'm not even sure why I'm continuing to argue against 'anon', but sure, why not? Mainly, my point is arguing with the "hey man, don't be a spelling nazi" crowd. In a sense, I'm arguing that one can care about spelling and punctuation without being a 'spelling nazi', and that epithet loses its currency when it's flung by someone who, in fact, cannot manage to spell correctly even if they try.

      1) the original post to which I was responding didn't simply disagree with their conclusions, it became an ad hominem attack by calling them "stupid". While they would probably agree that their show is PRIMARILY entertainment, it has a reasonable educational value, and I believe that they are fairly intelligent guys.

      2) the word "blimp" was misspelled. 5 letters. Misspelled FOUR times. This is not an onerous typographic task, that might commonly be 'cut-n-pasted' like "Polyethylene Terephthalate" that, if slightly misspelled, might be cut-n-pasted to repeat the error without notice.

      3) Thus it is with some irony that someone who would make such an error would accuse a widely regarded pair of individuals as "stupid". In fact, it's quite amusing.

      Look, you can type, or spell however you like.
      No amount of denial will change the fact that people will judge you by how you present yourself, and in terms of forum posts, your presentation is based on your spelling, grammar, punctuation, capitalization, etc.

      Pardon me for pointing it out, but your assertion that some people "...just don't care about spelling, for the RIGHT reasons..." Really? Because from here it's really hard to distinguish that from simple laziness.

      if i wer to rite this hole posst like this i mite be absulotley akurit but this riting styl sez that im vry lickely ithr a moran laze or both sinz i kant be bothrd 2 mak shur sumthin az triviale az speling iz kurect duz it reele sugist thet i spent much tyme makin shur mi arrggumint iz robust coherint end kumplit? knot hardle.

      You say that spelling is trivial, and doesn't matter as long as the logic behind the statement is sound. Perhaps that is even occasionally true. However I'd recommend against choosing 'bimp boy' as your advocacy poster child. You might have noticed before your 20-line screed, that after I pointed out the irony of his calling Mythbusters "stupid", I proceeded to show in clear fashion that his logic was badly flawed, based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the question/point, and he was quite simply wrong.

      So in this case, one might mention that the misspelling was in fact a clear indication that the poster was so busy getting upset at the 'stupidity' of Mythbusters, that he had failed to logically vet his point. Likewise, one might also point out that subsequent posters, by attacking the 'spelling comment' likewise simply illustrated their inability to catch the main point, being distracted (and apparently, incensed) by trivia not essential to it.

      --
      -Styopa
    62. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by operagost · · Score: 1

      Just consider "who want to be a millionaire" question; what is bigger the moon or an elephant.

      That's bogus, based on a chain email and a photoshop job. Irony.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    63. Re:Mythbuster 3.0 by BattleApple · · Score: 1

      1. Plausible: he thinks "bimp" is the correct spelling
      2. Confirmed: He doesn't know that the Hindenburg wasn't a blimp.

  2. Stay in School by jevring · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is what a science education lets you do. Stay in school kids!

    --
    Move sig!
    1. Re:Stay in School by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      I wonder if his parents would rather he were a little less resourceful if it would get them back the shed his 'invention' burned down according to TFA.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    2. Re:Stay in School by jevring · · Score: 2

      That shed is simply the cost of doing business. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs (or sheds, as it were). =)

      --
      Move sig!
    3. Re:Stay in School by TheMidget · · Score: 1

      You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs

      Or, more appropriately: You can't make an omelet without cooking a few eggs

    4. Re:Stay in School by blai · · Score: 1

      This is what the US education system let's you watch safely over a projector. Get out of school kids!

      --
      In soviet Russia, God creates you!
    5. Re:Stay in School by afidel · · Score: 1

      Dude I built a carbon arc furnace and used acetone and other fun chemicals to synthesize and purify buckyballs in high school, sorry your school/teachers sucked so much.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    6. Re:Stay in School by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It teaches plagiarism?

      http://www.cockeyed.com/incredible/solardish/dish01.shtml

      Way to copy Rob Cockerham, kid. And Rob just recently sold his version... kid should have just bought that one and saved a ton of effort.

    7. Re:Stay in School by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes you got to break some eggs to make an omelet. I think a parent would much rather their son burned down 5 sheds becoming a scientist than wandering the streets drinking and being a jackass.

    8. Re:Stay in School by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Stay in school, kids."

    9. Re:Stay in School by tobiah · · Score: 1

      Pfft. This is what self-taught science education lets you do. Schools teach theories based on experiments the teachers never did.

      --
      "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
  3. Lot of energy by Silpher · · Score: 1

    Looks like lots of energy to me, burning wood that fast how many watts will that take? glass is cheap, dishes are cheap, metal container to boil water is cheap. What's the usability of such energy producing machinery?

    1. Re:Lot of energy by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2

      I have seen back yard solar barbecues that size or larger. Its just a cheap parabolic mirror with a bracket at the focus. This one lacks the bracket but otherwise he could have just bought it in the shop.

    2. Re:Lot of energy by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's already in use - arrays of mirrors all pointing at a tower. The heat melts salt (which requires 538C minimum) which is then used to power steam generators.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy#Power_tower_designs

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    3. Re:Lot of energy by mrjatsun · · Score: 1

      > What's the usability of such energy producing machinery?

      It's amazing what you can do with 100+ year old technology... steam engine... generates electricity...
            http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/molten-salt-solar-plant/

    4. Re:Lot of energy by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Stirling Energy System's SunCatcher uses this system to drive a stirling engine mounted on a parabolic mirror. It always seemed like a better, simpler solution than photovoltaic cells to me.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    5. Re:Lot of energy by andydread · · Score: 1

      Primarily to scare the crap out of the incumbent energy cartel. It seems one could charge up an electric car pretty quickly with such a device. Just need to find a way to convert it into electrons.

    6. Re:Lot of energy by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      The fact that you need to drive the dish to track the sun, and convert mechanical energy into electrical makes it less simple that photovoltaic cells. The Stirling engine needs maintenance, the drive motors need maintenance, the continually flexing structure needs maintenance. The efficiency gains over photovoltaic might make it economic. Same with molten salt solar generators. Neither is simpler than connecting two wires for each cell and affixing them to a static surface.

    7. Re:Lot of energy by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
      Your western viewpoint is blinding you to the possibilities.

      An individual can build a sterling engine, a parabolic dish, and the tracking mechanism, very simple mechanics. You need big inudstry to produce pv cells.

      Sterlings and dishs require easily available low cost, easily recyclable materials. PV cells, well, i'm sure you know the story there.

      A sterling is about x2 as efficient as a pv cell, the amount of energy to turn a well balanced dish is negligible, depending on your design, you might have enough extra energy to mount the dish on your house and rotate your house!

      Sure the mechanical systems need maintenance, which can be done by one person, and is not extremely difficult either. PV cells need replacing

      So basically, a single well-informed individual can travel from village to village, setting up these power generators and teaching the people how to maintain them. If the village has a skilled metal worker even better, if not, then depending where in the world, you can introduce a new industry in the larger centers that do have metal workers. I'm in mexico right now and there's metal workers everywhere, though i think the jewelers would probably be the ones to ask to build sterlings.

      Personally, when i build my house, i'm looking into a flywheel for energy storage, which i like more than the idea of battery banks. The ideal would be to have most of the systems working off of mechanical energy, mainly because i HATE the sound of electricity, it drives me crazy, and because i find it ridiculous just how many motors people have in their houses.

    8. Re:Lot of energy by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      I meant that the manufacturing process for photovoltaics is more complex than that of a stirling engine (from what I've read, I'm no engineer though), solar panels also contain a lot of heavy metals and such which you have to take into account. There's probably a place for both because as you say there's nothing simpler than sticking solar panels on a roof, no one will be doing that with one of these SunCatchers.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
  4. nice device by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    reminds me of this : http://www.solarplaza.com/news/spain-abengoa-fires-up-worlds-largest-solar-tow

  5. Electricity? by conares · · Score: 0

    couldnt this be used to boost solar cells?

    --
    That, that really grinds my gears!
    1. Re:Electricity? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Solar concentrators are used for photovoltaic cells.

    2. Re:Electricity? by juasko · · Score: 1

      Well even better get that light lazerised you get one heck of a powerful lazer. Not sure though how that would be done. But I guess could very efficient if successful. Maybe with a prisma first to spearate different wavelengths and then generate lasers with a cluster of different wavelengths and energylevels and then finally allign all of them on one single spot.

      Anyone knowlegable enough in lazer technology to give some insights. Man you could shoot down satelites with that if you got it to work. Or you could burn down space waste.

    3. Re:Electricity? by ZombieWomble · · Score: 5, Informative
      I can provide the following insight: Lasers do not work that way.

      More specifically, there are two issues with your suggestion. Firstly, lasers are not power-limited by input light, but rather by the design of the lasing cavity and how efficiently it stimulates further emission. Many types do need a decent kick to get them going, but beyond that a bright source offers little or no benefit.

      Secondly, even if more input light was useful, this mirror doesn't actually provide that much power. It's just the use of the parabolic reflector to concentrate the energy into a small energy that makes it look impressive. Looking at the dish, it's a few square metres in area, at most. That's only a few kW of light in total, of which only a tiny portion is at any one wavelength which would be useful for pumping a laser. An appropriate pump laser or even a decent flashlamp would be vastly better than this for stimulating laser emission.

      Also, LASER. Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.

    4. Re:Electricity? by cynvision · · Score: 1

      This IS the sort of Green Tech President Obama wants America to invent. Why is everyone down on the idea? Because it's a "hippy" solar collector? And they've been around fifty years getting the "it's a hippy toy" rap? I say this just needs a second invention to be applied to it in order to charge batteries, steam-purify water or heat a home's hot water.

      --
      "I got it all together but I forgot where I put it."
    5. Re:Electricity? by ZombieWomble · · Score: 3, Informative
      There is no doubt that such lasers are possible, but they are not efficient or easy to build - the mirror system in the example referenced in Wikipedia is 40 m high, not a trivial engineering feat.

      And, bearing that size in mind, a quick back of the envelope suggests that 1 MW is the input power of the light, not the delivered power of the laser. A quick search doesn't turn up any papers or detailed articles relating to this solar tower specifically, but other examples of such solar-pumped NdYAG lasers suggest a conversion efficiency of about 10 W laser power/m^2 of mirror, or about 1% of the incident radiation [1].

      So, assuming that lasing efficiency for this system, this is not a 1 MW CW laser, but a 10 kW CW laser pumped with over a megawatt of input power, which necessitates significant cooling to keep the thing from melting. Compared to traditional laser designs, this is still not that impressive, especially given the effort involved in its manufacture.

      [1] A solar-pumped Nd:YAG laser in the high collection efficiency regime

    6. Re:Electricity? by juasko · · Score: 1

      Well, to me in this case with the lazer is to get the photons to travel in same direction. A parabola gives a a burn point or what ever it might be called in english. You know anyway what i mean. But with any tech lacer or not. to cause from that point have the light to travel in a straight line, in a "beam". As traditional lasers or not. I guess the less complicated the more powerful.

      But only getting 10 kW from 1MW isn't that efficient. And for sure would have heating trouble. What is needed is rater to get a beam that has a 99% efficiency.
      parabole
      Well not enough knowledge about how laser is produced, I only know it's characteristics. Still if able to get that light to travel in a beam it would still be powerful enough. Would it be possible to create a prisma that converts the light from a parable source to a beam? This would probably be quite a complex prisma. Considering that the light would scatter in it but also that the input light would have different input directions.

      Anyone good enough in 3D geometry calculations?

  6. Well... by golden+age+villain · · Score: 1

    The 19-year old claims that his solar device has the intensity of 5,000 suns.

    Yeah right! Sure!

    1. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you do the math to disprove it?

    2. Re:Well... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Yeah right! Sure!

      Yes indeed it has, so what is your problem with it? Go read TFA and go watch the movie ... sigh

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    3. Re:Well... by sjwt · · Score: 1

      It looks likes from the pictures and video that the focus area is about 6-8 times larger then the mirrors.

      5800/6 = 966.6...

      Now i'm sure the spreed isn't 100% even, but you could most likely call it at 2-3k

      --
      You have 5 Moderator Points!
      Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
    4. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't. There's a big difference between the concentrated light of a few rays at ground level, in atmosphere, vs. the concentrated power of entire stars.

      The kid is full of crap. He saw the solar power stations, thought "I could try that", stuck mirrors on a satellite dish, and found it actually did burn stuff. Now he's talking it up. Big deal.

      But it does show that existing, cheap tech might be more useful for small scale home solar power.

    5. Re:Well... by Fleetie · · Score: 2

      The concentrated spot of light cannot even be quite 1 x the brightness of the sun. Never mind ">5000 times brighter". The laws of thermodynamics say so. You cannot focus an image of a light source so as to make the intensity at that focus more intense than the light source itself. Kudos for good execution of his idea, but that ">5000 times brighter" claim is just plain wrong.

      --
      "Absorbing your worst..."
    6. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There's a big difference between the concentrated light of a few rays at ground level, in atmosphere, vs. the concentrated power of entire stars.

      Intensity, you retard. It's 5,000 times the intensity of the sun, as experienced here on Earth.

    7. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe they mean 5000 times more intense than the apparent intensity of the sun at the same location.
       
      Let's say the sun's light produces 100 units of sunlight per square meter. Now, imagine a parabolic mirror that spans 10 square meters, focusing all that light into a 1 square meter point. Now, we have 1000 units of sunlight in that square meter. 1100 if the suns out. 900 if we assume that 20% of the light is lost in the reflection process.
       
      That right there? 9-11x the brightness of the sun.

    8. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe a more accurate description would be "5000 times power per unit area". What would that be called, luminous flux?

    9. Re:Well... by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 2

      The 19-year old claims that his solar device has the intensity of 5,000 suns.

      Yeah right! Sure!

      Doesn't he know no one will care until it's over 9000 ?

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    10. Re:Well... by Sockatume · · Score: 1
      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    11. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The claim may or may not be accurate, but it's certainly possible. Brightness is generally measured per unit of area, meaning that if you just reduce the area (by concentrating it) you can certainly get something brighter. Perceived rightness also depends on distance (it decreases by the inverse square law) so if you're a lot closer to this than you are to the sun it can certainly be brighter in that way as well.

    12. Re:Well... by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 2

      Well, in reality, it only requires a little reading and some common sense.

      Considering that only 705 Watts fall on a square meter of the earth, and calling this dish a square meter is generous, he has roughly a poorly-focused 700W light source.

      Even if this was in space, it would only have 1336 Watts of power.

      The entirety of Earth only receives 174 Petawatts from the sun.

      The approximate luminosity of the sun at its location is 384.6 Yottawatts.

      Nice try kid, this thing is neat, but don't go hyperbole on us and claim that it has 192,300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Watts of power.

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    13. Re:Well... by MattSausage · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that you can't use reflection of the sun to heat up a point on earth any higher than the temperature of the sun, because then you get a reversal of energy transfer... effectively the hot point on earth starts emanating energy that is reflected back towards the sun.

    14. Re:Well... by BenSchuarmer · · Score: 2

      My death ray goes up to 11,000

    15. Re:Well... by Fleetie · · Score: 1

      No, you cannot "get something brighter".

      --
      "Absorbing your worst..."
    16. Re:Well... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      5800 mirrors all focused on the same spot is over 5000 times normal incident sunlight.

      (Assuming he used decent mirrors and not shards of a CD or something like that...)

      --
      No sig today...
    17. Re:Well... by jvkjvk · · Score: 1

      You cannot focus an image of a light source so as to make the intensity at that focus more intense than the light source itself.

      What exactly do you believe a laser is, then?

      I claim that it produces a beam of light at a much greater intensity than the input light source of the same wavelength.

      What did you believe you were tyring to say with the statement?

      Regards.

    18. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5800 mirrors all focused on the same spot is over 5000 times normal incident sunlight.

      (Assuming he used decent mirrors and not shards of a CD or something like that...)

      And if he used 10000 mirrors one half the area of the original would it be 10000x normal sunlight? Would a million super tiny mirrors make it a million times brighter? There's a limit to how much brighter you can make it and 5000 is far past that limit already with his size collector.

  7. Sunstroke by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2

    You could get a nasty case of sunstroke from that thing.

  8. It's a bit redundant though by thewils · · Score: 2

    I mean the focus is close enough that he could kill anything anyway by smacking it over the head with the reflector. Be nice if the focus was a bit further away.

    --
    Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
    1. Re:It's a bit redundant though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and it will not help him when I attack with my freeze-gun on a cloudy winters-day!

    2. Re:It's a bit redundant though by NotASerialKiller · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bludgeoning a tied-down victim isn't nearly as satisfying as listening to his wails of protest combined with the sweet smell of burning flesh.

    3. Re:It's a bit redundant though by digitig · · Score: 5, Funny

      What, you mean the victim is a vegan and you've invited him to a BBQ?

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    4. Re:It's a bit redundant though by DMorritt · · Score: 0

      [citation needed]

    5. Re:It's a bit redundant though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It looks like he used a satellite dish to mount the mirrors, and small dishes like that have short focal points.

    6. Re:It's a bit redundant though by JTsyo · · Score: 1

      That's the same error all the Bond villains made too. If they just bludgeoned him, he wouldn't have escaped from his death.

    7. Re:It's a bit redundant though by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      God is that you? I'll make sure to burn you some flour to tide you over.

    8. Re:It's a bit redundant though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TMMD! :D

    9. Re:It's a bit redundant though by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      actually these would be much more fun if combined with a steam or stirling engine, combined with an energy storage(lifting water to a high container or whatever).

      without it, it's just something 10 year olds could do and regularly do and doesn't do much. but the energy source is there and could be used to accumulate energy and to store it, with relatively cheap components.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  9. Obligatory pedantic comment by wdef · · Score: 1, Informative

    Solar power does not "generate" energy. Energy is liberated by conversion from mass through nuclear reactions in the Sun. Solar power collects and transforms radiant energy into heat and then into useful work, like burning something up.

    Well I did warn you, you didn't have to read it!

    1. Re:Obligatory pedantic comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Solar power collects and transforms radiant energy into heat and then into useful work, like burning something up.

      Solar energy IS heat and light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation.

      YOU started that pedantic thread!

    2. Re:Obligatory pedantic comment by noidentity · · Score: 2

      My thought exactly. This merely focuses sunlight. It doesn't generate any energy, or even convert it for that matter.

    3. Re:Obligatory pedantic comment by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but the mirror array is doing nothing to generate energy. The SUN generates the energy, and the mirror array simply takes a cross section of standard solar flux density and makes it smaller. Since energy is conserved, when the cross sectional area for a given energy flux gets smaller, the energy flux density gets larger, so that the same amount of energy is flowing through the cross sectional area.

      That's the only thing happening here. It's a slightly lossy conversion of the solar flux cross section.

    4. Re:Obligatory pedantic comment by jdogalt · · Score: 1

      To correct you- your comment, like mine, was pedantic, but not obligatory.

  10. Archimedes already did this.. by intellitech · · Score: 3, Informative

    Like ~2,000 years ago. Talk about an old story.

    --
    vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
    1. Re:Archimedes already did this.. by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Not quite. It's more like his enemies at that siege said he'd done that, and no one's been able to replicate it since, unlike almost every other crazy machine Archimedes figured out.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:Archimedes already did this.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember seeing these things on beyond 2000 and 321 contact as a kid.

      Think you can still buy them. There are many models.

      http://sciencekit.com/product.asp?pn=IG0023376

      Building a static model has been know to work for a long time to heat things up. It is used in solar furnaces and electrical generation too. Guess if you were really bored you could make something like this.

    3. Re:Archimedes already did this.. by laejoh · · Score: 1

      Archimedes the Burninator!

    4. Re:Archimedes already did this.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Despite this being a tech. news site, the more press of youth being creative with scientific projects, the better. $Deity knows the US needs it!

      I'm glad you're quip about obsolescence and re-inventing the wheel got mod'd so high. It exemplifies exactly what is wrong with some of the readership here.

    5. Re:Archimedes already did this.. by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Busted :)

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  11. 5,000 suns? by Andy+Smith · · Score: 1

    "The 19-year old claims that his solar device has the intensity of 5,000 suns."

    Surely it has the intensity of 5,800 x the amount of solar energy collected by a tiny mirror 93m miles away from the sun?

    Also lol @ it being destroyed in a shed fire -- I wonder how that came about? :-)

    1. Re:5,000 suns? by c0lo · · Score: 2

      "The 19-year old claims that his solar device has the intensity of 5,000 suns."

      Surely it has the intensity of 5,800 x the amount of solar energy collected by a tiny mirror 93m miles away from the sun?

      It is the intensity (in W/sqm) not the energy or power. Given that he uses 5800 small mirrors concentrating the radiation on 1 sq.cm... here you go.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    2. Re:5,000 suns? by Andy+Smith · · Score: 1

      Thank you! I stand corrected :-)

    3. Re:5,000 suns? by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      "The 19-year old claims that his solar device has the intensity of 5,000 suns."

      Surely it has the intensity of 5,800 x the amount of solar energy collected by a tiny mirror 93m miles away from the sun?

      Also lol @ it being destroyed in a shed fire -- I wonder how that came about? :-)

      It shed its shed.

    4. Re:5,000 suns? by tantaliz3 · · Score: 1

      Also lol @ it being destroyed in a shed fire -- I wonder how that came about? :-)

      Probably his mom. lol ...or the NSA, or the school system...

  12. Questions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if I took a picture of it with my flash on?

    Would I be vaporized or at least slightly singed?

    Speaking of which...

    How did they even take a picture of it without burning to death?

    1. Re:Questions? by sjwt · · Score: 1

      doubt it, as the point source of the light when it is produced is smaller then the focal point, and all the loss and non-directed light.

      --
      You have 5 Moderator Points!
      Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
  13. Title is little misleading, to say the least. by dr.Flake · · Score: 1, Insightful

    5800 mirrors, the size of fingernails. Glued on an already parabolic disc.

    Couldn't he just have spray canned it with some reflective paint??

    I imagined at least 10x10cm mirrors. Now that would have been "solar power".

    wake me up when he heating his house with this. This little satellite disc is kids stuff.

    --
    Why are other peoples sig's always more witty ???
    1. Re:Title is little misleading, to say the least. by mangu · · Score: 3, Informative

      5800 mirrors, the size of fingernails. Glued on an already parabolic disc.

      He used an old satellite dish.

      Couldn't he just have spray canned it with some reflective paint??

      Or glued aluminum foil over it. Or chrome plated it. He chose the most cumbersome way. Everyone who works cutting glass gets some nicked fingers from time to time, imagine cutting 5800 tiny pieces.

      I imagined at least 10x10cm mirrors. Now that would have been "solar power".

      True, if there had been 5800 10x10cm mirrors. For the same surface size, the smallest the mirrors are the better focus he will get. Ideally, the surface should have an infinite number of infinitely small mirrors, i.e. it would be a smooth parabolic surface.

    2. Re:Title is little misleading, to say the least. by jovius · · Score: 5, Informative

      The tiny mirror pieces are from a mirror ball. Yes, I actually do go out sometimes.

    3. Re:Title is little misleading, to say the least. by noidentity · · Score: 2

      Dude, 5800 mirrors is nothing. I hold in my hand a solar death ray device that has probably billions of nanomirrors on it, each carefully aimed to focus light at a point.

    4. Re:Title is little misleading, to say the least. by psergiu · · Score: 1

      A spoon ? A wok ?

      --
      1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
    5. Re:Title is little misleading, to say the least. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your last parragraph is correct except for this "smooth parabolic surface"
      These small flat mirrors are the best way to go ( cost wise and practicality). A smooth parabolic mirror results in a lot of loss via scatter. It needs to be an almost perfectly shaped parrabollic mirror to avoid this and get a decent focus. This increased the cost dramatically. Thousands of flat "real mirrors" produce a better reflective surface and can be placed and focused at a specific point by hand.

      Heating rock and concrete to the point of glowing and melting tin is impressive for something this size, he is probably getting somwhere close to 1000W concentrated into a 1 - 2 cm area.

      Harvest the power.

    6. Re:Title is little misleading, to say the least. by mangu · · Score: 2

      he is probably getting somewhere close to 1000W

      Judging from the size of the reflector it's less than 500W. A small arc welder putting 25 amps at 20 volts will put out 500W on a small spot and melt steel instantly, so it's not such a big deal

    7. Re:Title is little misleading, to say the least. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This little satellite disc is kids stuff."

      umm last time I checked a 19 year old is still a "kid". I would like to see your adult projects: have a link?

    8. Re:Title is little misleading, to say the least. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how many "solar death rays" have you built, jack-ass? It's easy to belittle someone's accomplishment's while sitting on your ass. It's a lot harder to actually go out and do something.

    9. Re:Title is little misleading, to say the least. by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Or glued aluminum foil over it. Or chrome plated it. He chose the most cumbersome way. Everyone who works cutting glass gets some nicked fingers from time to time, imagine cutting 5800 tiny pieces.

      I have no idea how the guy stuck mirrors to the parabola, but I'd point out that you can buy mirrored mosaic tiles either loose or stuck to a net backing. So you might buy a 20x20cm square which has 15x15 tiles on it.

      So it's not necessarily that hard work - draw a cross in centre of parabola, apply glue to one quadrant, apply tile swathe over glue, tamp down, repeat for other quadrants, work outwards, wait to dry, death ray.

    10. Re:Title is little misleading, to say the least. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      The tiny mirror pieces are from a mirror ball. Yes, I actually do go out sometimes.

      apparently not since the seventies :D

    11. Re:Title is little misleading, to say the least. by asylumx · · Score: 1

      You can buy those mirrors fairly cheap at a crafts store (Michael's, Hobby Lobby, etc)

    12. Re:Title is little misleading, to say the least. by dr.Flake · · Score: 2

      Believe me,

      I do not want you to see my "adult projects"

      thats something for the privacy of the home, you pervert.

      seriously,

      what i meant to imply (and you obviously failed to grasp); Slashdot needs to filter away stuff that is far from impressive. If his mirror had had a diameter of 10m, than that would have been newsworthy for a 19-year old. I'm sure younger kids have achieved more impressive results than sticking some glass chips on a 1m metal plate.

      also, is 19-years not being an adolescent?

      --
      Why are other peoples sig's always more witty ???
    13. Re:Title is little misleading, to say the least. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of solar death rays... I wonder what would happen if you had a crowd of say 10,000 protesters each holding a flat mirror that's something like 8"x8" square... And before raising and aiming their mirrors in the mid-day sun, they wait quietly for their oppressor to address them in-person.

      Not that such a thing would ever happen, but it's fun to imagine.

  14. Not Convenient Enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To use as a pocket lighter. Moreover, it might ignite one's face if trying to light a cigarette. Thus, I see this as nothing more than lawsuit waiting to happen. You just know some idiot is going to roast his/her face and then blame it on this kid.

  15. World War 2 by bobbinspenguin · · Score: 1

    The Japanese spent ages working on a death ray in World War 2. How long til something like this ends up in active service?

    1. Re:World War 2 by ibbie · · Score: 1

      The Japanese spent ages working on a death ray in World War 2. How long til something like this ends up in active service?

      Something like this? :D

      --
      The wise follow a damned path, for to know is to be forsaken.
  16. This is retarded. by Seggybop · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So he got an existing parabolic dish (satellite receiver) and covered it in reflective material, inexplicably using thousands of tiny pieces of mirror instead of a simple, readily available sheet or coating, used it to burn some stuff for lulz, then left it out somewhere such that it started a fire and burnt itself up. Very pro. This is surely a wonderful, novel demonstration of human ingenuity and cleverness. =/

    1. Re:This is retarded. by Mathinker · · Score: 2

      > This is surely a wonderful, novel demonstration of human ingenuity and cleverness. =/

      Everyone is missing the real point --- in actuality, he only did it to be able to collect the insurance money on his (over-insured) shed without raising the suspicions of the investigators.

    2. Re:This is retarded. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're retarded, small focused flat mirrors are more efficient and less prone to scatter than a non perfect parabolic shape. Not to mention the reflectivity of actual mirror is far superior to any sprays or sheeting you could cheaply purchase. There is a reason the cells of production solar plants use flat mirrors that they combine to form a parrabolic array.

    3. Re:This is retarded. by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      He used lots of little mirrors scrounged from an old disco ball. That's probably easier than trying to get a good, smooth reflective sheet on a parabolic surface. All you need is glue and patience.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    4. Re:This is retarded. by SaroDarksbane · · Score: 1

      Everyone is missing the real point --- in actuality, he only did it to be able to collect the insurance money on his (over-insured) shed without raising the suspicions of the investigators.

      Great. Now, in addition to "Do you own any vicious, killer dogs?" and "Are there any trampolines on the property?", my homeowner's insurance questionnaire is going to include "Do you keep any solar death rays on the premises?"

    5. Re:This is retarded. by Seggybop · · Score: 1

      implying he didn't screw up the parabola geometry by adding the thickness of the mirror glass and end up with a worse setup than aluminum foil
      implying solar power plants don't use massive arrays in a fresnel type arrangement for the sake of manufacturing/setup convenience

    6. Re:This is retarded. by Phaedrus420 · · Score: 0

      Mirrors, like compact discs, reflect from the back side, so while the thickness of the glass might cause some refraction, the reflection is still happening close enough to the dish to far outperform foil.

      --
      And what is good, Phaedrus, And what is not good... Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?
    7. Re:This is retarded. by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      You're retarded,...

      No, what is retarded is making that statement, and the OP's title that "This is retarded", as well as all the moderators who bumped it up as Informative (an AC at that!). You don't need to be all carebear about it, offering the observations that the builder should/could have done it better would be Informative without making an ass. How about a little civility?

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  17. Not so great news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As people have already mentioned, this is nothing new. Gluing small mirrors on a preexistent parabolic surface is... tedious work, but nothing spectacular.

  18. This guy's been doing it longer and bigger... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check out this guys "Light Sharpener" project...

    http://www.cockeyed.com/incredible/solardish/dish23.shtml

  19. Power output by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sun power is ~ 1 KW/m*2 (full sun)

  20. Good way for self distruction... by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 2

    He said it was destroyed in a shed fire. He must have left it near a window in the shed. Now that's funny.

    --
    There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
    1. Re:Good way for self distruction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At around 0:48, he's dragging the dish around on the cart, with the dish aimed at himself. ... Seems like a decent way of setting your pants on fire, if you're not careful.

  21. Cool, but too scary for me to do. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a really cool toy, but way too powerful for me to be comfortable having it anywhere near me. It's like having a loaded gun in the house, except that there are no standard safety procedures to follow for storage and use. It'd be too easy to have a serious accident. Heck the kid even destroyed his shed with that very same death ray.

    1. Re:Cool, but too scary for me to do. by pisto_grih · · Score: 2

      How To Keep Your Solar Death Ray Safe:

      Step 1) When not burning things, keep your Sola Death Ray covered with an opaque fabric.
      Step 2) ...
      Step 3) Profit!!

    2. Re:Cool, but too scary for me to do. by eriqk · · Score: 1

      It's like having a loaded gun in the house, except that there are no standard safety procedures to follow for storage and use.

      Sure there is. Moving to Scotland would render it perfectly safe.

  22. PhEeew! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's nothing to worry about, everyone stay calm!

    And me thinking a 19yr old had a death ray to blow up the sun...silly me...

    Now excuse me i have to go drive my explosion death engine.

    1. Re:PhEeew! by quiet+down · · Score: 1

      Does that engine come with a car attached to it?

  23. Mythbuster 4.0 to be exact by sosaited · · Score: 1

    Actually they have already done it 3 times. First in 2004, then with help from MIT folks in 2006 and last being the recent "President's challenge".

  24. This does not belong on /. Front page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not news, me and my entire physics class made these in 11th grade and managed to fry steaks to an edible level.

  25. No adjustable focus point by captainpanic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The whole point of the death ray is to be able to adjust the focus point.
    The Mythbusters tried to set a boat on fire... which was assumed to be an enemy boat passing along the coast.
    You can't reasonably expect the enemy boats to sail exactly at the focus point of your death ray... or to either come closer or go further away in case they are not at the focus point of your death ray.

    This 19-year-old hasn't made the focus point adjustable... so you can't set a moving target at a variable distance on fire with it.
    Any dish shaped thing with mirrors has a focus point - especially satellite dishes - so this isn't exactly rocket science.

    1. Re:No adjustable focus point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If not adjustable, at least reasonably distant.

      Say 50 meters (~150 feet for metrically challenged).

      Less than that it's quite useless as a weapon.

      And of course Mythbusters tested whether a long-distance death ray could be built by Archimedes, with era's technology (polished bronze as mirrors, for instance)

    2. Re:No adjustable focus point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole point of the death ray is to be able to adjust the focus point.
      The Mythbusters tried to set a boat on fire... which was assumed to be an enemy boat passing along the coast.
      You can't reasonably expect the enemy boats to sail exactly at the focus point of your death ray... or to either come closer or go further away in case they are not at the focus point of your death ray.

      This 19-year-old hasn't made the focus point adjustable... so you can't set a moving target at a variable distance on fire with it.
      Any dish shaped thing with mirrors has a focus point - especially satellite dishes - so this isn't exactly rocket science.

      It didn't occur to you that you can move the mirrors to the correct distance? Also, a mirror that has the range necessary will also have a rather long near-optimum focal area.

    3. Re:No adjustable focus point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It didn't occur to you that you can move the mirrors to the correct distance?

      Most likely your target isn't going to sit still while you move to the correct distance, so you need to continually move the mirror in sync with the target. Good luck with that. Also, that's only going to work on flat, unobstructed land. No standing up on a hill trying to take our the enemy, because as soon as you back up they're no longer visible.

    4. Re:No adjustable focus point by value_added · · Score: 4, Funny

      You can't reasonably expect the enemy boats to sail exactly at the focus point of your death ray... or to either come closer or go further away in case they are not at the focus point of your death ray.

      What if you taunted the enemy first?

    5. Re:No adjustable focus point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      True; perhaps of limited use as an offensive weapon, but as a defensive weapon, if you can tempt the enemy into a channel they think is a weak spot...

    6. Re:No adjustable focus point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, and with jeers and public insults if you needed to use them as well...? That's gotta work.

    7. Re:No adjustable focus point by bkpark · · Score: 1

      This 19-year-old hasn't made the focus point adjustable... so you can't set a moving target at a variable distance on fire with it.
      Any dish shaped thing with mirrors has a focus point - especially satellite dishes - so this isn't exactly rocket science.

      Well, his *simple* prototype doesn't have that feature, but it is conceptually simple enough to implement, if technically complicated.

      One, the mirrors do not have to be on a dish-shaped thing; they just all have to have the correct angle at each position as if it were on a dish shaped thing. In actuality, they can be supported on a planar platform (see Fresnel lens for a similar concept).

      Two, once above point is established, each mirror can have a motorized kinematic mount behind it, to set the angle of that mirror correctly, for a desired focal point.

      Once you have these, you can adjust the focus within some reasonable limit—and the range of available focal length should be long enough to set a boat on fire (although all this is probably outside the capability of ancient Greeks).

    8. Re:No adjustable focus point by vaxius · · Score: 1

      What if the mirrors were glued to a flexible backing? Changing its shape moves the focal point. I have to try that out this Summer.

    9. Re:No adjustable focus point by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      The whole point of the death ray is to be able to adjust the focus point.

      It needs adaptive optics, like the mirrors they use on orbiting observation satellites. Let a radar and some software adjust the mirror to cook anything that comes into range. Of course, you'd have to fall back to Plan "B" on those cloudy afternoons.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    10. Re:No adjustable focus point by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      One, the mirrors do not have to be on a dish-shaped thing; they just all have to have the correct angle at each position as if it were on a dish shaped thing.

      It's about ten degrees Fahrenheit outdoors today, and as I was driving home (at about two miles per hour, traffic sucked) I passed by a trio of large office buildings, set in a semicircle. I felt a wave of heat, and it got very bright in the car. I looked over at the buildings, and saw the evening Sun reflected in a substantial number of windows. Fortunately it wasn't enough energy to do more than warm me up a little, but it was still a bit unnerving at that distance (several hundred feet, at least.) I have to wonder if architects concern themselves with where the reflected light from their creations ends up.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    11. Re:No adjustable focus point by bkpark · · Score: 2

      I don't know if they think about it, but it's actually been in the news recently. Apparently some hotel is built so perfectly for, ah hem, tanning their customers who happen to be in the pool area.

    12. Re:No adjustable focus point by PhilipTheHermit · · Score: 1

      Well, if it was me, I'd mount four metal arms at the compass points on the array. I'd have them converge just before the focus point, and mount a set of lenses there, to collect the light into a single beam. The first lens would refract the light so it was pointing forward, then additional lenses would set a new focal point somewhere in front of the device.

      I'd put the first lens just behind the focal point.

      What do you think?

      --
      Thus spake the master programmer:
      "When the program is being tested, it is too late to make design changes." (Tao)
    13. Re:No adjustable focus point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah like,"Nee Nee neer! come over here and sit for abit! Frommph! :-)

    14. Re:No adjustable focus point by benthurston27 · · Score: 1

      I did some physics behind the death ray they used at Mythbusters. It turns out all things considered the temperature of the cloth they were trying to burn scales linearly with the number of mirrors focused on it. They got the cloth to about 300 degrees and it needed to get to probably 500 so they just needed about twice as many mirrors to be sure. I sent it in to the website and never heard anything more about it. Basically the amount of solar energy a mirror can focus is a certain percentage of the total solar energy for a square meter, all the mirrors are directing that energy to about a square meter of cloth, and in the formula for increasing the temperature of the cloth the energy needed to go from 300 degrees to 600 was the same as from 0 to 300, so really they just needed twice as many mirrors.

  26. Wow, really slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oddly enough, the focal point is probably exactly where the feedhorn would be. Not really hard to figure out, especially when the satellite tv dish manufacturer has already done the engineering for you.
    And really this is the same principle as a magnifying glass, only bigger. Hardly "death ray" material.
    Create a parabolic with a focus capable of melting a car 50 meters away - then I'll be impressed.

  27. In other news by lul_wat · · Score: 0

    Sampenzus posts Idle article on Slashdot with misleading headline.

    --
    Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
  28. In the Himalayas... by slim · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In the Himalayas, parabolic mirrors around this size are commonly used to boil kettles of water for tea/cooking.

    It works at those altitudes, because the sunlight is more intense (less having been absorbed by the atmosphere), and because water boils at a lower temperature at the lower atmospheric pressure.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cooker#Solar_kettles

    1. Re:In the Himalayas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The purpose of boiling water is to make it hot. The actual boiling is a side effect. The fact that the effect kicks in earlier at higher altitudes is not an advantage. Saying "it works" because the water is boiling is missing the point. "It works" because it raises the water to a useful temperature, boiling or not.

    2. Re:In the Himalayas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same thing works at any altitude, it just might take a bit longer to get the water to boil.

    3. Re:In the Himalayas... by slim · · Score: 2

      True, although for making a cup of tea, you want the water as hot as you can get it, and boiling represents that temperature. I suppose you might say, you can't make a decent cup of tea at altitude, because you can't get the water hot enough.

      In cooking, you might be boiling the liquid in order to reduce it, and lower atmospheric pressure means you can achieve that with less energy.

    4. Re:In the Himalayas... by cynvision · · Score: 1

      Finally! A use for the DirectTV antenna left in my yard.

      --
      "I got it all together but I forgot where I put it."
    5. Re:In the Himalayas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say it works more quickly at those altitudes... would still work at sea level too, just takes longer (much longer if there are clouds.)

    6. Re:In the Himalayas... by witherstaff · · Score: 1

      There's a whole DIY field of solar cooker makers. With a simple box and a few feet of foil lined cardboard panels it's easy enough to do a slow roast meal, in a Michigan winter sunny day. For just a few bucks of material it's a fun build.

    7. Re:In the Himalayas... by rossdee · · Score: 1

      Exactly - I think Ed Hillary and his crew said you couldn't make a decent cup of tea on Mt Everest because of the low boiling point.

    8. Re:In the Himalayas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yah.. it works at sea level too, the above qualifiers have little to do with it working.

    9. Re:In the Himalayas... by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

      >> It works at those altitudes, because the sunlight is more intense... and because water boils at a lower temperature at the lower atmospheric pressure.

      And it works at sea level because the concentrated sunlight gets really fucking hot.

    10. Re:In the Himalayas... by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Then there's green tea.

    11. Re:In the Himalayas... by jdgeorge · · Score: 1

      >> It works at those altitudes, because the sunlight is more intense... and because water boils at a lower temperature at the lower atmospheric pressure.

      And it works at sea level because the concentrated sunlight gets really fucking hot.

      Well done. I wish I had mod points for you. :-)

    12. Re:In the Himalayas... by slim · · Score: 1

      >> It works at those altitudes, because the sunlight is more intense... and because water boils at a lower temperature at the lower atmospheric pressure.

      And it works at sea level because the concentrated sunlight gets really fucking hot.

      Alright, it works at altitude with a smaller collector :P

    13. Re:In the Himalayas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even for a decent cup of black tea you still want the water just off boiling.

      That said, my grandmother used to make her iced tea by boiling a four small cheap tea bags for 15 to 20 minutes, then adding a pinch of baking powder to offset the bitterness. After diluting to make a gallon, the tea is still dark enough that you can't see through the jug. But for cheap black tea, the end result is pretty damn good.

    14. Re:In the Himalayas... by slim · · Score: 1

      I'd say it works more quickly at those altitudes... would still work at sea level too, just takes longer (much longer if there are clouds.)

      Yeah fair enough. I should have said it works with a pretty small dish, in cold ambient temperatures, at an acceptable speed.

    15. Re:In the Himalayas... by buback · · Score: 1

      Well it will 'work' at any altitude on earth. It will just work slightly faster in the Himalayas.

    16. Re:In the Himalayas... by EMeta · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, common sources of fuel are much more rare/valuable at those altitudes, further increasing solar cookers' utility.

  29. Re:Obligatory pedantic question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does that complement definition leave for the actual "generation of energy". Is there any acceptable process that generates energy?

  30. Welcome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our new 19 year old, death ray equipped overlords.

  31. Homeland Security by Yuioup · · Score: 1

    Department of Homeland Security in three ... two ... one ...

    Oh wait. He's not a foreigner. Carry on.

    1. Re:Homeland Security by cvtan · · Score: 1

      We must immediately ban all mirrors before someone downs a plane with one of these!

      --
      Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
  32. Complicated and out of dated by lolop · · Score: 1

    He choosed a very complicated way to just build a solar oven ("four solaire" in french).
    http://www.google.com/images?q=four+solaire
    http://www.google.com/images?q=solar+oven

    Reading the new, I thought I will see a fool building a new solar plant in his garden... Like (in smaller size) the one in Spain (PS10), or the one in france (Odeillo).
    http://www.ecosources.info/images/energie_industrie/Tour-solaire-concentration-PS10.jpg
    http://www.heliome-solaire.fr/l_energie-solaire/utiliser-l_energie-solaire/four-solaire-odeillo.jpg

    Note: if its just to burn some stuff, my chidren use a magnifying glass and its enough.

    --
    -- Laurent Pointal
  33. Intensity of 5000 suns? by Lose · · Score: 1

    If it truely did have such capacity, I'm pretty sure it'd burn a hole in the atmosphere. It barely has the intensity of one.

  34. As a thought by symes · · Score: 1

    Would it be possible to pass the focussed light through a lens to make a concentrated ray? Or would the lens melt?

    1. Re:As a thought by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      Given the parabolic dish, it should already be pretty well concentrated at the focal point. If you wanted to move the focal point a bit, for whatever reason, you could place an appropriately sized lens a bit before the focal point, to either move it out a bit, or move it a bit closer.

      Whether or not it would melt would depend on how efficient the lens is. An ideal lens(100% transmission, no absorption, internal reflection, or other funny stuff) wouldn't even notice. A real lens, with less than 100% transmission, would end up eating some of the energy. Its behavior would depend on how good the cooling provided by its mount and the surrounding airflow is. If it reaches thermal equilibrium at a point lower than its melt point, no problem. If it doesn't, game over.

      A well cleaned glass lens nicked from some fairly high power application would probably shrug(a Real Serious fused quartz lens would likely shrug under almost any circumstances). A scratched or dirty plastic lens would probably melt. A small cooling fan might well make all the difference. When doing brute-force thermal engineering, forced air can frequently be substituted for elegance.

    2. Re:As a thought by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      you would need a very, very clear lens to do that, and you would have to keep it clean since any dirt or fogging on it would gather heat and start a cascade of damage

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  35. Here's the plan... by loonyjuice · · Score: 1

    We get the warhead and we hold the world ransom for... ONE MILLION DOLLARS!

  36. It can't be a death ray... by bobbinspenguin · · Score: 1

    ...unless it has an exposed exhaust port?

  37. And he destroyed the focus by Wdi · · Score: 2

    These mirrors are pretty thick, and when glued on the surface of the dish, he actually ended up with the mirror surface being out of alignment, so the focus point is far more smeared than that of the original, precisely designed and aligned dish.

    The proper thing to do would have been to chemically deposit a very thin silver layer on the dish surface. This is actually not difficult to achieve. The mentioned spray paint or aluminum foil solutions are also better than his really, really crude approach.

    1. Re:And he destroyed the focus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The reflective part of a mirror is behind the glass, so the thickness is realy irrelevant. There is a point in the fact the mirrors are not curved so some misalignment would result. It seems to work well enough though.

    2. Re:And he destroyed the focus by SWPadnos · · Score: 1

      The reflective part of a mirror is behind the glass, so the thickness is realy irrelevant. There is a point in the fact the mirrors are not curved so some misalignment would result. It seems to work well enough though.

      Actually, if he's using rear surface mirrors, then the thickness is more important.

      Most glass reflects about 5% off each surface, so the energy from the front surface of the glass is not being directed at the same point as that from the read surface - it's off by the thickness of the glass. (actually, it'll be the thickness of the glass times the sine of the angle of incidence, I think)

      Additionally, some of the energy gets absorbed by the glass, and the thicker it is, the more energy is absorbed.

      Neither of those effects is particularly huge, but they are dependent on the thickness of the glass. Both effects are eliminated by using front surface mirrors instead.

      --
      - The Sigless Wonder
    3. Re:And he destroyed the focus by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      No doubt. I built something like this from an old 8' satellite dish as a science fair project once. I used aluminum foil, and put a black steel tank of water in the middle. Pump water in, water turns to steam, which I used to power a Greek steam turbine (aeolipile) to prove the point.

      I was in fifth grade.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    4. Re:And he destroyed the focus by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      To say nothing of what a pain it is to clean those 5800 mirrors once they get dust on them...

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  38. cool backyard project but not "death ray" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Solar Oven, not "death ray";
    its not a myth, not something for that TV show;
    mirror method must have been cumbersome but appears effective;
    close focal point is for safety!;
    that tin-can aiming method is not unique but is pragmatic.

  39. World War Peace. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wonderful, now all wars will be confined to daylight hours. Anyway I guess the title to this story wouldn't have drawn as many eyeballs if he was building a "solar peace ray".

  40. Re:Obligatory pedantic question by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

    Big bang type events may actually be generating energy, but other than that everything is conversion. The common definition of generating energy can be seen as converting it from a useless type (tied up in an atom, in oil or flowing as radiation) to a more useful type (electricity or molecular bonds).

    --
    Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  41. The miracle is that a 19 year old persisted by anti-NAT · · Score: 2

    for that long doing a menial task.

    --
    The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
    1. Re:The miracle is that a 19 year old persisted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Come on, when we were 19 we spent hours writing computer programs or other nonsense. If the guy was 12 now that would be a feat...

    2. Re:The miracle is that a 19 year old persisted by corbettw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have the simple solution to that question: a girl said she thought it would be cool.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    3. Re:The miracle is that a 19 year old persisted by Abstrackt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's how I ended up with a Zune... :(

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    4. Re:The miracle is that a 19 year old persisted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then mega-props to this kid for finding a girl who said "that would be sooo cool" about building a solar death ray out of an old satellite dish and a bunch of mirrors.

    5. Re:The miracle is that a 19 year old persisted by snookerhog · · Score: 1

      wish I had mod points for this

  42. ummm,,,, by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    He bedazzled a satellite dish, mounted it on a wagon with a 2x4 a painted it silver? This made it on Slashdot?

  43. Yep it can be much simpler by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

    Couldn't he just have spray canned it with some reflective paint??

    In middle school back in the 70's my brother covered the underside of an umbrella with aluminium foil, turned it over, mounted a grate on the handle/shaft near the focus, and grilled hot dogs using sunlight. It can be made much quicker.

  44. The Big Bang Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In your face, Sheldon Cooper!

  45. Arch Nemesis by Squeeonline · · Score: 1

    Solar death ray defeated only by its arch nemeses, "Cloudy Day", and "Shed".

    1. Re:Arch Nemesis by SaroDarksbane · · Score: 1

      Solar death ray defeated only by its arch nemeses, "Cloudy Day", and "Shed".

      I dunno, I think it was a draw as far as the shed was concerned . . .

  46. May 17, 2007 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Light Sharpener...

    http://www.cockeyed.com/incredible/solardish/dish01.shtml

    Nathan

  47. Death to my enemies! by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

    As long as they hold very still at exactly two feet away from me. Would you place your head directly on the focal point of my rig? Thans, I appreciate it, it's a pain the ass to aim this thing.

  48. It's great that one of us finally invented it. by Yaos · · Score: 1

    Now that one of us invented this, instead of the people who have been using this for at least a century, it's now a discovery. Reminds me of the 10 different people that managed to invent the same solar oven in one century.

  49. Death to all.... by blackbeak · · Score: 1

    sheds. (oops, left the Death Ray in that last one!)

    --
    Everything and its opposite is true. Get used to it.
  50. He tried al sorts, but where was the cat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He promised death...

  51. News for nerds by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah, I used to burn ants with a magnifying glass too when I was much younger than 19. Solar death rays are pretty common at that age.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:News for nerds by genghisjahn · · Score: 1

      I suggest a duel, you with your ant burning magnifying glass and Mr. Jacqmain with his deathray. Let's see who wins.

      --
      Sorry about the mess.
    2. Re:News for nerds by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Me, because if you watched the video until the end, his death ray no longer exists. It was destroyed, of all things, in a fire (perhaps next time he will cover it up).

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:News for nerds by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      I see from your signature that you didn't really get out of that phase. ;)

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    4. Re:News for nerds by antdude · · Score: 1

      Hey now!!!!! :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    5. Re:News for nerds by chelberg · · Score: 1

      I went one better, I used a telescope to burn all sorts of things. It has a somewhat adjustable focus by using different eye pieces, and I could burn wood, and paper, and many other things on a sunny day. The telescope was readily available, so I didn't need to build anything. It was only a 2" refractor, but had plenty of power, much more than a magnifying glass, with a MUCH sharper focus. I did manage to melt metal with it as well.

      I always meant to revisit these experiments with something like a 10" or larger scope. I would imagine some really high temperatures would be possible, the optics count for a lot in efficiency.

    6. Re:News for nerds by camperslo · · Score: 1

      As the digital tv transition and cheaper LCD sets have motivated many owners of those big old c.r.t. projection sets to ditch them, many have turned up at thrift stores, recycling centers, and on craigslist. Those who get the chance to salvage parts from them may be want to rescue the large lenses.

    7. Re:News for nerds by Misterfixit · · Score: 0

      Ants? Hah!! I burned my Aunt!

      --
      nar
  52. Rob Cockerham's dish-based solar project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This kid's implementation is cute.. but, come on now.. THIS is a proper version built years back:
    http://www.cockeyed.com/incredible/solardish/dish01.shtml

    The larger tiles do make for a less-focused spot, but the much, much larger area makes up for that and then some.

  53. Read similar stories with these tags.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    3 Tags offered -
    slashdot, idle, terrorists...

    Is this a joke? I mean, I always knew /. was rather hokey - but what exactly is this? How is this labeled similar to "Terrorists"?

    Is this /.'s way of trying to join the brainwashing bandwagon? RUN RUN - Fear Fear - those all powerful cave dwellers are going to get you!

    If they don't, then global warming will - err, I mean Climate change.

  54. So it does work then... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    So if anyone can create their own deathrays without needing all sorts of funky materials or high energy, I guess it might be easier to just use this when you need to cut metal, instead of all the energy we use to do it in industrial sector...would save major money, no?

    1. Re:So it does work then... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      The problem is while yes you CAN focus sunlight with a mirror to a point where you can cut metal with it to do so you need a rather large and unweildly mirror. Further unless you add a lot of other complications* you are limited to heating things placed between the mirror and the sun. That's fine if you are trying to cut a loose bar not so good if you are trying to cut holes in a large sheet or trying to cut stuff in situ.

      Lenses can heat stuff behind the lens but have other problems (size, weight, cost, different behaviour for different wavelengths of light).

      * telescopes typically get arround this by having a small mirror near the focus to reflect the light out but telescopes don't have to survive being pointed directly at the sun..

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  55. Parabolic Mirros and Fresnel Lenses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The guy over at Green Power Science http://www.youtube.com/user/GREENPOWERSCIENCE plays with parabolic mirrors and fresnel lenses all the time doing some fun stuff with them.

  56. Mod parent up! by Laurence0 · · Score: 1

    When I saw the headline, the Cockeyed one was my very first thought. Yes, well before the Archimedes one and certainly before Mythbusters, which I think is very much an American phenomenon.

  57. Ancient Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmmm- maybe this is how they built the Pyramids...

  58. This is a kids science project by syousef · · Score: 2

    In the Himalayas, parabolic mirrors around this size are commonly used to boil kettles of water for tea/cooking.

    It works at those altitudes, because the sunlight is more intense (less having been absorbed by the atmosphere), and because water boils at a lower temperature at the lower atmospheric pressure.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cooker#Solar_kettles

    Screw the Himalayas. I was 12 when our year 7 (1st year of junior high for you Americans) science class constructed solar ovens out of aluminium foil, a large tin can, coat hangar wire and masking tape. They were good enough to cook sausages and eggs and this was at sea level. It wasn't lame but it wasn't exactly difficult for a 12 year old. A smart but not genius 8 year old could do it.

    The parabolic reflector is only one design. Just Google solar oven science project for kids

    http://www.crystal-clear-science-fair-projects.com/solar-oven-science-project.html
    http://www.columbiascientific.com/science-fair-experiments/garretts-solar-oven-science-project

      This should not have been a slashdot story.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:This is a kids science project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This should not have been a slashdot story.

      Applying for that Slashdot censorship job, huh?

    2. Re:This is a kids science project by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 2

      Screw the Himalayas. I was 12 when our year 7 (1st year of junior high for you Americans) science class constructed solar ovens out of aluminium foil, a large tin can, coat hangar wire and masking tape. They were good enough to cook sausages and eggs and this was at sea level. It wasn't lame but it wasn't exactly difficult for a 12 year old. A smart but not genius 8 year old could do it.

      I built a solar hotdog cooker when I was 8, from cardboard and aluminum foil. My parents thought it was a great idea. Today, I have to worry about how badly Children's Protective Services will over react.

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
  59. Elliptical is where it's at. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want to build a solar death ray you should use an elliptical reflector. Actually if you really want a good death ray you should use a large parabolic or spherical reflector positioned perpendicular to the sun, and a small elliptical reflector as an aiming/focusing unit.

    This is basic evil engineering.

  60. Light sharpener by Taxman415a · · Score: 1

    The light sharpener is the much more serious version done on an old school 12 foot satellite dish that is actually closer to deserving mention on slashdot. The article is annoyingly laid out over more than 20 pages, but it is kind of cool what he was able to do with that much concentrated solar power. He also didn't try any better methods of depositing a mirror on the dish. He did small tests with tinfoil and they showed the tinfoil was clearly less reflective than the mirror. Of course the problem with the huge old school dish is that it's a mesh, not a smooth parabola, so any silvering or foil deposition really would have required placing and polishing a smooth parabolic surface for maximum efficiency.

  61. Cockeyed? by flappinbooger · · Score: 1

    Didn't Cockerham do this already?

    http://cockeyed.com/incredible/solardish/dish01.shtml

    --
    Flappinbooger isn't my real name
  62. that was no 'accident'. by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    An accident happens if you have a hammer in the shed and shed burns.

    When you have a 'death ray' in a shed, and shed burns, you know it's not an 'accident'.

  63. death ray? by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

    With a focal length of about 3 feet it's not exactly a death ray.
    The reason this works and what the mythbusters tried did not has to do with the F ratio.
    A lens (or mirror) with an F ratio of 1 will concentrate the sun enough to make a very small spot.
    One with an F ratio of about 100 or more, not so much!

    BTW, I wonder how that shed he stored the thing in burned down? Maybe it was facing a window facing the sun about 3 feet from a wall?

  64. so? by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

    I was using a "solar death ray" when I was 9. It's called a magnifying glass. Great for killing ants.

  65. Hoax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did anyone else notice that the needle nose pliers suffered no damage when holding objects? Or that his hand suffered no damage when it held objects? His thumb even enters the light "beam" but he doesn't even seem to feel any discomfort. Even if it had to be a specific 1 cm point to burn like the other objects one has to believe that anything entering the light circle would get at the very most hot to the point of discomfort.

    In the end I think its a hoax

  66. whoa by Gunkerty+Jeb · · Score: 1

    This is simultaneously awesome and horrifying. What do you think this kid's parents said when he told them he wanted to build a solar death ray?

  67. Sigh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it doesn't generate "energy" you fools, it's the SAME AMOUNT of energy!!! It's just concentrated, which is POWER. I know you're mostly a bunch of daydreaming software bitheads, but can you PLEASE check the basics!??

    1. Re:Sigh.... by sleeping143 · · Score: 1

      It's not really increased power, either. It's increased intensity, which is power/area.

  68. death ray by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's silly. it's a cooking mirror.
    and it's totally no good for killing ants...

  69. More interested in the most indestructible metal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did anyone else notice that the death ray did not even slightly damage the pliers?

  70. That wasn't a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That wasn't a problem, since his father was Arthur "Two Sheds" Jackson

  71. Destroyed in a burrning shed... by Stenchwarrior · · Score: 1

    I guess someone should have told him to point the death ray AWAY from the window.

    --
    Loading...
  72. Stirling Engine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is boring. It would have been interesting if he actually did something useful with it, like mount a stirling engine to power something.

  73. It was going so well ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... until the neighborhood bullies decided to beat me up at night.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  74. Re:Solar-powered Laser by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1

    As a firebug teenager, I was considering finding a Fresnel lens and focusing the beam on to a biconcave

    In theory the biconcave lens would straighten out the converged beam straight again but now concentrated!
    Alas at the time these Fresnel lens were only found in Overhead projectors. I couldn't find them for cheap and then I grew up.

    Today Fresnel lenses are found is unwanted Projection TVs and are MUCH bigger. And you can shop for good quality biconcave lens that wont melt easily on the internet. Today I have no time or room to build such a thing. My wife would kill me!

    --
    Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
  75. Only one problem by hippie-joel · · Score: 1

    How do you focus the light now?

  76. Somewhat Larger Versions by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

    I applaud his effort in making an amateur solar-thermal device, but somewhat larger versions are being put to practical use generating electricity:

    http://www.renewablepowernews.com/wp-content/uploads/Solar-thermal-Sterling-dish1.jpg

    http://cdn.venturebeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/brightsource2_620px.jpg

    Concentrated sunlight can be used for a number of other things where you need a lot of heat, like cooking rocks to make cement, which is what then holds concrete together.

  77. Mandatory by arisvega · · Score: 1

    "Do not look at mirror with remaining eye"

    --
    The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
  78. beautiful by ivanp84 · · Score: 1

    As a kid, I had similar project known as "solar cooker" at the time. I had found blueprint for the device in the "Galaksija" magazine, which was very popular science magazine in former Yugoslavia. But my device was quite simpler and less powerful, but it could boil 2l of water in about 10min. if it is properly adjusted on bright summer day. :)

    --
    If you don't care where you are, then you ain't lost.
  79. Re:In the Himalayas... and the ancient Andes by j-stroy · · Score: 2

    I recall reading that the Spanish plundered gold and silver discs that were several feet in diameter in their conquest of the South American peoples. It was suggested that they were solar concentrators similar to the one demonstrated, since smaller ones are known to have been used in lighting ritual fires, the larger ones may have had a more practical purpose, including shaping stone.

  80. What about the pot? by much+noisier · · Score: 1

    Doesn't that melt the pot that the water is in?

    1. Re:What about the pot? by Megane · · Score: 1

      Not as long as there's still water to absorb the heat. It's called water cooling.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    2. Re:What about the pot? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Good point... it is well known that you can boil water in a paper cup, even over an open flame. Only the paper parts not in contact with the water actually burn.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    3. Re:What about the pot? by cvtan · · Score: 1

      No. The water can't get any hotter than 100C and then it boils off. At long as there is water in the pot, it will survive. Saw a demo in high school chemistry of teacher boiling water in a paper drinking cup using a Bunsen burner.

      --
      Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    4. Re:What about the pot? by much+noisier · · Score: 1

      I never saw that one. Is the cup itself exposed to the naked flame without any damage?

  81. HEY! by SkyDude · · Score: 1

    That's the kid that stole my 30 inch disco ball! He flattened out and DESTROYED IT!!! DAMN!

    --
    == First cross river, then insult alligator.
  82. Where does "death ray" come from? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    It doesn't produce a ray and I didn't see any death in the video. All I saw was a home-made parabolic reflector being used to concentrate sunlight...

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Where does "death ray" come from? by vandamme · · Score: 1

      Made ya look!

  83. Focal Point by ModernGeek · · Score: 1

    It looks like the focal point is where the receiver would normally sit. He should have kept it on and added clamps to it so that way he'd have a fixed point to place his "victims". Bonus points if he chrome plates the next one in his back yard instead of using those stupid mirrors.

    --
    Sig: I stole this sig.
  84. I'd be impressed by wonderboss · · Score: 2

    If focused was computer controlled. Each tiny mirror needs servo controls.

    --
    more cowbell
  85. Destroyed in a burning shed by ZappedSparky · · Score: 1

    I wonder what happened.

  86. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  87. Ants! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    4 min video and no ants!!

  88. Live Free of Die by JTsyo · · Score: 1

    The sci-fi book by John Ringo has a guy littering space with mirrors and using them for asteroid mining and killing aliens. The energy level talked about in the book was in petawatts, not sure how many square miles of mirrors that is. Though the closer to place them to the sun the stronger beam you can get.

  89. Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Professor Ogden Wernstrom: And what will you be presenting this evening, professor?
    Professor Hubert Farnsworth: Let's just say it'll put you young whippersnappers in your place.
    Professor Ogden Wernstrom: I just hope it's not that lame death ray you presented last year.
    Professor Hubert Farnsworth: Uh... last year, you say?
    Professor Ogden Wernstrom: That's right.
    Professor Hubert Farnsworth: Oh, my. Did it put you young whippersnappers in your place?
    Professor Ogden Wernstrom: Hardly. We all laughed so hard our teeth fell out. Come along, Cinnamon.
    [Wernstrom leaves with his fish]
    Professor Hubert Farnsworth: Oh, dear. I'll have to invent something new in the next ten minutes. Perhaps some sort of death ray.

  90. Actually... by Moraelin · · Score: 1

    Actually, I'd say that's entirely the wrong way to go about it.

    The thing to remember is that ancient city states didn't work like Mythbusters. They didn't have to rely on just a squad of volunteers focusing one mirror at a time.

    A city had tens of thousands of citizen-warriors which normally were eligible to put on armor and go out and form a phalanx. But in a siege, they were pretty much sitting around doing nothing much. Archimedes could have literally tens of thousands of people manning the mirrors, for free.

    So the way I'd do it would be basically to get some thousands of people on the walls, and give each a mirror as his siege weapon. So we wouldn't be talking about keeping 100 mirrors on one ship, but literally as many as you can pack on the walls. Thousands.

    And since each soldier only has one mirror to operate, full time, they can even track a moving ship.

    From there it depends more on how you make them aim it. If they're just aiming a mirror and nobody can tell which spot is theirs, the accuracy is as good as none in a large group. If you have a good system that doesn't depend on guessing which spot moves when you move your window, it turns out that you can be pretty damned accurate.

    Fortunately such a system has been shown to exist, and uses only simple geometry known at the time. You just need a flat mirror that's actually mirrored on both sides, and a hole in it. Preferably with a crosshair or some such, but if you're not going for accuracy even just a hole will do. You need it mirrored on both side so you can align it so simultaneously (A) you're seeing the enemy ship in the middle of the hole, and (B) you aligned the image of the spot of light coming through your hole with the hole.

    At that point, if you had a perfectly flat mirror, you'd have your beam exactly on the enemy ship. With a more realistic metal surface available at the time, the usefulness would decrease with the distance.

    But we're back to the point about having tens of thousands of people soldiers doing it for free. Even if one mirror at 1000 ft does diddly, ten thousand mirrors tracking the ship are a LOT of diddly.

    So, yes, if you had a squad pointing 100 mirrors, yeah, at most you'd blind the crew. But if you had 1000 mirrors tracking the exact position of the ship, that would kill.

    Especially remembering that in the end igniting wood is just an arbitrary point, but against humans you need far less to be deadly. I mean, sure, you need 300 Celsius or so to ignite wood. But even 100 Celsius will simply boil a human if they stay on that ship long enough, even if it doesn't ignite the wood.

    Plus, as the recent pain ray experiments showed, at the point where your pain receptors say "burning", for the vast majority of people no amount of willpower will help. A hard reflex kicks in to get the hell out of its way at all cost. So put a big and hot enough blot of concentrated sunlight on that ship, and those guys could probably swear they're burning alive even if no actual flame happened. And jump into the sea.

    Also if it helps, most trireme and quinquereme were not of cataphract (covered) design, or only partially. So when focusing sunlight from high above, a lot of people will be in its way, and, as I was saying, a lot more vulnerable than the wood.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Actually... by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      An easier method for aiming is the one currently used for aiming signaling mirrors today. Take an object and place it in front of the mirror. Visually aim the object at the target. Now aim your mirror, centering your easily visible light at your targeting reticle. You are now hitting the target on which you've aimed.

      For signaling mirrors, its recommended you use two fingers and aim using the web between your fingers. Now signal the mirror and you'll see the light on your fingers, which is aimed at whatever you are targeting.

  91. Not a 'Death Ray' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its not a 'death ray' until someone dies.

  92. Rather unintelligent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is any of this newsworthy? A kid glued mirrors to a pre-built frame. Not that impressive. Nor is the writeup - "Concentrated solar power has the potential to generate immense amounts of energy..." Uhh, the energy is already there, folks. It's just, you know, concentrated.

  93. Lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jesus, on *this* planet at *this* point in history and *this* story has "air play"?

    What a friggin' lame view of a culture.

  94. Mirror=Sun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    5000 suns? I mirror does not a sun make!

  95. Kewl but, rocks annd wood and crap... by crovira · · Score: 1

    I'd like to see him barbecue his pesky little brother. (Now that would be entertaining. :-)

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  96. Destroyed in a shed fire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe putting a skylight on the shed wasn't the best idea after all

  97. Impressive... by DerKlempner · · Score: 1

    But not as impressive as this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0_nuvPKIi8

    --
    UNIX: Find it, fsck it, forget it.
  98. Burning with... sun? by hallux.sinister · · Score: 1

    You can if you know the enemy must pass through a specific area, like when they sail into a harbor. Then you just aim at where they have to pass through... I don't care what Adam & Jamie said, the sun's putting out lotsa power, and it can be focused. The question is whether they, in ancient times, had smooth enough, clear (efficient) enough mirrors, or enough of them to overcome the lack of efficiency. If you had reflectors that only operated at 50% efficiency, on a bright sunny day, and you could aim them reliably at a point, and had say, a square mile of them, you could melt ROCK with it, I would think. I don't know the amount of power the sun puts out on the Earth in Greece, or what time of year... but I'm sure it could be figured out by trial and error, if you had to. OTOH... as soon as word got out, the enemy would simply attack only on cloudy days, or at night. HOWEVER, what if they could re-aim them at a big bon-fire? Maybe history has it wrong, and the point of the mirrors was to BLIND, not burn. In such a case, even a big bonfire could work. If the sailors on the enemy boats were unable to see, they could then blast the boats with flaming pitch from catapults, or whatever, or just hose them down with something flammable using high-pressure monitors, or maybe just flood the area through which they had to sail with oil, and set THAT on fire with the sun. Maybe they did that. OTO, OH, maybe they didn't use the sun at all. What if they used a bonfire, and the mirrors were for focusing not visible light, (although they doubtless used that for aiming) but instead was for directing IR? They didn't have to know what IR was to know fire was HOT!!!

  99. It's all about focus by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    You divide the surface area of the reflector by the size of the focused area. If you can get a million mirrors all aimed at the same tiny spot then yes, it's a million times hotter.

    Doing it would be quite challenging technically but the math doesn't lie.

    --
    No sig today...
  100. Mysteriously Destroyed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you watch to the end of the video, you learn the device was "mysteriously destroyed in a burning shed." Hmmm.

  101. Really really hot fusion! by marco.antonio.costa · · Score: 1

    I wonder if they could make like one of such concentrators. Then multiply them endlessly in wide circle, miles wide, all focusing on just one spot and like, fuse freaking hydrogen.

    That would kick so much ass.

    --
    Send your spendthrift head of state this
  102. "Obliterating Anything" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I notice he didn't try to obliterate a mirror with it :)