Dyson Sphere anyone?

[RobertScorpio]

Cool read...thanks!! I love this kind of stuff..

Sometime back, here on TREBBS, I did a story about a wildlife retreat being relocated to the a Dysonsphere in the TREK universe....here is a link to it if you want to give it a try..


STAR TREK NAISSANCE

Rob

 

[The Borg Queen]

In the same way that a Dyson Sphere is a spherical shell created around a fusion reactor to harness all of it's energy with very little being lost, it seems to be what they're proposing with this fusion reactor is a spherical shell around it to harness all of it's energy with very little being lost.

Do you see?

Maybe they could call it a nano-Dyson Sphere.

 

[Christopher]

In the same way that a Dyson Sphere is a spherical shell created around a fusion reactor to harness all of it's energy with very little being lost, it seems to be what they're proposing with this fusion reactor is a spherical shell around it to harness all of it's energy with very little being lost.

No. The sphere is an array of lenses that concentrate the laser beams that heat the fuel to fusion temperature to begin with. It's not the mechanism for collecting energy, it's the mechanism for initiating the reaction.

Besides, you can't call it a Dyson Sphere if it's not built around an actual star. That's an incompetent use of the word. It's a sphere, yes, but that doesn't make it a Dyson Sphere. Especially since, fiction to the contrary, a Dyson Sphere is not a solid shell, but a cloud of separate satellites.

 

[Forbin]

This reminds me, I have to vacuum the house today.

 

[USS KG5]

Its times like these that I hate hollywood.

Fortunately, decisions about this sort of thing in the real world are not made by people who take their opinions from Hollywood. There are some idiot politicians sure but they can always be won over with self-interest.

The problem with fusion as a mass-producer of domestic power is that no-one has gotten it working right yet. If this helps, excellent!

 

[RobertVA]

Still waiting for commercial fusion plants, now for a few decades...

We already have a perfectly good fusion reactor located only eight light minutes away from the planet, the output of which can be more effectively harnessed with existing technologies ranging from Hermann Oberth's sodium-coated orbital reflectors (which Krafft Ehricke demonstrated could be employed to illuminate surface solar photovoltaic plants during the local night) to David Criswell's somewhat more complex Lunar Solar Power System (PPT). Controlled thermonuclear fusion will definitely play a key role in the (far) future manned exploration and colonization of the Outer Solar System, but it is entirely unnecessary for supplying utility power on Earth or Luna.

TGT

As long as you don't mind large quantities of real estate covered with solar collectors and can come up with an efficient way of storing the power so you can turn the lights on at night. Then again, that's pretty much what we do with bio-fuels (and what nature did with coal and oil).

Its times like these that I hate hollywood.

A fusion reactor is a much safer alternative to the fission reactors we use currently,as they won't generate waste that'll outlive our current society.

If you think about it,had King Tut buried his fission reactor waste we still couldn't handle some of it today.5000 years later.

And a current fusion reactor really has little in common with a Dyson sphere,as interpreted in ST.

Things like 400 foot hig pyramids and tunnels dug in the bottom of isolated desert would have been handy for burying things like nuclear waste.... Hey! They had those!

 

[GodThingFormerly]

As long as you don't mind large quantities of real estate covered with solar collectors and can come up with an efficient way of storing the power so you can turn the lights on at night.

Did you even read my post?

TGT

 

[USS Triumphant]

Did you even read my post?

I did - and there are other options aside from orbital reflectors, too. I've seen another system that involves temporarily storing extra power gathered from solar during the day as heat (pressure) in a water reservoir, and then releasing it back out for consumption at night.

Of course, both could be dangerous - the reflector could be misdirected, and the reservoir could over-pressure. But that's true with anything that involves power production and storage, and this is a lot safer than, say, burning coal and throwing soot (including radioactive uranium ash, frequently more waste than fission plants produce) into the atmosphere.

 

[Kaziarl]

In the same way that a Dyson Sphere is a spherical shell created around a fusion reactor to harness all of it's energy with very little being lost, it seems to be what they're proposing with this fusion reactor is a spherical shell around it to harness all of it's energy with very little being lost.

No. The sphere is an array of lenses that concentrate the laser beams that heat the fuel to fusion temperature to begin with. It's not the mechanism for collecting energy, it's the mechanism for initiating the reaction.

Besides, you can't call it a Dyson Sphere if it's not built around an actual star. That's an incompetent use of the word. It's a sphere, yes, but that doesn't make it a Dyson Sphere. Especially since, fiction to the contrary, a Dyson Sphere is not a solid shell, but a cloud of separate satellites.

Scenario 1

Man 1: Hey, look what I built!

Man 2: It's a little metal ball...

Man 1: Yeah, but its got an artificial star in the middle!

Man 2: What are you gonna call it? Sun in a can?

Man 1: I was thinking Dyson Sphere

Man 2: Cool... Lets build a bigger one.


Scenario 2

Man 1: Hey, lets build a Dyson Sphere.

Man 2: You mean one of those big shells around a sun?

Man 1: Yeah, we can use all the energy from the sun that way.

Man 2: Ok, but lets build a model so we know what we're doing.

Man 1: Ok, I'll get started on the fake star.



Yeah.... your right, there is no reason what so ever to call something that isn't that huge, around a real star, a Dyson Sphere..... How silly of everyone to make that connection.

 

[The Borg Queen]

In the same way that a Dyson Sphere is a spherical shell created around a fusion reactor to harness all of it's energy with very little being lost, it seems to be what they're proposing with this fusion reactor is a spherical shell around it to harness all of it's energy with very little being lost.

No. The sphere is an array of lenses that concentrate the laser beams that heat the fuel to fusion temperature to begin with. It's not the mechanism for collecting energy, it's the mechanism for initiating the reaction.

So how are they going to collect all this generated energy?

 

[Neopeius]

Yeah.... your right, there is no reason what so ever to call something that isn't that huge, around a real star, a Dyson Sphere..... How silly of everyone to make that connection.

By that reasoning, tricycles are semi-trucks and typewriters are I-Macs.

 

[Kaziarl]

Yeah.... your right, there is no reason what so ever to call something that isn't that huge, around a real star, a Dyson Sphere..... How silly of everyone to make that connection.

By that reasoning, tricycles are semi-trucks and typewriters are I-Macs.

Not at all, but do you really think the first nuclear reactor was full sized and able to put out the same amount of power they can today? Or do you think they did it in steps?

 

[Neopeius]

Yeah.... your right, there is no reason what so ever to call something that isn't that huge, around a real star, a Dyson Sphere..... How silly of everyone to make that connection.

By that reasoning, tricycles are semi-trucks and typewriters are I-Macs.

Not at all, but do you really think the first nuclear reactor was full sized and able to put out the same amount of power they can today? Or do you think they did it in steps?

A Dyson Sphere and a linear fusion reactor in a spherical shell have virtually nothing in common except for the word "sphere".

That's Christopher's point. He and I often don't agree, but he's spot on here.

 

[Kaziarl]

By that reasoning, tricycles are semi-trucks and typewriters are I-Macs.

Not at all, but do you really think the first nuclear reactor was full sized and able to put out the same amount of power they can today? Or do you think they did it in steps?

A Dyson Sphere and a linear fusion reactor in a spherical shell have virtually nothing in common except for the word "sphere".

That's Christopher's point. He and I often don't agree, but he's spot on here.

Actually he said you can't call it that because it's not around a real star. Now, I agree that this is not a dyson sphere, but if they take this artificial star and build a collection array around it, I don't see how it can't be compared.

My point is that while it's not a model of a dyson sphere now, its a step that direction.


You gotta make the wheel before you can make a bike, car, truck, or anything that uses a wheel. Doesn't mean they are the same, but it does mean they have the same start.

 

[Neopeius]

Not at all, but do you really think the first nuclear reactor was full sized and able to put out the same amount of power they can today? Or do you think they did it in steps?

A Dyson Sphere and a linear fusion reactor in a spherical shell have virtually nothing in common except for the word "sphere".

That's Christopher's point. He and I often don't agree, but he's spot on here.

Actually he said you can't call it that because it's not around a real star. Now, I agree that this is not a dyson sphere, but if they take this artificial star and build a collection array around it, I don't see how it can't be compared.

My point is that while it's not a model of a dyson sphere now, its a step that direction.


You gotta make the wheel before you can make a bike, car, truck, or anything that uses a wheel. Doesn't mean they are the same, but it does mean they have the same start.

Again, this fusion reactor and a Dyson's sphere have nothing in common other than the shape of the container. Fusion reactors are not stars, and the technology used to make reactors is not related to the technology needed to enclose stars.

I know what you're saying. I get it. We can argue this in circles if you like. But I disagree with you. You might as well say that light bulbs are Dyson sphere's because they're round and enclose something glowing.

 

[The Borg Queen]

Again, this fusion reactor and a Dyson's sphere have nothing in common other than the shape of the container. Fusion reactors are not stars, and the technology used to make reactors is not related to the technology needed to enclose stars.

I know what you're saying. I get it. We can argue this in circles if you like. But I disagree with you. You might as well say that light bulbs are Dyson sphere's because they're round and enclose something glowing.

Maybe you should re-read the article...

Scientists plan to ignite tiny man-made star
It is science’s star experiment: an attempt to create an artificial sun on earth — and provide an answer to the world’s impending energy shortage.

"In the spring, a team will begin attempts to ignite a tiny man-made star inside a laboratory and trigger a thermonuclear reaction. "

 

[Kaziarl]

A Dyson Sphere and a linear fusion reactor in a spherical shell have virtually nothing in common except for the word "sphere".

That's Christopher's point. He and I often don't agree, but he's spot on here.

Actually he said you can't call it that because it's not around a real star. Now, I agree that this is not a dyson sphere, but if they take this artificial star and build a collection array around it, I don't see how it can't be compared.

My point is that while it's not a model of a dyson sphere now, its a step that direction.


You gotta make the wheel before you can make a bike, car, truck, or anything that uses a wheel. Doesn't mean they are the same, but it does mean they have the same start.

Again, this fusion reactor and a Dyson's sphere have nothing in common other than the shape of the container. Fusion reactors are not stars, and the technology used to make reactors is not related to the technology needed to enclose stars.

I know what you're saying. I get it. We can argue this in circles if you like. But I disagree with you. You might as well say that light bulbs are Dyson sphere's because they're round and enclose something glowing.

Funny, the article says it's an artificial star. But they are wrong right? Atleast thats what you seem to be saying.

 

[Neopeius]

Just because the article-writer is being hyperbolic and calls a laser-sustained fusion reactor a star doesn't mean it has much in common with a real star. Nor, as Christopher said, the containment system anything like that in a Dyson's sphere--quite the opposite. In the reactor, the sphere stimulates the reaction. In a Dyson's Sphere, the sphere collects energy from the star.

But if you want to call it a Dyson's Sphere, which it's not, not even close to, not even related to, then be my guest.

I'm going to call it a Bocci Ball. Or maybe a Sno-Globe. Or how about a Radome?

 

[Kaziarl]

Just because the article-writer is being hyperbolic and calls a laser-sustained fusion reactor a star doesn't mean it has much in common with a real star. Nor, as Christopher said, the containment system anything like that in a Dyson's sphere--quite the opposite. In the reactor, the sphere stimulates the reaction. In a Dyson's Sphere, the sphere collects energy from the star.

But if you want to call it a Dyson's Sphere, which it's not, not even close to, not even related to, then be my guest.

I'm going to call it a Bocci Ball. Or maybe a Sno-Globe. Or how about a Radome?

And as I said, I agree that THIS isn't a dyson sphere. All I said is that it is a step towards building a possible model of one. And as for the SCIENTISTS calling it an artificial star, I guess you would know better then them?

 

[Neopeius]

Just because the article-writer is being hyperbolic and calls a laser-sustained fusion reactor a star doesn't mean it has much in common with a real star. Nor, as Christopher said, the containment system anything like that in a Dyson's sphere--quite the opposite. In the reactor, the sphere stimulates the reaction. In a Dyson's Sphere, the sphere collects energy from the star.

But if you want to call it a Dyson's Sphere, which it's not, not even close to, not even related to, then be my guest.

I'm going to call it a Bocci Ball. Or maybe a Sno-Globe. Or how about a Radome?

And as I said, I agree that THIS isn't a dyson sphere. All I said is that it is a step towards building a possible model of one. And as for the SCIENTISTS calling it an artificial star, I guess you would know better then them?

Sure. I'll agree that this fusion reactor with a spherical shell is a step towards building a "possible model" of a Dyson's Sphere, whatever that means. So are Tina Fey and pop rocks for that matter.

I'm sure there's very few things I know better than the scientists involved. I'm not arguing with them--after all, they never called their reactor a star. The journalist called it a star. Read the article again and do a "find" on the word star.

Or better yet, don't. This is a dumb conversation. I'm done. You can have the last word if you want.