19-Year-Old Makes Homemade Solar Death Ray 317
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'."
Mythbuster 3.0 (Score:3, Informative)
Looks like the mythbusters can redo this myth one more time.
No adjustable focus point (Score:4, 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.
Re:No adjustable focus point (Score:5, Funny)
What if you taunted the enemy first?
Re: (Score:3)
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 [blogspot.com].
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Okay...it's okay to love your ancient heroes, just don't LOVE your ancient heroes.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Mythbuster 3.0 (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
This has been done before on a much larger scale...
http://www.dailytech.com/Hotel+Accidentally+Makes+Solar+Death+Ray+Burns+Lawyer/article19756.htm [dailytech.com]
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Mythbuster 3.0 (Score:5, Funny)
That depends a lot on how fast the vehicle is moving.
Is that an African or a European vehicle?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 u
Re: (Score:3)
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 v
Re:Mythbuster 3.0 (Score:5, 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?
Re: (Score:3)
"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
Re:Mythbuster 3.0 (Score:5, 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?!?
Re: (Score:3)
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 fr
Re: (Score:3)
Stay in School (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well... (Score:2)
The 19-year old claims that his solar device has the intensity of 5,000 suns.
Yeah right! Sure!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes indeed it has, so what is your problem with it? Go read TFA and go watch the movie ... sigh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Intensity. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
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 ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Sunstroke (Score:3)
You could get a nasty case of sunstroke [blogspot.com] from that thing.
It's a bit redundant though (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:It's a bit redundant though (Score:5, Funny)
Obligatory pedantic comment (Score:2, 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!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Archimedes already did this.. (Score:4, Informative)
Like ~2,000 years ago [wikipedia.org]. Talk about an old story.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
5,000 suns? (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?
Also lol @ it being destroyed in a shed fire -- I wonder how that came about? :-)
Re: (Score:3)
"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 [wikipedia.org] (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you! I stand corrected :-)
Title is little misleading, to say the least. (Score:2, 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.
Re:Title is little misleading, to say the least. (Score:4, 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.
Re:Title is little misleading, to say the least. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A spoon ? A wok ?
Yep it can be much simpler (Score:2)
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.
Light sharpener (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Good way for self distruction... (Score:3)
He said it was destroyed in a shed fire. He must have left it near a window in the shed. Now that's funny.
In the Himalayas... (Score:5, 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 [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
This is a kids science project (Score:3)
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 [wikipedia.org]
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-scienc [crystal-cl...ojects.com]
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:In the Himalayas... and the ancient Andes (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Then there's green tea.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
>> 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. :-)
As a thought (Score:2)
Would it be possible to pass the focussed light through a lens to make a concentrated ray? Or would the lens melt?
Re: (Score:3)
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% transm
And he destroyed the focus (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
ummm,,,, (Score:2)
Death to my enemies! (Score:2)
News for nerds (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I see from your signature that you didn't really get out of that phase. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Cockeyed? (Score:2)
http://cockeyed.com/incredible/solardish/dish01.shtml
death ray? (Score:2)
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?
so? (Score:2)
Destroyed in a burrning shed... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Solar concentrators are used for photovoltaic cells.
Re:Electricity? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
According to Wikipedia:
The largest solar pumped laser is currently being operated by a research faciliy in Uzbekistan. It is a 1 MW NdYAG type laser, operating at 3,000 Degrees C. It is cooled by distilled water. [wikipedia.org]
A megawatt of continuous wave laser power is nothing to be sneered at.
Re:Electricity? (Score:4, Informative)
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 [sciencedirect.com]
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Lot of energy (Score:4, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy#Power_tower_designs [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
> 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/ [alternativ...-news.info]
Re:Lot of energy (Score:4, Interesting)
Stirling Energy System's SunCatcher [stirlingenergy.com] 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Step 1) When not burning things, keep your Sola Death Ray covered with an opaque fabric.
Step 2)
Step 3) Profit!!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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.
The miracle is that a 19 year old persisted (Score:3)
Re:The miracle is that a 19 year old persisted (Score:5, Insightful)
I have the simple solution to that question: a girl said she thought it would be cool.
Re:The miracle is that a 19 year old persisted (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is retarded. (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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, dif