Why Not Use Empirical Adjustments for Solar Death Rays?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DaveC426913
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Death Ray
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the feasibility of using empirical adjustments for constructing solar death rays, specifically referencing the Mythbusters episode that attempted to recreate Archimedes' legendary weapon. Participants argue that instead of calculating mirror angles, a more effective method would involve using multiple soldiers each holding mirrors, allowing for dynamic focusing of sunlight. The conversation also touches on the limitations of the Mythbusters' apparatus, which was deemed ineffective due to its flat design and logistical challenges. Key insights include the maximum solar power harnessing potential of 1.4 kW/m² and the importance of mirror area and material in achieving ignition.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of solar energy principles and concentrators
  • Familiarity with the concept of Fresnel lenses and their applications
  • Knowledge of Archimedes' historical context and the myth of the solar death ray
  • Basic physics of light reflection and focusing
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the construction and efficiency of Fresnel lenses in solar applications
  • Explore the historical accounts of Archimedes and the siege of Syracuse
  • Investigate modern solar concentrator technologies, including power tower systems
  • Learn about the thermal efficiency of solar energy conversion methods, including Stirling engines
USEFUL FOR

Engineers, physicists, historians, and solar energy enthusiasts interested in the practical applications of solar concentrators and the historical context of ancient technologies.

  • #31
mr henry said:
now I'm no physicist, beyond my A-level, but maintain an interest, so feel free to laugh if required!
No laughing here...
mr henry said:
Wouldn't the size of focal area be dependent on the size of the mirrors and one's accuracy at lining them up? If they were, say, an inch square, and you had them perfectly lined up (a near impossible feat, i understand), would it not be only an inch square, rather than a cumulative total of the area?

Am going to try and build one myself, just to see if i can, so these little nuggets of info could prove useful and determine whether it works or not.
Yep. Three foot mirrors (the size of a soldier's shield) will make a three foot spot.

See http://www.solardeathray.com/about.html (as in the initial post) who did it with 3.5" mirrors.

Personally, I think he did it the hard way - he calcualted the angle of every mirror. Seems to me, all you need to do is set it one place, point a light at it (parallel), and move it until it reflects the light at the focus. Who cares what the numerical angle is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #32
aaaahhh, sorry, a simple misunderstanding. I imagined a comma ("3, foot round mirrors...") that blatantly wasn't there!

Thanks for the link, i stumbled across that site about a month ago, hence wanting to build one. Fancy the challenge of a longer range one (although my garden wouldn't quite accommodate 100'!) Clearly levels of observation and attention to detail will need to be improved if I am to stand a chance!
I do prefer the idea of doing the mirrors empirically though, the calculations seem a bit heath robinson, and more open to error.

Thanks
 
  • #33
mr henry said:
...the calculations seem a bit heath robinson

Ah, what??
 
  • #34
well, flat mirrors don't reflect 100% of sun energy, do they? Ordinary metalised mirror is lucky to reflect about 50% of visible light, but shoudn't they hunt for more like infrared side of spectrum?