Sadly I am a slow reader, so I have only read the beginning paragraph. The idea is interesting, yet seems somewhat flawed in nature. The problems I see with a Dyson Shell are how to disperse the heat (especially if there are to be inhabitants on the inside of the shell), solar wind, and stability. The Dyson Sphere seems to have more merit to it, however I wonder how the energy would be harvested from the individual collectors.
I would think it perhaps best to collect the solar radiation using conic forms (ellipses, parabolas, etc.). Anyone have any ideas?
Anyone else see any flaws or merits to this idea of a Dyson Sphere?
Name:
Anonymous2004-12-27 13:58
Even though the solid shell proposal is scientificlaly infeasible, it's a very nice thing to imagine. You could have an anime about it.
Name:
i hope its not too long2004-12-28 2:43
Whoa pump your breaks there Anonymous cuz stuff that was "scientifically infeasible" to ones eyes may be true (Round Earth, Moderate Drinking is Healthy, Parabolic Rotations and etc.) so leave such bold statements to the researchers pls.
Name:
Anonymous2004-12-28 6:28
Pfft, 3 dimensions.
Name:
Anonymous2004-12-28 10:15
Just imagine the psychological damage living in one of those things would cause. Constant sunlight and no horizions? Everyone would go gaga in a big hurry! If you didn't kill yourself someone would be sure to do it for you.
i think humanity would adapt quickly to a change such as that, there are many portions of the world that are already bathed in sunlight for nearly 24 hours a day at certain times of the year
You live on the OUTSIDE of a dyson sphere. Otherwise, the sphere would have to be spinning DAMN fast to generate enough gravity to keep the sun from pulling you off the inside. Not to mention the purpose of the sphere is to have the inside lined with solar panels or the like.
You can then get as much light as you want anytime you want from the energy collected from the sun so that its not dark all of the time.
>>10
I too was under the impression that you lived on the inside. Perhaps the article said something else.
Name:
Zealous2004-12-29 13:53
Awesome topic, There are various kinds of dyson spheres are I am sure you are aware, the shell type dyson sphere is the best known and while it would be nice to live on the inside, it is (very sadly) not very possible. The bigest problem that comes to mind is atmosphere, how do keep enough air to breath around? As soon as the dyson sphere is infact a literal sphere, chances are the air would move toward the sun, this is a bad thing. (On the other hand I have no real proof of this apart from what an essay regarding them said.)
The next problem is that while it would be cool to live on the inside, it would partially be counter productive, the point of a dyson sphere is to be able to harness ALL of a stars energy. (on this point is is considered by many that such a design would result in a 'solar balloon' from particles of some sort which would result in bad things. Pop!)
While all in all a VERY cool concept, a megastructure such as this would be more than 1 AU in radius (by most designs) and would require more raw material than is present in the solar system. So in otherwords, by the time we COULD build a dyson sphere, we would no longer have any real incentive to do so(apart from the whole We Did It Because We Could thing...)
Trust me, it's the inside. And good arguements are brushed at from inside the Ringworld novels. A ringworld is a slice of a dyson sphere, anyway.
And it is almost infeasable, as the material that would be required to create the structure does not exist in any form know to man. That's a slight roadblock.
Name:
Anonymous2004-12-29 21:34
In science fiction, where they have interpreted the use of a dyson sphere, the habitants lived on the inside. The article said this: "But various science fiction authors seem to have <b>misinterpreted</b> the concept to mean a solid shell enclosing the star, usually having an inhabitable surface on the inside..." (bold is mine for emphasis)
Also, a solid shell would be wasteful. Numerous platforms held in place by pressure and solar winds, would probably be more practical/feasable.
Name:
172004-12-29 21:35 (sage)
I fail at getting words in bold
Name:
Anonymous2004-12-29 21:40
bbcode
Name:
PassiveSmoking2004-12-30 7:22
Of course, if people aren't living inside the sphere then it doesn't have to be so big. You could get the same results with a much smaller sphere, say a Mercury orbit sized one instead of an Earth orbit sized one.
Name:
les aptt2005-01-01 6:01
>>16
"And it is almost infeasable, as the material that would be required to create the structure does not exist in any form know to man."
Like Nanotubes 20yrs ago? Or this place? Time-wise we're flyspecks and predicticing the future is risky indeed.
There is a non-fiction work by Arthur Clarke "Profiles of the Future" (1960?) that explores the pitfalls but then he makes his OWN predictions.
Facinating.
Name:
Anonymous2005-01-18 22:38
Crap. I thought this was about that super-powerful vacuum that is advertised on TV.
>>16
there is a really big difference between a ring and a dyson sphere. with a ring, you can just spin it around the sun, and the centrifugal force will be like gravity. with a sphere, if you spin it, you will have no gravity at the poles. infact, you will have negative gravity at the poles, since the sun has gravity. this would be bad, cause all of your atmosphere would gradually fall through the poles into the sun.