>>3
WO-OAH! WE'RE HALFWAY THERE!
WO-OAH! LIVIN' ON A PRAYER!
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-04 1:20
YOU GOT THE TOUCH
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-04 1:20
YOU GOT THE POWER
YEAH!!!!!!!!!
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-04 2:01
IT'S THE FINAL COUNTDOWN!
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-04 5:12
I supposed you could beam microwaves to cars in the form of lasers to heat water and drive a steam engine.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-04 10:14
Hmmm perhaps there could be hundreds of beaming stations per square mile, each of which is too weak to do harm, but when focused would cook the water. The engine would have an RFID that would alert the beaming stations of the location of the water, and the stations would continuously focus on the water.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-05 2:53
I don't think you could do it with cars, but perhaps with powerplants.
Although mirrors would be a more practical solution, and solar boilers already exist, and are expensive.
In summary, cocks.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-05 6:14
Won't microwaves generate electricity when hitting some metals? Instead of more efficient solar cells, a mesh designed to convert microwaves into electricity.
Meh.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-05 8:15
>>11
Power plants aren't particularly mobile, so you'd be better off just using wires. Air is a very inefficient medium for most things.
Perhaps I should have said collecting station. What I meant was use a network of satellites or what have you to collect the energy and beam it to the power plant as microwaves.
Like, set up a bunch of boilers at 500 yard intervals somewhere in the desert, and each boiler microwave lasers its energy to the main collecting station, which heats the water.
but yes wires are moar practical.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-06 12:41
>>15 Perhaps I should have said collecting station. What I meant was use a network of satellites or what have you to collect the energy and beam it to the power plant as microwaves.
You mean like massively more expensive but only fractionally more effective solar power?