this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2025
278 points (99.3% liked)
Microblog Memes
9362 readers
2261 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's the best, simplest example I've seen for why this doesn't work. But...I wanted to look at it from the perspective of irradiance losses from the beam spreading. It's been a long time since I did any optics, so I could be way off-base with my approach. Feel free to correct anything I screw up.
Here are my assumptions:
Beam spreading loss is a function of distance. So however large the beam width (mirror diameter) starts, it'll be this much bigger when it reaches the ground:
600km * tan (0.5 degree) = 5.24km
That means if we have a 1m diameter mirror, we get a beam 5.24km + 1m on the ground. If we have a 5km diameter mirror, we get a 10.24km beam on the ground.
To get our target of 1000 W/m^2, we need at least
1000/1400 = 0.71
of what hits the mirror to hit our target.mirror/(mirror+spread) >= 0.71 mirror >= 12.83km
I can understand that a single flat mirror cannot ever appear brighter than whatever is being reflected. But why can't multiple mirrors pointed at one spot have a total intensity greater than that of any one of the mirrors (or a curved dish that focuses the light)?