Re: Another new? idea

[KellySt@aol.com]

to Timothy van der Linden

> >> In fact it isn't a mirror anymore, we use a maser collector (analogy of
a
> >> solar-collector) and convert the whole bunch into electricity. > That
> >> electricity is that used to power an array of masers, just like the ones
at
> >> the Solar home base. So then we have a neat non diffusive or divergent
> >> retro-beam.
>
> >I'ld say that was a clever idea, but since I'm sure I suggested it a
couple
> >days ago and no one noticed, I'll ignore you.  :-P

> I'm sorry but I had no intend to make this idea look as if it was mine, I
> just wanted to restate it since, at least I was almost lost in this
avalance
> of letters.

I wasn't offended.  I just thought you had lost it in the avalance, and then
half remembered it and thought you came up with it.

> >Your talking about some heavy power equipment, but you've eliminated the
> >almost impossible problem of cleanly reflecting the beam.

> No, I wasn't reflecting it, I was retransmitting it by using maser-beams.

Note: I said "eliminated the almost impossible problem of cleanly reflecting
the beam".  I.E. you're not reflecting it.

I think your snow blind from the E-mail avalanch.  ;)



> >While I remember.  Wern't you the one that said the momentum of reflection
is
> >greater than the total power avalible if you absorb the power?  How did
that
> >work again?

> Yes that was me, but that isn't relevant here, I think 
> you have misunderstood my (or your?) whole idea of "retransmission".

I wasn't thinking of it for here.  Sorry for confusion.  I'm still woundering
if their is some better way to use the beam to decel.

If you have the equations handy send them on.

> >I was woundering if we could focus the beam on a reaction mass for some
kind
> >of plasm brake or something.  But can't remember the equations that were
> >geting thrown about.

> I didn't understand what you want to have, could you restate it?

Powe in watts to thrust equation if you have it.

Kelly