[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: problems with beaming
- To: KellySt@aol.com, kgstar@most.fw.hac.com, stevev@efn.org, jim@bogie2.bio.purdue.edu, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl, hous0042@maroon.tc.umn.edu, rddesign@wolfenet.com, David@InterWorld.com, lparker@destin.gulfnet.com, DotarSojat@aol.com
- Subject: Re: problems with beaming
- From: T.L.G.vanderLinden@student.utwente.nl (Timothy van der Linden)
- Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 16:48:04 +0100
To Lee,
>>In this case something like far ultra violet or Rontgen waves may decrease
>>the size of the aperture by a thousandfold (compared to visible light).
>>Do you know if there are lasers that can transmit EM-radiation with these
>>wavelenths?
>
>Yes, we have produced lasing reactions all the way up and into the x-ray bands.
Then that would decrease the problems significantly, the only thing that may
be more difficult is the reflection (I'm not sure which materials can
reflect X-rays well).
Why is it necessary for the beam to be in phase? Does that have to do with
interference in the beam?
>Besides the obvious advantage of not needing to build HUGE single antennas,
>there are other benefits. For instance, a phase array is "steerable". That
>is, the beam can be moved several degrees in any direction without physical
>movement of the antenna itself.
Steering, now I'm really interested, how is that done?
>For instance, Kelly's problem with beam
>"jitter" may be solved by coupling a feedback loop from the starship,
>intelligent prediction software and beam steering on a phased array to
>reduce or remove the problem.
The problem is that the feedback may take upto 10 ly (for deceleration), any
prediction would probably be meaningless.
>Actually it is 2 of these ~ above each other and is normally taken to mean
>"approximate", unfortuneately, there is no way to write this in ASCII unless
>you write ~~ which I believe has a different meaning.
Ah, now it makes sense.
Timothy