Not really. Even at the intended target, it's diffuse enough not to raise body temperature much. Birds could fly through without harm. Under the antenna, there'd be very little microwaves leaking through. Aim anywhere without a homing signal and you lose the coherent beam, making it much more diffuse.
iirc, Novar Conrols/Novar Electronics out of Barberton Ohio (at the time) was testing the phased arrays using bees and their hives and what ever else got in the area. Oh, yeah, and apparently some of the engineers and the boss.
(I used to work in a lab there next to some of the equipment and one day I asked my good friend about it - he had been there for decades.)
How can you get more power from an orders of magnitude less powerful beam than from an orders of magnitude more powerful beam (sunlight) over an equal surface area? And if you can’t, why do it? This blows my mind.
Disclaimer: I do not know the specifics, but I guess neither do you. The gist of it is probably that more energy gets transmitted per surface unit, but in a way that's less dangerous than sunlight.
Firstly, you have 24/365 production, always at peak power. All things equal, you need a lot less capacity for equivalent power generation.
Then, I am fairly certain that the amount of power that can be collected depends a lot on antenna size, just like standard wireless transmission: the antenna needs to be "tuned". And a few hundred meters of steel cable would likely absorb a lot more energy than an 80 L water bag.
And finally (but related), microwaves are likely a lot less dangerous than UV: it isn't ionizing, because individual photons cary a lot less energy. That also means that they penetrate more "cooking" (increasing temperature) more deeply the objects in its path. Instead of getting your skin burnt from the energy, you feel slightly warmed up (and would likely be able to dissipate the small extra heat in the atmosphere). A sizeable portion of this energy would likely end up in the ground, if no antenna is present to collect it.
This technology is interesting, as it offers a lot of new possibilities: it's easy to relocate, for instance. We might also be able to split the beam to power multiple places simultaneously, reducing grid losses (and load balancing at the satellite).
Any advice on where an individual could purchase (even limited) access to CRSP data?
I'm working on a data-driven financial analysis blog and can't seem to find decent time-series fundamentals data now that yahoo and google have taken down their api's. Everything I find seems to be a $1000+ yearly subscription.
Many of them got to live in really big mcmansions they should not have been allowed to 'afford' for about 10 years. The labor spent building those houses could have been spent building twice as many small houses.
Those people got foreclosed. The banks got bailed out, took property off the market, and prevented the market to properly settle. Tons of people are still locked out of the market in order to protect everyone else’s “investment” by artificially propping up the value.
Wasn't the risk shared between those who got to live in mcmansions and those who gave them the money for that?
Why does one party get to reap all the benefits but pay none of the consequences?
Many people didn’t have this at all and we’re still very negatively impacted by the recession due to loss of employment or raised taxes (eg I personally did not benefit from the pre-recession as I was too young and my family wasn’t particularly well off nor had a mortgage and I entered the job market right in the midst of the recession and I was hit with an income levy introduced to bail the banks out — I was personally lucky as tech wasn’t particularly heavily affected but many people were not so lucky).
This looks really cool, but I'm extremely suspicious of it. "We put you in a bin with wood chips" is about as detailed as the site gets about their process. It gets much more detailed about the facility and cultural implications.
Also, they turn you into soil, not a tree. When my dad dies, why would this be better than me simply burying his naked body in the forest somewhere?
Wasn't there a year recently where reliability skyrocketed? 2004 or something? I thought I heard there is a clear cutoff point where you should not consider buying a car before that date.
I'm a manager in a US restaurant. I've run the numbers and, given the maximum price increases our market could bear, the upper 3/4ths of our wait staff would make ~$1-2 less an hour than they do now.
I was also a waiter in the restaurant. I hated the stress, but could find no jobs with comparable schedule flexibility/required qualifications that paid as well.
