this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2025
121 points (85.4% liked)

Technology

74296 readers
3813 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 11 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (2 children)

Yeah, sending it wirelessly would have massive loss, probably around 90%+

[–] cecilkorik@lemmy.ca 12 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Are they really losses when the leaking, unfocused energy turns all buildings in a kilometer radius into microwave ovens? Just fill them up with popcorn packets and invite everyone over for movie night. We could watch one of the James Bond movies where the villain has an orbital deathray. I think there's at least a couple of them.

I saw this documentary about a device that can concentrate solar energy, called a "Solex Agitator." The project went sideways when this guy, who looked an awful lot like Christopher Lee, stole the prototype and tried to sell it to the highest bidder.

The British government somehow got involved and sent a spy to...

Wait... maybe that wasn't a documentary.

[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 2 points 15 hours ago

It's less about the loss and more about the space required for the receiver and the environmental hazard