Archimedes Death Ray 584
Werner Heuser writes "Ancient Greek and Roman historians recorded that during the siege of Syracuse in 212 BC, Archimedes (a notably smart person) constructed a burning glass to set the Roman warships, anchored within bow and arrow range, afire. The story has been much debated and oft dismissed as myth ... Intrigued by the idea and an intuitive belief that it could work, MIT's 2.009ers decided to apply the early product development 'sketch or soft modeling' process to the problem."
MIT numbering... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:MIT numbering... (Score:3, Funny)
So that would make class lectures PEP talks? *ducks*
MIT numbering... (Score:4, Informative)
I respect the fact that MIT has its own unique course numbering system, and curricula are referred to by numbers rather than by name. However, it does bug me that MIT folks expect their bizarre internal numbering to make sense to outsiders. If one didn't know better, one might even see it as some sort of bizarre exclusionary "in group" code. But I suspect that it's just cluelessness, combined with intense isolation.
Re:MIT numbering... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:MIT numbering... (Score:3, Informative)
The Ayn Rand Institute: Columbus Day: A Time to Celebrate [aynrand.org]
./ built its own death ray... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:./ built its own death ray... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:./ built its own death ray... (Score:3, Funny)
Riiiiight, like people read the articles before posting
Glass? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Glass? (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe a combination of the 2 (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember a Mythbuster episode where Adam & Jamie try to reproduce this myth/story. They were not able to set a boat hull on fire (they built a replica-piece of boat hull from that age). Stronger still they barely managed to get the temperature higher up... iirc it was only a few degrees higher in the focused center of the beam.
Re:Maybe a combination of the 2 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Maybe a combination of the 2 (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember that episode, they couldn't set their replica on fire even when they poured gasoline on it and set that on fire!
Adam's credibility was busted, not Archimedes'.
Re:Maybe a combination of the 2 (Score:3, Funny)
By failing to set something on fire, duh! : )
Re:Maybe a combination of the 2 (Score:4, Insightful)
bust myths that aren't myths. The chicken gun story is a prime example. They'd "proven" that
it was not possible to have what was described in the chicken gun- but what they did was miss
what the conditions were and didn't test the actual story's premise. When re-done in a recap
story trying to revisit the whole idea, they more closely duplicated the whole set of conditions
and ended up reversing the decision they'd come to on it. The cell-phone story was debunked
but it wasn't debunked appropriately- again they didn't reproduce the conditions. They used
a non flip-phone cell-phone with capacitive operated buttons. No way for the phone to EVER
introduce a spark into an environment. I'm of their opinon on that one- it's a myth, but to
claim that it is off of their test on the subject is bad science.
Don't get me wrong, Mythbusters' is a great show and the bulk of the stuff they do is highly
accurate; but they should never ever be held as a final authority because they're a much
about showmanship as they're about mythbusting and miss many things. The MIT project apparently
shows this situation to be another one of those, "they didn't get the conditions right to
properly test and prove/disprove anything" situations they're guilty of on a periodic basis.
Easy to aim (Score:5, Informative)
Obligatory Coral link (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Obligatory Coral link (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.mirrordot.org/stories/90e7777b89ad9e53
Re:Obligatory Coral link (Score:5, Informative)
I don't suppose that reminding the crowd that Archamedes had quite a history building some pretty massive things and doing so using some pretty cute tricks with some really high math is in order. I am quite sure that Archamedes was aware of the solar reflection and other issues. It is my understanding that he used bronze mirrors of very large size that were essentially slightly parabolic with a focal range about 1 mile. I do know he possessed the math, and architectural skills to do this. This is typical of ratio projection used in buildings.
I do know the results in history of this man's work are pretty well established. He pretty much set about and did whatever he intended to do. As a scientist he was neither politically correct nor foolish. He was the best of his time and frankly would have been pretty good today.
The Mythbusters assumed that some things were too big to do. This would not have been a problem for a man who engineered the roofing of big Greek buildings.
Two possibilities (Score:5, Interesting)
Since the Greeks had gears [wikipedia.org] and ropes, it would have been possible to build a mechanism whereby one person could rotate many mirrors. I'm not saying it would have been easy, or even that it was done this way, only that they had all of the required technology to do it.
A second possibility would have been similar to the sighting mechanism used very successfully by the Dambusters in their attacks in World War II on German dams. They needed to know when they were at a certain height above the water, level, and at a certain distance from the dams. They achieved this by angling the searchlights to cross over at the right height and strike the dam at the right distance. To know if they were level, they used pieces of wood at different distances, which would line up when the aircraft was level.
To line the mirrors up with the ship, you'd need to know when the light from the sun would strike the ship at the right height. Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection, so as the sun moves through the sky, you'd need to shift the mirrors both horizontally and vertically to keep the light on the right spot.
If you had a hole in the mirror and stood behind it, you could swivel the mirror to face the ship. Since the ship would be at water level and the mirror would probably have been much higher, the mirror would have to have pointed at the tallest mast. It would be the only thing visible. To ensure all mirrors pointed the right way, each mirror would need behind it a stick that needed to line up with the mast, but set at an angle such that each mirror would line up differently along a crude parabolic curve. Shouldn't have been hard, with the Greek knowledge of geometry, which they were exceptionally good at.
If the action was brief enough and at the right time of day and at a predictable distance, the vertical angle would be unimportant. If it had to be ready for ANY time of day OR at ANY distance, then you'd need to have the poles on which the mirrors were attached themselves movable.
If you mounted the pole on one end of a see-saw, then added weights to the other end, you would be able to adjust the vertical angle of the mirror to whatever was required. The line of the see-saw would be parallel to the normal of the mirror. You can tilt the mirror such that the reflected light will intersect the ship at the same point that the line along the see-saw intersects the ship. This would guarantee all mirrors get identical vertical alignment.
We now have a guaranteed way of aligning a great many mirrors onto an identical point on a ship at any distance at any time of day, using nothing more than geometry, alignments and pivots. Again, this is NOT to say that this is how it was done - we don't know HOW it was done, or even IF it was done. What this is saying is that the arguments against have largely been based on sophistication, but that the required level of sophistication was certainly achievable had anyone wanted to achieve it.
Re:Two possibilities (Score:5, Informative)
I learned in boyscouts a very simple way to aim the reflection of the sun from a mirror at a distant object. You need a mirror that is reflective on both sides with a hole in it. Look through the hole at the target. There should be a spot of sunlight on the ground or your body from the sun shining through the hole in the mirror. Angle the mirror such that the reflection in the back of the mirror of this spot of light lines up with hole in the mirror. The suns rays will now be directed at the target. Many outdoor provisions companies sell small mirrors of this type for signalling purposes in emergencies.
Re:Obligatory Coral link (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Obligatory Coral link (Score:3, Insightful)
The MythBusters experiment was small in scale and had relatively
Far more than 100 soldiers (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not that difficult to aim the sun's reflection at a target. As some people have already mention, some methods would involve putting a hole in the flat bronze mirror and using the hole to aim.
I'm sure Archimed
Re:Mythbusters is a joke (probably OT) (Score:5, Informative)
It is not an "Educational" program. It's about 2 guys who used to do FX work for Hollywood using their skills with "getting close" to the right thing trying to see if they can replicate urban legends.
The funny thing is, you probably missed the episodes where they revisit old myths they worked on. If the show receives enough requests from the audience or they decide they didn't do something justice, they give it another go. They did the "chicken gun" myth a couple times because they kept doubting their setup. I didn't get to catch the final conclusion, but I would say that by the time they were done, they had tried everything available to them to see what would happen.
Other examples of where they've done things incredibly right include hanging a pig carcass from a hook on a pivot and shooting it with various guns to prove that no, taking a gunshot does not make you fly back and do cartwheels, and using a ballistics gel dummy (with a pig backbone to simulate the human one) to determine if you could be injured by a ceiling fan (even the high-powered ones didn't do much until they sharpened the blades).
Yes, most people who have shot guns would understand that Hollywood fakes it, but for the average Joe who just watches movies and TV, with no physics background, it was probably something neat to see.
Yes, they blow stuff up. They put a crash test dummy through hell. Yes, they keep fuck-ups on the film, because that makes the show more approachable to the target audience- it isn't a dry, we-just-provide-the-facts-ma'am-only-the-facts show. It is supposed to feel like you and you buddies could be right there with them. You know what, though? It's entertaining. And for a channel that brings us 5 variations on "hey, we're going to destroy a room in your house by letting a half-assed decorator come in and ruin your happiness", it's a damn good show.
Many of their conclusions are valid. They've shown that pissing on the "live" rail of a 3-rail train system will not shock you (urine stream is too fragmented by the time it hits the rail for electricity to travel), exactly how many bug bombs you would have to set off in a room with an ignition source before the gas was concentrated enough to explode, and that you cannot get sucked into the intake on one of those firefighting helicopters while wearing scuba gear, only to be dumped into the fire and die.
Re:Obligatory Coral link (Score:5, Interesting)
And Leonardo, while we're mentioning dead geniuses (Score:3, Interesting)
I saw a show on TLC last week (I have no idea what it was called... caught it channel surfing while it was already started) where they w
Re:And Leonardo, while we're mentioning dead geniu (Score:3, Informative)
You were watching PBS... just giving credit where credit is due. It was excellent. I had to double check that I still didn't have cable or satellite.
Re:Obligatory Coral link (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, he did get an amazing reputation. (Score:5, Interesting)
Further, given that he was at the time of his supposed feat a powerful figure in Syracuse, and the fact that the fate of a conquered ancient city was dire -- the city leaders would be paraded and killed, and everyone else sold into slavery -- Archimedes probably had access to all the material wealth of the city, and as much willing -- nay eager -- manpower as he could wish.
Given those facts I would hesitate to scoff at the myth on the basis of what can be achieved, or not, by a mere dozen modern men, of average intelligence* and creativity, working with trivial amounts of money, and not nearly as motivated as men facing enslavement, an ugly death, or in many cases both.
-------------
* Yes, I know the MIT students are no doubt above average in intelligence. But the odds that their number includes someone so clever and inventive that his name and accomplishments will still be common knowledge twenty centuries from now seems remote, to say the least.
Mythbusters (Score:4, Informative)
Mythbusters: http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/myt
Re:Mythbusters (Score:5, Informative)
I build a Death Ray [hutnick.com] and it works great.
-Peter
Re:Mythbusters (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Mythbusters (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They disproved the likeliness of this ever work (Score:4, Funny)
Not really all that interesting of a story in my opinion.
Re:Mythbusters (Score:3, Interesting)
However, if you have 500 * 1m^2 mirros at 20% effecency your talking about 100,000 watts of power over ~1-4m^2 area which could easly burn people and set riggin ect on fire. And once the fire started they could have kept extending it to ever larger areas of a ship before moving on to the next one. So while the might have been able to keep enough watter on
Re:Mythbusters (Score:5, Funny)
I'm wondering if their logic is "If you can build a death ray, you can't run for office, since it would give you an unfair advantage. Who the hell is going to vote against the guy with the death ray?"
Re:Mythbusters (Score:5, Informative)
I like your idea better though.
Re:Mythbusters (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Mythbusters (Score:4, Insightful)
The MIT team also built a poor approximation of a parabolic mirror too...
Next we will see that Mythbusters say that Stonehenge could not have been built with the tools of the time, or the Great Piramids....
Re:Mythbusters (Score:5, Informative)
Regards,
Steve
Re:Mythbusters (Score:5, Interesting)
In the MIT experiment, the boat was arguably a very poor replica of a trireme. It was painted black to optimize the energy transfer (which in the end didn't matter). The target was not moving, only the sun. The target was not in water. Highly polished silver on a superflat surface would have been the closest thing that the ancient greeks could have had to simulate those mirrors, and if such a thing were possible, it would have been enormously expensive. The greeks would have had people holding the mirrors, not tables and stands.
At 100 feet, your each soldier's heartbeat would have defocused the weapon, even if he could otherwise hold perfectly still (which he couldn't). To protect the soldiers from archers, Archimedes' weapon would have to hold focus at a much greater distance.
All these things the MythBusters got much close to right and the MIT folks avoided.
Nobody is arguing that focusing the sun on something won't result in transfer of lots and lots of energy. That would be just silly (the web page says they wanted to see if it was at least possible - damn, they had to go to MIT to figure out a finite amount of energy will cause wood to burn?!). The question is could such a thing have been constructed and put into use by the Greeks. And that's something the MIT folks answered far less effectively.
Re:Mythbusters (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would the greeks have tried to set fire to the wood? It would me much easier to target the sails, and they would burn much more quickly. Once the sails are burning, the wood follows. I don't understand why modern people have such problems following logic, and instead have such faith in modern products, and complex solutions rather than simple ones.
Re:Mythbusters (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Mythbusters (Score:3, Informative)
Given the extreme range the reflectors would be operating at, the constant motion of the targets and the fact that the targets would be soaking wet (with a constant supply of new water to replace that boiled away) I think the b
Re:Mythbusters (Score:4, Interesting)
In the MIT experiment, the boat was arguably a very poor replica of a trireme. It was painted black to optimize the energy transfer (which in the end didn't matter).
Actually a lot of the boats of the time were black. In any case, they would probably have targeted the sails if they were unfurled, being higher and easier targets.
Highly polished silver on a superflat surface would have been the closest thing that the ancient greeks could have had
I think bronze, or white bronze seems a lot more likely.
The greeks would have had people holding the mirrors, not tables and stands.
Because the greeks had not yet invented tables or stands?
At 100 feet, your each soldier's heartbeat would have defocused the weapon, even if he could otherwise hold perfectly still...
Again, because they had not invented stands yet?
To protect the soldiers from archers, Archimedes' weapon would have to hold focus at a much greater distance.
Or they could be standing behind big sheets of bronze.
All these things the MythBusters got much close to right and the MIT folks avoided.
I seriously doubt that. Now I'll be the first to admit, I'm no expert on light, reflection, or focal instruments. Similarly, I'm not an expert on Greek history and technology or Archimedes. I do, however, have my aptitudes, some of which have been touched upon by other Mythbusters episodes. It makes you want to cry when you see them making fundamental mistake after fundamental mistake, applying constants that are wrong by three orders of magnitude, and basically making all sorts of assumptions without any real research. Mythbusters are entertainers. They blow things up and make stuff that looks neat on TV, while trying simultaneously trying to address various topics in a very informal, half-assed sort of way. To assume that these jokers can "bust the myth" that a genius figured out how to do something that they are unable to in their five days of quickly throwing crap together without any real expertise or research is the real joke.
Note, I'm not saying this legend is true, but I am saying I'd never believe that it is not based upon the posturing of these twits.
Re:Mythbusters (Score:5, Interesting)
However, in the Guinnes book of world records they had a photograph of a couple hundred of Greek sailors with polished mirrors of about 1sqm each setting a dinghy on fire from about 150m away.
Re:Mythbusters (Score:3, Informative)
Adam is so dreamy. I want to marry him and have Mythbusters children with him. Mythbusters are so smart!
Re:Mythbusters (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Mythbusters (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is getting enough mirrors so that, from the point of view of the target, the images of the sun cover several degrees instead of the half degree of th
Re:Mythbusters (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mythbusters (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Mythbusters (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, they only disproved their own design and construction methods on this one. A properly-designed and -constructed working model was demonstrated on BBC Two's practical archeology programme, What The Ancients Did For Us [bbc.co.uk]
AHH (Score:3, Informative)
That's not a magnifying glass. (Score:5, Funny)
Fire good! (Score:2)
Re:Fire good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, Archimedes was a very smart cookie, but he was surrounded by other smart cookies, who were also geting up to interesting things. IMO, ancient Greece was pretty much as technologicly advanced as 15th century Europe. Why we ended up having the industrial revolution, and the Greeks did not, becomes a very interesting question.
Re:Fire good! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yours Yazeran
Plan: To go to Mars one day with a hammer.
Re:Fire good! (Score:5, Interesting)
The other answer to my post from the AC above probably nailed it. "Why build a factory when you can have slaves do it?" The class of Greeks that had the time to dabble with steam engines had no incentive to build labour saving devices.
Re:Steam engine of Heron of Alexandria (Score:3, Interesting)
That would be where the water table was close to the surface, and they would dig there to open a spring.
Earlier experiment like this (Score:5, Informative)
Solar Death Ray (Score:5, Informative)
Good Job guys you slashdotted MIT! (Score:3, Funny)
"Click on image thumbnails to see a larger images. Video clips will be online next week"...
Why next week?
Can't we just take down the entire MIT web server! =P
So, those poor students in mid-session won't be able
to access to their course material and similar! =)
That's nice a new excuse just came out!
"Sir, I couldn't do my assignment, because the MIT web server was slashdotted,
so I couldn't access the course material, can I get an extension.... PLEASE!!!!"
So, next time, you guys have a hard deadline assignment,
please just post an article on slashdot and there you go.
For everyone else, please use the Mirror...
http://www.mirrordot.org/stories/90e7777b89ad9e53
No tin foil (Score:5, Funny)
Hm? (Score:3, Interesting)
Solar Death Ray [solardeathray.com]
Looks like the renewable energy people are in on it, too [renewablee...access.com]
I also remember seeing one in my chemistry book last year... it was in france or somewhere (theoretically temperatures could get high enough to ignite something with a low flashpoint like wood or paper). The mythbusters' argument was that copper wasn't shiny enough and that even with mirrors, the soldiers wouldn't have enough precision to focus on a point for long enough.
-TX297
He was duped (Score:5, Funny)
If the enemy ships were anchored within bow and arrow range, I suspect that while Archimedes was fiddling with his mirrors, a few archers dipped their arrows in pitch and fired them at the fleet. Eventually, when Archimedes finished aiming his master weapon he was overjoyed to discover the fleet in flames. Archimedes reported his success to the king, and went down in history as the oldest recorded example of a horribly over-engineered solution to a simple problem.
Re:He was duped (Score:5, Informative)
Dr Lendon of the University of Virginia and a leading expert on combat in the ancient world is oft quoted in reference to the opening scenes of Gladiator as saying this:
"The opening battle is remarkably accurate for a Hollywood depiction of Roman warfare... if you think away the Napalm. The Romans didn't have anything more flammable than olive oil"
Flaming arrows, while they make good cinematography, weren't in the Greek arsenal at the time.
Re:He was duped (Score:4, Interesting)
Huh, that surprises me. Wasn't pine sap one of the more common incendiaries during the Middle Ages? I suppose that there probably aren't a lot of pine trees in Italy, but presumably they existed somewhere in the Empire, and I imagine that other saps would work alright as well.
Re:He was duped (Score:3, Funny)
Respighi would like a word with you.
Re:He was duped (Score:3, Informative)
You're only 900 years off (Score:5, Informative)
Re:He was duped (Score:3, Interesting)
As to whether A
Re:He was duped (Score:3, Interesting)
Someone will come around and quickly crush all hope of your statement ever being correct. The "correction" posts follow a few general forms.
You have experienced Something between the helpful and th
Lost Technology (Score:3, Interesting)
This, of course, is where the "Gods From Space" crowd chimes in. Works on TV [wikipedia.org], but in real life, there's a much more satisfying answer: people are damned fucking clever.
Does anyone else find myth busters annoying? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's really annoying when people take accept their "proofs" as proofs.
Oh ye ghods yes (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks for the breath of fresh air, Tum.
WWF (aka All Georgia Pro Wrestling) = entertainment
Penn & Teller's "Bullshit" = acerbic entertainment
Mythbusters = geeky entertainment
Nothing on any of these shows is any more true than anything you'd see in Archie Comic Books. It's supposed to be fun, people, not a freakin' belief system!
Re:Does anyone else find myth busters annoying? (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't take it too seriously. I know that the MythBusters don't.
You obviously were not paying attention at all (Score:5, Interesting)
For two, in reference to this particular episode, they did bust the myth that a cell phone can cause an explosion *through normal useage*. What they ended up saying, is in all likelihood the reported explosions were not coming from cell phones, but were a result of static electricity buildup at the scene. This is entirely plauseable. In my last car, depnding on the clothes I was wearing, I would often get actual blue sparks coming from my fingers to the door handle if I touched the car in the wrong way while getting out of it.
An explosion from a spark caused by static is much more likely than anything caused by a cell phone. How could useing a cell phone or having it ring *possibly* be any ore dangerous than a car radio? The car radio operates simmilar electronics, and hell, old ones even have rotary contact-based resistors for the volumne, which would be an ample source of spark potential. Any cell phone whose batter is sparking is not going to work properly because the battery is not making proper contact with the battery, so your calls would be constantly dropping. No one would use it.
The Sakkas Experiment (Score:5, Informative)
It's in Spanish, but it does have a photograph of about 40 of the 70 man-sized mirrors they used. He managed to ignite a tarred wooden boat in about 3 minutes.
I am now seeing "Forbidden" when trying to access the original MIT web page, however Google claims there is mention of the Sakkis experiment on this one [mit.edu] (also forbidden).
You only need to USE it once. (Score:3, Insightful)
Something like only needs to be used once to be effective. After that, the mere idea that it exists is a deterrent. Two other examples of this working:
1) The ancient Israelites carried a large gilded box called the Ark of the Covenant in front of them into battle. They believed it could summon up the wrath of God on their enemies. Their enemies were not 100% sure that the Israelites weren't right. There is no evidence that the Ark ever actually did summon up the wrath of God, but boths sides beleived it and the Israelites beat enemies who had superior numbers on a number of occasions.
2) How many atomic bombs were actually ever used? Two. But the mere thought that a country has nuclear weapons gives them a bargaining position. And the the fact that the wrong country even MIGHT be trying to obtain them is reason to go to war.
In the ancient world, this "death ray" would have struck fear in the enemies hearts and minds, despite the fact that it might have serious limitations, or may not even work at all except in controlled situations. And one or two prominant demonstrations of such a weapon would go a long way toward keeping this fear going.
What The Ancients did for us (Score:3, Informative)
1000 KW "death ray" (Score:5, Interesting)
The parabolic reflector gaves at the focal point a maximum flux of 1000 W/cm2. The experimentations takes place at the focal zone (18 m in front of the paraboloid. The range of available temperature is from 800 to 2500 C (the maximum reachable temperature is 3800 C) for a maximum thermal power of 1000 kW.
http://www.imp.cnrs.fr/foursol/1000_en.shtml [imp.cnrs.fr]
Re:MythBuster (Score:5, Funny)
Re:MythBuster (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:MythBuster (Score:3, Funny)
Re:MythBuster (Score:4, Insightful)
In an instant there is a large, open flame. The volatiles liberated from the wood ignite at roughly 1100 F.
Open, sustaining flame occurred less than 10 minutes after the sun was in a clear patch of sky!
You can also clearly see that there are still 3 mirrors not aimed correctly.
Now that Mythbusters is wrong, are there other myths that could be true?
Re:MythBuster (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:MythBuster (Score:4, Funny)
Re:MythBuster (Score:5, Funny)
This is before bow 'n' arrows, back in a time when lasers were the weapon of choice.
Re:MythBuster (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:MythBuster (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't have to burn wood -- people will do. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:MythBuster (Score:3, Interesting)
It's really not. You simply need larger mirrors and a larger group of people. Both this group and Mythbusters tried to do this with a very minimal setup and minimal redundancy. If they can set fire to a stationary target with 120 1 sq ft mirrors then e.g. 500 3 sq ft mirrors should be easily effective, even if 75% of the mirrors a
Time warp (Score:3, Funny)
Re:MythBuster (Score:3, Interesting)
Obviously you're not going to change your opinion just because some guy on the net thinks you're wrong. That's fine. However I will say that you haven't given any convincing reason for being so sure that Archimedes' Burning Mirrors never happened. From my point of view there is no r
Mythbusters - Smoke and Mirrors. (Score:3, Informative)
I don't belive the ancient greeks had the technology to make a glass lense large enough to fry a boat, let alone focus on a moving target. However it is certainly possible using multiple mirrors, even the crude ones made from p
Re:Units (Score:5, Funny)
You can express it as 1 getacalculator (or 10^youlazyfuck if you prefer scientific notation).
Re:Units (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Greek Fire (Score:3)
Re:Real Death Ray... (Score:3, Informative)
Looks like they calculated how much energy it would take, then upped that by a bit, then carefully aimed their mirrors to achieve the required flux. It worked. If they were able to get smoke from 129 self-aimed, 1ft. mirrors, get a few thousand soldiers on a hill, and see what they can do.
btw... the math on the power of the mirrors is wrong. if the mirrors are flat (and you can think of a curved mirror as many small flat ones), then the mirrors effectively apear to be another sun.