Jump to content

Talk:Dyson sphere/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4


Problem with the last bullet point on Dyson shell

Someone just added the point

  • If a Dyson Sphere had a penetrable shell simply by digging though the interior sufarce, then the atmosphere would be compromised and collapse within a matter of minutes.

and then added a really big diagram to illustrate it. There are several problems with this edit, so - for now - I've commented it out. If we can resolve the problems, we can uncomment it.

  1. First of all - having a "diggable" shell is ludicrious, when one of the earler points shows that there is no known material with the tensile strength to construct a shell. For example, a solid diamond shell is not soft enough to dig through, and even that isn't strong enough. I can't envision a substance that has binding properties on a par with nuclear forces (see Niven Ring or Scrith), amd still be "cumbly" enough to dig. The point isn't totally wrong, as its possible that interstellar meteors or asteriod sized bodies could still puncture the shell.
  2. Secondly, the gravity is pointing the wrong way. As noted in an earlier point, gravity in the system is toward the sun. Even if you have the "nested dyson spheres" solution, punching a hole on the outside sphere does not cause the atmosphere to spew out into space; it would just sit there.
  3. The image is way to big! I have a monitor set to 1024x768, which I admit is low to middle sized for screen resolution, and it runs off the edge of the screen. Most of the diagram is empty space and could be "cropped" - that is, if the diagram was accurate, which according to point #2, it's not.
  4. The point is kinda vague. I'm not sure what "compromised" here means. The atmosphere would collapse? Where? Out the hole? Wouldn't that start instantly as soon as the hole is made? If this isn't what you meant, what did you mean, and why would it take minutes.

Given these, I've commented out the edit for the time being. If my take on these points is way out to lunch, by all means, it can be commented back in, but for now I think the points are "faulty logic". A real shame, because the editor obviously put a lot of work into the diagram, and it's a really good job. - Vedexent 02:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That was my diagram and point, and I can still put it up there. I understand the "diggable" part is potentially ludicrous, but what would happen to the atmosphere on the inner surface were the sphere to be actually punctured? Would you be able to crawl through the hole and walk on the outer surface? Of course not! The vacuum of space would kill you unless you crawled back inside. Oh, and the gravity produced by the star would not be strong enough to hold in about 1 billion sq. miles of atmosphere. The atmosphere's own pressure would push itself out into the vacuum of space. - Aidepikiw0000

I think you're misunderstanding the points in the article.

You can't put atmosphere on the inside of the sphere - at least not without extraordinary engineering. There is no net gravity to hold it to the surface of the sphere. See the divergence theorem applied to gravity. This is one of the major criticisms of the usual depiction of the Dyson sphere in fiction. Realistically, what happens is that anything on the inside of the sphere (atmosphere, people, rocks, etc.) just falls into the sun. This point is mentioned specifically in the article.

I'm not sure what you comment about the atmospheric pressure of a billion square miles of atmoshpere means. Are you proposing to pressurize the entire interior of the Dyson sphere? If so - apart from the problem of where you'd get all the air from - you now have a massive heat conduction problem. If not, then your argument doesn't hold; what keeps the Sun's own stellar atmosphere from blowing off into space under it's own "atmospheric pressure" if this is a valid point? Mass that is not in orbit of the sun, or moving away from it at escape velocity falls into it: rocks, planets, or gas molecules.

This is why the "double Dyson sphere" and the "putting the atmosphere on the outside scenerios are mentioned in the article. Usually in science fiction, Dyson spheres either ignore this, or have gravity generators to hold thing down (and those are not mentioned in this article, but are mentioned in the Dyson spheres in fiction article).

I am quite positive you will not be able to find any reputable reference work on Dyson spheres that will claim you can stick atmosphere on the inside with "air pressure" - but I've been wrong before. Still, I think for such a claim to be accepted in this article, you'd have to show a reputable external reference for it. - Vedexent 04:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. But suppose the Dyson Sphere was rotating? Everything would be flung to the outer reaches of the sphere, creating gravity. -Aidepikiw0000 23:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep - in that case you're completely right - you would have cetrifugal force holding the atmosphere to the shell.

Unfortunatly, this causes the atmosphere to all "pool" around the equator. "Down" is perpendicular to the axis of rotation, which means that if the atmosphere all flows to the "lowest point" (as any gas or liquid will), it all pools at the bottom of the "valley" (really, any semicircular orange-slice "wedge" of the sphere you want to choose). So you end up with a spinning sphere with most, if not all, of the atmosphere pooling around the equator for the axis of rotation. Really, as far as habitation is concerned, you really have a Ringworld. Larry Niven mentions this scenerio in his Bigger than worlds essay. I guess that would still be capturing all the energy from the star, but you would have only a fraction of the habitable surface. For this scenerio, the Ringworld really works better.

Spinning also demands more tensile strength from a material (I think - the material at the equator is under less gravitational stress, as it is balanced somewhat by the centrifugal force, but the material at the poles would be under more) that already has problems supporting its own weight.

Really, the simplest solution to putting atmosphere on a Dyson sphere seems to be to put it on the outside. - Vedexent 23:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

A new section?

The article Matrioshka brain notes that "objections to the feasibility of a Matrioshka Brain are more thoroughly explored in that article [that is, this article, Dyson sphere as difficulties with the Dyson Sphere itself."

But then I read this article, and there's not so much material about objections to the feasibility of a Dyson sphere in this article, except for in the one Dyson shell section. In particular, I think this article should have a new section called "Objections to Dyson spheres" or "Problems with Dyson spheres" or something along those lines that sums up the issues with the existence (past, present, or future) of Dyson spheres, including engineering problems, issues with practicality and usefulness, likelihood of them being used, etc...

Any ideas?

zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Your point makes sense from an organizational point-of-view, but the information content of the article would not change a great deal. Feasability problems only really exist for the shell concept. There isn't anything inheriently technologically infeasible about creating a statite or an orbiting satellite. There are only problems of scale: creating billions of them (then again, how many do you need to "officially" make a Dyson sphere?). - Vedexent 06:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced speculation?

This was a new edit. I'm moving it here, in case people think that it should be put back into the article, but to my mind it seems to be unreferenced, speculative, original research. - Vedexent 03:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Construction Method

First Step: material collection. To construct Sphere in question it will take about all the matter in the solar system itself (Guestimated). To collect material drones are recommended each drone is controlled from a collection and processing point. The points are set up at regular intervals. The drones must be able to get to, intercept, and return materials. The drones would be controlled by teams that have about 5 to 10 drones and control the drones remotely. The initial retreivals would be astroids but planetary absorption would eventually be required.
Second Step: Processing Materials. Solar powered processors near the sun would be the first stage of processing. This separates the useful materials (ie. Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, most metals) from the not so useful materials (ie. Lead). The materials are then shipped to the second stage refineries. The second stage refineries convert the materials into a useful product. Once the refineries are done with the material it would be shipped to the point of use.
Third Step: Using materials. The finished material is used to construct more drones, more, processors, and refineries until they are evaluated as a comfortable level. Once there is less need these units will be reworked and moved to the ring construction point. The reason the processors and refineries are closer to the sun is for more efficient energy collection. But with the first ring energy becomes more abundant.
Fourth Step: First ring. The first ring is the most difficult this is where theory becomes practice. It starts with a single station that is in orbit of the sun. Then one station becomes two then three the stations begin to dot the orbit of the sun. Each station would have one of the processors and multiple refineries. The less useful material would be used to maintain orbit via Ion propulsion (Yes, this is a technology that already exist and has been used on several satellites). The satellites would then begin the construction of the backbone. The backbone would most likely be a monomolecular bar that would span the distance of the first ring once complete. The backbone would be protected by a shell of levels that would double as habitation area. The inner shell would be solar arrays that would power the entire ring. The propulsion network would still be in full use at this point. Gravity would be simulated by the spin (hopefully).
Fifth Step: Ring #2. The second ring will be easier but still have its own challenges. It would be constructed in a manner that was similar to the first but would have a connecting axis. The initial axis relation would be at opposite angles and the ring would have an opposite spin to reduce stress on propulsion. The image of the two would look similar to an X above the connection point, but the X would be stretched greatly from left to right to keep the gravitational toll to a minimum. One ring would be able to completely fit inside the other so there would not be a completely identical structure. The connection point that I am referring to is actually the new propulsion system. It would be magnetically thrusting one ring a direction and the other ring in the other direction. It would also have the purpose of transferring occupants and materials from one ring to another.
Sixth Step: Ring #3. The third ring would be able to fit inside the inner ring and would have the opposite spin in regards to the ring it is in contact with. It would be a strike through the stretched X. It will be this ring that makes the first tilt outside the solar plane (the solar plane being the plane on which all planets are on for the most part.) By this time it will be known what will be required to keep the structural integrity of the ring intact for the tilt.
Seventh Step: Tilt. The tilting will produce massive amounts of stress on the ring and will push the ring to its limit. Tilting should take about 2 years to perform correctly. The ring connector will have to be able to adjust to keep up with the tilt. If this goes well then another set of connectors will be constructed to connect each ring to the other two and one of the other rings will perform a half tilt.
Eighth Step: Gaps. At this point there will be 8 massive gaps between the rings. Two more rings could be constructed to fill the gaps in or a more direct method could be applied. The process of filling in the gaps would be more of a hobby at this point than a requirement.
Ninth Step: Solar Life. Complete closure of the star is something that would be detrimental anyways. The star needs room to breath and at this point the goal would be to expand the lifespan of the star. At this point at least 50 years would have passed and the actual number would probably be 200 years.

Need Image

Need a image of the one featured on Star Trek: The Next Generation as well. Martial Law 08:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Tensile vs compressive

Someone just changed the comment that it needs great tensile strength to it needing great compressive strength. Newton proved that a point in a hollow sphere has a net gravatational pull (from the sphere) of zero... so I would expect that it isn't gravity causing the compression... So I'm confused as to where this compression is coming from. (Particularly since other sources have tensile strength). Enlightenment please? Nahaj 20:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Newton proved that a mass inside the dyson sphere is gravitationally neutral with regards to the shell (gravity is still there, it is just equally balanced on all sides). It doesn't have anything to do with the shell's mass acting on itself.
Compressive pressure is caused by gravity. Imagine a "chunk" of shell. It "wants" to fall down toward the star. No matter what, the star's gravity is pulling on mass around it. It can't fall, because it's "jammed" up against every other chuck trying to do the same thing - like two people trying to go through a door at the same time. This causes "side-to-side" pressure from the "chunks" trying to push through the "doorway". Hence there is compression in the shell, caused by gravity. Get enough pressure, and the "chunks" will "pop" through (actually, they won't be perfectly balanced, and the ones that are a little ahead will get pulled through). No known substance could make up the "chunks" where there is not enough pressure to break the chunks up, and bits "pop through".
Now, throw in that the "chucks" can be arbitrarily small - like on the atomic scale. Presto. - Vedexent 21:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool new diagram...

... although the original size was horrific :) - Vedexent 02:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

FAC Push?

This is a quite stable article, well organized, somewhat well referenced - is there much interest in getting it peer-reviewed, tuned up, and pushed into Featured Article territory? - Vedexent 16:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there enough matter in our solar system to make such a thing?

Without destroying a planet in the process that is Lengis 05:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[1] --Splarka (rant) 07:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Limits of Swarm Efficiency

I'm sorry, but it looks like I just added some original research to the article. The section on Dyson swarms stated that increasing complexity of the orbital configuration would be accompanied by a decrease in the amount of solar radiation captured. This is, of course a mistake. In reality, what would decrease would be the amount of energy gathered per construct, not the total amount. More constructs in orbit would certainly continue to increase the amount of energy intercepted, but the increasing chance of occlusion would lower the efficiency of the sphere. So, we'd have a situation of diminishing returns. Which means, there would be a limit to the usefulness of continuing to add more constructs. Though it would be a function of the builders' technological prowess, there would inevitably come a point where the amount of energy a new construct would be able to capture was of less value than the resources put into building the construct. The clear implication is that a Dyson swarm would never capture all of the available energy from its parent star. That would mean there would be occasional "windows" through which the star's light would continue to escape into space and so the whole structure would appear as a large body radiating in the infrared with occasional bursts of brighter light. It would look like a variable star. I'm not sure how to figure it out, but there must be some mathematical way of estimating the efficiency limit and therefore predicting the amount of observed variability. Does this make sense, or am I missing something? Aelffin 04:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Question about energy collection

If a Dyson sphere collects the entire amount of energy produced by a star, what does it spend it on? It sounds like the sphere would become so hot it would melt. The Earth collects only a very small part of the energy produced by the Sun, yet the Sun is by far the most important source of energy on Earth. Does the vastly increased surface area of the Dyson sphere compensate for the higher amount of energy? JIP | Talk 06:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The short answer is "Yes, the increased surface area of the Dyson sphere compensate for the higher amount of energy". You are correct in that the Dyson sphere/shell/swarm/bubble has to radiate the same amount of energy as it absorbs. What wavelength this radiant energy would be depends on the material that makes up the shell, and the temperature of the shell.
You can calculate the amount of energy that would be striking the Dyson sphere per square meter if you like, but intuitively, a Sphere 1AU in Radius would be receiving as much energy per square meter as the surface of the Earth is - which doesn't seem to be unbearable to deal with for us :) The total area isn't as important and the energy per square meter; the Earth wouldn't be hotter or colder if it was bigger or smaller (as long as all other factors stayed the same - atmosphere and albedo play a big role in our climate's temperature). A shell this size would most likely be radiating infrared radiation, and this is why Dyson proposed we look for abnormal infrared sources. These are what the Fermilab search program is looking for in the IRAS data.
As noted in the article, shells of different radii would be radiating at different wavelengths. If the beings who built the sphere wanted a hotter or colder environment their shell would be smaller or larger, and would be radiating energy of higher or lower wavelength. The wavelength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance of the sphere's surface from the star (Surface Area of a Sphere = 4 π r2). We might miss detecting a construct of truly alien beings if we are only looking for infrared sources.
Vedexent 09:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
One has to take into account that the inside of the Dyson sphere also radiates energy, which comes in addition to the solar output. Therefore, a Sphere with a radius of 1 AU becomes much hotter that earth (even neglecting there is also night on earth). To reach comfortable temperatures, the Sphere must be much bigger than 1 AU, depending on the thermal conductance of the shell. Mathijs Romans 12:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Climate and weather?

With the Dyson sphere absorbing all of the star's energy output, and every point on the inside surface being always equidistant from the star, wouldn't this mean that the inside surface enjoys (or "enjoys") a constant summer day, without even any nights in between? I guess humans could adapt well to constant summer (I know I would), but a constant day seems unbearable. Is there any way to make the weather conditions more Earth-like? JIP | Talk 12:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Weather seems to be down on the priority list of things to worry about since there isn't any practical way to make the inside of a Dyson sphere habitable. See the article - everything on the inside of the shell just falls into the star, unless you want to make two nested spheres, with the inner one transparent. Since no known substance is strong enough to make up a Dyson shell anyways, finding a variant which is transparent as well seems unlikely.
The Dyson swarm and Dyson bubble variants all presumably contain artificial space habitats, so the weather problem doesn't exist there.
Put everything on the outside of the shell, and gravity makes it stay put - but now you have permanent night. Presumably you could punch holes (massive 100 mile high walls around the edge to keep the air in), with giant space borne statite reflectors bouncing light onto the surface to get some illumination. A multi-lobed conical reflector (something like a 4-leaf clover with the petals bent back) could rotate on the axis pointing toward the center of the star, and you'd get "searchlight sweeps" of light across the surface simulating day/night. Seems a big undertaking just to get light - then again so is building a Dyson sphere.
In general, it seems that a Dyson shell isn't likely to be possible, so there is no use worrying about how to fine tune the environment.
Vedexent 16:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Centrifugal force

Centrifugal force? *tsk* 62.241.248.158 21:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a great deal to be said for being clear about what you mean - Vedexent (talk) - 23:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

He's whining about how cf force isn't "technically" a force, even though everyone understands what it means (which is obvious, because how else do you whine about it?), and the full explanation is a bit hard to put into prose.KrytenKoro 04:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Dorr Shell

Someone has added the Dorr Shell as a variant of the Dyson Sphere. Interesting idea, but neither this entry, nor the article on Dorr Shells has any references. Should this be included, or is this someone's original research? - Vedexent (talk) - 16:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I further question the notability of the Dorr Shell, as personally interesting as I think the idea is: neither Google's regular search, nor Google Scholar return any hits for "Dorr Shell" relating to hypothetical megastructures. It's looking like original research at the moment. Anyone have anything else on this? - Vedexent (talk) - 16:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like someone has attached their name to something that has been around as an idea for a while. Living on the outside of a solid Dyson shell has been floating around for a while -- Niven mentioned it in "Bigger Than Worlds," and there are essays around online you can find supporting the calculations -- so someone's either playing WP:OR games or is trying to get otherwise undeserved frame. The entry should probably be removed and the Dorr Shell article deleted. Xihr 18:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
That is my suspicion as well. Niven even goes on in Bigger than Worlds to suggest the "Mega Dyson Sphere" englobing the core of a galaxy and using the rest of the galaxies mass to create a massive shell, and several light years of breathable atmosphere around it - so this isn't a new idea. Unless someone can produce a publication by "Dorr" (whoever they are) proposing the idea, I'd label this as original research and remove the references to the "concept". - Vedexent (talk) - 18:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Googling for "Adam Dorr," I don't see hits from anyone that might look remotely relevant. Googling for "Dorr shell" and "Dorr sphere," I don't find anything at all. Having heard of the concept before but never the name until just now, I conclude this is WP:OR (and/or someone just trying to get undeserved fame) and unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Xihr 18:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks like the both the article and the entry in the Dyson sphere article have been expunged. - Vedexent (talk) - 00:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Other Types

I've added a point in the "Other Types" section of the page which points out that other conceptual variants of the Dyson sphere exist but cannot be listed due to Wikipedia's citation policy. This statement is a fact, and it is useful for the interested reader as it let's them know that there is more information out there about the Dyson sphere than just what is contained in the Wikipedia article.

My original edit was removed by Xihr - WP:NPOV. This objection is nonsense, seeing as a statement of fact is neutral. I've therefore reinserted the edit. I've also included a minor change, which shifts the explanation for omission of information in the article from the specific (Wikipedia's citation policy) to the general (citations pending).
I know what you're trying to do and I know that it's frustrating. Believe me, I've been in the same situation many of times. But please try to avoid petty reverting wars. You explanations on this talk page are appreciated. That said, I agree WP:NPOV might not be the most appropriate justification for deletion of the point, but it will still probably get deleted. Sorry. theanphibian 21:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
As I've mentioned several times now during this "Dorr Sphere" nonsense, that type of "outside habitable shell" is not new (Niven wrote about it), is already linked to in the article (see the "Outside Dyson shells" link), and is not named anything to do with "Dorr." Just because someone comes up with an idea doesn't mean that it's new, original, or worthy of his name. The thing is not new, is already mentioned, and is not called a "Dorr" anything. You're tryihg to make Wikipolitics point because your unknown, unreferenced, made-up name got removed; please stop it. WP:NPOV, WP:POINT. Xihr 21:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you referring to this bullet?
  • For the same reason, such a shell would have no net gravitational interaction with anything else inside it. The contents of any biosphere placed on the inner surface of a Dyson shell would not be attracted to the sphere's surface and would simply fall into the star. It has been proposed that a biosphere could be contained between two concentric spheres, or placed on the outside of the sphere where it would be held in place by the star's gravity. In such cases, some form of illumination would have to be devised, or the sphere made at least partly transparent, as the star's light would otherwise be completely hidden.
The inovations of the Dorr shell include using a binary system to create night and day and to make the sphere super small (which will also increase the material strength demands). Yep, this is pretty much jibble jabble which could go on all day about different ways you could make the Dyson sphere. However, I think at least the last point of this bullet is already jibble jabble. Just so you know, IMO, these are all physically terrible suggestions. But let's please try be civil. theanphibian 21:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Jibble jabble? Would you happen to mean jibber jabber?
some say jibble jabber, some say jibber jabber. theanphibian 22:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
If by "some" you mean illiterates and non-native English speakers, you are correct.
Uh huh, sorry for abandoning the hard in stone principals for nonsense words. You know, I was the only one who voiced things that were even borderline a defense of your contributions. theanphibian 23:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Clearly it isn't worth belaboring the issue, what with toddlers indulging in pissing contests over articles like this one when they aren't busy editing the articles for video games. You know exactly who you are. I've tried to be accommodating, despite the fact that claims of external articles covering the concept in question are nonsense. Nowhere in the "Outside Dyson shells" link is there mention of a binary or multiple star system, or of a day/night cycle, or of a tidal cycle - all crucial to habitability. First I explained the origin of content itself (named after the guy I heard the idea from when no prior source could be - and still hasn't been - cited), then I suggested the original article I created be deleted until it could be properly sourced. I then trimmed the entry in the Dyson sphere article to a scant mention of unlisted variants. If pointing out this article's incompleteness and omissions doesn't constitute useful information, I don't know what does. It's a shame, because the idea of wikipedia is to consolidate useful information in one place. If simply linking to external sources were enough, wikipedia would be nothing more than a search engine.
Wikipedia is supposed to be about gathering and organizing knowledge, not about petty turf wars. Somehow this fool got it into his head that my original edit was trying to give credit where none was due rather than simply add to the content and enhance the value of the Dyson sphere article. As a result of some twisted, infantile territoriality complex - no doubt the result of inhabiting his personal Wikipedia microcosm 24 hours a day - the sad fella in question has sacrificed objectivity and knowledge on his personal altar of ego. Well done. Hope you're proud of yourself. Just a suggestion here, but it might be time to get out of mom's basement and get a life.
I suggest you all read Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, WP:Original research, and Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. While I believe that the complete lack of published references to the "Dorr Sphere" made it original research, and therefore not valid for inclusion (remember that under the verifiability guidelines "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." - and the Dorr Shell fails this test. Wikipedia is not meant "to consolidate useful information in one place", it is meant to consolidate and interconnect verifiable information in one place), the means by which it was handled leave a great deal to be desired. - Vedexent (talk) - 00:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, how shameful that some random guy shouldn't be able to attach his name to a preexisting concept in an encyclopedia just because he feels like it. Life is so unfair. Xihr 00:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
What was that again? Oh, right:
Nowhere in the "Outside Dyson shells" link is there mention of a binary or multiple star system, or of a day/night cycle, or of a tidal cycle
First I explained the origin of content itself (named after the guy I heard the idea from when no prior source could be - and still hasn't been - cited), then I suggested the original article I created be deleted until it could be properly sourced. I then trimmed the entry in the Dyson sphere article to a scant mention of unlisted variants.
Somehow this fool got it into his head that my original edit was trying to give credit where none was due rather than simply add to the content and enhance the value of the Dyson sphere article.
My, how perfectly that squares with "attach[ing] his name to a preexisting concept in an encyclopedia just because he feels like it." Funnier still, it isn't even my name - it's some guy I hardly know who lives 12 time zones away.
Here's a hint: it's always a good idea to read what other people have posted. Come to think of it, it's probably a good idea to read the edits people have made too.
If you're trying to build a case for attributability, you're headed in the entirely wrong direction. Not only is it his personal, unpublished (but unoriginal) idea, but you barely know him? What's next, maybe that Dorr isn't his real name, either, but rather his secret identity? Xihr 04:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Remarkable. Still no evidence cited for the claim of unoriginality. Say it often enough and it'll make it true, right? The part about a secret identity is great too: when in doubt, hyperbole. Boy, aren't we lucky that these are just the qualities an encyclopedia editor needs.
Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Wikipedia:Resolving disputes - I suggest you all just drop the issue. - Vedexent (talk) - 10:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

General Relativity Time Dilation Question Cleared up

Hey, I was wondering about the case where a star on the verge of a black hole was in the middle of a Dyson shell and how the presence of the shell would affect the relativistic time dilation, so I got my questions answered on The General Relativity Talk Page. It's doubtful to be of great enough significance to go in the article, but it should be of interest to anyone curious about particulars of the physics of Dyson shell or swarm (I think it works the same in both cases but I'm not an expert). Happy editing. theanphibian 21:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Utility Section

It seems to me that the "Utility" Section is somewhat redundant.

Dyson pointed out that so far the energy usage of mankind has increased exponentially for at least a couple of thousand years, and if this continues we will soon consume more energy than the Earth receives from the sun, so the natural step is to build artificial habitats around the sun so that all energy can be used. The same may go for population in the long run. However, models based on the demographic transition predict that human population will stabilize in the future.
A Dyson sphere in the solar system, with a radius of one AU would have a surface area of at least 2.72e17 km^2, around 600 million times the surface area of the Earth. The sun has a energy output of around 4e26 W, of which most would be available to do useful work[4] or around 33 million millions more than the total energy consumption of humanity in 1998 which was 12e12 W.

The first paragraph — except for the last sentence — basically repeats the first paragraph of the "Origin of concept" section in more obfuscated language. The last sentence may be interesting from a Human population basis, but is basically irrelevant to the concept of the Dyson sphere.

The second paragraph is an interesting illustration of how much more radiant energy is available to a 1 AU radius Dyson sphere around Sol, but as the article is about the Dyson sphere concept in general and not specifically "Terran-style" Dyson sphere's this might be tucked away in a footnote.

While the author obviously means well, and the information is reasonably well written (and the author did take the pains to reference their material - thank you), I'm not sure the "Utility" section adds much that is new to the article. - Vedexent (talk) - 20:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that some more exact numbers are interesting and they are not mentioned elsewhere.Ultramarine 20:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
In the second paragraph, yes - but as I said that can probably be tucked into a footnote, or added to the "Origin" section. It also seems solely to refer to Dyson shell, the figures would be different for a Dyson swarm or bubble; they would intercept less of the Sun's energy, with the upper limit being that of the shell variant.
This argument also doesn't address the repetition of the first paragraph, or the questionable relevance of Human populations stabilizing to the idea of Dyson spheres, as Dyson was concerned with a civilization's energy consumption curves and not population or habitat size. - Vedexent (talk) - 20:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
We can remove the demographic transition material as well as the first paragraph if you prefer.Ultramarine 20:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
However, regarding the numbers some approximation of the magnitude is interesting. Qualifers as per above can be added.Ultramarine 20:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Toroidal Dyson Swarms java simulations added.

Actual Use?

I my have accidentally skimmed over it, or it may honestly not have been covered, but is there any information on exactly how all of this energy would be harnessed, and transferred to wherever the beings are living? I assume that for the Gaean version, we are still living on Earth, but unless we are living on the shell itself (a notion which the article shows is ludicrous), there must be some way to transfer the energy from the collectors to where it is used - is this going to involve gigantic cables, some sort of reflective array, or what?KrytenKoro 05:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's much discussion anywhere if you're talking about actual engineering details, no. You don't really need to worry about whether the Dyson shell is inhabitable, or how to send power over its surface, since it seems to be pretty much impossible under modern physics: there just isn't any known or theoretical material strong enough for its construction. The Dyson bubble, or Dyson swarm variants might be theoretically possible, and inhabitable, but there's not much need to transmit power from component to component in those cases. If you have a space habitat for population hovering over the star, they can gather their own energy. The same argument holds true for industrial installations, or the computer components of a Matrioshka brain. If power transmission was required between components, it would be possible to use laser or maser transmission through free space, as the swarm and bubble variants are mostly empty space (usually, they'd have to get awfully crowded for this not to be the case). - Vedexent (talk) - 05:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikifi, see also -> essay, todo

Known planet systems exhibit symmetries like Orbital resonance. Multiple objects on the same orbit are often due to Lagrangian point. Planetary rings and asteroid belt already resemble a ring. Tidal acceleration can damp oscillations in such a system. The Ringworld Engineers seems not very reliable. Considering Mechanical_equilibrium the swarm is stable, the sphere is neutral, and a ring is unstable. Compare with Stability_(aircraft). The swarm looks like Space debris.

Applications

Arnero 20:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I just skimmed over the science vol 162 article and the replies to it, and I have the impression that this wiki-article only contains updates insofar as people followed Dysons plan. All variants are already mentioned together with their stability. And it is short. But it contains no information on the size of the swarm objects. Why is a Dyson swarm of large objects speculation? Can you give a reference for this limitation? Arnero 19:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you have the requirement of referencing inverted. Ideally points are not included unless they can be referenced - not, as you seem to imply, allowed unless they can be shown to be excluded in the literature. There is nothing fundamentally unreasonable about your swarm scenario, except that it isn't supported anywhere in the published literature that anyone seems to know of. If you can show that scenario is published somewhere it is valid to be re-included. Unless you can do so however, it is really speculation, and therefore falls under original research, and really shouldn't be in the article, no matter how reasonable a scenario it may be.
Your scenario did include actual engineering details, which I don't see anywhere in Dyson's work, or follow up articles by other published scientists. Also, to be picky, since you had your "swarm objects" connected with "robotic arms" to form a solid ring, isn't this really a Niven ring? --Vedexent (talk) - 01:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I usually revert referencing and usually everything has be published somewhere and google is my friend and I just pick the hits that support my version. But for Dyson spheres the literature is too scarce. And no it is no Niven ring, as it is not rotating too fast, and as the joints make the orbit stable. Arnero 17:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Citing Google hits isn't exactly the best referencing technique. References, ideally, should be from works that are peer reviewed such as in an academic journal, or subject to some form of editorial control such as a publishing firm. The internet has too low a signal-to-noise ratio, which is why Wikipedia adopted the guidelines it has; Wikipedia is attempting to be a source of information in which the sources are a little more academically responsible than someone's blog, or a self-published essay on someone's web page. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and Wikipedia:No original research for a better (albeit someone fluid and evolving) explanation of the policies which Wikipedia tries (ideally) to follow.
In a way, this is rather too bad, as it means that ideas on the "bleeding edge" rarely are legitimate candidates for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ideas have to be discussed, evolved, and eventually published by someone reputable in a work which is noted (or at least accepted) for academic/journalistic honesty/responsibility before they can be unambiguously added to Wikipedia. At least that is the theory; we all know there are tons of "facts" and ideas included in Wikipedia which are not supported, or supportable, this way. However, all such ideas are "fair game" for removal, which is one cause of edit wars, I'm sure.
In your case, if you wanted to make an airtight case for the inclusion of your scenario/idea, you should find someone who has published a paper, or book, which describes the scenario you describe, and reference that publication. If you cannot do this — and you seem to indicate this is unlikely, as you rightly point out that "for Dyson spheres the literature is too scarce" — then it is questionable whether Wikipedia is the place for including this idea. It is a great topic/idea to bring up in general discussion forums about exploratory engineering and science fiction however. It is a good idea, and an interesting scenario, just probably not something that is yet ready for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Vedexent (talk) - 00:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope this is my last backflash (I think the commons have not quite these restrictions):

But still the article could be structured into orbit, mechanic strenght, how to build (mass in solar system), cost , applications and merged with niven ring. Arnero 09:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and no ... you seem to want to structure the article as if Dyson Sphere was an engineering concept. I think that its current content detailing the history of the idea is also important, so let us not be taking that part out in any such updates. As for the other details ... if you can find published works which discuss these aspects then by all means, a more detailed discussion of the mechanical and engineering parameters of the various structures would be a welcome addition. If you can't find reputable sources (and I'm very sure you can find unvetted speculative web pages and discussion forums out there, which are not accepted sources) then such speculation should not be included here.
As for the image, while there is nothing wrong with the image per se, you claim in the image metadata that it is a depiction of the concepts described on http://www.burtleburtle.net. "Donuts and Dyson Swarms" is not a reliable source, as it is unvetted and unpublished, making it (admittedly interesting) original research. So there is nothing wrong with the image, but it illustrates a speculative concept that occurs nowhere in acceptable sources that I am aware of. Thus, I'm not sure where you can use such an image. - Vedexent (talk) - 14:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

How much of the sun's energy can we use now?

This would intercept the full 4x1026 watts of the Sun's output; It would be interesting to make a comparison with the energy that currently falls on the earth's (small!) surface. (Sorry, I don't have time to lookup a good reference for this myself.) --Hamster128 14:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dyson_sphere/Archive_2&oldid=1136683569"