Solar Roadways

I am curious why the hexagon shape?
Seems to me more edges to cause problems.
Would make for a very cool play deck. How much?
 
Sensfan said:
oh ya 1970's Popular Mechanics....WHERE'S MY FREAKIN JETPACK YOU PROMISED!!!!
Click to expand...

Haha, would be fun. Unfortunately we have no propulsion tech that will do the jobs. Rockets burn out fast and are insanely dangerous, jets are insanely dangerous and need to be large to run more than a few minutes and propellers/ducted fans have to also be built to large sizes to carry fuel (see the Martin Jetpack for instance.) To do personal flight like that we need to invent an entirely new type of propulsion technology, not holding my breath for that one for now.
 
1olbull said:
I am curious why the hexagon shape?
Seems to me more edges to cause problems.
Click to expand...

Apparently, they claim the hexagon shape gives better coverage on curves and hills, according to what I read, than squares.
 
I'm a lot more concerned about the wording that the surface gives "sufficient traction"... sufficient traction for what? Cars, sure, but how would it deal with motorcycle tires?
 
@cr0ft
Good question. I was also wondering about the friction produced by "glass"???
However, if it is good enough for car tires it should be good for motor tires.
 
cr0ft said:
Haha, would be fun. Unfortunately we have no propulsion tech that will do the jobs. Rockets burn out fast and are insanely dangerous, jets are insanely dangerous and need to be large to run more than a few minutes and propellers/ducted fans have to also be built to large sizes to carry fuel (see the Martin Jetpack for instance.) To do personal flight like that we need to invent an entirely new type of propulsion technology, not holding my breath for that one for now.
Click to expand...

I think it would be more towards leaning having better battery and power technology. All these things have the ability to generate lift, but not enough to last a while. When technology advances as the way they have now, like computers, they just keep getting faster, smaller and more efficient. Not batteries. Batteries are the slowest moving technology ever. A simple AA or D battery has not really changed design at all in the last few decades... But where it SHOULD be heading is that a battery the size of a can of cola should be able to power a car for a day. A few of these should be able to power a small aircraft. You see what I mean. We need to heavily invest in portable/battery power technologies. I am sure it could happen in the future. Who would of thought we'd all have amazing iphones that have more computing power then 100's of computers 10 years ago. No reason why it can't happen with batteries too.
 
1olbull said:
@cr0ft
Good question. I was also wondering about the friction produced by "glass"???
However, if it is good enough for car tires it should be good for motor tires.
Click to expand...
A few years ago there was.ag pilot project to use recycled glass as filler for aggregate in asphalt mix........when the tar wire off, glare was brutal, and it became way too slippery to keep a.vehicle on the.surface, mind you it was laid smooth and didn't seen to have what they have.
 
Those panels look to me to be much less than a standard bituminous concrete or oil mat surface.
Surely they have tested it, Why not publish the number if it's good.
 
cr0ft said:
Half a kilowatt just to maintain +2 degrees C? I seriously doubt that. There are aquarium heaters that are 15 watts, for 10 gallons of water, and that keeps water 10 degrees over the surrounding temp. Plus, the heater wouldn't have to heat the entire hexagon - just the very top layer, and just enough that water evaporates.
Click to expand...

You can doubt it all you want. Set the aquarium outside on a snowy day and see what happens to the fish. 15wh is abut 50 btu's. A btu is a unit of heat. For comparison only... A lit wooden match will produce ~1 btu. In perspective, 50 wooden matches (50 btu's) per hour would not keep the water warm. Hope this helps.
 
Back
Top