What would it take to make a windmill for solar winds viable?

>>8065260

If solar panel efficiency might be too low/unreliable then the force generated by light will be just as (proportionally) bad.

The source is fundamentally the same (the sun) and so any light generated will be subjected to the inverse square law, be it used in solar power cells or solar "wind"

>>8065266
The solar wind is a stream of energized, charged particles, primarily electrons and protons, flowing outward from the Sun, through the solar system at speeds as high as 900 km/s and at a temperature of 1 million degrees (Celsius). It is made of plasma.

>>8065260
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_sail

>>8065294
still subject to the inverse square law

>>8065260
Solar sails can used to affect the flight paths of huge satellites too if you make em' big enough.

If you can make the sail light enough, they can counteract the sun or earth's gravity and float in place.

>> planets with little to no atmosphere
No atmosphere is better for solar cells, less losses due to the atmosphere absorbing light

Where do you get solar wind where you don't have sunlight?

>> underground
There is no solar wind underground.

You can harness the power of solar wind though, if you are in space and if you have a big satellite:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19497-out-of-this-world-proposal-for-solar-wind-power/

>>8065312
Doesn't apply to a stationary object. If it was moving away from the sun then yeah, it's matter and need to increase in size the further it went.

>>8065386
What the fuck did you just say?

>>8065413
Do you even know what, "inverse square law" means? Don't come into the conversation unprepared.

>>8065423

That has never been proven.

Intellectual (me):1
Pseudo-intellectual:0

I am an atheist as well.
I'm just an educated atheist.
Here are my beliefs:
Empiricism, falsifiability, fallacy checking, the scientific method, the socratic method, humility, scientific consensus, etc.

I don't believe in jumping to conclusions or siding with an unproven concept and calling it proven with emotional fervor.
That's irrational.
The only rational thing is to remain neutral until something is proven true with experimentation or some form of evidence.
Presumption is never evidence.

I have an idea,
is it possible to have large underground structures that can generate power from neutrinos bombarding it?

>>8065443
Such underground structures would need to be VERY VERY VERY VERY large to generate nonneglible amounts of power. You would probably generate more power from stuff naturally radioactively decaying in the dirt.