> The mirror was designed by Bozani with the help of engineer Gianni Ferrari, and cost about €100,000...
First reaction: why would a mirror cost this much?
> Eight metres wide and five tall, it reflects the sunlight for six hours a day, following the sun’s path in the sky thanks to a software programme that makes it rotate.
Also saw elsewhere that the reflectors are made of steel. So a giant, software-controlled, motorized structure, reflecting just the right amount of sunlight to a precise location, sitting out there in the elements...
The hardware may cost very modestly. But consider the salary of the people who designed it, built it, transported it, and installed it. These must be several pros, working on that full-time, at a salary near the competitive level (even if they agree to take a hit out of being charitable). Much of that salary would go to the taxes.
I began designing a kirigami-based orientable "parabolic" mirror-mesh with the goal of creating an affordable solution. My primary design objective was to minimize the number of actuators relative to the number of "pixels" in the mesh, enabling me to control the position of the focal point using just a few servomotors. The project originated as an exploration of redirecting sunlight onto plants by mounting these mirror meshes on my house walls, though I did not complete the design.
The actuating system I developed can tilt pixels in a row at an angle proportional to their distance from the mesh center. This approach creates a "focus parabola" rather than a precise focal point—which would require actuators to tilt pixels according to an arctangent function relative to their center distance. Despite this limitation, I believe the design remains viable for my intended use, notwithstanding the significant incendiary risks involved.
While this approach might not be suitable for the scenario discussed in the article due to wind conditions and the need for a flat surface, it offers advantages over costly hydraulic systems. The mesh could be rolled up and transported in a bag, providing a potentially more portable alternative.
my thought was the opposite: "only EUR 100k for a giant sun tracking device mounted above a village? Maybe Montgomery Burns' idea of doing the same thing in reverse wasn't so ludicrous after all..."
I lived in Inuvik, NWT (Canada) for a decade in my youth. It's above the Arctic Circle and has 30 days without sunlight, bracketed by months of near darkness. Each year a new crop of noobs would move in and there would be a little exodus when the folks who just couldn't hack the dark would finally realize what they had signed up for. Summer was grand compensation though, three or four months of the sun being up whenever you might be tempted to be. An odd thing was, in the summer, being up at 3 am and seeing things uncannily lit from an unfamiliar side! Quite a fascinating place to experience, all in all, and well worth the couple thousands of kilometers of driving to get there too.
Assuming this works (which might be a big if, even with recently greatly expanded launch capabilities), it raises the question of who gets to decide whether a given piece of land should be illuminated at night or not.
Hopefully not just the highest bidder, without any veto right of the (other) people that are there too?
I’m pretty sure it is the eternal fate of Russian physicists to have worked out the math, but to not have the funding or engineering to implement a thing, right? So, I guess that fact, at least, doesn’t tell us much of anything.
There are also two systems in Sydney, the big tall one on Rhodes Central [1] and the slightly smaller on One Central Park [2].
I think the idea is that by removing some of the shadowing from the high-rise buildings, the local authorities allow the buildings to be taller, which makes this type of system pay off.
I think we as human beings do not actually invest almost anything in these kinds of quality of life improvements. Everything is based on commercial interests driven by capitalism, so big projects are undertaken only when there is proportionate commercial interest in them. I feel we could improve people's quality of life significantly if only we put our resources and technology in service of this purpose.
In this case, you may notice that this project was done just by the municipality, not by any government or commercial entity, and only because of the goodwill of a few people in this town. I would say we need political will at the state level to accomplish these kinds of projects.
I feel that with modern day technology could do marvel to improve the quality of life of people. Instead technology often ends up making life of people subtly more miserable.
It's surprisingly small! In order to deliver enough light, I would have assume it would need to be maybe half the size of the area it needs to illuminate.
Would it ever make sense to build one for ones own home? I guess it must be far enough away for the light to spread out enough...
Readit News
First reaction: why would a mirror cost this much?
> Eight metres wide and five tall, it reflects the sunlight for six hours a day, following the sun’s path in the sky thanks to a software programme that makes it rotate.
Also saw elsewhere that the reflectors are made of steel. So a giant, software-controlled, motorized structure, reflecting just the right amount of sunlight to a precise location, sitting out there in the elements...
Totally worth it, and what a cool project!
Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliostat ("Aziz, Light!")
The actuating system I developed can tilt pixels in a row at an angle proportional to their distance from the mesh center. This approach creates a "focus parabola" rather than a precise focal point—which would require actuators to tilt pixels according to an arctangent function relative to their center distance. Despite this limitation, I believe the design remains viable for my intended use, notwithstanding the significant incendiary risks involved.
While this approach might not be suitable for the scenario discussed in the article due to wind conditions and the need for a flat surface, it offers advantages over costly hydraulic systems. The mesh could be rolled up and transported in a bag, providing a potentially more portable alternative.
https://youtu.be/kWiilCH1AO0?si=PxE3UuB9DE9sB0Hq&t=124
Norway's Rjukan seems to have implemented it better
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PbAsci1D0k
"It's a steel box!"
Hopefully not just the highest bidder, without any veto right of the (other) people that are there too?
Russians also seemed to think that math could work out, but fumbled on funding and engineering - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Znamya_(satellite)
A Norwegian town built a giant mirror to deflect the sun (2017) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19910305 - May 2019 (97 comments)
Sort of related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34056620
Others?
I think the idea is that by removing some of the shadowing from the high-rise buildings, the local authorities allow the buildings to be taller, which makes this type of system pay off.
[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-13/heliostats-bringing-l... [2] https://good-design.org/projects/one-central-park-heliostat-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rattenberg
https://shademap.app/@46.05225,8.19394,11.38803z,17341770702...
In this case, you may notice that this project was done just by the municipality, not by any government or commercial entity, and only because of the goodwill of a few people in this town. I would say we need political will at the state level to accomplish these kinds of projects.
I feel that with modern day technology could do marvel to improve the quality of life of people. Instead technology often ends up making life of people subtly more miserable.
Edit: fixed writing error
Would it ever make sense to build one for ones own home? I guess it must be far enough away for the light to spread out enough...