| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Wanderer
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 9:48 am Post subject: Re: Very cheap solar power |
 |
|
habshi wrote:
[quote] What if the flying mattresses were made of a very strong and
light material say carbon fibre or plastic and this is the important
point , air is partially or totally evacuated from inside , so that it
floats in the jet stream , small windmills on top would rotate and
make power which is beamed to the earth.
[/quote]
I have a question for you: who would be sleeping on the flying
mattresses? I vote we send Johnny Maharaj and Pradipshit Parekh as test
pilots(without parachutes). |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
V for Vendicar
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:12 am Post subject: Re: New Economic Theory: More People => Higher Economic Grow |
|
|
"Fred Weiss" <fredweiss@papertig.com> wrote
[quote]Hmmm....are the socialists who previously have been horrified and
angry over China>s transformation from a failed communist state - and
who have used every opportunity to denigrate and attack it - suddenly
now seeing that perhaps they should find some way to embrace it
[/quote]
Poor Lying Libertarian Weiss. Trying to fabricate a straw man.
We socialists have not spent any time in the last half century attacking
China. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Fred Weiss
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:56 pm Post subject: Re: New Economic Theory: More People => Higher Economic Grow |
|
|
On Jul 14, 2:12 am, "V for Vendicar"
<Execute_The_Traitor_In_The_White_Ho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote]We socialists have not spent any time in the last half century attacking
China.
[/quote]
Certainly not when Mao was in charge.
Now, of course when it has become "The People>s Republic of
Capitalism" (as Ted Koppel calls it), it>s an entirely different
matter.
Fred Weiss |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
harmony
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 4:37 am Post subject: Re: Very cheap wind power |
|
|
"Bill Ward" <bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.07.06.17.27.27.866619@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com...
[quote]On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 15:45:04 +0000, jimp wrote:
In sci.physics M. Ranjit Mathews <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 5, 5:05 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
Water is not a gas
It is ... on Venus.
In which case it is called steam, not water, and if it is solid it is
called ice.
and air is not a fluid.
Why not?
Is air compressable?
Is water compressable?
Yet another drooling idiot heard from.
Not to defend habshi, or pick nits, but...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid
"All liquids and all gases are fluids. Fluids are a subset of the
phases of matter and include liquids, gases, plasmas and, to some extent,
plastic solids. The term "fluid" is often used as being synonymous with
"liquid". This can be erroneous and sometimes clearly inappropriate -
such as when referring to a liquid which does not or should not involve
the gaseous state."
[/quote]
commenting on the failing banks, somebody on tv said today the american
dream is fluid. is all money gas, vaporising? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Agent Smith
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:23 pm Post subject: Re: Very cheap wind power |
|
|
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in news:1m57k5-9tr.ln1@mail.specsol.com:
[quote]In sci.physics M. Ranjit Mathews <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 5, 5:05 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
Water is not a gas
It is ... on Venus.
In which case it is called steam, not water, and if it is solid it is
called ice.
and air is not a fluid.
Why not?
Is air compressable?
Is water compressable?
Yet another drooling idiot heard from.
[/quote]
Air is a compressible fluid, and water is an incompressible fluid. The
words "liquid" and "fluid" are *not* synonyms. Liquids are
incompresible fluids and gasses are compressible fluids. A plasma is a
compressible, electrically conducting fluid. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:05 am Post subject: Re: Very cheap wind power |
|
|
In sci.physics Agent Smith <agent-smith@two-blocks-on-your-left.com> wrote:
[quote]jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in news:1m57k5-9tr.ln1@mail.specsol.com:
In sci.physics M. Ranjit Mathews <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 5, 5:05 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
Water is not a gas
It is ... on Venus.
In which case it is called steam, not water, and if it is solid it is
called ice.
and air is not a fluid.
Why not?
Is air compressable?
Is water compressable?
Yet another drooling idiot heard from.
Air is a compressible fluid, and water is an incompressible fluid. The
words "liquid" and "fluid" are *not* synonyms. Liquids are
incompresible fluids and gasses are compressible fluids. A plasma is a
compressible, electrically conducting fluid.
[/quote]
You might want to read the entire thread before you knee jerk, especially
for threads that are over a week old.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
habshi
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 3:54 am Post subject: Re: Very cheap solar power |
|
|
The rectangular flying mattresses would be partially evacuated
, or could be filled with hydrogen , lets make them say 10m by 10m by
1meter. They would stay above the clouds and beam energy down to us.
The same for extracting energy from the jet streams at 13km high ,
flying mattresses scoop in air at one . Microprocessors would
orientate them the right way all the time.
All this worry about sea levels rising. Even if the whole
Greenland ice cap melted 9m cukm , it just means us digging that
amount of artificial lakes across the world>s rivers to retain that
amount of water.
Digging is cheap. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:45 am Post subject: Re: Very cheap solar power |
|
|
In sci.physics habshi <habshi@anony.com> wrote:
[quote]The rectangular flying mattresses would be partially evacuated
, or could be filled with hydrogen , lets make them say 10m by 10m by
1meter. They would stay above the clouds and beam energy down to us.
The same for extracting energy from the jet streams at 13km high ,
flying mattresses scoop in air at one . Microprocessors would
orientate them the right way all the time.
[/quote]
What keeps them from being blown around the world in a 400 knot
jet stream.
[quote]Digging is cheap.
[/quote]
If you have lots of wogs who work for nothing.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Agent Smith
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:11 am Post subject: Re: Very cheap wind power |
|
|
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in news:9f8vk5-5fl.ln1@mail.specsol.com:
[quote]In sci.physics Agent Smith <agent-smith@two-blocks-on-your-left.com
wrote:
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in
news:1m57k5-9tr.ln1@mail.specsol.com:
In sci.physics M. Ranjit Mathews <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 5, 5:05 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
Water is not a gas
It is ... on Venus.
In which case it is called steam, not water, and if it is solid it
is called ice.
and air is not a fluid.
Why not?
Is air compressable?
Is water compressable?
Yet another drooling idiot heard from.
Air is a compressible fluid, and water is an incompressible fluid.
The words "liquid" and "fluid" are *not* synonyms. Liquids are
incompresible fluids and gasses are compressible fluids. A plasma is
a compressible, electrically conducting fluid.
You might want to read the entire thread before you knee jerk,
especially for threads that are over a week old.
[/quote]
f ck off. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Dan
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:04 am Post subject: Re: The Biggest Crime in History |
|
|
strabo wrote:
[quote]Here>s the chart from the beginning...
Year Current Value Curr Dollars Needed Cumulative
of 1789 Dollar to buy a 1789 dollar Inflation
1789 1.00 1.00 -
2003 .048 21.01 2000.5%
[/quote]
Which calculates out to an overall inflation rate of 0.7712+%. Those
were the days. Of course, there was a small matter of stealing most of
the value of the dollar from others in the meantime...
Not sure exactly what you thought you were showing us.
Dan |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
The Ghost In The Machine
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:19 am Post subject: Re: Very cheap solar power |
|
|
In sci.physics, habshi
<habshi@anony.com>
wrote
on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:54:29 GMT
<487d28ea.200109@news.clara.net>:
[quote] The rectangular flying mattresses would be partially evacuated
, or could be filled with hydrogen ,
[/quote]
Oh goody. Exploding rectangular flying mattresses.
Or have you forgotten the Hindenberg?
Replace with helium and you might have a slight chance of
this actually doing something other than blowing up.
Just to make things interesting: stratospheric lightning is
still being researched but apparently is more common
than we thought.
[quote]lets make them say 10m by 10m by
1meter. They would stay above the clouds and beam energy down to us.
[/quote]
Far cheaper to put them down here. At least one company
is already proposing parking lots with roofs made out of
solar cells. Not only do the cars stay relatively cool,
but the energy extracted can be used for various things
(one of them recharging their batteries).
[quote]The same for extracting energy from the jet streams at 13km high ,
flying mattresses scoop in air at one . Microprocessors would
orientate them the right way all the time.
[/quote]
Well, fine, they>re properly oriented. They>re also moving
with the jet stream and able to extract no energy, unless
one uses a tether or other such.
(If one proposes a floating device part of which is in
the jet stream and part of which is not, one gets a rather
nice torque. How does one keep the device from spinning
out of control in that case?)
[quote] All this worry about sea levels rising. Even if the whole
Greenland ice cap melted 9m cukm , it just means us digging that
amount of artificial lakes across the world>s rivers to retain that
amount of water.
Digging is cheap.
[/quote]
Digging may be cheap, certainly, but a lot of people will
be sandbagging instead, if not moving out of the affected
areas of coastal cities entirely.
--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #12398234:
void f(char *p) {char *q = strdup(p); strcpy(p,q);}
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Tim Bruening
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:29 am Post subject: Re: Green For All |
|
|
CONVERT_Good_Republicans: BUILD_Green_Majority wrote:
[quote]Another good idea might be to resurrect the old "Civilian Conservation
Corps' that President Franklin Roosevelt established during the
depression in the 1930s.
It hired not only young people, but also adults to do essential
conservation work - mostly tree planting in the national forests. And
it reduced unemployment rates and gave people hope at a time when not
much else in the economy seemed to be working very well.
A third good idea: A "G.I. Bill for Displaced Coal Miners and Oil
Field Workers," resembling the first G.I Bill that the US government
established for demobilized soldiers and sailors following World War
II.
The fear at the time was that as the US started to demobilize its
massive military force - 10 million men (mostly, and a few women) that
had been mobilized to fight WW II -- the returning veterans would
swamp the civilian job market, driving down wages, driving up
unemployment, and generally wrecking the economy.
So what the government did was to offer to pay returning soldiers &
sailors to return to school - college, trade school, whatever -- to
get better job skills before reentering the labor force. More than a
million former GIs and sailors took advantage of the program, and it
helped many of them get good jobs afterwards. It also upgraded the
skills of the American labor force and headed off postwar unemployment
problems.
We need something similar for workers in CO2-spewing industries if
we>re going to start phasing out these industries to curb greenhouse
emissions leading to climate change. We shouldn>t want to ruin the
nation>s coal miners, oil field workers, auto workers in SUV factories
etc. etc. as we make a transition to a more climate-friendly
economy.
All of us will benefit if these people can maintain decent income
levels, learn new job skills for non-CO2 dependent industries, and
avoid going onto the welfare rolls. And a "GI Bill" for these
displaced workers would obviously be good for the workers, too, and
would make it easier for at least some of them to accept the
transition away from fossil fuels to more sustainable sources of
energy.
[/quote]
We should also have an economic conversion program to convert fossil
fuel
companies to alternative energy companies, and also ask the Europeans
and
Japanese (who have much higher fuel efficiency standards than we do) to
provide technical assistance to our car companies to help them boost the
fuel efficiency of their cars (since they keep moaning about the
difficulty of increasing fuel efficiency). |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Tim Bruening
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:31 am Post subject: Re: Green For All |
|
|
James wrote:
[quote]"john fernbach" <fernbach1948@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1193925409.404102.244290@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 1, 3:08 am, tsbru...@dcn.davis.ca.us wrote:
I urge that there be a Peace Corps or Civilian Conservation
Corps like program to train young people to weatherize
homes and install solar panels. This would boost the
economy, help stop global warming, and give young people
a personal stake in greening the economy.
This is a great idea. In the United States, it would be a
particularly good idea for poor inner-city neighborhoods and poor
rural areas -- some mostly home to minority groups, some to poor
whites -- where jobs right now are scarce and unemployment among young
people is high.
Coincidentally - well, not so coincidentally - poor neighborhoods also
tend to have houses that are in poor repair, and that don>t have much
insulation in the roofs and walls.
Training (and paying) young people in poor neighborhoods to fix up
energy-inefficient housing would be at least a "two-fer," if not a
"three-fer" (2 for 1, 3 for 1) benefit. It would (a) help the USA>s
overall energy efficiency, thus fighting AGW and helping the country
become more independent of foreign oil, (b) help improve poor people>s
housing, and (c) help poor kids get jobs and job skills.
The CCC was an economic program that required only a strong back. It did
nothing for their education wants. It was merely a way to get some money
circulating again when they sent some home. We no longer have that kind of
spirit. Do you honestly believe that inner city youth would consider doing
work like that today for the sake of AGW people who have yet to prove
anything, divorce them from their drug habits and their friends, have them
live a PC life of weight control, no smoking or other PC don>ts? LOL
I find it amusing that you have a solution which requires the backs of the
poor, unfortunates and youths who have other plans for their careers while
people like you are the "idea" men. You>ll notice that Habitats for Humanity
relies on working people with their hearts in the right place and not some
nebulous theory.
[/quote]
Habitats For Humanity could weatherize homes and install solar panels. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Paul Ciszek
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 8:31 pm Post subject: Re: ETHANOL OR METHANOL? |
|
|
In article <jFA0k.6207$Ri.4726@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com>,
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
[quote]Mishagam wrote:
I never heard abut car driving on butanol - through I believe it
isn>t much different from other alcohols.
Looks like it>s time for a basic chemistry lesson.
Alkanes are long single-bond carbon chains surrounded by hydrogen. The
number of carbons (the number in the list) is directly related to the
energy density.
Alkanes
1. Methane
2. Ethane
3. Propane
4. Butane
5. Pentane
6. Hexane
7. Septane
8. Octane
[/quote]
All of the Alkanes from Butane on up can be "branched" or "unbranched".
Supposedly this makes a difference in things like engine knock--when
they quit putting lead in gasoline, they had to find ways to encourage
more branching. This is based on a tour I took of a refinery back in
High School, so don>t quote me on it.
[quote]Methane though butane are gases at standard temperature and pressure;
the rest are liquids. Pentane through octane are most of what>s found
in gasoline. Longer chains get you into jet fuel, diesel, and heating oil.
Alcohols are just like alkanes except that one of the hydrogens (H) at
the end of the chain is replaced with a hydroxide (OH). They>re
otherwise identical, hence the very similar names.
[/quote]
Correction: The OH group can go in place of any of the hydrogen atoms.
For Methanol and Ethanol, this makes no difference--they are all "ends".
It starts to make a difference with Propanol. There are four different
arrangements that go by the name "Butanol", all have the same chemical
formula and similar but not identical physical properties.
--
Please reply to: | President Bush is promoting Peace and Democracy
pciszek at panix dot com | in the Middle East by selling Weapons to the
Autoreply is disabled | King of Saudi Arabia. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
B Richardson
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 7:02 am Post subject: Re: 300 kW EV Tractor vs 400 hp Diesel |
|
|
On 2008-07-23, BretCahill@peoplepc.com <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:
[quote]The Tesla is powered by 7,000 Li-Ion laptop batteries for an output of
200 kW.
A similarly powered 300 kW electric tractor (10,500 batteries) would
turn a 400 hp articulated 22 gallon/hour diesel tractor every which
way but loose in a tractor pull which apparently is vitally necessary
education as well as entertainment for those too ignorant do basic
IEOR calculations.
Running either tractor wide open to work a square mile at 0.5 mph
would take 3 months of 7 day work weeks at 8 hours / day.
It would also require 17,000 gallons of diesel.
[/quote]
I think your numbers are off.
Extrapolating from table 2 at this URL,
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/PUBS/farmmgt/05006.html
I guestimate it>ll take roughly 1,075 gallons of diesel to plow a
square mile 8 inches deep, and take approximately 64 hours to do
it using a 244 hp tractor. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
