[Vo]:Water Arc Ball Lightning?
I was working on a hypothesis that if a putative metastable negative muon is in the Oxygen atom's K shell at 13.6 Z^2 eV (870 eV) a proton that could be forced into the 8-electron cloud of the Oxygen atom and have it orbit at 200 x 13.6 eV (~ 2700 eV) there would be an energy gain of almost 2.0 KeV. So I googled up Water Arc and found this Youtube Site. :-) *http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9NvboKL43Q*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9NvboKL43Q Fred
[Vo]:Re: Nanosolar has started production
I wrote yesterday: Nothing about this on their site http://www.nanosolar.com yet. They have released the information today. Their panels are not particularly good-looking: http://www.nanosolar.com/pr11.htm But they seem to be selling at $0.99/watt, which makes up for the looks I guess: http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/2007/12/18/nanosolar-ships-first-panels/ - the worlds lowest-cost solar panel which we believe will make us the first solar manufacturer capable of profitably selling solar panels at as little as $.99/Watt; ... As far as the first three of our commercial panels are concerned: Panel #1 will remain at Nanosolar for exhibit. Panel #2 can be purchased by you in an auction on eBay starting today. Panel #3 has been donated to the Tech Museum in San Jose. Michel
[Vo]:Ron Marshall's Cold Fusion Decision on Wikipeida
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cold_fusion#Cold_Fusion_Decision Quotes: The practical result of what has been done to the cold fusion article is the public will get misleading information on the current status of cold fusion. Since cold fusion is something that can be a major benefit to the human race, this is a serious error. . . . I have a problem with some of Wikipedia's rules and how they are applied. The rules do not show a grasp of the scientific method. Wikipedia has a nest of self appointed scientific censors that do not have a grasp of the scientific method. . . . I was told by one of your admins that if Wikipedia had existed in the Middle Ages, it would say the world was flat. If this is true, you should put this statement on your home page as a warning label. . . . That last sentence is right on the mark. Apparently, Wikipedia is deliberately being run according to a pre-Renaissance set of rules. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Nanosolar has started production
--- Michel Jullian wrote: But they seem to be selling at $0.99/watt, which makes up for the looks I guess... Michel, I hope that you are right, and that this Nanosolar product becomes a great low-cost energy solution. The last thing I would want is to sound like a skeptic of really good alternative energy solutions... unless there are strong negative which are known to the company, but are not being voiced. However, having said that - and since I am located in the area where they started, and since there are many rumors floating around, apparently undisputed by the company, and mostly from former consultants and employees, then it is worth noting that their press releases are hiding what could be serious problems... A few of the problems facing Nanosolar as a competitive player in the solar energy arena. 1) Net efficiency is low: The best published estimate is 9% (at noon in July). The rumor is that because of the high impedance and other peculiarities of this panel, it will not even hit 5% until mid-morning in winter, and that the average output per day is far less than the average for normal solar panels, so more area needs to be covered for the same net energy. Since the net efficiency is lower than expected, you may need to buy about double the installed capacity to get the same average electricity per day. Even with this as a negative, the 'assumed' low price per watt would make that doable, were it not for the higher installation costs. 2) High current - very low voltage. This peculiarity makes the installation cost much higher, due to more inverters and other devices needed for the larger surface area of panels. 3) This one is not peculiar to Nanosolar, but in areas where the building code requires professional installation by an electrical contractor, the cost of the panel itself is less than 40% of the final cost to the consumer for regular solar panels (thin film or crystalline) and the situation would be worse with Nanosolar. 4) There is still no good evidence locally that they are close to starting production, as they claim, other than most of the backers are local and have not been alarmed by the PR, apparently. But the big (generic) problem for home solar is that even if they *gave away* the panels for free, there is never a breakeven point in areas of high labor cost... that is, if the price of grid electricity does not rise substantially, or if there are not much more generous tax incentives than now offered.. IOW - in my area- which is where Nanosolar started, the average turnkey home installation of thin film panels is around $25,000, but only $10,000 is for the panels, so even if they were to be free, the installation cost of $15,000 can never be paid off from savings from PGE! ... unless the cost of electricity rises significantly from where it is today... which may indeed happen, due to the weak Bush-dollar, but historically this has never happened to the degree necessary. The situation may be completely different if you are a company with an electrician on the payroll. It should be noted that Google is a big backer of Nanosolar, and perhaps they and other companies can install and maintain the panels with their own staff, but for the homeowner elsewhere in this state, these or any other panels make ZERO economics sense now that the tax incentives are largely gone - even if they were to give the panels away. Jones
[Vo]:Another Solar Cell at ~$1/ watt
See: http://www.avasolar.com/ This is a local company her in Fort Collins, CO that has started production in a small facility and has a large plant currently under construction. It appears that they will have a substantially better product than Nanosolar. Ron
Re: [Vo]:Re: Nanosolar has started production
On Dec 18, 2007, at 7:20 AM, Jones Beene wrote: A few of the problems facing Nanosolar as a competitive player in the solar energy arena. 1) Net efficiency is low: The best published estimate is 9% (at noon in July). The rumor is that because of the high impedance and other peculiarities of this panel, it will not even hit 5% until mid-morning in winter, and that the average output per day is far less than the average for normal solar panels, so more area needs to be covered for the same net energy. Since the net efficiency is lower than expected, you may need to buy about double the installed capacity to get the same average electricity per day. Even with this as a negative, the 'assumed' low price per watt would make that doable, were it not for the higher installation costs. They are prudently installing the first panels in highly controlled fenced situations for real world evaluation. 2) High current - very low voltage. This peculiarity makes the installation cost much higher, due to more inverters and other devices needed for the larger surface area of panels. Panels can be simply placed in series to obtain higher voltages. Inverters are needed anyway for household use of power. 3) This one is not peculiar to Nanosolar, but in areas where the building code requires professional installation by an electrical contractor, the cost of the panel itself is less than 40% of the final cost to the consumer for regular solar panels (thin film or crystalline) and the situation would be worse with Nanosolar. Household installation is a google add-on goal. The product was designed for use in utility applications. 4) There is still no good evidence locally that they are close to starting production, as they claim, other than most of the backers are local and have not been alarmed by the PR, apparently. Delivery started today. You can now bid on the second commercial panel produced. See: http://tinyurl.com/2dznun But the big (generic) problem for home solar is that even if they *gave away* the panels for free, there is never a breakeven point in areas of high labor cost... that is, if the price of grid electricity does not rise substantially, or if there are not much more generous tax incentives than now offered.. IOW - in my area- which is where Nanosolar started, the average turnkey home installation of thin film panels is around $25,000, but only $10,000 is for the panels, so even if they were to be free, the installation cost of $15,000 can never be paid off from savings from PGE! ... unless the cost of electricity rises significantly from where it is today... which may indeed happen, due to the weak Bush-dollar, but historically this has never happened to the degree necessary. The situation may be completely different if you are a company with an electrician on the payroll. It should be noted that Google is a big backer of Nanosolar, and perhaps they and other companies can install and maintain the panels with their own staff, but for the homeowner elsewhere in this state, these or any other panels make ZERO economics sense now that the tax incentives are largely gone - even if they were to give the panels away. Today's economics and hardships are not tomorrow's. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Re: [Vo] Nanosolar has started production
Horace Heffner wrote: Today's economics and hardships are not tomorrow's. You sound like an early investor ;-)
[Vo]:The Theory of Over-Unity and Flight...
Hi all I have written a document that demonstrates how to apply the laws of motion to create an unlimited build-up of momentum. The phenomenon I describe in the document was used very successfully in the past (although people did not realize it was over-unity) with the Pelton wheel. We all know that the conservation of momentum tries to prove that over-unity cannot exist by demonstrating how this law holds during a single elastic collision. Over-unity, however, is demonstrated by utilising the !!absolute!! result of a series of successive elastic collisions in order to reclaim greater impulse from lesser impulse. The laws and equations used in the document are no more than those taught in basic momentum physics, and it shouldn't take more than 5 minutes to grasp the principle. This is no hoax, so just keep an open mind... http://blogspace.mweb.co.za/site/alias__javanwyk2012/0/Default.aspx Jacques
[Vo]:Re: Another Solar Cell at ~$1/ watt
http://www.avasolar.com/products/modules.php Nominal power: 65W Open circuit voltage: 65V Short circuit current: 1 amp At least one of the above characteristics must be wrong. Michel - Original Message - From: Ron Wormus [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 6:45 PM Subject: [Vo]:Another Solar Cell at ~$1/ watt See: http://www.avasolar.com/ This is a local company her in Fort Collins, CO that has started production in a small facility and has a large plant currently under construction. It appears that they will have a substantially better product than Nanosolar. Ron
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo] Nanosolar has started production
On Dec 18, 2007, at 11:54 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: Today's economics and hardships are not tomorrow's. You sound like an early investor ;-) I wish I could invest. It is a private company. The investors were screened and had big bucks. I joined their mailing list some time ago just out of curiosity. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:The Theory of Over-Unity and Flight...
Jacques - Basic principles: In addition to any wedge effect from the lower surface, it's the air over the wing. It gets thrown downward. The cute part is in why it sticks to the wing surface well enough to follow the downward curve. The answer is in the Van der Waals forces. Some of those might be overunity, but I don't think wings, at least the ones we build, use them that way. Maybe bugs do, especially small ones operating at Reynolds numbers dominated by viscosity. R. -Original Message- From: Jacques van Wyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 10:41 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:The Theory of Over-Unity and Flight... Hi all I have written a document that demonstrates how to apply the laws of motion to create an unlimited build-up of momentum. The phenomenon I describe in the document was used very successfully in the past (although people did not realize it was over-unity) with the Pelton wheel. We all know that the conservation of momentum tries to prove that over-unity cannot exist by demonstrating how this law holds during a single elastic collision. Over-unity, however, is demonstrated by utilising the !!absolute!! result of a series of successive elastic collisions in order to reclaim greater impulse from lesser impulse. The laws and equations used in the document are no more than those taught in basic momentum physics, and it shouldn't take more than 5 minutes to grasp the principle. This is no hoax, so just keep an open mind... http://blogspace.mweb.co.za/site/alias__javanwyk2012/0/Default.aspx Jacques
[Vo]:OT: The Mindless crap shoot of evolution
A recent comment from the esteemed Mr. Malloy got me to thinking... Thomas sez: I'm reading John Sanford's Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of the Genome. Dr. Sanford makes the case that most mutations are deleterious, if not fatal, to the individual. He contends that the web of life won't last much longer. The primary thesis of the book is an attack on the Primary Axiom of Evolutionary Biology, that random mutations can spontaneously produce more complicated and more fit life forms. I'm also reading Vance Ferrell's The Evolution Cruncher, a 900 page expose on the absurdity of Evolution. So, I thinks to myself...something I find ironic about many thinly veiled religious scribblings on why Darwin's Theory of Evolution alone cannot by itself explain the progressive complexity of life is that it seems to be based on a profound sense of distrust of the observed rules of randomness. Randomness is somehow perceived as a kind of godless evil monkey wrench suspected to have been introduced by a nefarious agent of Satin just to confuse the faithful. I'll go as far as describing the distrust of randomness as a lack of faith in how (with apologies to my atheist friends) the Grand Dame of Design seems to bake her own cakes. Granted, on the surface Darwin's theory of evolution can seem kinda god-less. I guess for many the theory of evolution seems to reduce the pinnacle of human evolution to an obscene mindless crap shoot. As Einstein was once quoted to have said God does not place dice with the universe. - To which Bohr retorted Who are you to tell God what to do? http://www.xs4all.nl/~jcdverha/scijokes/9_2.html Ironically I think Einstein's argument accurately depicts a position that many creationists (aka Intelligent Designers, or IDers) have unknowingly backed themselves into. From their perspective the observed machinations of random selection are somehow devoid of conscious/divine decision-making, which admittedly can feel a tad disquieting to those who really want to follow the rules - the RIGHT rules, of course. I guess for many IDers it is inconceivable for the Designer to have ever been suspected of throwing dice! Why, isn't gambling illegal in most states? For me, the divine irony in IDers who claim they know how the Designer REALLY bakes her cakes is that it assumes She regularly chooses on an unimaginable epic scale to completely disregard her own recipes. Its as if whenever the Designer's mysterious game plan seems to lack a certain luster, or when things are getting boring, inconvenient, when the soufflé isn't rising as hoped, IDers assumes the Designer saves the day by inserting a ringer into the arena. Through divine intervention, Behold! A brand new fully functional Toyota Prius drives off the parking lot. IDers are implying that the all-powerful, all-knowing and infinitely wise Designer snuck down to the local bakery to buy a ready made birthday cake. Ironically, IDers seem to have no faith or patience in the Designer's own baking skills. Perhaps more telling, it would seem that many IDers don't believe the Designer has any faith in her own baking skills, or should I say game board gambling skills. To which I suspect Bohr has already answered that concern adequately. And what about the rest of All God's Creatures walk'n, fly'n, and swim'n about, all them critters who painstakingly raised themselves up by their own boot straps through millions of years of meticulous trial and error. How are THEY goina feel regarding the fairness of the Designer's Divine Intervention when suddenly, with absolutely no regard to all the hard work they personally endured while meticulously following the rules, they are confronted with a brand new model miraculously placed at the front of the cafeteria line. It sure as hell would piss me off. Would make me want to go out and rob a bank or something like that. I would imagine most atheists feel a profound sense of comfort in the realization that there really is no Designer who could suddenly and whenever She felt like it manipulate the rules on a whim, inserting a brand new Lobster Flambé in the middle of a three course dinner consisting of chicken fricassee, chopped liver and Hamburger Helper. For atheists, the game plan really is up to us to make the best of what's on our dinner plate. When the Chef of Random Servitude dishes up a new culinary variation randomly assembled from yesterday's leftovers let the machinations of evolution decide whether it's a tastier bite, or not. (Hey! My spouse regularly subjects me to leftovers - every evening, and I ain't complaining!) Its been my experience that that most exciting board games of chance inevitably seem to boil down to compulsions of repeatedly experiencing the sheer terror of not knowing what the hell is going to happen next. For most of us game board participants that's often perceived as survival of the fittest. C'on! Whattaya waiting for! Throw the damned dice! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson
Re: [Vo]:Water Arc Ball Lightning?
Hi Fred, Did I miss out on a previous discussion of this? Aren't all muons negative and why would a metastable one exist in an oxygen atom? Presumably the muon would be in place of an electron, but why would that allow forcing a proton into the oxygen's electron cloud, except for the muon's greater mass? M. --- Frederick Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was working on a hypothesis that if a putative metastable negative muon is in the Oxygen atom's K shell at 13.6 Z^2 eV (870 eV) a proton that could be forced into the 8-electron cloud of the Oxygen atom and have it orbit at 200 x 13.6 eV (~ 2700 eV) there would be an energy gain of almost 2.0 KeV. So I googled up Water Arc and found this Youtube Site. :-) *http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9NvboKL43Q*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9NvboKL43Q Fred Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Mindless crap shoot of evolution
Howdy Steven Johnson, Today's university science classes avoid the Darwin theory simply because of the lack of evidence to support it. Unless and until they find some fossil evidence that can demonstrate a valid crossover or in-between species.. it's the stuff of library coffee shop discussion and not the science lab. Our new crop of students are looking at the case presented by both creationist and Darwinists.. they are still looking., but not at theory.. but girls. Over at the Dime Box saloon the bartender has a sign over the bar that says.. start an argument about politics or religion and get tossed out.. Come to think of it.. Bill Beaty looks a lot like that bartender.. wonder if he has any kin in Texas?? Richard
Re: [Vo]:OT: The Mindless crap shoot of evolution
yup, not a single transitional fossil anywhere. ohh... wait whats this over here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils On Dec 18, 2007 9:37 PM, R.C.Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Howdy Steven Johnson, Today's university science classes avoid the Darwin theory simply because of the lack of evidence to support it. Unless and until they find some fossil evidence that can demonstrate a valid crossover or in-between species.. it's the stuff of library coffee shop discussion and not the science lab. Our new crop of students are looking at the case presented by both creationist and Darwinists.. they are still looking., but not at theory.. but girls. Over at the Dime Box saloon the bartender has a sign over the bar that says.. start an argument about politics or religion and get tossed out.. Come to think of it.. Bill Beaty looks a lot like that bartender.. wonder if he has any kin in Texas?? Richard -- That which yields isn't always weak.
