Chris wrote:
Now we're getting somewhere!
No,
we are not. You are repeating the same mistake that Jeff made, changing what
the Correas did before you ever see the effect. The PAGD discharge is a
wideband event. Transformers are ***not*** simple devices in a wideband
Jeff wrote, my comments in blue. Mike
Carrell
I don't know anything
about electrochemistry in batteries, but I question the ability of a string
cells to absorb a fast high energy pulse without impedance, and that this
impedence would cause a voltage spike. Maybe the spike has a
For
those of us that read email in plain text to avoid embedded viruses please
refrain from formatted replies... it is impossible to follow. Also,
formattinggets stripped out in the archived messagesso the
historical context of your thread is lost too.
Just a
suggestion. -john
Can I get a scanned diagram to go thru Vortex-l as
an attachment. As I recall photos won't go.
Jeff
Jed favors us with excellent snippets of the
history of technology to illustrate contemporary situations. In that spirit,
some comments.
Transistors have their roots in very early radio
detectors, the 'cats whisker' and a lump of lead oxide, or galena ore. The 'cats
whisker' was a
At 12:05 pm 05-03-05 -0500, you wrote:
Can I get a scanned diagram to go thru Vortex-l as an
attachment. As I recall photos won't go.
A way of getting round the problem that Vortex is a text only group is to
either
[1] have your own web-site and provide a URL for the relevant page, or
[2]
also, feel free to email me the file off list, ill make a space on my
webserver if youd like for vortex email items, and give the url here.
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 19:06:45 +, Grimer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 12:05 pm 05-03-05 -0500, you wrote:
Can I get a scanned diagram to go thru
Table 1 - Current energy plant capital cost in $/W
Gas turbine 0.5
Wind 2.0
Solar tower 2.5
Nuclear 6.0
One MBtu is equivalent to 33.43 watts expended for a year. Multiplying the
above values by 33.43 we can thus obtain energy plant cost in $ per MBtu/yr
assuming a plant life of
--- On Sat 03/05, Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It appears the job of converting to renewable energy can be accomplished
starting now, especially where long trades are not required. The capital
cost will ultimately be on the order of 90,000 trillion dollars, but
invested over
Ed Storms wrote with his usual insight:
Mike Carrell wrote:
It may not be true that the specific construction described in the
Correa patents is of the essence, or that disclosure overcomes barriers
to commercial uitlization, but nobody can say that their work is
mysterious or
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Sat, 05 Mar 2005 18:23:50
-0900:
Hi,
[snip]
Table 1 - Current energy plant capital cost in $/W
Gas turbine 0.5
Wind 2.0
Solar tower 2.5
Nuclear 6.0
One MBtu is equivalent to 33.43 watts expended for a year. Multiplying the
above values by
The following is an attempt to put into perspective the problem of
obtaining the world's energy needs by carbon free renewable means.
Table 1 - Current energy plant capital cost in $/W
Gas turbine 0.5
Wind 2.0
Solar tower 2.5
Nuclear 6.0
One MBtu is equivalent to 33.43 watts
At 10:39 PM 3/5/5, Michael Foster wrote:
I assume you mean American trillion, i.e., 10^12. In any case, long
term conversion of energy sources needs to be analyzed this way. This
is very enlightening.
Thanks for the correction. I shouldn't post when I'm so short of time.
Regards,
Horace
I wrote: However, emerging capitalists should have their noises in the
air. The smell of money is there.
I wrote: However, emerging capitalists should have their noses in the air.
The smell of money is there.
Regards,
Horace Heffner
I wrote: However, emerging capitalists should have their noises in the
air. The smell of money is there.
I meant to write: However, emerging capitalists should have their noses in
the air. The smell of money is there.
However, a little noise probably couldn't hurt if that's all it is.
Not really sure why the reply to does that. The message is technically
being sent from the mail server, not from me per se. The reply to address
should update accordingly... there is nothing I can do from my end. It's a
mail server thing.
My lazy work around to that problem (and it only really
16 matches
Mail list logo
