Re: [Vo]:Re: Eye of the Gyre
Michel, are you absolutely sure that you are French? You don't want to eat your horse and your English is better than that of most native speakers... I think the point was that the *water* began to run out and horses drink a lot of it so, to conserve supplies, they get thrown over first...
[Vo]:Re: Eye of the Gyre
You are too indulgent Nick. Not so many French eat horse meat actually, I would say much less than one in ten. I had got the point about the water, I still think it would have made more sense to eat the horses than just throw them over board... but of course I wouldn't expect an Englishman, vegetarian moreover, to agree to that ;) Back on topic, talking about unedible things, you don't happen to have Sir Branson's ear by any chance? Think he might be interested in this Bermuda based N.A. Gyre cultivation nonsense? Michel - Original Message - From: Nick Palmer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 2:05 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Eye of the Gyre Michel, are you absolutely sure that you are French? You don't want to eat your horse and your English is better than that of most native speakers... I think the point was that the *water* began to run out and horses drink a lot of it so, to conserve supplies, they get thrown over first...
Re: [Vo]:Re: Eye of the Gyre
At the risk of stirring up another Hundred Years' War, let me opine that the British Taboo on horse meat seems to be fairly recent, or else ignored in Yorkshire, and now has evolved into an item of jealous yearning ... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1551693/The-merits-of-horse-meat.html I seriously doubt that any uneaten horse was ever tossed overboard - in the entire history of the Admiralty ... However, with our beloved Kentucky Derby set to begin in a few hours, I will refrain from any culinary review of this gourmet delicacy ... --- Nick Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michel, are you absolutely sure that you are French? You don't want to eat your horse and your English is better than that of most native speakers... I think the point was that the *water* began to run out and horses drink a lot of it so, to conserve supplies, they get thrown over first...
RE: [Vo]:Re: Eye of the Gyre
Hmmm...would that be fast food? Lawry -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 10:39 AM To: vortex Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Eye of the Gyre At the risk of stirring up another Hundred Years' War, let me opine that the British Taboo on horse meat seems to be fairly recent, or else ignored in Yorkshire, and now has evolved into an item of jealous yearning ... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1551693/The-merits-of-horse-meat.html I seriously doubt that any uneaten horse was ever tossed overboard - in the entire history of the Admiralty ... However, with our beloved Kentucky Derby set to begin in a few hours, I will refrain from any culinary review of this gourmet delicacy ... --- Nick Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michel, are you absolutely sure that you are French? You don't want to eat your horse and your English is better than that of most native speakers... I think the point was that the *water* began to run out and horses drink a lot of it so, to conserve supplies, they get thrown over first...
[Vo]:Fresnel focused solar
Looks like this company beat Michael Foster to market... http://www.sunrgi.com/ ... or not CAVEAT: an (open-minded but non-gullible) associate of mine, who follows this technology from silicon valley, in a phone call just now - says he is skeptical of this particular outfit- he stopped short of calling it a pump-and-dump but is unconvinced that the product shown (on their site) is anything more than a prop. He tends to prefer to actually drive over and personally snoop around at the (supposed) factory rather than read glowing press releases... but has not done so with in this instance. OTOH - this particular source of negative-info is/was apparently wrong about Nanosolar, if indeed they are actually shipping product now - as he visited their site recently and found only only a few cars in the lot. Who knows- maybe they have a robotic assembly line ;-) ... anyway, the final chapter has yet to be written on that company either ... or has anyone seen an independent review of an installed system? Solar energy seems to be falling prey to the same investment hysteria - and many of the very same scam-artists - who promoted hydrogen fuel cells 5 years ago. Since most of those (Canadian) high roller companies have gone belly-up, it appears that the wealthy founders and promoters (the dumpers) have retired and moved South to Nevada and LA. And guess what: they have taken up Solar as the next cow to milk... It is all about plausible deniability since the SEC (US Securities and Exchange Commission) under George Bush is a joke when it comes to policing these kinds of scams If Nanosolar is for real, maybe they should get together with a Fresnel maker ? Jones
[Vo]:Re: Fresnel focused solar
Would cost more than plain cell wouldn't it? Michel - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 6:08 PM Subject: [Vo]:Fresnel focused solar ... If Nanosolar is for real, maybe they should get together with a Fresnel maker ? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Fresnel focused solar
Small problem: frenels make cheap concentrators, but then you need sun-tracking mounting, not shown, and that can be quite expensive. Non-focusing concentrators have been devised, but such are not shown. Mike Carrell - Original Message - From: Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 12:08 PM Subject: [Vo]:Fresnel focused solar Looks like this company beat Michael Foster to market... http://www.sunrgi.com/ ... or not CAVEAT: an (open-minded but non-gullible) associate of mine, who follows this technology from silicon valley, in a phone call just now - says he is skeptical of this particular outfit- he stopped short of calling it a pump-and-dump but is unconvinced that the product shown (on their site) is anything more than a prop. He tends to prefer to actually drive over and personally snoop around at the (supposed) factory rather than read glowing press releases... but has not done so with in this instance. OTOH - this particular source of negative-info is/was apparently wrong about Nanosolar, if indeed they are actually shipping product now - as he visited their site recently and found only only a few cars in the lot. Who knows- maybe they have a robotic assembly line ;-) ... anyway, the final chapter has yet to be written on that company either ... or has anyone seen an independent review of an installed system? Solar energy seems to be falling prey to the same investment hysteria - and many of the very same scam-artists - who promoted hydrogen fuel cells 5 years ago. Since most of those (Canadian) high roller companies have gone belly-up, it appears that the wealthy founders and promoters (the dumpers) have retired and moved South to Nevada and LA. And guess what: they have taken up Solar as the next cow to milk... It is all about plausible deniability since the SEC (US Securities and Exchange Commission) under George Bush is a joke when it comes to policing these kinds of scams If Nanosolar is for real, maybe they should get together with a Fresnel maker ? Jones This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:Fresnel focused solar
Howdy Jones, Looks like Sun-glitch has figured out a way to use seal beam headlamps for solar concentrators.. probably be lotsa old cars with empty tanks missing headlights it these guys can get off the ground. Vancouver has become the rival of Las Vegas for creating a whole new industry of IPO pump and dump. If I were running the Las Vegas C of C , I'd complain of unfair tactics..after all .. Las Vegas has a name to protect. Richard
Re: [Vo]:Re: Fresnel focused solar
--- Michel Jullian wrote: Would cost more than plain cell wouldn't it? Much less, supposedly. Here's why (without citations): the cost per unit of surface area of solar cells is many, many times more expensive than the fresnel concentrator (which is relatively cheap). Plus the concentrator provides some degree of protection from damage, in the event of storms. That would not matter much if the solar cell was already maxed-out with normal solar irradiation at zero concentration, when in fact they are very far from being maxed-out, and apparently become more efficient with higher intensity of radiation. Let's take a hypothetical case, using printed cells like Nanosolar, which are probably closer to being maxed-out without concentration, due to being non-crystalline. But if they can tolerate twice the nonfocused concentration, yet cost 10 times more per unit of surface area than the fresnel, then the net cost can be reduced significantly with even a small degree of concentration (2:1). At least that is the basic rationale, as I understand it. Jones - Original Message - If Nanosolar is for real, maybe they should get together with a Fresnel maker ? Jones
[Vo]:LENR-CANR.org total downloads exceed 1 million
See: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm#Downloads
Re: [Vo]:Fresnel focused solar
--- Mike Carrell wrote: Small problem: frenels make cheap concentrators, but then you need sun-tracking mounting, not shown, and that can be quite expensive. There is an added cost, of course, but supposedly there would also be a fast payback, especially in winter and especially for modular units (below). Biggest Problem: what is really available now in low-cost tracking for small systems ? Here in a VERY nice graphic image of a modular system- which unfortunately, is closer to vaporware than a real product - but on paper it seems to be mass-producible, and a cost effective solution which will fit on the average roof: http://www.soliant-energy.com/products.php ... Nice! especially if mass-produced, but- as is so common with these companies- there is no actual photo of the real installed item, or cost study ...which product they had claimed [like Nanosolar] would be shipping in 2007. Is it any wonder why many of us are more than a bit skeptical of how effectively the US free-enterprise system has been able to cope with the introduction of relatively simple solar solutions (i.e. the tracking sub-system, not the panels)? If the Rockefeller's really want Exxon to 'give back' something to an economy which they have almost bled dry (as was recently in the news) then here is the perfect place ! However, it would not surprise me if the big advances to come in cost-effective solar are not made in India, Israel, China etc. since they tend to have more high level Government support for private companies- for such projects (and more internal need). And possibly less greed... Jones
Re: [Vo]:Fresnel focused solar
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sat, 3 May 2008 09:08:01 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] Looks like this company beat Michael Foster to market... http://www.sunrgi.com/ [snip] Q10: Will this technology have an effect on the dependency that the U.S. has on foreign oil? A: Yes it will. Right now very little electricity is generated using foreign oil. That is not the source of our dependency. Our dependency comes from relying on foreign oil as a key source for home heating oil and gasoline. When low-cost, SUNRGI-generated energy proliferates, inexpensive electricity will encourage substitution of electrical for other energy sources electric furnaces can replace those that are now oil-fired, electric-powered cars can replace gasoline engines, and solar heating systems for homes, businesses and institutional customers can become widespread. Should this become widespread, then of course most power will be generated over day. Hence it would be useful to recharge electric vehicles while parked at work during the day, rather than at home over night. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Fresnel focused solar
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Sat, 3 May 2008 13:03:03 -0400: Hi, [snip] Small problem: frenels make cheap concentrators, but then you need sun-tracking mounting, not shown, and that can be quite expensive. Non-focusing concentrators have been devised, but such are not shown. Mike Carrell I fail to see why solar tracking should be expensive. As I see it there is a relatively simple way this can be done. First the actual motion of each set of collectors is controlled by a worm gear driven by a stepper motor. This allows for very fine control. Whole sets of units could even be linked together by a single long rod, so that a single motor would move all of them concurrently. Second the actual determination of where the thing should point could be done with a single cheap PC controlling an entire park of units. The amount of computing power required is absolutely trivial, so the PC used should be the cheapest available (read: boat anchor). The software already exists if I'm not mistaken, and is currently used by astronomers for tracking the stars. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Fresnel focused solar
It's so much fun to hear all you folks speculate on what's happening in this particular field. First, no one or no company has beat me to the punch in using fresnel lenses to concentrate sunlight for a photovoltaic system. This is an old and obvious idea, newly revived because of the run up in world energy prices and the soon to be dead issue of global warming. The development of new photovoltaics of different types specifically designed for high concentration is another factor. The company I own has simply and inadvertantly become the largest and most cost effective manufacturer of fresnel lenses in the world. My manufacturing capacity for such lenses dwarfs that of the rest of the world combined. Virtually every company involved in concentrator photovoltaic schemes has contacted me about this. The conventional method of manufacturing fresnels, compression molding of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) is slow and far more expensive that the continuous roll method I use. Furthermore PMMA lenses have a limited life in the sun and are sensitive to humidity changes. They craze and go milky in short order. They buckle and warp and are difficult to keep at optimum focus. Other thermoplastics can be used, but the cost is even higher, the cycle times even slower, and the optical transmission not as good. Just last week, I was contacted by a consulting firm hired by a company who wants to set up large photovoltaic farms with the idea of generating commercial quantities of electricity. They gave broad hints about the company being financed by the recent round of venture capital (nearly $700 million) floated by Algore and his new friends. Who knows what's going on here, but their main concern was could somebody produce 20,000 square meters per month. When I told the guy who called I could do that in a few hours, he damn near had an orgasm. This idea really pencils out for the photovoltaic production of electricity on a number of counts. Primarily, the amount of expensive photovoltaic material is greatly reduced, down to about 0.1% of non-concentrated flat panels. Photovoltaics designed for high concentration are approaching 50% in conversion efficiency, a figure flat panels will probably never reach. The main feature of such systems normally pointed out as disadvantage, tracking the sun, more or less pays for itself in having more hours per day of optimum output. Even flat panels would have a higher daily output if they tracked. I have no idea if someone will step up the plate and start giving me large orders for my concentrator fresnel arrays, but I'm proud of what I've done and I hope it has some practical use. Meanwhile these things find broader application for making pretty cosmetic packages. Oh, well. M. Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Re: [Vo]:Fresnel focused solar
--- Michael, Hey, we kibitzers were merely waiting for you to focus some light on the subject, so to speak ... BTW- have you had a comparative look at what would be the optimum level of 'shrinkage' for the solar cell itself when under Fresnel concentration ? ... let me see if I can ask that question more clearly. OK- you can probably make the lens any given size fairly easily, but if you were to find that for a given ratio- let's say that a 100:1 concentration works well for a certain type of solar cell, would you be better off having the cell itself cut small- say 1 cm^2, or even 1 mm^2, or even smaller? The reason for asking is that a tracking mechanism would no doubt be more efficient with a multitude of smaller units, as opposed to fewer larger ones. This would also facilitate putting a flatter array onto a home roof, without the unsightly arms of a larger mechanism. Jones
