Driver to drive?

tm · Oct 22, 2012

"John Larkin" <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in message
news:ql7b88h0fbad44ajialigid3gcs9lfqh5v@4ax.com...

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:31:31 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, October 22, 2012 11:50:37 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

I can't believe an engineer wrote the above. You are an engineer,
right?

Obviously not.

What's obvious is that you and that other simpleton are not very good at
engineering. In the real world, outside your sheltered little lab
environment, there are a multitude of effects that degrade predicted
performance. Until the price of Si flat panles dropped, the Solyndra
design was best in class.
http://www.solyndra.com/technology-products/cylindrical-module/

What electronics have you designed lately? Show us.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

He doesn't do any electronics. He works for the oboma campaign.

Oct 22, 2012

On Monday, October 22, 2012 11:50:37 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 09:16:15 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 21:59:25 -0700 (PDT), bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com

wrote:

On Monday, October 22, 2012 12:41:09 AM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Oct 21, 8:21ďż˝pm, "hifi-tek" <t.hoeh...@insightbb.com> wrote:

"rickman" <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:k61vm6$dr1$2@dont-email.me...

On 10/21/2012 6:58 PM, Lord Valve wrote:

dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Oct 19, 3:11 pm, John Larkin<jlar...@highlandtechnology.com

wrote:

http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/target_8/Volt-no-jolt-LG-Chem-employee...

I'm guessing that they're waiting until mid-November to do the serious

layoffs.

Another green bankcorruptcy:

ďż˝ ďż˝http://www.washingtonguardian.com/battery-makers-beltway-power-play

"As it struggled, A123 showered Democrats with donations, hired pricey

lobbyist"

--

Cheers,

James

The O'Butthole Big Fat List of Bogus Green Bullshit:

Evergreen Solar ($24 million)*

SpectraWatt ($500,000)*

Solyndra ($535 million)*

Beacon Power ($69 million)*

AES's subsidiary Eastern Energy ($17.1 million)

Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)

SunPower ($1.5 billion)

First Solar ($1.46 billion)

Babcock and Brown ($178 million)

EnerDel's subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*

Amonix ($5.9 million)

National Renewable Energy Lab ($200 million)

Fisker Automotive ($528 million)

Abound Solar ($374 million)*

A123 Systems ($279 million)*

Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($6 million)

Johnson Controls ($299 million)

Schneider Electric ($86 million)

Brightsource ($1.6 billion)

ECOtality ($126.2 million)

Raser Technologies ($33 million)*

Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*

Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*

Olsen's Crop Service and Olsen's Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*

Range Fuels ($80 million)*

Thompson River Power ($6.4 million)*

Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*

LSP Energy ($2.1 billion)*

UniSolar ($100 million)*

Azure Dynamics ($120 million)*

GreenVolts ($500,000)

Vestas ($50 million)

LG Chem's subsidiary Compact Power ($150 million)

Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*

Navistar ($10 million)

Satcon ($3 million)*

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

Source:

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-...

...and that's what you can expect from trying to run the

world's biggest economy on unicorn farts and wishful

thinking.

Looks like a better track record than most venture capitalists. ďż˝I

understand they are happy with one in ten going the distance.

Rick

You understand wrong. Where I live, I know of 2 venture captalist groups

that aren't happy unless they have a 5 out of 10 positive ROI. 1 in 10

wouldn't fly for long with my groups. They really do their homework before

parting with the money. Obam-bam has a lot of friends needing capital;

unfortunately they are

poor businessmen or outright thieves. He really needs to pick his buds with

a little more care. After all, it is OUR money. Does anyone really know

where the money went at Solyndra? ďż˝I for one would like to know how MY money

was pissed away.

Tom

I could tell Solyndra was doomed the first time I went to their

website. Cylindrical cells? There's simply no way they'd EVER

compete. Flat panels are half the price or less, smaller, easier to

make,and easier to use.

They weren't half the price at the time and the cylindrical panels were a

brilliant solution to the sun tracking problem without moving parts and

much more complicated installation.

I can't believe an engineer wrote the above. You are an engineer, right?

Obviously not.

There's a good reason why serious installations use sun tracking,

Sure, but cylindrical cells don't do it.

it's called MUCH more energy harvesting.

Nope! *EXACTLY* the same energy falls on the cells per m^2.

The cylinders intercept about half of it, while using four times the

expensive conversion material. And thinfilms aren't as efficient as

crystaline silicon. An engineer would multiply all those

inefficiencies and put his money on something with a better

probability of payoff, like horse races maybe.

Duh- well you happen to be wrong. The Solyndra technology was competitive when it was first introduced. You obviously know nothing about it.

Oct 22, 2012

On Monday, October 22, 2012 11:50:37 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

I can't believe an engineer wrote the above. You are an engineer, right?

Obviously not.

What's obvious is that you and that other simpleton are not very good at engineering. In the real world, outside your sheltered little lab environment, there are a multitude of effects that degrade predicted performance. Until the price of Si flat panles dropped, the Solyndra design was best in class.
http://www.solyndra.com/technology-products/cylindrical-module/

John Larkin · Oct 22, 2012

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:31:31 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, October 22, 2012 11:50:37 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

I can't believe an engineer wrote the above. You are an engineer, right?

Obviously not.

What's obvious is that you and that other simpleton are not very good at engineering. In the real world, outside your sheltered little lab environment, there are a multitude of effects that degrade predicted performance. Until the price of Si flat panles dropped, the Solyndra design was best in class.
http://www.solyndra.com/technology-products/cylindrical-module/

"There are approximately 23 steps to build and protect the 195
thin-film solar cells created in the manufacture of each module"

They made each "cylinder" out of 195 small flat bits. Why the heck
didn't they just deposit the thinfilm stuff on a cylindrical
substrate?

They assembled the 195 cells on an inner cylinder, put that into an
outer glass tube, and filled that mess with some exotic liquid. At any
one time, only a fraction of the cells were exposed to sunlight.
Insane.

"Best in class" sounds like a car ad. That can mean "practically
worthless" of the class is chosen carefully.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom laser drivers and controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation

Lord Valve · Oct 22, 2012

bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, October 22, 2012 11:50:37 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 09:16:15 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 21:59:25 -0700 (PDT), bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com

wrote:

On Monday, October 22, 2012 12:41:09 AM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Oct 21, 8:21ďż˝pm, "hifi-tek" <t.hoeh...@insightbb.com> wrote:

"rickman" <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:k61vm6$dr1$2@dont-email.me...

On 10/21/2012 6:58 PM, Lord Valve wrote:

dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Oct 19, 3:11 pm, John Larkin<jlar...@highlandtechnology.com

wrote:

http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/target_8/Volt-no-jolt-LG-Chem-employee...

I'm guessing that they're waiting until mid-November to do the serious

layoffs.

Another green bankcorruptcy:

ďż˝ ďż˝http://www.washingtonguardian.com/battery-makers-beltway-power-play

"As it struggled, A123 showered Democrats with donations, hired pricey

lobbyist"

--

Cheers,

James

The O'Butthole Big Fat List of Bogus Green Bullshit:

Evergreen Solar ($24 million)*

SpectraWatt ($500,000)*

Solyndra ($535 million)*

Beacon Power ($69 million)*

AES's subsidiary Eastern Energy ($17.1 million)

Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)

SunPower ($1.5 billion)

First Solar ($1.46 billion)

Babcock and Brown ($178 million)

EnerDel's subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*

Amonix ($5.9 million)

National Renewable Energy Lab ($200 million)

Fisker Automotive ($528 million)

Abound Solar ($374 million)*

A123 Systems ($279 million)*

Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($6 million)

Johnson Controls ($299 million)

Schneider Electric ($86 million)

Brightsource ($1.6 billion)

ECOtality ($126.2 million)

Raser Technologies ($33 million)*

Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*

Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*

Olsen's Crop Service and Olsen's Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*

Range Fuels ($80 million)*

Thompson River Power ($6.4 million)*

Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*

LSP Energy ($2.1 billion)*

UniSolar ($100 million)*

Azure Dynamics ($120 million)*

GreenVolts ($500,000)

Vestas ($50 million)

LG Chem's subsidiary Compact Power ($150 million)

Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*

Navistar ($10 million)

Satcon ($3 million)*

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

Source:

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-...

...and that's what you can expect from trying to run the

world's biggest economy on unicorn farts and wishful

thinking.

Looks like a better track record than most venture capitalists. ďż˝I

understand they are happy with one in ten going the distance.

Rick

You understand wrong. Where I live, I know of 2 venture captalist groups

that aren't happy unless they have a 5 out of 10 positive ROI. 1 in 10

wouldn't fly for long with my groups. They really do their homework before

parting with the money. Obam-bam has a lot of friends needing capital;

unfortunately they are

poor businessmen or outright thieves. He really needs to pick his buds with

a little more care. After all, it is OUR money. Does anyone really know

where the money went at Solyndra? ďż˝I for one would like to know how MY money

was pissed away.

Tom

I could tell Solyndra was doomed the first time I went to their

website. Cylindrical cells? There's simply no way they'd EVER

compete. Flat panels are half the price or less, smaller, easier to

make,and easier to use.

They weren't half the price at the time and the cylindrical panels were a

brilliant solution to the sun tracking problem without moving parts and

much more complicated installation.

I can't believe an engineer wrote the above. You are an engineer, right?

Obviously not.

There's a good reason why serious installations use sun tracking,

Sure, but cylindrical cells don't do it.

it's called MUCH more energy harvesting.

Nope! *EXACTLY* the same energy falls on the cells per m^2.

The cylinders intercept about half of it, while using four times the

expensive conversion material. And thinfilms aren't as efficient as

crystaline silicon. An engineer would multiply all those

inefficiencies and put his money on something with a better

probability of payoff, like horse races maybe.

Duh- well you happen to be wrong. The Solyndra technology was competitive when it was first introduced. You obviously know nothing about it.

I suggest you bet the leading apprentice jockey to place.

LV

rickman · Oct 22, 2012

On 10/22/2012 2:31 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, October 22, 2012 11:50:37 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

I can't believe an engineer wrote the above. You are an engineer, right?

Obviously not.

What's obvious is that you and that other simpleton are not very good at engineering. In the real world, outside your sheltered little lab environment, there are a multitude of effects that degrade predicted performance. Until the price of Si flat panles dropped, the Solyndra design was best in class.
http://www.solyndra.com/technology-products/cylindrical-module/

As to the corruption issues, from Wikipedia (with reference)

On October 7, 2011, newly revealed emails showed that the Obama
administration had concerns about the legality of the Department of
Energy's loan restructuring plan and warned OMB director Jeffrey D.
Zients that the plan should be cleared with the Department of Justice
first, which the Department of Energy had not done. The emails also
revealed that as early as August 2009, an aide to then-White House Chief
of Staff Rahm Emanuel had asked a Department of Energy official if he
could discuss any concerns among the investment community about Solyndra
but that the official dismissed the idea that Solyndra had financial
problems.[37]

^ Solyndra loan deal: Warning about legality came from within Obama
administration, Washington Post, October 7, 2011
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/solyndra-obama-and-rahm-emanuel-pushed-to-spotlight-energy-company/2011/10/07/gIQACDqSTL_story.html

This seems pretty convincing evidence that the Obama administration
isn't as corrupt as some would suggest... at least on this issue.

Rick

rickman · Oct 22, 2012

On 10/22/2012 4:43 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:31:31 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, October 22, 2012 11:50:37 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

I can't believe an engineer wrote the above. You are an engineer, right?

Obviously not.

What's obvious is that you and that other simpleton are not very good at engineering. In the real world, outside your sheltered little lab environment, there are a multitude of effects that degrade predicted performance. Until the price of Si flat panles dropped, the Solyndra design was best in class.
http://www.solyndra.com/technology-products/cylindrical-module/

"There are approximately 23 steps to build and protect the 195
thin-film solar cells created in the manufacture of each module"

They made each "cylinder" out of 195 small flat bits. Why the heck
didn't they just deposit the thinfilm stuff on a cylindrical
substrate?

Where did you read "small flat bits"? I believe the "cells" are rings
with gaps between them. The illustrations clearly show the thin film
deposited on the outside of an inner tube. This fits inside an outer
tube and the space filled with a liquid "optical coupling agent",
seemingly chosen as a protection for the cells against moisture and for
its optical focusing properties. I got no ax to grind in this issue,
but it seems to me to be a decent design.

They assembled the 195 cells on an inner cylinder, put that into an
outer glass tube, and filled that mess with some exotic liquid. At any
one time, only a fraction of the cells were exposed to sunlight.
Insane.

Not a fraction of the surface, at least not a tiny fraction. The tube
picks up light from a diameter which is larger than the diameter of the
inner tube with the solar cells. It may not be 100% but likely
approaches 50%.

"Best in class" sounds like a car ad. That can mean "practically
worthless" of the class is chosen carefully.

Yeah, it sounds like marketing. But obviously they were competitive or
no one would have bought them... "Solyndras factory has produced over
16 million modules" That's a lot of solar power. Clearly there was a
point when they were making a good, competitive product. Then the
Chinese decided to buy market share like they did with rare-earth
minerals. The result is that it is hard to compete in the market and
just like in rare-earth minerals on-shore makers have to leave the market.

Why do you guys continue to argue about this stuff in such silly ways.
You don't care what the facts are or even what you are talking about.
You guys just like arguing.

Rick

rickman · Oct 22, 2012

On 10/22/2012 11:38 AM, John Larkin wrote:

The Democrats, in the 1960's, discovered that that could use
government money to create an underclass that would reliably vote for
them. I love Caesar Chavez' summary of the situation. He told poor
farmworkers not to use birth control because it "reduces the numerical
power of the poor."

Underclass? Are you talking about Romney's 47%?

Rick

rickman · Oct 22, 2012

On 10/22/2012 9:23 AM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Oct 22, 12:36 am, bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:

These were government investments made to create jobs and stimulate the economy, they were not made to enrich cronies, unlike some of the Bush administration purchases. Care to explain just how A123 was bogus, what was the sham there?

The sham is that nobody needed that. The people are supposed to
decide those things, not Feds.

Taking our money to support A123, the gov't makes it harder for us to
support other, better things that people really want. Harder to
support ourselves, too.

James,

The government used less than $1 of your money to try to encourage what
was hoped would be both American technology to battle foreign
competition and creation of jobs. Creating jobs is "job 1" at the
moment in my opinion. I can't say these efforts were a total waste.

As to the dollar, send me a SASE and I'll mail you the dollar. I don't
mind doing good things with my money, even if they don't always work
out. Oh, and I'll send you the $2 for Solyndra. Send it to.

Taxpayer Bailout
4 King Ave.
Frederick, MD 21701

If anyone else is this angry that the government tried to do a good
thing which didn't work perfectly, please send me a SASE. I'll return
$3 to the first 100 I receive. Maybe I'll do more depending on my
finances...

BTW, right now there is a battle over the A123 assets between an
American company and a Chinese company. Do you want to let the free
market reign and let the highest bidder win? That would be the Chinese
company at the moment at $465 Million!

Rick

rickman · Oct 22, 2012

On 10/21/2012 10:16 PM, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 21:31:26 -0400, rickman<gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

On 10/21/2012 7:50 PM, John Larkin wrote:

The real energy breakthrough has been fracking, privately developed,
privately funded. There is now a glut of natural gas in the USA, and
we will likely be a net oil exporter soon.

But if Romney wins the election he will be pushing "clean" coal (even
though that is an oxymoron). Since natural gas is cheaper than coal for
most uses, how will that work? Will the free market be suspended?

More lies from the lefty. You really ought to learn something from your boss.
Even he's getting the message (though it's way too late).

"Lies from the lefty"??? That is from his OWN campaign ads!!!!

Or are you saying the low price of natural gas is a lie?

Please help me understand what is true in this matter...

Rick

rumreich · Oct 22, 2012

yzordderrex wrote:

Win,

2SK1412 = 100ma
2SK1413 = 2amp
2SK1414 = 6amp

I\'ve been using the 2 smaller parts for about 8 years.

yzordderrex-

I'm looking for a few 2SK1412 to repair a piece of test equipment. Any chance
you have a few for sale?

Thanks,
Mark

--
+-----[ SERVER SIGNATURE ]-----------------
| posted via http://www.electrondepot.com
| Web, RSS and Social Media Interface to
| sci.electronics.design and other groups
+------------------------------------------

rickman · Oct 22, 2012

On 10/22/2012 2:54 PM, Les Cargill wrote:

Pretty much. The materials used are in a pretty fair state of control.

snip

<You wait until here to snip???>

What are the materials used in fracking?

Rick

rickman · Oct 22, 2012

On 10/22/2012 6:04 PM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Oct 22, 5:30 pm, rickman<gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/22/2012 4:43 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:31:31 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, October 22, 2012 11:50:37 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

I can't believe an engineer wrote the above. You are an engineer, right?

Obviously not.

What's obvious is that you and that other simpleton are not very good at engineering. In the real world, outside your sheltered little lab environment, there are a multitude of effects that degrade predicted performance. Until the price of Si flat panles dropped, the Solyndra design was best in class.
http://www.solyndra.com/technology-products/cylindrical-module/

"There are approximately 23 steps to build and protect the 195
thin-film solar cells created in the manufacture of each module"

They made each "cylinder" out of 195 small flat bits. Why the heck
didn't they just deposit the thinfilm stuff on a cylindrical
substrate?

Where did you read "small flat bits"? I believe the "cells" are rings
with gaps between them. The illustrations clearly show the thin film
deposited on the outside of an inner tube. This fits inside an outer
tube and the space filled with a liquid "optical coupling agent",
seemingly chosen as a protection for the cells against moisture and for
its optical focusing properties. I got no ax to grind in this issue,
but it seems to me to be a decent design.

They assembled the 195 cells on an inner cylinder, put that into an
outer glass tube, and filled that mess with some exotic liquid. At any
one time, only a fraction of the cells were exposed to sunlight.
Insane.

Not a fraction of the surface, at least not a tiny fraction. The tube
picks up light from a diameter which is larger than the diameter of the
inner tube with the solar cells. It may not be 100% but likely
approaches 50%.

"Best in class" sounds like a car ad. That can mean "practically
worthless" of the class is chosen carefully.

Yeah, it sounds like marketing. But obviously they were competitive or
no one would have bought them... "Solyndras factory has produced over
16 million modules" That's a lot of solar power. Clearly there was a
point when they were making a good, competitive product. Then the
Chinese decided to buy market share like they did with rare-earth
minerals. The result is that it is hard to compete in the market and
just like in rare-earth minerals on-shore makers have to leave the market..

Why do you guys continue to argue about this stuff in such silly ways.
You don't care what the facts are or even what you are talking about.
You guys just like arguing.

That's just daft. How on earth can an array of 200+component glass
tubes-within-tubes with 50% insolation ever beat a flat panel with
100%? The Solyndra scheme is inherently 2-5x more expensive.
Period. It was never competitive. Only gov't subsidies made it
possible[1], briefly, and even those weren't enough.

What are the 200+ components? I thought there were two primary
components, the inner tube and the outer tube... plus the fluid and the
end caps. What are the other 196?

Where did you get the 2-5x more expensive number?

I don't know the details of the design. Someone said the Solyndra
design is thin film compared to thick film which means bulk silicon. So
the cost structure may be very different. A lot of people here talk
like they actually understand all the details. I certainly don't. But
it is fairly obvious that the design was viable at some point.

I don't know why Fred doesn't get it--he's usually pretty good with
numbers.

[1] e.g. "Consumers who installed $10,000 worth of Solyndra solar
panels on their roofs in 2010, then, were eligible to get $6,000
rebated from the government when they filed their income tax returns."

Read more:
http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/14/the-other-solyndra-story-even-massive-tax-rebates-failed-to-drive-solar-panel-demand/#ixzz2A4GesgrP

So there were tax incentives to home users. How many home installed
solar panels do you see? Around here there are nearly NONE.

Rick

Les Cargill · Oct 22, 2012

rickman wrote:

On 10/22/2012 2:54 PM, Les Cargill wrote:

Pretty much. The materials used are in a pretty fair state of control.

snip

You wait until here to snip???

Heh. Yeah.

What are the materials used in fracking?

Rick

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proppants_and_fracking_fluids

--
Les Cargill

Jim Thompson · Oct 22, 2012

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:52:06 -0600, Lord Valve
<detritus@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, October 22, 2012 11:50:37 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 09:16:15 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 21:59:25 -0700 (PDT), bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com

wrote:

On Monday, October 22, 2012 12:41:09 AM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Oct 21, 8:21ďż˝pm, "hifi-tek" <t.hoeh...@insightbb.com> wrote:

"rickman" <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:k61vm6$dr1$2@dont-email.me...

On 10/21/2012 6:58 PM, Lord Valve wrote:

dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Oct 19, 3:11 pm, John Larkin<jlar...@highlandtechnology.com

wrote:

http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/target_8/Volt-no-jolt-LG-Chem-employee...

I'm guessing that they're waiting until mid-November to do the serious

layoffs.

Another green bankcorruptcy:

ďż˝ ďż˝http://www.washingtonguardian.com/battery-makers-beltway-power-play

"As it struggled, A123 showered Democrats with donations, hired pricey

lobbyist"

--

Cheers,

James

The O'Butthole Big Fat List of Bogus Green Bullshit:

Evergreen Solar ($24 million)*

SpectraWatt ($500,000)*

Solyndra ($535 million)*

Beacon Power ($69 million)*

AES's subsidiary Eastern Energy ($17.1 million)

Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)

SunPower ($1.5 billion)

First Solar ($1.46 billion)

Babcock and Brown ($178 million)

EnerDel's subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*

Amonix ($5.9 million)

National Renewable Energy Lab ($200 million)

Fisker Automotive ($528 million)

Abound Solar ($374 million)*

A123 Systems ($279 million)*

Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($6 million)

Johnson Controls ($299 million)

Schneider Electric ($86 million)

Brightsource ($1.6 billion)

ECOtality ($126.2 million)

Raser Technologies ($33 million)*

Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*

Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*

Olsen's Crop Service and Olsen's Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*

Range Fuels ($80 million)*

Thompson River Power ($6.4 million)*

Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*

LSP Energy ($2.1 billion)*

UniSolar ($100 million)*

Azure Dynamics ($120 million)*

GreenVolts ($500,000)

Vestas ($50 million)

LG Chem's subsidiary Compact Power ($150 million)

Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*

Navistar ($10 million)

Satcon ($3 million)*

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

Source:

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-...

...and that's what you can expect from trying to run the

world's biggest economy on unicorn farts and wishful

thinking.

Looks like a better track record than most venture capitalists. ďż˝I

understand they are happy with one in ten going the distance.

Rick

You understand wrong. Where I live, I know of 2 venture captalist groups

that aren't happy unless they have a 5 out of 10 positive ROI. 1 in 10

wouldn't fly for long with my groups. They really do their homework before

parting with the money. Obam-bam has a lot of friends needing capital;

unfortunately they are

poor businessmen or outright thieves. He really needs to pick his buds with

a little more care. After all, it is OUR money. Does anyone really know

where the money went at Solyndra? ďż˝I for one would like to know how MY money

was pissed away.

Tom

I could tell Solyndra was doomed the first time I went to their

website. Cylindrical cells? There's simply no way they'd EVER

compete. Flat panels are half the price or less, smaller, easier to

make,and easier to use.

They weren't half the price at the time and the cylindrical panels were a

brilliant solution to the sun tracking problem without moving parts and

much more complicated installation.

I can't believe an engineer wrote the above. You are an engineer, right?

Obviously not.

There's a good reason why serious installations use sun tracking,

Sure, but cylindrical cells don't do it.

it's called MUCH more energy harvesting.

Nope! *EXACTLY* the same energy falls on the cells per m^2.

The cylinders intercept about half of it, while using four times the

expensive conversion material. And thinfilms aren't as efficient as

crystaline silicon. An engineer would multiply all those

inefficiencies and put his money on something with a better

probability of payoff, like horse races maybe.

Duh- well you happen to be wrong. The Solyndra technology was competitive when it was first introduced. You obviously know nothing about it.

I suggest you bet the leading apprentice jockey to place.

LV

Can't we all killfile Bloggs until he learns how to format replies
?

Jamie · Oct 22, 2012

John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 21:16:58 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, October 22, 2012 12:07:42 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 20:56:24 -0700 (PDT),

bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, October 21, 2012 11:10:09 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 19:21:52 -0700 (PDT),

The real energy breakthrough has been fracking, privately developed,

privately funded. There is now a glut of natural gas in the USA, and

we will likely be a net oil exporter soon.

Once again you're dumber than dumb ignorant. Didya know quite a lot of fracking came to a grinding halt during this year's drought?

New drilling for fracking gas has almost stopped because fracking has

made gas so cheap. See today's New York Times. A lot of the fracking

rigs are being moved over to oil.

and what is this- a fairy tale:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/31/news/economy/drought-oil-us/index.htm

Fracking is a major environmental pollutant as well as a massive

waste of natural resource needed for more essential agricultural

production.

http://www.pacinst.org/reports/fracking/

Silly left coast loonies. The pollution is tiny compared to mining and

burning coal. And, once a well is in, the land area used is tiny too.

That is a bunch of bull and you know. Underground aquifers and their feeds by surface and subsurface cracks are un-mappable!

Fracking happens deep. I don't think any aquifers have been polluted.

The pollution issue is known to be there and is impossible to predict beforehand. They use more than water for fracking. Fracking has also been implicated in earhtquakes.

Like, mag 3 quakes. You can barely feel a mag 3.

Maybe, but it's enough to damage foundations, roads, and nuclear power plants.

But hey, all energy is dangerous. Fracking natural gas seems safer

than a lot of others.

Many thousands of incidents of health hazards documented:
http://waterdefense.org/content/fracking

You have to keep mining coal. Once a gas well is in, the gas comes up

safely, quietly, continuously.

What's *really* wasting farmland and water is turning corn - food! -

into ethanol. It's hurting - killing - a lot of people, too, by

driving up the worldwide cost of food. That criminal abomination is by

government decree and government subsidy.

I already brought that issue up before when someone quoted that jackass engineer authored article by an Argonne lackey!

You seem to be getting crazier and crazier. Go for a walk or

something.

I only seem that way to a superficial mentality like yours. I know far more about the subject than you do. There are viable agricultural sources that can be used sustainably for energy production. ADF has a big government grant to hybridize hazelnut for oil production, the yield per acre is much higher and than oil is of much higher density, and these plantations can be established in regions that do not grow food staples.

http://downloads.cas.psu.edu/RenewableEnergy/presentations/thomasMolnar0808.pdf

http://www.arborday.org/shopping/memberships/hazelnut/

http://www.arborday.org/programs/hazelnuts/consortium/

Government grant? That proves viability? Hilarious.

The particular parties involved here have a historically LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG and and successful track record. You have no respect for anything because you're a smartass.

I respect things that work. I respect people who work, too.

10-4

Jamie

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz · Oct 22, 2012

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 18:06:22 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

On 10/21/2012 10:16 PM, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 21:31:26 -0400, rickman<gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

On 10/21/2012 7:50 PM, John Larkin wrote:

The real energy breakthrough has been fracking, privately developed,
privately funded. There is now a glut of natural gas in the USA, and
we will likely be a net oil exporter soon.

But if Romney wins the election he will be pushing "clean" coal (even
though that is an oxymoron). Since natural gas is cheaper than coal for
most uses, how will that work? Will the free market be suspended?

More lies from the lefty. You really ought to learn something from your boss.
Even he's getting the message (though it's way too late).

"Lies from the lefty"???

Yes, that means YOU.

That is from his OWN campaign ads!!!!

Bullshit. Show is where his campaign ad says that the free market will be
suspended. What a loser!

Or are you saying the low price of natural gas is a lie?

You obviously can't read.

Please help me understand what is true in this matter...

Impossible. You're a lefty.

rickman · Oct 22, 2012

On 10/22/2012 6:39 PM, Les Cargill wrote:

rickman wrote:
On 10/22/2012 2:54 PM, Les Cargill wrote:

Pretty much. The materials used are in a pretty fair state of control.

snip

You wait until here to snip???

Heh. Yeah.

What are the materials used in fracking?

Rick

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proppants_and_fracking_fluids

--
Les Cargill

Wikipedia doesn't do well exploration. What do the companies that do
fracking say they use?

Rick

John Larkin · Oct 22, 2012

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 17:30:31 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

On 10/22/2012 4:43 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:31:31 -0700 (PDT),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, October 22, 2012 11:50:37 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

I can't believe an engineer wrote the above. You are an engineer, right?

Obviously not.

What's obvious is that you and that other simpleton are not very good at engineering. In the real world, outside your sheltered little lab environment, there are a multitude of effects that degrade predicted performance. Until the price of Si flat panles dropped, the Solyndra design was best in class.
http://www.solyndra.com/technology-products/cylindrical-module/

"There are approximately 23 steps to build and protect the 195
thin-film solar cells created in the manufacture of each module"

They made each "cylinder" out of 195 small flat bits. Why the heck
didn't they just deposit the thinfilm stuff on a cylindrical
substrate?

Where did you read "small flat bits"?

That's what the pic looks like on the web page above.

I believe the "cells" are rings

with gaps between them.

195 rings along a 2-meter tube would be 10 mm long each. That doesn't
make sense to me. The picture looks like a lot of flat cells
assembled.

The illustrations clearly show the thin film

deposited on the outside of an inner tube. This fits inside an outer
tube and the space filled with a liquid "optical coupling agent",
seemingly chosen as a protection for the cells against moisture and for
its optical focusing properties. I got no ax to grind in this issue,
but it seems to me to be a decent design.

I wonder how much light was lost to reflection from the various
surfaces, especially the outer tube. Only a fraction of the light hit
at normal incidence.

They assembled the 195 cells on an inner cylinder, put that into an
outer glass tube, and filled that mess with some exotic liquid. At any
one time, only a fraction of the cells were exposed to sunlight.
Insane.

Not a fraction of the surface, at least not a tiny fraction. The tube
picks up light from a diameter which is larger than the diameter of the
inner tube with the solar cells. It may not be 100% but likely
approaches 50%.

"Best in class" sounds like a car ad. That can mean "practically
worthless" of the class is chosen carefully.

Yeah, it sounds like marketing. But obviously they were competitive or
no one would have bought them... "Solyndras factory has produced over
16 million modules" That's a lot of solar power.

Subsidized on the production end, then subsidized again on the buyer
end.

Clearly there was a

point when they were making a good, competitive product.

Clearly? I don't see that.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom laser drivers and controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation

Martin Riddle · Oct 22, 2012

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message news:evta88leuqdih1e8vn06rarump2l8sjar5@4ax.com...

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 09:17:19 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 11:42:04 +0200, "Helmut Sennewald"
helmutsennewald@t-online.de> wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com
schrieb
im Newsbeitrag news:68i688dj7vbafbnttgipuj8j9qsa9sjomv@4ax.com...
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 20:58:34 -0400, "Martin Riddle"
martin_rid@verizon.net> wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com
wrote
in message news:tq2688p09i0rmqtctp92saa53buk69fgpa@4ax.com...
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 15:29:37 -0500, Tim Wescott
tim@seemywebsite.please> wrote:

On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 13:00:47 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 12:10:09 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
jeffl@cruzio.com
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 10:05:23 -0700 (PDT), LM
sala.nimi@mail.com
wrote:

There are many kinds of them for instance from NXP.

[snip]

Learn to make your own symbols.

...Jim Thompson

I think they have a dual-gate FET symbol, just no models.

I need to get LTspice symbol and library maneuvers into my
skill-set.
In PSpice I have it down to totally effortless ;-)

...Jim Thompson

It does seem vague, just a few lines of Help on the subject. But
it's
straight forward with a little practice.

Cheers

Don't be vague, just tell me how ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Hello Jim,

Open the symbol editor.
Place 4 pins.
Right-click on each pin to edit the netlist order to the order in the
.subckt-line.
Draw some nice graphic around it.
Write BFXXX into attribute "Value". Edit -> attributes
Save.

Place this symbol in the schematic.
Change BFXXX to BF998
Include the model file with a SPICE-directive
.lib name_of_file

Wire the complete circuit.
RUN the simulation.

I have used BFXXX in the symbol, because I had in mind to use it for
BF996,
BF999, BF???.
If I had used BF998 in the symbol editor, I wouldn't have to change
it
later in the schematic of course.
It's also possible to make a symbol only for the BF998.
Last but not least you can already specify the model file in the
symbol too.

Best regards,
Helmut

Thanks, Helmut!

Suppose I make parts/symbols as in...

http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/SubcircuitImportByNetlist.pdf

where "MODEL" is subcircuit name.

Does that work in LTspice, and can I change "MODEL" in the schematic?

...Jim Thompson

Whoever helps Jim learn to use LT Spice should charge him for it. His
only goal is, he admits, to make money.

You can define the subckt for the Symbol after you place it. Just right
Click on the symbol and Change the 'SpiceModel' Line to your subckt
name.
Not the same as editing the Attributes for the model file in the Symbol
editor.

Cheers

Driver to drive?

tm

Guest

Guest

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Lord Valve

Guest

rickman

Guest

rickman

Guest

rickman

Guest

rickman

Guest

rickman

Guest

rumreich

Guest

rickman

Guest

rickman

Guest

Les Cargill

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jamie

Guest

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz

Guest

rickman

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Martin Riddle

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor