Driver to drive?

[John Larkin]

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?

Rick

I'd assume that nobody would elect to build new coal plants, and that
older ones would be converted to gas or shut down because they aren't
competitive. Clean coal would be even more expensive, and CO2
sequestration would be impossibly expensive.


--

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

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:37:31 -0700, John Larkin
<jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

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... "Solyndra’s 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.

Of course not. You didn't drink the Kool-Aid.

 

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... "Solyndra’s 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.

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

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Oct 22, 4:43 pm, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com>
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?

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.

Miss Fuller's class? (My kindergarten teacher.) (She told us her
brother was building a boat with screws because those were stronger
than nails. So, trusting her, I switched to screws, but you sure had
to hammer them a lot harder.)

Cheers,
James

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Oct 23, 12:22 am, bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, October 22, 2012 8:49:30 AM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Oct 21, 12:20 pm, bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, October 21, 2012 9:05:39 AM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Oct 19, 12:49 am, bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:

http://blogs.nbc12.com/decisionvirginia/2012/10/arr.html

Okay, 8 ballots, by a lone wolf.  He's in jail.  Good.
Who's doing what about this?

 http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/100312-628015-obama-ignores-...

55k in FL, 30k in VA, 20k in OH, etc.  By odd coincidence, if you read
the source report, it's swing states that are most affected.

James Arthur

That story is more deceptive misrepresentation. /Every/ absentee voter has access to FVAP online, they do not need a > > > physical office.http://www.fvap.gov/

That would've been handy for my buddy, just back from doing route
clearance from his FOB in the 'Stan. As he was walking ahead of his
Buffalo, picking up IEDs off the road with his bare hands, he could've
logged onto some federal <expletive> website and done whatever.

Probably not at that instant. He might even have needed to get back to
base to be able to do it.

If military registration is down in swing states, it is because the neo-Nazi unit commanders are not pushing it to units > > >who they know consist of minority personnel. So it looks the story has back-fired on you.

Um, "minorities" don't make up most of the military.  They're not even
particularly over-represented.  So, that doesn't add up.

There tend to be more of them in units at the sharp end, for some
reason. Citing statistics for the military as a whole doesn't say
anything about the compositon of particular units.

Check it out if you want:https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/Rank_Gender_Race.xls

The real scandal here is just more minority voter suppression by the neo-Nazi eugenicists.
Apparently it's just a coincidence that only 1/3rd as many military
personnel are requesting absentee ballots, compared to 2008.

http://watchdog.org/55187/va-military-absentee-ballots-going-awol-in-...

Suddenly soldiers overseas--currently polling  59% Romney--aren't
interested in voting?  Yep, that makes sense.

Another abuse of a statistic.They may prefer Romney to Obama, but they
may not like either of them very much. Back in 2008 McCain was a
military hero, and Sarah Palin might have looked like a pin-up if
you'd been stuck in Afghanistan for long enough.

Now you're starting to post a bunch of blatant lies. And you can't interpret statistics or vet your sources of information well.

At trifle ironic coming from James Arthur, who had misused statistics
twice in his post to draw unjustified conclusions. James Arthur vets
his sources of information very carefully, presenting only the content
that supports his bizarre points of view.

I wonder how many copies of Darrell Huff's "How to Lie with
Statistics" he's gone through now?

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

This is - of course - a joke. If James Arthur had ever read the book
he'd realise that lots of his little tricks were well known back in
1954, and have been covered in many introductory statistics courses
since then.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Les Cargill]

rickman wrote:

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

To my understanding, pretty much what's in the Wikipedia article.
There are variations, but the mainline is what's shown there.

--
Les Cargill

 

[Robert Baer]

legg wrote:

On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:01:30 -0400, "Martin Riddle"
martin_rid@verizon.net> wrote:


"Jan Panteltje"<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:k5uv6l$6vf$1@news.albasani.net...
On a sunny day (Sat, 20 Oct 2012 12:42:11 -0800) it happened Robert
Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote in<J8Dgs.1184$aW7.1012@newsfe24.iad>:

See similar title in a.b.s.electronic for PDF.
Almost took longer to document than to build..

Nobody can get that group.

alt.binaries.schematics.electronic ?
I get that group, but I don't see the post.

Cheers

Ditto

RL
Somehow the post vaporized, so i put it up on my corporate site at

http://www.oil4lessllc.org/HV%20probes/ .
That probe was a "quick and dirty"; rise time seems to be better than
20nSec (my "pulse generator" is a HP3312A function generator).
However, the output step only goes up 70% then a slow rise to max
with a time constant of about 600nSec.
*
Am using SPICE to help design a 40KV probe and i seem to be homing
into a design with values.
The listing is below (and on that site).
The attenuation ratio is 2500 and is "protected" to ground like the
Tektronix probes.
Why 2500? Because it takes two 1Gohm resistors to withstand the 40KV
(target rating is 30KV with some "elbow room").
Note the resistance ratio is exactly 2500:1 and (now) the capacitance
ratio is close also.

Physical layout is to have a floating ring around each resistor,to
provide a controllable input coupling and capacitive divider (which is
the secret of a (theoretical) infinite risetime.
Now around this whole assembly will be a grounded shield (to isolate
input from external bazzzz fazzzz).
I think that five sections is a reasonable division of each resistor
for emulation of the actual distributed part.

Risetime seems to be infinite, but there is this slow "hump" that i
am fighting.
Any ideas as how to solve?

Version 4
SHEET 1 2064 680
WIRE -352 -16 -448 -16
WIRE -208 -16 -272 -16
WIRE -64 -16 -128 -16
WIRE 80 -16 16 -16
WIRE 224 -16 160 -16
WIRE 448 -16 304 -16
WIRE 592 -16 528 -16
WIRE 736 -16 672 -16
WIRE 880 -16 816 -16
WIRE 1024 -16 960 -16
WIRE 1280 -16 1104 -16
WIRE 1328 -16 1280 -16
WIRE 1520 -16 1328 -16
WIRE 1552 -16 1520 -16
WIRE -352 16 -352 -16
WIRE -272 16 -272 -16
WIRE -208 16 -208 -16
WIRE -128 16 -128 -16
WIRE -64 16 -64 -16
WIRE 16 16 16 -16
WIRE 80 16 80 -16
WIRE 160 16 160 -16
WIRE 224 16 224 -16
WIRE 304 16 304 -16
WIRE 448 16 448 -16
WIRE 528 16 528 -16
WIRE 592 16 592 -16
WIRE 672 16 672 -16
WIRE 736 16 736 -16
WIRE 816 16 816 -16
WIRE 880 16 880 -16
WIRE 960 16 960 -16
WIRE 1024 16 1024 -16
WIRE 1104 16 1104 -16
WIRE 1280 32 1280 -16
WIRE 1328 64 1328 -16
WIRE 1520 64 1520 -16
WIRE 1568 64 1520 64
WIRE 1568 80 1568 64
WIRE -352 112 -352 80
WIRE -272 112 -272 80
WIRE -272 112 -352 112
WIRE -208 112 -208 80
WIRE -208 112 -272 112
WIRE -128 112 -128 80
WIRE -128 112 -208 112
WIRE -64 112 -64 80
WIRE -64 112 -128 112
WIRE -32 112 -64 112
WIRE 16 112 16 80
WIRE 16 112 -32 112
WIRE 80 112 80 80
WIRE 80 112 16 112
WIRE 160 112 160 80
WIRE 160 112 80 112
WIRE 224 112 224 80
WIRE 224 112 160 112
WIRE 304 112 304 80
WIRE 304 112 224 112
WIRE 448 112 448 80
WIRE 528 112 528 80
WIRE 528 112 448 112
WIRE 592 112 592 80
WIRE 592 112 528 112
WIRE 672 112 672 80
WIRE 672 112 592 112
WIRE 736 112 736 80
WIRE 736 112 672 112
WIRE 784 112 736 112
WIRE 816 112 816 80
WIRE 816 112 784 112
WIRE 880 112 880 80
WIRE 880 112 816 112
WIRE 960 112 960 80
WIRE 960 112 880 112
WIRE 1024 112 1024 80
WIRE 1024 112 960 112
WIRE 1104 112 1104 80
WIRE 1104 112 1024 112
WIRE 1280 144 1280 96
WIRE 1568 144 1520 144
WIRE -448 160 -448 -16
WIRE -32 160 -32 112
WIRE 784 160 784 112
WIRE 1568 192 1568 144
WIRE 1328 224 1328 144
WIRE -448 272 -448 240
WIRE -32 272 -32 224
WIRE 784 272 784 224
FLAG 1328 224 0
FLAG 1568 192 0
FLAG 1552 -16 scope
FLAG 1280 144 0
FLAG -448 272 0
FLAG 784 272 0
FLAG -32 272 0
SYMBOL voltage -448 144 R0
WINDOW 0 8 7 Left 2
WINDOW 3 11 105 Left 2
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 2
WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName V2
SYMATTR Value PULSE(0 250 0 1p 1p 10 20 1)
SYMBOL cap 1296 96 R180
WINDOW 0 24 56 Left 2
WINDOW 3 24 8 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName C31
SYMATTR Value 2478p
SYMBOL res 1312 48 R0
WINDOW 3 30 126 Left 2
SYMATTR Value 4.008Meg
SYMATTR InstName R31
SYMATTR SpiceLine tol=0.1 pwr=1
SYMBOL cap 1552 80 R0
SYMATTR InstName C32
SYMATTR Value 22p
SYMBOL res 1536 160 R180
WINDOW 0 36 76 Left 2
WINDOW 3 36 40 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName R32
SYMATTR Value 1Meg
SYMBOL cap -368 16 R0
WINDOW 0 20 11 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName C1
SYMATTR Value {Cr}
SYMBOL cap -288 16 R0
SYMATTR InstName C2
SYMATTR Value {Cr}
SYMBOL res -368 0 R270
WINDOW 0 -24 71 VTop 2
WINDOW 3 68 60 VBottom 2
SYMATTR InstName R1
SYMATTR Value {Rp}
SYMBOL cap -224 16 R0
WINDOW 0 20 11 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName C3
SYMATTR Value {Cr}
SYMBOL cap -144 16 R0
SYMATTR InstName C4
SYMATTR Value {Cr}
SYMBOL res -224 0 R270
WINDOW 0 -24 71 VTop 2
WINDOW 3 68 60 VBottom 2
SYMATTR InstName R2
SYMATTR Value {Rp}
SYMBOL cap -80 16 R0
WINDOW 0 20 11 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName C5
SYMATTR Value {Cr}
SYMBOL cap 0 16 R0
SYMATTR InstName C6
SYMATTR Value {Cr}
SYMBOL res -80 0 R270
WINDOW 0 -24 71 VTop 2
WINDOW 3 68 60 VBottom 2
SYMATTR InstName R3
SYMATTR Value {Rp}
SYMBOL cap 64 16 R0
WINDOW 0 20 11 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName C7
SYMATTR Value {Cr}
SYMBOL cap 144 16 R0
SYMATTR InstName C8
SYMATTR Value {Cr}
SYMBOL res 64 0 R270
WINDOW 0 -24 71 VTop 2
WINDOW 3 68 60 VBottom 2
SYMATTR InstName R4
SYMATTR Value {Rp}
SYMBOL cap 208 16 R0
WINDOW 0 20 11 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName C9
SYMATTR Value {Cr}
SYMBOL cap 288 16 R0
SYMATTR InstName C10
SYMATTR Value {Cr}
SYMBOL res 208 0 R270
WINDOW 0 -24 71 VTop 2
WINDOW 3 68 60 VBottom 2
SYMATTR InstName R5
SYMATTR Value {Rp}
SYMBOL cap 432 16 R0
WINDOW 0 20 11 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName C11
SYMATTR Value {Cr}
SYMBOL cap 512 16 R0
SYMATTR InstName C12
SYMATTR Value {Cr}
SYMBOL res 432 0 R270
WINDOW 0 -24 71 VTop 2
WINDOW 3 68 60 VBottom 2
SYMATTR InstName R6
SYMATTR Value {Rp}
SYMBOL cap 576 16 R0
WINDOW 0 20 11 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName C13
SYMATTR Value {Cr}
SYMBOL cap 656 16 R0
SYMATTR InstName C14
SYMATTR Value {Cr}
SYMBOL res 576 0 R270
WINDOW 0 -24 71 VTop 2
WINDOW 3 68 60 VBottom 2
SYMATTR InstName R7
SYMATTR Value {Rp}
SYMBOL cap 720 16 R0
WINDOW 0 20 11 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName C15
SYMATTR Value {Cr}
SYMBOL cap 800 16 R0
SYMATTR InstName C16
SYMATTR Value {Cr}
SYMBOL res 720 0 R270
WINDOW 0 -24 71 VTop 2
WINDOW 3 68 60 VBottom 2
SYMATTR InstName R8
SYMATTR Value {Rp}
SYMBOL cap 864 16 R0
WINDOW 0 20 11 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName C17
SYMATTR Value {Cr}
SYMBOL cap 944 16 R0
SYMATTR InstName C18
SYMATTR Value {Cr}
SYMBOL res 864 0 R270
WINDOW 0 -24 71 VTop 2
WINDOW 3 68 60 VBottom 2
SYMATTR InstName R9
SYMATTR Value {Rp}
SYMBOL cap 1008 16 R0
WINDOW 0 20 11 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName C19
SYMATTR Value {Cr}
SYMBOL cap 1088 16 R0
SYMATTR InstName C20
SYMATTR Value {Cr}
SYMBOL res 1008 0 R270
WINDOW 0 -24 71 VTop 2
WINDOW 3 68 60 VBottom 2
SYMATTR InstName R10
SYMATTR Value {Rp}
SYMBOL cap -48 160 R0
SYMATTR InstName C21
SYMATTR Value {Cs}
SYMBOL cap 768 160 R0
SYMATTR InstName C22
SYMATTR Value {Cs}
TEXT 264 256 Left 2 !.tran 0 10m 0 10n
TEXT 264 -208 Left 4 ;40KV 2E9 ohms HV scope probe
TEXT -144 -120 Left 2 ;Ohmite MOX2-131007FE\nin pi net distributed form
TEXT 168 160 Left 2 !.PARAM Cr=10p, Cs=7.9p, Rp=200Meg
TEXT 672 -120 Left 2 ;Ohmite MOX2-131007FE\nin pi net distributed form

 

[Robert Baer]

rajibbandopadhyay wrote:

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 00:35:31 -0500, Tim Wescott wrote:
The link for the pages are:
https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B0qPAe-7HylCLU5OV0xtNmtSaU0/edit
Thanks TM!
Regards
Question: are you, Rajibb and Padhyay close brothers - like the

famous Science Fiction writer Eando Binder?

 

On Oct 22, 5:28 pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 10/22/2012 6:04 PM, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Oct 22, 5:30 pm, rickman<gnu...@gmail.com>  wrote:

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?

http://www.solyndra.com/technology-products/cylindrical-module/
"Each module in a 200 Series panel has 195 individual solar cells."

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

An estimate. Inner tube, plus outer, etc., 2x for the poor
utilization of the PV film, etc.

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.

Not obvious at all. What's obvious is that it wasn't--it FAILED.

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-massi...

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

That's because *even with subsidies to make them, and 2/3rds off the
selling price*, they still didn't make sense.

What more proof does one need?

Most of their big sales & installations were b.s. situations, ISTR.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Tuesday, October 23, 2012 1:28:42 AM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Oct 22, 5:28 pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

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

On Oct 22, 5:30 pm, rickman<gnu...@gmail.com>  wrote:



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?



http://www.solyndra.com/technology-products/cylindrical-module/

"Each module in a 200 Series panel has 195 individual solar cells."



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



An estimate. Inner tube, plus outer, etc., 2x for the poor

utilization of the PV film, etc.



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.



Not obvious at all. What's obvious is that it wasn't--it FAILED.



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-massi....



So there were tax incentives to home users.  How many home installed

solar panels do you see?  Around here there are nearly NONE.



That's because *even with subsidies to make them, and 2/3rds off the

selling price*, they still didn't make sense.



What more proof does one need?



Most of their big sales & installations were b.s. situations, ISTR.



--

Cheers,

James Arthur

You don't know the first thing about this technology, and I suspect that, as pronounced as your skill set may be in other areas, you will not be recruited by the solar energy industry any time soon.

 

[rajibbandopadhyay]

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 22:12:46 -0800, Robert Baer wrote:
[...]

Question: are you, Rajibb and Padhyay close brothers - like the
famous Science Fiction writer Eando Binder?
Query replied to privately.

 

[Nico Coesel]

amdx <amdx@knology.net> wrote:

On 10/22/2012 9:04 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 10/22/2012 07:26 AM, Günter Haarmann wrote:
Am 22.10.2012 01:28, schrieb Jim Thompson:


I really do hope someone will try out the model and let me know how it
simulates... rather than blathering that it's encrypted.

...Jim Thompson


No. if you don´t want to give you won´t receive.

You want to earn money with it, then spend some money for testers.

I dunno. Making the model will probably help some folks, if they don't
expect its horrible nonlinearity to be horrible in quite the same way as
the production parts. (For a variety of reasons, I'm also in favor of
people being able to make a living.)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Someone needs to make a living... and pay the taxes for the 47% that
don't! Or someone needs to work to pay the taxes required to fill the
welfare kitty with that 1.032 trillion dollars every year.
The government says we have 46 million people in poverty in 2012.
If you divide 1.032 trillion by 46 million that is $22,434 per person.
Minimum wage is about $15,000. Hmm...

Which means a lot of people are being employed AND make good money to
help the unemployed

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------

 

[legg]

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 22:04:28 -0800, Robert Baer
<robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

<snip>

Somehow the post vaporized, so i put it up on my corporate site at
http://www.oil4lessllc.org/HV%20probes/ .
That probe was a "quick and dirty"; rise time seems to be better than
20nSec (my "pulse generator" is a HP3312A function generator).
However, the output step only goes up 70% then a slow rise to max
with a time constant of about 600nSec.
*
Am using SPICE to help design a 40KV probe and i seem to be homing
into a design with values.
The listing is below (and on that site).
The attenuation ratio is 2500 and is "protected" to ground like the
Tektronix probes.
Why 2500? Because it takes two 1Gohm resistors to withstand the 40KV
(target rating is 30KV with some "elbow room").
Note the resistance ratio is exactly 2500:1 and (now) the capacitance
ratio is close also.

Physical layout is to have a floating ring around each resistor,to
provide a controllable input coupling and capacitive divider (which is
the secret of a (theoretical) infinite risetime.
Now around this whole assembly will be a grounded shield (to isolate
input from external bazzzz fazzzz).
I think that five sections is a reasonable division of each resistor
for emulation of the actual distributed part.

Risetime seems to be infinite, but there is this slow "hump" that i
am fighting.
Any ideas as how to solve?

It's conventional to include a 'tip' resistor, that will absorb
contact (arc) surges safely.

The hardest thing about HV probe structure, is getting practical
values that are physically possible, to do the job. Look at physical
embodiments, make a few measurements, then go to the model.

Not much point in speculating over something that you can't build.
Sizing the capacitive divider is a real physical issue. Your Cr/Cs
ratio may be impractical.

As to risetime, an intentional RCseries, paralleling C22 position can
act on leading edges. Look at the current midpoint voltage (jn
C10/C11). Also, run an ac sweep.......the LF and HF gains will meet at
some point that will look like a can of worms, and is just as easily
manipulated, given physical constraints.

RL

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 07:34:46 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Oct 22, 11:38 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 21:34:18 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:









On Oct 21, 1:12 pm, bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, October 21, 2012 1:04:28 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 09:32:32 -0700 (PDT),

bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, October 21, 2012 10:00:26 AM UTC-4, dagmarg...@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:

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

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

lobbyist"

That's tells us absolutely nothing new about how Federal grant money is acquired. Both Republican and Democrat politicians were pushing for that company. So your post is just another lie.

Bad, bad logic.

When government collects taxes, and then spends close to 40% of GDP,

everyone has an incentive to go to Washington and try to get as much

of "their" money back as they can. It's just one big pot of money, so

any concept of efficiency is lost. Lobbying and corruption happen

because they work.

As Willie Sutton said about why he robbed banks, "because that's where

the money is."

Apparently your reading comprehension is gone too. Ripping off government is the American way.

President Obama calls it "getting your fair share."

Inherently, the bigger it gets, the more people are tempted.
Eventually, they'll have no choice.  When the government takes so much
that you can barely get by, they own you.  Own you.  Obama's put
record numbers of people in that position.  Ironic, isn't it?

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."

The "What's Wrong with Kansas?" perplexity of the leftists stems from
the fact that some people still have principles. Leftists are
dumbfounded by principles.

This is evil:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/03/usda-combats-mountain-pride-self-reliance-to-boost-food-stamp-rolls/

James

The corn-to-ethanol program makes food unafordable, which fits right
into expanding the food stamp program.

That *is* evil, manufacturing dependancy. It will increase the
rich/poor split in the USA, the "numerical power of the poor." All by
design. How much was Ted Kennedy worth? How about Nancy Pelosi, John
Kerry, Harry Reid?


--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

 

On Oct 23, 2:03 am, bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, October 23, 2012 1:28:42 AM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Oct 22, 5:28 pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

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

On Oct 22, 5:30 pm, rickman<gnu...@gmail.com>  wrote:

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?

http://www.solyndra.com/technology-products/cylindrical-module/

  "Each module in a 200 Series panel has 195 individual solar cells."

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

An estimate.  Inner tube, plus outer, etc., 2x for the poor

utilization of the PV film, etc.

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.

Not obvious at all. What's obvious is that it wasn't--it FAILED.

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-massi...

So there were tax incentives to home users.  How many home installed

solar panels do you see?  Around here there are nearly NONE.

That's because *even with subsidies to make them, and 2/3rds off the

selling price*, they still didn't make sense.

What more proof does one need?

Most of their big sales & installations were b.s. situations, ISTR.


You don't know the first thing about this technology, and I suspect that, as pronounced as your skill set may be in other areas, you will not be recruited by the solar energy industry any time soon.

I'm pro-solar, it just has to make sense. This might, some day:
http://ibmresearchnews.blogspot.com/2012/08/shedding-light-on-new-frontiers-of.html

Solar-thermal / passive solar makes sense right now. PV in Germany
was nuts--they're too far north. And cloudy.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Oct 22, 11:38 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 21:34:18 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:









On Oct 21, 1:12 pm, bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, October 21, 2012 1:04:28 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 09:32:32 -0700 (PDT),

bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, October 21, 2012 10:00:26 AM UTC-4, dagmarg...@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:

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

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

lobbyist"

That's tells us absolutely nothing new about how Federal grant money is acquired. Both Republican and Democrat politicians were pushing for that company. So your post is just another lie.

Bad, bad logic.

When government collects taxes, and then spends close to 40% of GDP,

everyone has an incentive to go to Washington and try to get as much

of "their" money back as they can. It's just one big pot of money, so

any concept of efficiency is lost. Lobbying and corruption happen

because they work.

As Willie Sutton said about why he robbed banks, "because that's where

the money is."

Apparently your reading comprehension is gone too. Ripping off government is the American way.

President Obama calls it "getting your fair share."

Inherently, the bigger it gets, the more people are tempted.
Eventually, they'll have no choice.  When the government takes so much
that you can barely get by, they own you.  Own you.  Obama's put
record numbers of people in that position.  Ironic, isn't it?

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."

The "What's Wrong with Kansas?" perplexity of the leftists stems from
the fact that some people still have principles. Leftists are
dumbfounded by principles.

This is evil:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/03/usda-combats-mountain-pride-self-reliance-to-boost-food-stamp-rolls/

James

 

On Oct 23, 11:36 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 07:34:46 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:









On Oct 22, 11:38 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 21:34:18 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Oct 21, 1:12 pm, bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, October 21, 2012 1:04:28 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 09:32:32 -0700 (PDT),

bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, October 21, 2012 10:00:26 AM UTC-4, dagmarg...@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:

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

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

lobbyist"

That's tells us absolutely nothing new about how Federal grant money is acquired. Both Republican and Democrat politicians were pushing for that company. So your post is just another lie.

Bad, bad logic.

When government collects taxes, and then spends close to 40% of GDP,

everyone has an incentive to go to Washington and try to get as much

of "their" money back as they can. It's just one big pot of money, so

any concept of efficiency is lost. Lobbying and corruption happen

because they work.

As Willie Sutton said about why he robbed banks, "because that's where

the money is."

Apparently your reading comprehension is gone too. Ripping off government is the American way.

President Obama calls it "getting your fair share."

Inherently, the bigger it gets, the more people are tempted.
Eventually, they'll have no choice. When the government takes so much
that you can barely get by, they own you. Own you. Obama's put
record numbers of people in that position. Ironic, isn't it?

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."

The "What's Wrong with Kansas?" perplexity of the leftists stems from
the fact that some people still have principles. Leftists are
dumbfounded by principles.

This is evil:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/03/usda-combats-mountain-pride-self-re...

James

The corn-to-ethanol program makes food unafordable, which fits right
into expanding the food stamp program.

Here's current stuff on the impact of ethanol on food prices:
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/21/ethanol-spurring-new-cases-of-sad-cow/

That article says we're headed from E10% to E15% gas, thanks to the
EPA.

To their credit, I'd thought Democrats were pushing to end ethanol
subsidies. (I lost track of what happened to that, another problem
with a gov't that meddles in everything: no one can keep up. So,
there's no effective oversight by the citizens.)

That *is* evil, manufacturing dependancy. It will increase the
rich/poor split in the USA, the "numerical power of the poor." All by
design. How much was Ted Kennedy worth? How about Nancy Pelosi, John
Kerry, Harry Reid?

More acutely, how did they "earn" it?

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 19 Oct 2012 19:53:12 GMT) it happened Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in <k5sb42$26l$1@news.albasani.net>:

The bottom line shows the measured frequency (against a 10 MHz xtal).
http://panteltje.com/pub/GPG_freq_counter_PLL_IMG_3646.GIF

On the little board a PIC18F14K22, and a MAX232.

The board with the LEDs on the left is my PIC programmer.

As I need a lot of Gold code generating shift registers and preferably
also better accuracy than the PIC timers[1] provide,
maybe synthesize some frequencies, if jitter is low enough,
I started up the old Spartan 2 Digilab board (last used last century?)
After some software modifications,
and I could not even read my own Verilog code anymore, been a while,
http://panteltje.com/pub/spartan2_frequency_counter_IMG_3649.GIF

Installed old Xiling webwrack from some old HD, dust is still all over this,
now there you go.
Also today I build a 1.5 GHz BPSK modulator, with BAT diodes,
but a better one will perhaps materialize once the chips come in (not ships, although it may arrive ships,

[1] A bit of a rant against Microchip.
Are their digital designers Alright?
Normally I do not want to think too much about HOW peripherals are implemented in a micro I use,
but ran into some illogical (tm) things in the PIC counters timers.
At least illogical to me,.
On top of that it seems every peripheral unit has a bug in it.
i2c defective, SPI defective, timer 'strangeness' (to put it politely),
Did these guys EVER design with normal logic?
Or are they just out of school simulation freaks simulating hardware?

Anyways, long way to go...
Xilinx does Gold code generators with SLR, and then uses several of those
some driven parallel, taps where it ends, guess it is efficient silicon space wise.
SLRs have no parallel out... IIRC, mm, will take some time to get used to all that.. again.


Actually I wanted to go see a movie, but ended up with this spartan stuff.

At least the hard + software platform is up and running again to write that stuff.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 05:09:23 +0000 (UTC), rajibbandopadhyay
<bkpsusmitaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear friends,
The reason why I got stuck with electronic circuits just before biasing
will be clear in a short while.
Without the support of a good teacher the logic involved appears
formidable.
The pages attached relate to transistor as an amplifier and its biasing.
The book concerned is All.new.electronics.self-teaching.guide.2008. The
questions are posted on some of the attached pages themselves. The rest
attached pages are for logical continuity and completeness.
I will try to find a way on how to get those pages uploaded and then get
back.
Please help.
Regards

Around 1970 I wrote a tutorial on biasing for ICE, but haven't been
able to locate a copy. The following example MAY be of help to you...

http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/MC1530-TeachingExercise.pdf

while I look around for the write-up of more generalized methods.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Jon Elson]

Robert Baer wrote:

Physical layout is to have a floating ring around each resistor,to
provide a controllable input coupling and capacitive divider (which is
the secret of a (theoretical) infinite risetime.
Now around this whole assembly will be a grounded shield (to isolate
input from external bazzzz fazzzz).
I think that five sections is a reasonable division of each resistor
for emulation of the actual distributed part.

Risetime seems to be infinite, but there is this slow "hump" that i
am fighting.
Any ideas as how to solve?
High-Ohm resistors have been reported to be non-linear, possibly that is

what you are getting. You may need some more poles of RC compensation
to try to fix this.

Jon