Chip with simple program for Toy

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 08:25:47 -0700, Fred Abse
<excretatauris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:24:32 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

My phosphenes don't look anything like scintillations. I have read that
astronauts see scintillations from high-energy cosmic rays.

Phosphenes may be the equivalent of dithering an ADC to eliminate
quantization errors and increase sub-LSB sensitivity.

I remember reading a report on exposure to EM fields that stated that, LF
fields may cause phosphenes. ISTR that the H field was thought responsible.

Any of your friends in the MRI business know anything about this?

I did have a head MRI and I didn't notice anything except the noise
from the gradient coils.

It was boring.

John

 

[Salmon Egg]

In article <pan.2009.09.19.17.58.40.273731@invalid.invalid>,
Fred Abse <excretatauris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:24:32 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

My phosphenes don't look anything like scintillations. I have read that
astronauts see scintillations from high-energy cosmic rays.

Phosphenes may be the equivalent of dithering an ADC to eliminate
quantization errors and increase sub-LSB sensitivity.

I remember reading a report on exposure to EM fields that stated that, LF
fields may cause phosphenes. ISTR that the H field was thought responsible.

Any of your friends in the MRI business know anything about this?

Based upon my sad experience, make sure that the phosphenes are benign
and not a sign of a serious eye condition.

I stopped responding to this thread when individual postings became
hundreds of lines long,Brevity atteracted my attention.

Bill

--
Private Profit; Public Poop! Avoid collateral windfall!

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 08:25:47 -0700, Fred Abse
excretatauris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:24:32 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

My phosphenes don't look anything like scintillations. I have read that
astronauts see scintillations from high-energy cosmic rays.

Phosphenes may be the equivalent of dithering an ADC to eliminate
quantization errors and increase sub-LSB sensitivity.

I remember reading a report on exposure to EM fields that stated that, LF
fields may cause phosphenes. ISTR that the H field was thought responsible.

Any of your friends in the MRI business know anything about this?

I did have a head MRI and I didn't notice anything except the noise
from the gradient coils.

It was boring.

I had a MRI to see what caused the Bells Palsy last year. Loud
buzzing at different frequencies, followed by a migraine that lasted for
the better part of a week. No images or light, though.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

 

Hello

Sorry buy you are dealing with inappropriate theory and tools

May be that will help you

http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/jsp/db/board.jsp?id=5491

www.ieindia.org/pdf/88/88ET104.pd

www.ieindia.org/pdf/89/89CP109.pd

http://www.pueron.org/pueron/nauchnakritika/Th_Re.pd

http://www.radiotec.ru/catalog.php?cat=jr4&art=236

http://www.radiotec.ru/catalog.php?cat=jr4&art=2308

Good luck

Best regard

Petre Petro

--------------------------------
Posted at: http://www.ForumBreak.co
---------------------------------

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 15:37:28 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 10:42:22 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 10:01:38 -0500, TIC <TongueInCheekQuip@your.post
wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 14:22:12 -0700, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

joe@somewhere.org> wrote in message news:mMednbsMZM371lvXnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@bresnan.com...
On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 11:34:27 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:07:51 -0500, John Fields wrote:
snip
and with 39 feet of wire in it, since #10 has a resistance of about 1
milliohm per foot, it'll have a resistance of 39 milliohms.

Now, let's say that this thing can dissipate 100 watts, continuously.

Since:

P = I˛R

then:
P 100W
I = sqrt --- = sqrt --------- = 50.64 ~ 50 amperes,
R 3.9e-2R

the voltage across the coil would be,

E = IR ~ 50A * 3.9e-2R ~ 2 volts

and its IT would be 50 amperes * 100 turns = 5000 ampere - turns.


Never believe in John Fools Bogus computation. There is no way you can
get 5000 amp on your little 500W power supply wires. No wonder why you
guys are in deep shit. Talking about my exaggeration? Look at yours!,
so fuckingly out of wax formula.

---
Sad, really...

I apologize for any unkindness I may have thrown your way earlier, since
I didn't realize I was fighting a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

Here, let's try it again but, just for you, a little closer to the
street:

For a solenoid with a 39/1000 ohm coil resistance dissipating 100 watts,
the current through it would be about 50 amperes, while the voltage
across it would be about 2 volts.

Now, (and this is critical, so try to pay attention) the strength of the
magnetic field will be proportional to the product of the current in the
solenoid and the number of turns wound around the core, and in the
example given earlier for a 5000 ampere-turn coil, the number of turns
was clearly declared to be 100 (10 turns per layer by ten layers).

So, if the product of x amperes and 100 turns is 5000 ampere-turns,
what's x?

A. 50

B. 50

C. 50

D. None of the above

Eagerly awaiting your answer...


John *Fields* discussing *Field* currents....

---
Once upon a time I considered changing my name to Elmer Melvin Fields.


But you didn't have the proper motivation?

---
I couldn't overcome the reluctance.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 10:45:28 -0700, Capt. Skinny wrote:

On Oct 5, 12:41 pm, Rich Grise <richgr...@example.net> wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 08:21:38 -0700, Capt. Skinny wrote:
I am trying to emulate the single ended output of an absolute encoder
(I have the circuit but not the encoder). The encoder has a pinout
similar to the following:

1  24v supply
2  0v
3  bit 1
4  bit 2
5  bit 3
6  bit 4
7  bit 5
8  bit 6
9  bit 7

The output signal is 5v for high bit, 0v for low bit. I'm not quite
sure how to emulate the encoder's 5v signal to the circuit. Do I use
the signal lines as a sink for a small load @ 5v? If anyone can point
me to some introductory references, it would be greatly appreciated.
Clearly I did not design the circuit, I'm just trying to use it.

You need to know more about the encoder's outputs, and the bit pattern.
Does it say if the encoder outputs are TTL compatible or anything? If it
just says 5V, I'd use HCmos logic at 5V for the outputs, but you need to
know what bit pattern corresponds to what output/input you need.

Here are some
references:http://www.google.com/search?q=basic-electronics-tutorial

Thanks Rich. I have the bit pattern, I just want to toggle individual
bits. I don't know whether the outputs are CMOS or TTL, but encoder's
output sink current is listed as "25mA max". Would my proposed solution
(using the signal lines as a sink for a small [< 25mA] load at 5V) work
for either CMOS or TTL signals? Both or neither? Thanks again.

You might want to use something like the ULN2803 8-section darlington
driver (open-collector) and 1K or so pullups to +5V.

At least that shouldn't blow anything up.

I seem to remember some chips that would sink 25 mA, but at the moment,
I'm drawing a blank. It shouldn't be too hard to research, though.

Have Fun!
Rich

 

[Capt. Skinny]

On Oct 5, 12:41 pm, Rich Grise <richgr...@example.net> wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 08:21:38 -0700, Capt. Skinny wrote:
I am trying to emulate the single ended output of an absolute encoder
(I have the circuit but not the encoder). The encoder has a pinout
similar to the following:

1  24v supply
2  0v
3  bit 1
4  bit 2
5  bit 3
6  bit 4
7  bit 5
8  bit 6
9  bit 7

The output signal is 5v for high bit, 0v for low bit. I'm not quite
sure how to emulate the encoder's 5v signal to the circuit. Do I use
the signal lines as a sink for a small load @ 5v? If anyone can point
me to some introductory references, it would be greatly appreciated.
Clearly I did not design the circuit, I'm just trying to use it.

You need to know more about the encoder's outputs, and the bit pattern.
Does it say if the encoder outputs are TTL compatible or anything? If it
just says 5V, I'd use HCmos logic at 5V for the outputs, but you need to
know what bit pattern corresponds to what output/input you need.

Here are some references:http://www.google.com/search?q=basic-electronics-tutorial

Have Fun!
Rich

Thanks Rich. I have the bit pattern, I just want to toggle individual
bits. I don't know whether the outputs are CMOS or TTL, but encoder's
output sink current is listed as "25mA max". Would my proposed
solution (using the signal lines as a sink for a small [< 25mA] load
at 5V) work for either CMOS or TTL signals? Both or neither? Thanks
again.

 

[Peter Bennett]

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:02:29 -0700, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net>
wrote:

You might want to use something like the ULN2803 8-section darlington
driver (open-collector) and 1K or so pullups to +5V.

At least that shouldn't blow anything up.

I seem to remember some chips that would sink 25 mA, but at the moment,
I'm drawing a blank. It shouldn't be too hard to research, though.

Have Fun!
Rich

The OP said that his encoder will sink 25 mA, so he doesn't need the
ULN2803. All he needs is 5 mA pull-ups to +5V.


--
Peter Bennett, VE7CEI
peterbb4 (at) interchange.ubc.ca
GPS and NMEA info: http://vancouver-webpages.com/peter
Vancouver Power Squadron: http://vancouver.powersquadron.ca

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:20:15 -0700, Peter Bennett
<peterbb@somewhere.invalid> wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:02:29 -0700, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net
wrote:


You might want to use something like the ULN2803 8-section darlington
driver (open-collector) and 1K or so pullups to +5V.

At least that shouldn't blow anything up.

I seem to remember some chips that would sink 25 mA, but at the moment,
I'm drawing a blank. It shouldn't be too hard to research, though.

Have Fun!
Rich


The OP said that his encoder will sink 25 mA, so he doesn't need the
ULN2803. All he needs is 5 mA pull-ups to +5V.

---
The OP also said that he doesn't have an encoder, but that he wants to
emulate one to drive the circuitry the encoder normally would.

Now, assuming that a '1' from the encoder was an open collector and that
a '0' was a saturated NPN collector-to-emitter junction, then what he'd
need to drive the circuit with could be 8 NPNs with their emitters
grounded, their collectors pulled up to +5V with, say, 1k resistors and
the collectors also connected to the inputs of the circuit.

N channel MOSFETS would also work.

 

[Jamie]

Capt. Skinny wrote:

On Oct 5, 12:41 pm, Rich Grise <richgr...@example.net> wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 08:21:38 -0700, Capt. Skinny wrote:

I am trying to emulate the single ended output of an absolute encoder
(I have the circuit but not the encoder). The encoder has a pinout
similar to the following:

1 24v supply
2 0v
3 bit 1
4 bit 2
5 bit 3
6 bit 4
7 bit 5
8 bit 6
9 bit 7

The output signal is 5v for high bit, 0v for low bit. I'm not quite
sure how to emulate the encoder's 5v signal to the circuit. Do I use
the signal lines as a sink for a small load @ 5v? If anyone can point
me to some introductory references, it would be greatly appreciated.
Clearly I did not design the circuit, I'm just trying to use it.

You need to know more about the encoder's outputs, and the bit pattern.
Does it say if the encoder outputs are TTL compatible or anything? If it
just says 5V, I'd use HCmos logic at 5V for the outputs, but you need to
know what bit pattern corresponds to what output/input you need.

Here are some references:http://www.google.com/search?q=basic-electronics-tutorial

Have Fun!
Rich


Thanks Rich. I have the bit pattern, I just want to toggle individual
bits. I don't know whether the outputs are CMOS or TTL, but encoder's
output sink current is listed as "25mA max". Would my proposed
solution (using the signal lines as a sink for a small [< 25mA] load
at 5V) work for either CMOS or TTL signals? Both or neither? Thanks
again.
You may want to look at "Gray Code"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_code
Not saying that is what you're encoder is generating how ever.

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 08:57:39 -0700, Fred Abse
<excretatauris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 13:22:18 -0500, John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 09:03:02 -0700, Fred Abse
excretatauris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 10:42:22 -0500, John Fields wrote:

Once upon a time I considered changing my name to Elmer Melvin Fields.


This is GRADually DIVerging from topic.

I think I'll go CURL up somewhere.

---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzsL99OO8_s




Good one!

How long did it take to find it?

Less than a minute, anyway.

Got to Youtube from Google, typed "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" into the
search box and VOILA!

 

TheM wrote:

nospam@nevis.com> wrote in message news:4ae79f14$1@news.x-privat.org...
TheM wrote:
"vaughn" <vaughnsimonHATESSPAM@gmail.FAKE.com> wrote in message news:hc7utq$1a1$1@news.eternal-september.org...
"Don Lancaster" <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message news:7kooa3F39fllbU1@mid.individual.net...
For net energy, a quarter per peak pv watt is needed.

Even then, it would be many years after a quarter per watt for actual breakeven, owing to all the previously lost energy.

Huh? I usually agree with Don on these things, but here he seems to be confusing energy break even with economic break even. I
a perfect world they might be comparable, but I doubt if that is true in the real world.

Vaughn
I think what he wants to say is that energy break even is many years down the road,
possibly decades. And fixing and maintaining it might kill the small net energy surplus.
And before we get to break even we might have new, much better technology.

M



Who knows, but for a $1.98 a watt it's a good deal if you want to give it a go. I know I could run my home office off a couple of
panels (laptop, printer etc.)Even having a couple would keep the lights on
in an emergency.

Especially at night.... factor in batteries and invertors and its way more
than 1.98.

M

For a laptop, printer and a couple of 15 watt compact florescent lights?
Hardly a huge expense, with 1000watt inverters $100.00 on ebay, a couple
of Sams' club deep cycle batteries ?

 

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

nospam@nevis.com wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
nospam@nevis.com wrote:
TheM wrote:
"vaughn" <vaughnsimonHATESSPAM@gmail.FAKE.com> wrote in message news:hc7utq$1a1$1@news.eternal-september.org...
"Don Lancaster" <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message news:7kooa3F39fllbU1@mid.individual.net...
For net energy, a quarter per peak pv watt is needed.

Even then, it would be many years after a quarter per watt for actual breakeven, owing to all the previously lost energy.

Huh? I usually agree with Don on these things, but here he seems to be confusing energy break even with economic break even. I a
perfect world they might be comparable, but I doubt if that is true in the real world.

Vaughn
I think what he wants to say is that energy break even is many years down the road,
possibly decades. And fixing and maintaining it might kill the small net energy surplus.
And before we get to break even we might have new, much better technology.

M



Who knows, but for a $1.98 a watt it's a good deal if you want to give
it a go. I know I could run my home office off a couple of panels
(laptop, printer etc.)Even having a couple would keep the lights on
in an emergency.

If there is enough sun to power the lights, you don't need them.


After 4pm six months of the year, yes I do need lights.


The solar panels are worthless for that use without expensive, short
lived batteries.

Tell that to my 10 year old UPS

 

[Sylvia Else]

nospam@nevis.com wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
nospam@nevis.com wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
nospam@nevis.com wrote:
TheM wrote:
"vaughn" <vaughnsimonHATESSPAM@gmail.FAKE.com> wrote in message
news:hc7utq$1a1$1@news.eternal-september.org...
"Don Lancaster" <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:7kooa3F39fllbU1@mid.individual.net...
For net energy, a quarter per peak pv watt is needed.

Even then, it would be many years after a quarter per watt for
actual breakeven, owing to all the previously lost energy.

Huh? I usually agree with Don on these things, but here he seems
to be confusing energy break even with economic break even. I a
perfect world they might be comparable, but I doubt if that is
true in the real world.

Vaughn
I think what he wants to say is that energy break even is many
years down the road,
possibly decades. And fixing and maintaining it might kill the
small net energy surplus.
And before we get to break even we might have new, much better
technology.

M



Who knows, but for a $1.98 a watt it's a good deal if you want to give
it a go. I know I could run my home office off a couple of panels
(laptop, printer etc.)Even having a couple would keep the lights on
in an emergency.

If there is enough sun to power the lights, you don't need them.


After 4pm six months of the year, yes I do need lights.


The solar panels are worthless for that use without expensive, short
lived batteries.




Tell that to my 10 year old UPS

UPSs don't cycle their batteries much, unless the power supply is very
unreliable.

But even so I tend to get only three years out of my SLA UPS batteries.

Sylvia.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

nospam@nevis.com wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
nospam@nevis.com wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
nospam@nevis.com wrote:
TheM wrote:
"vaughn" <vaughnsimonHATESSPAM@gmail.FAKE.com> wrote in message news:hc7utq$1a1$1@news.eternal-september.org...
"Don Lancaster" <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message news:7kooa3F39fllbU1@mid.individual.net...
For net energy, a quarter per peak pv watt is needed.

Even then, it would be many years after a quarter per watt for actual breakeven, owing to all the previously lost energy.

Huh? I usually agree with Don on these things, but here he seems to be confusing energy break even with economic break even. I a
perfect world they might be comparable, but I doubt if that is true in the real world.

Vaughn
I think what he wants to say is that energy break even is many years down the road,
possibly decades. And fixing and maintaining it might kill the small net energy surplus.
And before we get to break even we might have new, much better technology.

M



Who knows, but for a $1.98 a watt it's a good deal if you want to give
it a go. I know I could run my home office off a couple of panels
(laptop, printer etc.)Even having a couple would keep the lights on
in an emergency.

If there is enough sun to power the lights, you don't need them.


After 4pm six months of the year, yes I do need lights.


The solar panels are worthless for that use without expensive, short
lived batteries.



Tell that to my 10 year old UPS

You think there are enough good used 10 year old lead acid batteries
for everyone who want to use solar?


--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!

 

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

nospam@nevis.com wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
nospam@nevis.com wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
nospam@nevis.com wrote:
TheM wrote:
"vaughn" <vaughnsimonHATESSPAM@gmail.FAKE.com> wrote in message news:hc7utq$1a1$1@news.eternal-september.org...
"Don Lancaster" <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message news:7kooa3F39fllbU1@mid.individual.net...
For net energy, a quarter per peak pv watt is needed.

Even then, it would be many years after a quarter per watt for actual breakeven, owing to all the previously lost energy.

Huh? I usually agree with Don on these things, but here he seems to be confusing energy break even with economic break even. I a
perfect world they might be comparable, but I doubt if that is true in the real world.

Vaughn
I think what he wants to say is that energy break even is many years down the road,
possibly decades. And fixing and maintaining it might kill the small net energy surplus.
And before we get to break even we might have new, much better technology.

M



Who knows, but for a $1.98 a watt it's a good deal if you want to give
it a go. I know I could run my home office off a couple of panels
(laptop, printer etc.)Even having a couple would keep the lights on
in an emergency.
If there is enough sun to power the lights, you don't need them.


After 4pm six months of the year, yes I do need lights.

The solar panels are worthless for that use without expensive, short
lived batteries.


Tell that to my 10 year old UPS


You think there are enough good used 10 year old lead acid batteries
for everyone who want to use solar?

I addressed the issue of "Short lived batteries", as bullshit, and your
point is what?

 

[krw]

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:25:28 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

nospam@nevis.com wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
nospam@nevis.com wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
nospam@nevis.com wrote:
TheM wrote:
"vaughn" <vaughnsimonHATESSPAM@gmail.FAKE.com> wrote in message news:hc7utq$1a1$1@news.eternal-september.org...
"Don Lancaster" <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message news:7kooa3F39fllbU1@mid.individual.net...
For net energy, a quarter per peak pv watt is needed.

Even then, it would be many years after a quarter per watt for actual breakeven, owing to all the previously lost energy.

Huh? I usually agree with Don on these things, but here he seems to be confusing energy break even with economic break even. I a
perfect world they might be comparable, but I doubt if that is true in the real world.

Vaughn
I think what he wants to say is that energy break even is many years down the road,
possibly decades. And fixing and maintaining it might kill the small net energy surplus.
And before we get to break even we might have new, much better technology.

M



Who knows, but for a $1.98 a watt it's a good deal if you want to give
it a go. I know I could run my home office off a couple of panels
(laptop, printer etc.)Even having a couple would keep the lights on
in an emergency.

If there is enough sun to power the lights, you don't need them.


After 4pm six months of the year, yes I do need lights.


The solar panels are worthless for that use without expensive, short
lived batteries.



Tell that to my 10 year old UPS


You think there are enough good used 10 year old lead acid batteries
for everyone who want to use solar?

All three people?

 

[stu]

"newsletters@gmail.com" <jd38011@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7a7a36d5-2010-48f1-a6c1-4cdb36ad1102@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 28, 4:51 am, "stu" <no where just yet> wrote:

m...@sushi.com> wrote in message

news:35330600-a2c4-411b-a62c-c7c837113931@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 27, 9:23 pm, "stu" <no where just yet> wrote:



m...@sushi.com> wrote in message

news:80d4465c-e5e7-4b6e-9637-598cf1eca8bc@m33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 27, 12:49 pm, Rich Grise <richgr...@example.net> wrote:

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:34:04 -0400, nospam wrote:

With all due respect Don, you are full of it, there's an energy cost
tied
to production of any product, few of them produce ANY energy,or
payback
and they degrade from the time of purchase. Nobody knows what the
future
cost of electricity is, but it's bound to increase greatly.

Unless we can somehow miraculously heal the country of its paranoia
and
get a viable nuclear power program going.

Copy the reactors from the submarines and aircraft carriers and use
them
to power tankers and container ships and cruise ships.

Thanks,
Rich

You should investigate how much diesel goes into producing the uranium
to fuel the reactor. Uranium is very plentiful, but the yield is very
low. Eventually you make back the energy in producing the fuel, but
it's not like the fuel is free. Now if we had reprocessing plants, the
math would be more favorable, but reprocessing is very messy.

I used to be pro-nuclear until I read Dr. Helen Caldicot's "Nuclear
Power is not the Answer.". One thing I hadn't realized is nuclear
plants have to release gas periodically. The amount of radiation
released is very small, probably less than that of a coal plant, but
it isn't the closed loop system everyone makes it out to be.

OMG did you manage to read the whole thing?
You might want to read a few other books before you abandon
"pro-nuclear"

Yes, I read the whole book. Not sure when you went to college, but "in
the day" the BSEE required a class in thermodynamics. I got the
Babcock and Wilcox indoctrination. I was around for the claim of
nuclear power being so cheap they wouldn't meter it. I was also near
TMI when the accident occurred.. As time passed, much of the cover-up
of the event was declassified. [Shocker: the government lies!] I was
went from pro to neutral to probably negative. There is no solution
for the nuclear waste. Worse yet, there is plenty of nuclear waste
stored at the reactor sites that is not in any containment vessel.
They let the rods cool a bit before even considering transferring them
offsite, and we now know Yucca Mountain will not be opened.

Get the book and read the other side's opinion. Calecott's book is
well documented. It considers the entire "food chain" of nuclear
power. I didn't even bring up the power needed to enrich the fuel. It
is hard to get a number on this since over the years the centrifuge
technology has become more efficient. As you probably know, the
uranium for the WWII nukes was enriched at Oakridge due to the
availability of cheap coal power.

Basically, nuclear power isn't nearly all that it is cracked up to be.
I rather have more wind and solar, plus conservation. Sure, it chops
up little birdies, but hey, you need to break some eggs to make an
omlet.

Oh I have the book, I just haven't finished reading it. But I do have a
"issues" with some of what I have read so far. I also have "the new
nuclear
danger" and have a few problems with that as well, although I haven't
finished writing down the problems I have with it.

Umm, reprocessing would eliminate 90% of the "waste", including the
water-soluble Actinides and Lanthanides. Using the the Integral Fast
Reactor, (or an updated version thereof), that was designed
specifically to meet President Carter's request/order for a
proliferation-proof reactor design would perform the reprocessing on-
site. If I'm not mistaken, the "spent" fuel transfer could be
performed almost entirely by remote control.

But, of course, a Presidential Executive Order forbids reprocessing.
Why? Precisely because it is so cheap already that the United State
uranium mining industry is shutdown. Fuel in the Integral Fast
Reactor, (solid rods in a design that cannot cause a core meltdown, by
the way), can be reprocessed until 90% of their initial radioactivity
has been "burned up" in the generation of power instead the 9% that is
used in "conventional" light water reactors that throw away the
remaining 91% of the available radioactivity as (only very slightly
considering it very small volume) problematic "waste".

Well Helen seems a little short on numbers when it doesnt suit her. But
then, she also writes "facts" from unnamed dead people, which makes some of
her "facts" a little hard to check up on. She talks about Depleted uranium
in bombs... I've never heard of a bomb with DU in it (which doesnt mean
there isnt one of course. anyone?). And "Contrary to accepted norms of
wartime behavior, the U.S. attacked colums of retreating Iraqi soldiers-"
accepted?. by who? when? which war was that?

Nuclear power plants do occasionally have to release a tiny amount of
radioactive gas, (usually tritium IIRC), - one day I spent 10 minutes
getting some cleaned off of my new and statically-charged plastic
"bump" cap. But you're right, it is infinitesimal when compared to
the constant radioactive releases in the smoke from from coal-burning
power plants.

I like hydro-electric and wind power solutions, too. I especially
like smaller, individual-sized options. But I agree that those
massive dams could provide equally massive amounts of electricity for
many decades while causing less environmental damage that the coal,
oil, or gas-fired power plants required to provide an equal amount of
electricity.

 

________)
(, / /)
/___, _ (/_ ___
/ (_(_(__/(__ (_/_(_)(_(_
(_/ .-/
(_/

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

nospam@nevis.com wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
nospam@nevis.com wrote:
TheM wrote:
"vaughn" <vaughnsimonHATESSPAM@gmail.FAKE.com> wrote in message news:hc7utq$1a1$1@news.eternal-september.org...
"Don Lancaster" <don@tinaja.com> wrote in message news:7kooa3F39fllbU1@mid.individual.net...
For net energy, a quarter per peak pv watt is needed.

Even then, it would be many years after a quarter per watt for actual breakeven, owing to all the previously lost energy.

Huh? I usually agree with Don on these things, but here he seems to be confusing energy break even with economic break even. I a
perfect world they might be comparable, but I doubt if that is true in the real world.

Vaughn
I think what he wants to say is that energy break even is many years down the road,
possibly decades. And fixing and maintaining it might kill the small net energy surplus.
And before we get to break even we might have new, much better technology.

M



Who knows, but for a $1.98 a watt it's a good deal if you want to give
it a go. I know I could run my home office off a couple of panels
(laptop, printer etc.)Even having a couple would keep the lights on
in an emergency.

If there is enough sun to power the lights, you don't need them.


After 4pm six months of the year, yes I do need lights.


The solar panels are worthless for that use without expensive, short
lived batteries.

Cheap deep cycle batteries with a 15 year guarantee are available


--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show