Driver to drive?

[Kris Krieger]

mpm <mpmillard@aol.com> wrote in news:647894e0-e37d-436b-bad7-
59684bb80b6c@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

On Sep 7, 6:27�pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-
Site.com> wrote:

Found out that a Bougain Villa thorn will go thru a thick rubber shoe
sole :-(


For the record, I think it is spelled: bougainvillea - all one word
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bougainvillea

And you're right. Those thorns are nasty.
But the cool thing about them, (if you look closely) is that the
flowers are actually just colored leaves. If we're talking the same
plant.

Yup, they're like poinsettia in that way. A fair number of decorative
"flowers" are actually small flowerettes surrounded by showy calyxes and/or
leaves.

 

In sci.physics Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 15:43:47 -0700, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
...
likely to cast out the old if the new is better...is,

the FAA:

http://cafefoundation.org/v2/pav_home.php

From what I seen, the biggest impediment to advancing aviation is not
the FAA. It's the people who sit in the cockpit, many of whom will not
hesitate to let it be known the last thing they want in the cockpit is
advanced technology. They prefer to fiddle with the knobs and
gadgets.

I'd bet that a lot of that attitude comes from not trusting electronics/
computers/fly-by-wire. They like the mechanical instruments because you
can see the mechanisms operate, and if they break, it's obvious. If you've
got nothing but an electrical joystick connected to a computer, which then
flies the plane, when the computer breaks, you're dead.

Yeah, OK, mechanical linkages can break too, but how many of those
failures have you heard of, vs. software crashes? (Hmmmm... kinda gives
new meaning to the term "crash". ;-)

When it is your ass in the cockpit, all the theortical arm waving and
arm chair engineering goes away in the face of the stark reality that
it *IS* your ass on the line if the airplane goes tits up.

And if it is your airplane, it is your money that has to pay for it.

You also must understand there is are differences among General Aviation
(GA) aircraft, airline type aircraft, and military aircraft.

There is also a difference between instrumentation and control.

Electronic instrumentation is hot for all classes of aircraft and it
is only in the past few years that the size, weight, and cost of it
has dropped to the level where it was practical to put into GA aircraft.

Everyone wants a glass panel in the airplane these days. I've replaced
some of the "steam gauges" with electronics in my airplane and will
probably replace more as the prices drop.

If you would care to send me money, I will do it sooner.

Electronic control of flight surfaces is a separate issue.

Electronic control is necessary in some cases; there isn't anyone strong
enough to fly a 747 if it didn't have active controls or anyone fast
enough to fly a high performance fighter if it didn't have stabalizing
systems.

GA aircraft, however, fly just fine with cable and pulley controls
which are cheap, simple, light, and have about a century's worth of
reliability data.

There is no practical reason to put electronic controls in GA aircraft
and a lot of practical reasons not to.

This does not include autopilots which have been in GA aircraft for about
a half century now.

That leaves us with engine control.

The reality here is that Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC)
has been around for quite a while for the big airplanes and is just now
starting to show up for GA aircraft. Once again it is a size, weight and
cost issue.

And yes, a "computer" that goes in an airplane costs a hell of a lot
more than a laptop at Best Buy.

The fact that the airplane "computer" has to be proven to be reliable
and that the market for such "computers" is tiny has a lot to do with
that.

The guarantee on the Best Buy laptop is that if bursts into flames on
you they will give you a new one and any one store probably sells
many times more in a year than the total number of GA aircraft made.

Is that the sort of guarantee you would fly with?

The bottom line is that all the technological stuff that is appropriate
for GA aircraft *IS* already going into GA aircraft.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Kris Krieger]

Eric <me@nomail.com> wrote in
news:G4CdnTNZYsKYEFnVnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com:

Eeyore wrote:

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

IMO the battery tech has finally been sorted. LiFeP

Info where ? All I see is laptop and smaller batteries.


seems to fit the
bill perfectly. Any improvements from now on is a bonus. 200+ miles with
an overnight recharge and a 5000 deep discharge life is good enough for
most people.

A 200 mile range will put a clamp on most people's holiday plans.

Graham

Don't batteries lose capacity as the temperature drops? For those in
colder climates might not work too great..
Eric

In some areas, even ICE's need to be plugged into engine-block heaters - so
maybe that'd suffice for an electric, too. Also, there are many areas which
are not all that cold.

No reason to not do somehting only becasue it won't solve *all* problems -
solutions obviously have to be evaluated for operating conditions. Maybe
compressed natural gas, for example, woudl be better in a very cold climate.

All-or-nothing, either-or thinking leads to more problems, than solutions.
Not even petroleum solves *all* problems, otherwise, there'd be no such thing
as hydroelectric power, or heck, batteries, since theoretically, everything
can be run from either a wall socket or a gasoline-powered generator.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

George Herold wrote:

On Sep 8, 1:00 pm, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@pergamos.net
wrote:
mrdarr...@gmail.com wrote:
"The Large Hadron Collider is a symptom of America's decline in
particle physics and, some fear, in science overall"

http://www.newsweek.com/id/157514

Ah well... best wishes to the Europeans

Tee hee.

Particle physics is well past its first youth, and I can't recall a
single technologically useful result it's generated since about
Fermi's day--or is there something I've missed? It's primarily an
aesthetic activity.

There are lots better ways to spend a billion or two dollars on
science than building ever larger colliders. If we really have to
find the Higgs boson, maybe support work on wake field accelerators
or other new methods, because keeping on turning the same old crank
has got us way, way into the diminishing returns region.

The argument seems to be that we have to keep dumping some obscenely
large fraction of our limited physical science budgets into
accelerators to avoid falling behind in a field that doesn't produce
anything useful...or to avoid losing the expertise of the field
because there's no new data...come again? There's really no sense in
encouraging that many smart people to pour their careers down a rat
hole like that, data or no data.

I'm all for the search for origins and so on, but it's only worth
spending so many billion bucks on such a brute force approach to a
primarily aesthetic goal, particularly when it's in competition with
much more valuable work that could train lots more people for lots
less money.

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs

Phil, I totally agree! There's way too much hype for the refurbished
LHC. The only thing I'm expecting out of this hugh machine is the
mass of the Higgs boson. It harldy seems worth it. I expect more
exciting results to come from astronomy/ cosmology. The particle
physics community has a great PR machine though...
George

So....the higgs bosen was invented to explain mass. So..how come it has mass
itself. Seems a bit like darkness to me...

Kevin Aylward
kevin@kevinaylward.co.uk
www.kevinaylward.co.uk

 

[JohnF]

In sci.math Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@pergamos.net> wrote:

mrdarrett@gmail.com wrote:
"The Large Hadron Collider is a symptom of America's decline in
particle physics and, some fear, in science overall"
http://www.newsweek.com/id/157514
Ah well... best wishes to the Europeans

I can't recall a single technologically useful result it's
generated since about Fermi's day
The argument seems to be that we have to keep dumping
our limited physical science budgets into accelerators
to avoid falling behind in a field that doesn't produce anything
useful

Before radios, telegraphs, electric motors, etc, etc, Queen Victoria
once asked British physicist Michael Faraday of what use his
studies in electricity and magnetism were. He famously replied,
"Madam, of what use is a baby?"
--
John Forkosh ( mailto: j@f.com where j=john and f=forkosh )

 

In sci.physics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highnotlandthistechnologypart.com> wrote:

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:47:03 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:08:53 -0700, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:

Of what use is the ISS?

I don't know - what did Queen Victoria expect Columbus to find?

Thanks,
Rich


I doubt she ever met him.

John

Especially since Columbus had been dead a couple hundred years when
Victoria was born.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Kris Krieger]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6ila6eFr7dkrU3@mid.individual.net:

Eeyore wrote:

Kris Krieger wrote:

Personally,
I'd like an electric that can be both plugged in, and had a small
"top-off" generator included (biodiesel-capable might be nice). THe
point isn't only daily driving, but also, distance driving. Like, if
I decide to take a trip down to Moody Gardens - that'd be longer than
150km to get there and come back. "20 miles on a charge" just
wouldn't do it, especially if on ehas to drive more than 10 likes to
work, and there is no recharger where on ehas to park when one gts
there.

Yes you need a PHEV which is what GM at least is developing seriously.

The issue of recharging points is an EXTREMELY valid one too. Who's
going to pay for them and who's going to stop vandals from trashing
them ?

I don't really know enough about the infrastructure solutions being
considered, to offer anything illuminating. I've heard a range of ideas, btu
unfortunately, I don't know enough to offer you real information on that
point. And mere speculation would not answer your questions...

Inductive charge points in Tesco car park?

 

[Kris Krieger]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6ila87Fr7dkrU4@mid.individual.net:

Eeyore wrote:

Kris Krieger wrote:

the US has a lot of natural gas,which can be used
to generate electricity

Which will offer ZERO CO2 emissions benefit.

Rather tahn me just specualting, I did a search:

https://shop.sae.org/technical/papers/970743
QUOTED MATERIAL: "The main conclusions from this work are that: fuel type
and equivalence ratio have major influences on both total hydrocarbon and
methane emissions; spark timing affects total hydrocarbon and methane
emissions significantly; increasing engine speed decreases total
hydrocarbon emissions for both fuels; during cold start and warm-up
operations, gasoline emitted a much higher excess of total hydrocarbons at
first start compared with natural gas; and exhaust gas recirculation gave
lower oxides of nitrogen emissions for natural gas than for gasoline
fuelling."

http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/vehicles/natural_gas_emissions.html
QUOTED MATERIAL: "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency calculated the
potential benefits of CNG versus gasoline based on the inherently cleaner-
burning characteristics of natural gas, summarized in Clean Alternative
Fuels: Compressed Natural Gas (PDF 76 KB). Download Adobe Reader.

Reduce carbon monoxide emissions 90%-97%
Reduce carbon dioxide emissions 25%
Reduce nitrogen oxide emissions 35%-60%
Potentially reduce non-methane hydrocarbon emissions 50%-75%
Emit fewer toxic and carcinogenic pollutants
Emit little or no particulate matter
Eliminate evaporative emissions "


http://74.125.95.104/search?
q=cache:QP5PFW8hoGoJ:www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/big_rig_cleanup/natural-
gas-vehicles.html+emissions+comparison+natural-
gas+gasoline&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us

Here is the Google search line I used:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=emissions+comparison+natural-
gas+gasoline

is solar panel production is doen on a larger
scale, those will become cheaper.

Bwahahahahhaahahaaaaa ! Do you think they only just invented them ? And
it IS done on a large scale !

Not yet, it isn't. What will lower prices most significantly is increasing
conversion of gov.t buildings. Alhtough conversions being done by
corporations such as WalMart will also be an important factor.

Interestingly, I've not seen discussion of the effect of the rooftop shade
offered by solar panels.

Also, given that teh power utilities do buy back power, that would
contribute to the long-term savings offered by solar.

And before denegrating *every* non-petroleum energy source, how about
offering a solution to a finite resource (other than that you believe
you'll croak off before it runs out)?

It's real easy to sit on one's ass, say "that's stupid", and merely
contribute to the problem - what's hard is getting off one's ass and taking
some sort of action that's actually constructive.

PV solar is INSANELY expensive by design.

By design, ro by circumstance or necessity...?

Only Nanosolar are claiming
to offer anything better but they won't release data. Smells of
something nasty to me.

It's called "proprietary info", and it's common for companies in all
sectors to not release their trade secrets. What will need to be seen is
what results are shown from tests.

Nanosolar have just had a $300m injection of capital to boost their
production capacity.

Yes, despite the naysayers and those who are addicted to the status quo, at
least some people *are* doing research and testing ideas.

 

[Kris Krieger]

Simon S Aysdie <gwhite@ti.com> wrote in news:4eb36d72-092d-4e34-8481-
85536e0ce8e2@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

On Sep 6, 4:26 pm, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <p...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
Simon S Aysdie wrote:

[snip]

The Supreme Court decides what is legal or illegal (Constitutional, that
is. Congress is free to do what it wants within those bounds). Last time
I checked, there was nobody on the SCOTUS named Simon S. Aysdie.

Oh cool. "Self government" means that one must take the word of a few
black robes as if they were gods.

You might try reading the info at
http://usconstitution.net/
and read up about the history of the Supreme Court.

If you are a citizen of the US, you're subject to its laws; if a law
appears to be unConstitutional, the case can be brought before the Supreme
Court. I'ts got nothing to do with "gods", it's got to do with people
who've devopted a lifetime to studying the Constittuion adn are supposed to
apply their best honest effort to determine whetehr laws are or are not in
keeping with the Constitution.

Brilliant! Who knew?

Anyone who has ever read anything about the US Constitution and the
governemnt set up in accordance with it.


From the Constitution:

Article III. - The Judicial Branch
Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme
Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time
ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts,
shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times,
receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished
during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising
under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made,
or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty
and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States
shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a
State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States;
between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different
States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States,
Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th
Amendment.)

Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits. Ratified 2/7/1795.

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to
extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against
one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens
or Subjects of any Foreign State.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and
those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have
original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme
Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such
Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury;
and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have
been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be
at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War
against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two
Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no
Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except
during the Life of the Person attainted.

 

In sci.physics Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote:

On 9/8/08 1:08 PM, in article
3e4ef3c0-d777-4dab-a69f-5df4d39a4575@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com, "Le Chaud
Lapin" <jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

(snip)

The key question we should be asking ourselves today is whether it has
not happened because the technology is not available, or because of
the intransigence of those most closely associated with the industry.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

If you aren't a pilot, why do you think you can define what GA should do?

This is exactly why he was repeatedly spanked in all the aviation
groups.

He came in with some engineering courses and a couple of hours of
private pilot ground school and proceeded to proclaim he was god's
gift to aircraft design, manufacture, and piloting who knew more
about what should be than all the people who have really been doing
these things for decades.

If I'm just out for a sight seeing flight and decide I want to do Dutch
Rolls just for the hell of it, I don't want a computer to do them for me.
If I want to do stall/spin exercises, I want to "do" them, not have the
electronics do them.

I don't need a computer to trim out the plane for maximum efficiency, so why
pay the cost of a computer to do it.

Private flying is expensive. Don't load it up with unnecessary electronics.
What's "necessary" is up to each pilot based on their skills and how they
use their plane. An ultralight and a handheld GPS and transceiver satisfies
many who can no longer afford to rent a plane. I can't quite imagine
someone flying theirs using their laptop cursor keys.

Not just that, but throwing technology on something just for the sake
of technology is plain stupid.

If adding technology solves a problem, then it is a good idea.

So far everything Le Chaud Lapin has suggested either already exists
or is technology just for the sake of technology.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Kris Krieger]

Re: Sarah Palin - hot or not?

You be the judge

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2uGDKlhtLE

 

[Chungho@zongazonga.zip]

The time delay will make the circuit more complicated than
what it seems that you want. A simple wallwort 12v transformer,
12volt relay, buzzer and a magnetic switch will give you the
alarm. The relay will need to be atleast single pole double throw.
Connect the wallwort to the relay thru the Normally Open magnetic switch.
Connect the buzzer thru the Normally Closed side of the relay to the
wallwort. When the door is closed, the magnet will close the magnetic
switch causing the relay to energize, opening the normally closed side
of it's contacts and the buzzer doesn't sound. If the door opens, the
magnetic switch opens and turns off the relay thereby closing the normally
closed side of the relay allowing power to the buzzer... Buzzer sounds.

Con side to this arrangement is that you can never be in the office with
the door open unless you wanna here the buzzer constantly.... otherwise
you'd need to add a defeat switch... which would mean that you'd have to
remember to turn the circuit back on... which it would be just as easy to
just close the door... Dunno.. Seems to me that a door closer or a spring
would be easier to install and wouldn't use power.... Other than the stored
mechanical energy of springs. And atleast if you are in the office and want the
door open... you can prop it..

I have a door that needs to be closed all the time, and if it's left
open I want a buzzer to beep for a bit, it could beep constantly till
the door is closed. It's to assure the house animals don't go into my
office which seems to be their favorite place to chew up cables, etc.
Short of getting rid of them I wanted to create some type of alarm
circuit with magnetic switch than when OPEN a buzzer will sound.
Found a couple of the web but they all seem so complicated?
If the door if open for about 20-30 seconds want it to beep!
Thansk!

--
--------------------------------- --- -- -
Posted with NewsLeecher v3.8 Final
Web @ http://www.newsleecher.com/?usenet
------------------- ----- ---- -- -

 

In sci.physics Le Chaud Lapin <jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 8, 1:05 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
You also must understand there is are differences among General Aviation
(GA) aircraft, airline type aircraft, and military aircraft.

There is also a difference between instrumentation and control.

Yes, I noticed this perception among pilots.

It isn't perception, it is reality.

The instruments are all the nav instruments, gyros, airspeed indicator,
etc. including the engine system monitors such as the tach, oil
pressure, fuel level, etc.

The controls are the yoke, rudder pedals, flaps, landing gear, cowl
flaps and engine controls.

Learn the difference or continue to be laughed at by pilots.

A competent electro-mechanical engineer will be far less
perturbed by the notion of fly-by-wire than the average pilot, IMO.

You really don't get it, do you?

There are lots of fly-by-wire aircraft and *NO ONE* is perturbed by the
notion of fly-by-wire.

However, the idea of putting a fly-by-wire systm is laughed at by
anyone that knows anything about real airplanes because it is more
expensive, complex, and weighs more than existing systems and entirely
unnecessary in GA aircraft.

This is where I find the most irony in pilots. If one mentions
electronics, etc..they shriek.

Wrong, they laugh when you propose the microprocessor controlled
wooden #2 pencil.

There is no comparison between what a
computer+electro-mechanical actuator can do versus human with cables
and pulleys.

That may be true for an airplane that weighs in at over 20,000 pounds
or is a high perfomance fighter with marginal to no aerodynamic
stability, but it flat ass false for GA aircraft.

Just because you can't muster the coordination necessary to land a
Cessna 172 without requiring major airframe repairs doesn't mean
the rest of can't.

They fly just fine *if* the goal is to not change anything.

The goal of airplanes is to fly.

But it is
still impractical for the average consumer to buy and fly an airplane.

And 99.99% of that is cost and the dedication of time required to
learn how to fly.

Autopilots driving 75-year-old technology. It's the equivalent of
using a PC to control a lawn-mower with flaps.

Babbling nonsense as you haven't a clue what is in the current
generation of airplanes.

All of these problems start with an unnecessary presumption: "The
basic system model of the aircraft will be the same as it has been for
75 years."

You seem to be about the only one with that presumption. The
manufacturers of todays airplanes seem to have a different attitude.

I would use a standard $500 PC, in experimentaal aircraft, to prove at
least that it could be done.

Everyone with more than 3 functioning brain cells know it can be done.

But for non-critical items do
not require approval. For example, if I want to take my iPod aboard, I
do not need FAA approval. If I make a mount in the aircraft that can
hold my iPod, how much will that cost?

Once again you show your aviation ignorance.

EVERYTHING that attaches to a certified airplane requires approval.

And yes, the stupid little sheet metal mounting bracket for my
handheld GPS costs more than one for a car because it is approved.

And if I want the power hard wired into the airplane instead of
the cigarette lighter outlet, that has to be done by an approved
repair station with a form 337 filed with the FSDO.

The industry itself has created this situation.

Wrong.

Airplane crashes have caused this situation.

Right or wrong the purpose of the certification requlations is to
try to prevent further deaths by establishing safety criteria
for certified airplanes.

If you want to go build an experimental registered airplane out
of Lowes hardware store material and consumer electronics, go
ahead and do it.

Let us know how that works out for you.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Kris Krieger]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6ilq3lFrbh3qU3@mid.individual.net:

Kris Krieger wrote:
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6ila87Fr7dkrU4@mid.individual.net:

Eeyore wrote:
Kris Krieger wrote:

the US has a lot of natural gas,which can be used
to generate electricity
Which will offer ZERO CO2 emissions benefit.

Rather tahn me just specualting, I did a search:

https://shop.sae.org/technical/papers/970743
QUOTED MATERIAL: "The main conclusions from this work are that: fuel
type and equivalence ratio have major influences on both total
hydrocarbon and methane emissions; spark timing affects total
hydrocarbon and methane emissions significantly; increasing engine
speed decreases total hydrocarbon emissions for both fuels; during cold
start and warm-up operations, gasoline emitted a much higher excess of
total hydrocarbons at first start compared with natural gas; and
exhaust gas recirculation gave lower oxides of nitrogen emissions for
natural gas than for gasoline fuelling."

http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/vehicles/natural_gas_emissions.html
QUOTED MATERIAL: "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency calculated
the potential benefits of CNG versus gasoline based on the inherently
cleaner- burning characteristics of natural gas, summarized in Clean
Alternative Fuels: Compressed Natural Gas (PDF 76 KB). Download Adobe
Reader.

Reduce carbon monoxide emissions 90%-97%
Reduce carbon dioxide emissions 25%
Reduce nitrogen oxide emissions 35%-60%
Potentially reduce non-methane hydrocarbon emissions 50%-75%
Emit fewer toxic and carcinogenic pollutants
Emit little or no particulate matter
Eliminate evaporative emissions "


http://74.125.95.104/search?
q=cache:QP5PFW8hoGoJ:www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/big_rig_cleanup/natur
al- gas-vehicles.html+emissions+comparison+natural-
gas+gasoline&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us

Here is the Google search line I used:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=emissions+comparison+natural-
gas+gasoline



is solar panel production is doen on a larger
scale, those will become cheaper.
Bwahahahahhaahahaaaaa ! Do you think they only just invented them ?
And it IS done on a large scale !

Not yet, it isn't. What will lower prices most significantly is
increasing conversion of gov.t buildings. Alhtough conversions being
done by corporations such as WalMart will also be an important factor.

Interestingly, I've not seen discussion of the effect of the rooftop
shade offered by solar panels.

Also, given that teh power utilities do buy back power, that would
contribute to the long-term savings offered by solar.

And before denegrating *every* non-petroleum energy source, how about
offering a solution to a finite resource (other than that you believe
you'll croak off before it runs out)?

It's real easy to sit on one's ass, say "that's stupid", and merely
contribute to the problem - what's hard is getting off one's ass and
taking some sort of action that's actually constructive.

PV solar is INSANELY expensive by design.

By design, ro by circumstance or necessity...?

Only Nanosolar are claiming
to offer anything better but they won't release data. Smells of
something nasty to me.

It's called "proprietary info", and it's common for companies in all
sectors to not release their trade secrets. What will need to be seen
is what results are shown from tests.

Nanosolar have just had a $300m injection of capital to boost their
production capacity.


Yes, despite the naysayers and those who are addicted to the status
quo, at least some people *are* doing research and testing ideas.

And one might suppose that people investing $300m actually look at the
tech in some detail.

What I was replying to (eeyore's comments) went far beyond the specifics of
the original post.

Re: the specific company, as with any investment, it's a case of "caveat
emptor" - a person should look carefully into *any* investment.
THat's a different matter from what I commented on.

 

[Kris Krieger]

Simon S Aysdie <gwhite@ti.com> wrote in
news:d80244d2-6f10-4f92-980d-31174790eabd@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

On Sep 8, 2:57 pm, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:
Simon S Aysdie <gwh...@ti.com> wrote in news:4eb36d72-092d-4e34-8481-
85536e0ce...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:



On Sep 6, 4:26 pm, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <p...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
Simon S Aysdie wrote:

[snip]

The Supreme Court decides what is legal or illegal (Constitutional,
th
at
is. Congress is free to do what it wants within those bounds). Last
ti
me
I checked, there was nobody on the SCOTUS named Simon S. Aysdie.

Oh cool.  "Self government" means that one must take the word of a fe
w
black robes as if they were gods.  

You might try reading...

Way to miss the point entirely.

If you are a citizen of the US, you're subject to its laws;

No shit, you idiot.

Brilliant!  Who knew?

Anyone who has ever read anything about the US Constitution and the
governemnt set up in accordance with it.

That would not include you.

I guess you imagine that to be a clever response.

snip

Not a word in there said I have to believe they are always correct on
all matters of law. Read it again.

If they are always right, how come they overturned Plessy V Ferguson,
their own decision? Was Dred Scot correct? Why don't they like to
overturn decisions? (Hint: not because they weren't/aren't ever
wrong, but because they would cause too much a loss of confidence in
their own competancy.)

What I said (which you snipped) was that they are supposed to make their
best honest effort to determine the Constitutionality of laws. Now who has
missed the point?

My basic point for you and any other morons is this: "Self-
governance" means one can question and challenge governance, whether
in actual fact the government or the one challenging is wrong.

It takes a moron to call other people morons just becasue they don't simply
applaud the name-caller's every utterance.

"[W]e are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible
only because we are final."--Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 540 (1953),
concurring opinion.

That was taken off the following page, which you would do well to
read. In fact, you ought to read the whole book, and I can assign you
some other material too (quiz tomorrow):
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php
%3Ftitle=675&chapter=106961&layout=html&Itemid=27#c_lf0003_footnote_nt_16
16

I always appreciate links and book-references that are informative.
Contrary to your unfounded insistance that I'm a moron, I *do* read and
learn new things.

 

In sci.physics Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 20:05:07 +0000, jimp wrote:
In sci.physics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highnotlandthistechnologypart.com> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:47:03 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:08:53 -0700, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:

Of what use is the ISS?

I don't know - what did Queen Victoria expect Columbus to find?

I doubt she ever met him.

Especially since Columbus had been dead a couple hundred years when
Victoria was born.

Well, whoever the hell it was that funded him. Isabella? Just 'cause I
got the wrong queen doesn't alter the fact that _SOMEBODY_ paid for his
expedition - whoever it was must have expected _SOMETHING_ back.

Well, the queen, the country, and the century are wrong, but who's
counting?

Isabella, Spain, the end of the 15th Century, while Victoria was
England, and the end of the 19th Century.

And no one has tried to answer the real question - you're just pissing
about some nitpick.

Who funded him, and what did the funding source expect?

The Spanish were mostly hoping for a way to the area of India to avoid
the Arab controlled existing trade routes.

It wasn't hardly research for the sake of research.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[RST Engineering (jw)]

Yeah, but you gotta admit. With a set of water-wings like that, the lady
will never drown.

Jim

--
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it."
--Aristotle

 

[kol_isha]

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <paul@hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:48C5E4A3.DC23E60A@hovnanian.com...

Sorry. I thought the subject line said:

PALIN'S CHURCH SUPPORTS "PRAY AWAY THE GRAY"

LOL. That's the FIRST thing I've read (presumably about Palin) in weeks
with which I could actually relate. Thank you for making me laugh, even
though I did just spill coffee all over my desk.

--
Best,

Arlene
--------------------------------------
"Kol_Isha" - A Woman's Voice

 

[Greg Neill]

Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

[snip]

There's nothing for men in earth orbit but vacuum, physical
degradation, and death.

So, send women.

Aren't the poor guys having enough trouble as it is?

 

In sci.physics Le Chaud Lapin <jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 8, 3:56?pm, Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote:
If you aren't a pilot, why do you think you can define what GA should do?

Well, technically speaking, though I am inexperienced, the FAA does
reserve a category for me:
"student pilot", since I have completed ground school and have flown
as a student.

Yet you still know next to nothing about aviation, much less modern
aviation as this post once again shows.

If I'm just out for a sight seeing flight and decide I want to do Dutch
Rolls just for the hell of it, I don't want a computer to do them for me.
If I want to do stall/spin exercises, I want to "do" them, not have the
electronics do them.

I don't need a computer to trim out the plane for maximum efficiency, so why
pay the cost of a computer to do it.

This the #1 response I hear from many pilots.

Because it reflects reality.

Why add weight, complexity, and cost for an system that isn't needed
and adds nothing to the capability?

If you don't want to or can't fly an airplane, go buy a 3-axis autopilot
and the new Lycoming FADEC; no fly-by-wire needed.

<snip>

Private flying is expensive. ?Don't load it up with unnecessary electronics.

This is another very common response.

Because it is true.

I strongly suspect that, using commoditized components,

Certified airplanes are not, and can not, be legally built with commodity
components.

If you want to build an experimental airplane with Chinese screws and
bolts from Ace Hardware, go ahead.

Somethings
are obvious, like using software-radio to get rid of radio stack.

The advantage of sofware defined radio is the ability to easily and
quickly change the specifications of the radio.

Aviation radio specifications are cast in international treaty
concrete and are NOT going to change.

Most of the functions of modern radios are already in LSI chips.

A software defined aviation radio would be bigger and heavier than
the LSI radio it replaced.

Other things, which I am not prepared to discuss, is the propulsion
system. I think there might be a new method that has heretofore been
overlooked. But it's only specualtion at this point. But if it
worked, the prop would not be necessary, there would be zero
vibration, and extremely little noise.

So our budding genius has invented the impulse engine?

The only way known to science to move an object in the air is to
accelerate gas. The acceleration of the gas itself generates LOTS
of noise.

I just happened to return from a dinner meeting tonight with a person
who sells $2.5 million to $40 million aircraft for living and have
sold quite a few. After meeting over drinks, I discussed the concept
of the PAV with him and several others in attendance (pilots). Most of
them were quiet. At the end, the salesman said, "Well, it remains to
be seen whether it will be done, but if you do it, I only have one
request - don't skimp on luxury. Pay attention to the details. You
might as well make it comfortable."

Translation: Such a thing would cost a fortune to build, thus only the
really rich will be able to afford such a thing and they want leather
seats.

What's "necessary" is up to each pilot based on their skills and how they
use their plane. ?An ultralight and a handheld GPS and transceiver satisfies
many who can no longer afford to rent a plane. ?I can't quite imagine
someone flying theirs using their laptop cursor keys.

That's a good point. My point is that it is OK if existing pilots
would scoff at something like a PAV, as long as they recognize that
there are people who might prefer the electronics over cables and
pulleys.

Yep, and if talking about something like a 4 place GA airplane, those
people are called puerile.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.