But the problem _isn't_ solved.
Again, what makes you think all printed batteries would necessarily
Is there any reason to believe only one printed battery will ever
.. . .
Offset printing ink is about the right consistency. Each cell would
That is how all Li-ion batteries are made. Sheets of thin copper and
We need to start out designing for speeds of 45 mph and a larger size
Thanks.
Just admit it. You aren't interested in tech discussions. If youAssume a plausible solution, battery sheets flying off of a roller at
paper mill speeds similar to Nanosolar's printed PV, and then work
backwards from that to develop a battery.
Assume what you want but, do you have any numbers which will indicate
that the solar cell will output more power, over its lifetime, than it
took to create it?
Is that even in question ?
It would be virtually impossible to sell a single PV cell if this were not the case, right ?
Not necessarily.
For some applications, like remote unattended data gathering and
transmission, say, payback isn't even a consideration.
Very quick calculation : PV costs around $3/Watt retail. Assume a very high 10% of that top be pure production energy cost, then it
must have cost less than 3 kWh to make it.
With only 4 hours sun/day average, this cell will generate 3 kWh in about 2 years. It surely will last longer than that I hope.
Yup.
He was talking batteries and I somehow read "solar cells" into that and
didn't even bother to run the numbers.
Mea culpa, and thanks for the reality check!
Thanks. I'll remember that next time I want to check one out at the
Yea, sure, everyone here believes everything everyone says.
What happened to the mea culpa?
Disclosure = publishing.
Are you sure it's silk screening? I'd guess stenciling.
---Assume a plausible solution, battery sheets flying off of a roller at
paper mill speeds similar to Nanosolar's printed PV, and then work
backwards from that to develop a battery.
Assume what you want but, do you have any numbers which will indicate
that the solar cell will output more power, over its lifetime, than it
took to create it?
Is that even in question ?
It would be virtually impossible to sell a single PV cell if this were not the case, right ?
Not necessarily.
For some applications, like remote unattended data gathering and
transmission, say, payback isn't even a consideration.
Very quick calculation : PV costs around $3/Watt retail. Assume a very high 10% of that top be pure production energy cost, then it
must have cost less than 3 kWh to make it.
With only 4 hours sun/day average, this cell will generate 3 kWh in about 2 years. It surely will last longer than that I hope.
Yup.
He was talking batteries and I somehow read "solar cells" into that and
didn't even bother to run the numbers.
Mea culpa, and thanks for the reality check!
Just admit it. You aren't interested in tech discussions. If you
were you'ld read the header before you clicked on them
I'm still trying to back calculate the title of the Harliquin romance
novel that gave you the idea that an inventor could brag about having
a single money making patent but he is too modest to talk about his
patent.
It's "Harlequin"
Thanks. I'll remember that next time I want to check one out at the
liberry.
---
---
---
---Assume a plausible solution, battery sheets flying off of a roller at
paper mill speeds similar to Nanosolar's printed PV, and then work
backwards from that to develop a battery.
Assume what you want but, do you have any numbers which will indicate
that the solar cell will output more power, over its lifetime, than it
took to create it?
Is that even in question ?
It would be virtually impossible to sell a single PV cell if this were not the case, right ?
Not necessarily.
For some applications, like remote unattended data gathering and
transmission, say, payback isn't even a consideration.
Very quick calculation : PV costs around $3/Watt retail. Assume a very high 10% of that top be pure production energy cost,
then it
must have cost less than 3 kWh to make it.
With only 4 hours sun/day average, this cell will generate 3 kWh in about 2 years. It surely will last longer than that I
hope.
Yup.
He was talking batteries and I somehow read "solar cells" into that and
didn't even bother to run the numbers.
Mea culpa, and thanks for the reality check!
Just admit it. ?You aren't interested in tech discussions. ?If you
were you'ld read the header before you clicked on them
That's another straw man,
He just tacitly admitted _himself_ that he didn't read the title.
---
---
---
---
---
That happens a lot when you have no interest in tech.
It's hard to believe but he once bragged that he had a "money makingMea culpa, and thanks for the reality check!
I'm still trying to back calculate the title of the Harliquin romance
novel that gave you the idea that an inventor could brag about having
a single money making patent but he is too modest to talk about his
patent.
Why are you setting up a straw man ?
He just tacitly admitted _himself_ that he didn't read the title.Assume a plausible solution, battery sheets flying off of a roller at
paper mill speeds similar to Nanosolar's printed PV, and then work
backwards from that to develop a battery.
Assume what you want but, do you have any numbers which will indicate
that the solar cell will output more power, over its lifetime, than it
took to create it?
Is that even in question ?
It would be virtually impossible to sell a single PV cell if this were not the case, right ?
Not necessarily.
For some applications, like remote unattended data gathering and
transmission, say, payback isn't even a consideration.
Very quick calculation : PV costs around $3/Watt retail. Assume a very high 10% of that top be pure production energy cost,
then it
must have cost less than 3 kWh to make it.
With only 4 hours sun/day average, this cell will generate 3 kWh in about 2 years. It surely will last longer than that I
hope.
Yup.
He was talking batteries and I somehow read "solar cells" into that and
didn't even bother to run the numbers.
Mea culpa, and thanks for the reality check!
Just admit it. �You aren't interested in tech discussions. �If you
were you'ld read the header before you clicked on them
That's another straw man,
Give me something to work with. Mother Teresa would find it
I think the idea of printing batteries using inkjets could be usefulOn Fri, 5 Sep 2008 16:00:42 -0700 (PDT), BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:
Assume a plausible solution, battery sheets flying off of a roller at
paper mill speeds similar to Nanosolar's printed PV, and then work
backwards from that to develop a battery.
Assume what you want but, do you have any numbers which will indicate
that the solar cell will output more power, over its lifetime, than it
took to create it?
Is that even in question ?
It would be virtually impossible to sell a single PV cell if this were not the case, right ?
Not necessarily.
For some applications, like remote unattended data gathering and
transmission, say, payback isn't even a consideration.
Very quick calculation : PV costs around $3/Watt retail. Assume a very high 10% of that top be pure production energy cost,
then it
must have cost less than 3 kWh to make it.
With only 4 hours sun/day average, this cell will generate 3 kWh in about 2 years. It surely will last longer than that I
hope.
Yup.
He was talking batteries and I somehow read "solar cells" into that and
didn't even bother to run the numbers.
Mea culpa, and thanks for the reality check!
Just admit it. ?You aren't interested in tech discussions. ?If you
were you'ld read the header before you clicked on them
That's another straw man,
He just tacitly admitted _himself_ that he didn't read the title.
---
Nope, I stated that I misread it, not that I _didn't_ read it.
Your straw man is someone who isn't interested in technology, doesn't
read headers with technical content, yet clicks on them.
That ain't me, babe.
---
Why is he clicking on threads that are of such little interest to him
he doesn't even bother to read the titles?
---
"Printed battery sheets" misread as "Printed solar cell sheets" is of no
interest to an avid techie like myself?
Hardly.
What irks you is that when I read your cockamamie articles, fill them
full of holes by proving, mathematically, that they're impractical, and
then show you up for the fraud you are for foisting something on your
readers that you should have known was unworkable, you have no recourse
but to try to slither out of the argument with smoke and mirrors.
Doesn't seem to work so well around here, does it, where most of us can
see through your devious logic and tomfoolery.
---
You once confused him with Rod Speed. I almost made the same error.
The only thing they have in common, however, is neither has any
interest in tech.
---
How would _you_ know?
You think, "down deep" you understand technical matters even though
they confound you, so if either RS or I were to post something technical
you'd be confused to the point where you wouldn't know what we were
talking about, giving you the impression that we weren't talking tech
and, therefore weren't interested in it.
And, here you are, posting to no less than five technical groups, the
members of who can clearly see through your new clothes, LOL!
---
and almost a direct personal attack.
Give me something to work with. Mother Teresa would find it
impossible not to ridicule the non functionals.
---
Oh, so all of a sudden you're like Mother Teresa?
Where are the hospitals you've brought out of thin air?
Where are the children you saved from death?
Where is the laughter you've brought out of tears?
---
The solution to Rod Speed and the other non fuctionals with no
interest in tech is not censorship but exposure:
---
RS often posts terse, interesting, opposing viewpoints, but he isn't the
problem, since he posts obscenities when he's confronted with a dilemma
and, thus, is easily found out and dismissed.
You're the problem, and exposure is what you're getting plenty of since
you decided to poke your nose into the technical groups with your
pretend expertise and bluff.
---
Simply contact Google and tell them you want them to compile and
publish stats on every newsgroups poster, the number of OPs, the
average number of responses to each OP, the number of BEs (branch
enders) and of course, the ultimate weapon against those with nothing
to contribute:
A search box that would pull up all of a poster's BEs for review.
At a glance everyone would be able to see which morons spend all day
long typing "in spades" or "LOL!" and have nothing to contribute.
---
What a conceited cocksucker you are.
Unable to admit defeat, you want Google (through the demands of your
imaginary lackeys) to compile records of those who defeated you through
logical discourse VS those who defeated you through flames.
Either way, you're a loser.
JF
Desk top manufacturing . . .
Absolutely nothing which is surprising considering the thinking behind
The novelty aspect alone could be worth millions.
It is always amazing what has NOT been patented.
Yep! Battery ink jet cartridges only $1500 each. Only slightly higher
I've got this great invention. It's going to revolutionize the
You never had a unique idea in your entire life.
On the other hand there will often be a flurry of almost identical