it appears the poster above has linked the Molniya orbits entry but missed a few things. Take a look at the "Uses" section
Molniya orbits are used by communications satellites, not spy satellites, For example, Wikipedia notes that the Sirius network uses similar Tundra orbits - this allows it 24 hour coverage of the US with only 3 satellites. Lots of data from spy satellites is relayed to the destination country using comm satellites in Molniya orbits. The interesting part of the Molniya orbit is the apogee, not the perigee.
Irrelevant example? My examples were globalsecurity.org's entire list of active US military reconaissance spacecraft. If you don't believe me, then by all means do your own research, find the orbit data, find some of it that supports your assertions, and reply with references.
It's just a fairly low priority for the DOJ is all.
But but but but teh INTERPOL has expressed its concern about motion picture and sound recording policy to all of its member national police forces!!!11111one!
A polar orbit does not go low enough for the reasons described above. Specific spy sattelites are not set in orbit to monitor the entire globe either but are directed to specific areas.
Highly elliptical orbits that take satellites low are what spy satellites do because optical resolution at a wavelength (eg. visual light) is ultimately limited by distance
Such an orbit would mean the satellite is only at perigee a small percent of the time. Those orbits are great for maintaining communications coverage over a specific area from apogee using a very small satellite constellation. A major government, on the other hand, is just going to put a spy satellite in a low polar orbit so it can cover the entire globe. When it burns up, they'll probably have better optics technology ready for its replacement anyway.
Offices are only for people who have a business need to have private meetings.
Or, people who have a business need to shut out the world every now and then and concentrate, or people who have a business need to work with expensive or confidential stuff which they don't want to trust to a filing cabinet lock, etc.
Collaboration is a really nice sounding word, but ultimately collaboration, distraction, and gossip are just different products of the exact same thing.
Waste heat from an ICE might be easier to tap if you used a low pressure (as in near-vacuum) closed cycle medium. Easier to build steam from liquid in near-vacuum, and easier to liquify with an ambient heat sink.
The Kalina cycle engine uses an ammonia+water mixture as its working fluid for that reason. Also, the reference in that article claims the mixture boils at a range of temperatures instead of at a specific point, but does not say why.
Last time I checked, the equipment used for solar power electricity generation isn't all sustainably-harvested wood gathered by Amazon forest natives at a liveable wage. There's some severe heavy metal usage in most electrical power generation, regardless of source, and heavy metals aren't going to decay into harmless elements.
You probably checked on photovoltaic solar power electricity generation. This article is about thermal solar power electricity generation. Instead of gobs of solar panels, they are using gobs of mirrors to make stuff very hot. It's basically like burning an ant with a magnifying glass, except the magnifier is several acres of heliostats (mirrors that track the sun) and the ant is a vat of molten salt the size of a semi truck. The molten salt spins a turbine, and you get power.
Look at the ingredients - some light metals (aluminum, iron/steel, some copper wiring, maybe titanium turbine blades), silvered glass mirrors, concrete, a little lampblack (carbon), fiberglass insulation, salt, water, and maybe some lead-free paint. I'd say that's pretty safely non-toxic.
It can't be used anywhere though - it can't concentrate diffuse light (such as from clouds) into heat, so these are mostly going to go into the desert areas that are almost always clear and sunny.
A single, or more than one, file gets corrupted and the show doesn't go on.
There's a saying: Of what you see on TV, believe 25%. 5% if the reporter is wearing a windbreaker.
The article was posted on the P.I.'s website at 1:55am, less than two hours after the problem occurred. That puts this fine piece of journalism in the esteemed company of football post-game loser interviews.
As a sysadmin, I hear accusations of "corrupted files" regularly. Very rarely is the problem actually a corrupted file. Shockingly rarely does anyone have any idea what file actually got corrupted. The most likely cause of this accusation (that I've seen) is DLL hell. It's common for someone to upgrade or downgrade a shared DLL when they install another application. This different version has a different set of bugs than the first version, and the original application wasn't ever tested with the different version. Strange problems crop up and reinstalling the original application miraculously fixes it. The DLL wasn't ever corrupt.
Let us know what they say when they've had a good night's sleep and have done a proper post-mortem.
The chinese government are like most governments in most modern nations - they by and large want to do what is best for the people, or what they think is best.
"99 percent of everything done in the world, good or bad, is done to pay a mortgage." -- Thank You For Smoking
Skin depth at 60Hz is 1cm. That means that in a 2cm-diameter conductor, only 1/e (37%) of the current flows through a point at the center vs. a point at the edge. This may only represent a 5-10% increase in resistance (you do the math - like I said, I'm too lazy), but that's still tens of megawatts of power lost.
New? That was first pioneered back in the late 70s or early 80s. The thing is that your mirror arrays have to track the Sun
Well, Sandia Labs has had their Solar Power Towers running as proof-of-concept for quite a while, and SEGS in Mojave has been around since the late 80s, but the rest of the big ones listed here are fairly recent (Nevada Solar One near Las Vegas and PS10 near Seville, Spain, just went online this year), and there are now several more plants under construction. It's really starting to take off.
One bad thing about solar concentrators is they require parallel light rays - direct (specular) sunlight. Clouds diffuse the light, making it impossible to concentrate. Photovoltaic plants deliver partial power on cloudy days - I don't think thermal solar delivers much at all. But many deserts rarely see clouds.
Generation, supposedly, doesn't lose much in very large plants. That would leave distribution, which I assume means local substations and transformers on power poles.
Generation does lose a lot from any heat engine (which is currently a required step for anything that generates electricity by making something hot: coal, oil, nuclear, geothermal, biomass, and natural gas). Wikipedia's combined cycle gas turbine article lists 59% efficiency as state of the art. The theoretical limit is not 100% efficiency - it is the Carnot Limit defined by the ratio of the high and low temperatures (natural gas burns at 1600K, the coldest you'll get the exhaust is 400K, so your absolute max is 75% efficiency).
Mechanical-electrical conversion (hydro, wind) is much more efficient. Electric generators are basically motors, and the large ones are commonly 95% efficient. The Francis turbines in use at hydro plants are upwards of 80% efficient at converting water pressure to rotor power. I don't know what the numbers are like for the wind turbines - probably much worse, since the goal isn't to make the turbine blades stop the air entirely.
Photovoltaic solar generation is the worst of them all. The most expensive cells that they put on space satellites are just over 40% efficient. The more cost-practical silicon-based cells are more like 12% efficient. As a result, a new development in large-scale solar is using a bunch of mirrors to focus the light into heat which can then spin a turbine (which may be 35-40% efficient).
but do you have any idea how inefficient it would be to power New Hampshire with electricity generated in Arizona?
Let's do the math. It'll be fun. Google says it's 4340 km from one arbitrarily-picked point in Arizona to another arbitrarily-picked point in New Hampshire. Wikipedia says the highest transmission voltage in use is about 1.2MV, and that the largest conductors used are about 750mm^2 of aluminum. (Let's also assume HVDC so I don't have to mess with skin effect calculations.).0000000265 ohms/meter (aluminum's electrical resistance) divided by the result of.00075/4340000 (the cross-sectional area divided by the length) is 153 ohms, so 306 ohms for the round trip. If you tried to put 1666A through such a conductor (to move 2GW), you'd incur a voltage drop of 508kV. (1.2-.508)/1.2=58%.
Of course the line's buildout costs will be stratospheric, but 2GW would indeed power all of New Hampshire (11TWh used in 2003), all through wires about the size of your finger. (Figure 79% if you go a thumb wide with the wires, or scale things back to 1GW.)
In theory, though, a Maglev can reach the 500+MPH of a commercial jet.
And rail-based rocket sleds have reached mach 8.5.
The limiting factor for both is: how much do you want to spend buying, regrading, tunneling under, and/or bridging over land so that you can make the track straight enough?
I work for a consulting company and every network I deal with with has separate VLANs for VoIP and data traffic.
Sorry, I could have phrased that better. What I meant to say is that, yes, companies' networks use separate VLANs for VoIP, but I've never seen such a network configured to effectively prevent a rogue device, such as a PC, from accessing that VLAN. Yes, my own observations are anecdotal - I'm sure a few people out there are doing things the right way.
I'm not up on IP phone networking/security concerns. Should I be concerned that staff at this office just dropped the shiny new IP phones on the same network as the PC's? I have one port in my cube: CAT-5 daisy-chains from the wall to IP phone to PC. Or do I just need to ask for more tin foil in the supply cabinet?
More tin foil. Most phone system vendors will set a company's office phone system up on a separate VLAN, then allow access to that VLAN through any port on a wall that a phone was supposed to go to. They'll even tell you the VLAN ID (if you don't feel like sniffing it just yet) through DHCP. All you have to do is be able to configure your host to use 802.1q tagging for that VLAN. Most phones are also left with the default username/password (many accessible by web servers on the phone), and the provisioning data for any phone (including SIP usernames/passwords) is very often accessible through TFTP without any authentication. I've never seen an attempt to authenticate a device on a VoIP network before allowing it to connect (via protocols such as 802.1x).
People keep talking about separate VLANs for VoIP security but they never follow through. I believe its only real purpose is easy QoS, and these days many switches are more sophisticated and don't need separate VLANs to be able to distinguish VoIP traffic.
I thought it was because there wasn't much of market for planes, considering there are still planes around from the 60s out flying around
Even a brand-new certified general aviation aircraft is from the 60's. The engine technology is especially showing its age. Air cooling (exhaust-based cabin heat - hope it doesn't leak carbon monoxide), updraft carburetors, leaded fuel, magnetos, direct drive with its associated poor power density (Continental IO-540: 300hp with 540 in^3, my Civic does 127hp in 98 in^3), poor power to weight ratio, and poor efficiency (car engine designers have gradually been able to increase typical thermal efficiencies from 20-25% to 25-35% in the last 40 years). And if the engine price doesn't shock you, the cost of overhauling it every 2000 hours might.
Avionics are electronics for aviation (sensors and gauges analogous to your car's speedometer and tachometer), just a lot more of them, especially for flying into clouds) but somehow those electronics, unlike everything else electronic, have not come down to a reasonable price, despite the fact that a $40 Wiimote implements half the basic 6 instruments.
The only innovation in general aviation today is in the experimental (the official word for "non-certified") planes. The catch is that such a plane can't be directly purchased new - you, the builder/owner, must do the majority of the work in building it, meaning the manufacturer can only provide you an incomplete kit. Kit assembly will take hundreds or more likely thousands of hours of time and has probably been responsible for thousands of divorces. But it's the only way to get in the air on an upper-middle class income, and it's just about the only way to fly anything genuinely new.
I'm not sure this would work anyway: in order to power the MOSFET, wouldn't you need a power supply of some sort? Maybe if you used a triac instead, something like this might work.
VGA gets you 1V peak-to-peak at 75 ohms impedance (13 milliamps, probably per color). DVI gives you 5VDC @ 50mA through pins 14 and 15. The latter can drive a relay directly, the former would probably need a voltage multiplier circuit (which at those low voltages could probably be embedded on an IC, in fact you'd probably have to use schottky diodes) to charge a capacitor. Then you could use a voltage comparator op amp to dump the capacitor's energy into the relay quickly.
I don't understand why it takes so long to charge batteries. Why can't the charger charge little chunks of the battery independently, in parallel, then discharge the bank of batteries serially? Why not break down the bank into the maximum number of little chargeable batteries, for the fastest charging time? There might be some inefficiencies in the discharge through several separate batteries, but the slow recharge is the main obstacle to forgetting these batteries are even part of the problem.
The big reasons it takes so long to charge batteries are heat and the surface area of the anode and cathode of each cell. It does not matter whether you, for example, pump 3A @ 4.2V into three li-ion cells in parallel or pump 1A @ 12.6V into three li-ion cells in series - each cell will see 4.2V @ 1A regardless (there will be slight differences because the cells are not identical, and will have different internal resistances at different charge states - charging/discharging cells in parallel actually exacerbates these differences, and that's one reason it's so rarely done.)
One of the really cool things about NiCd cells is that their charge cycle is endothermic - at standard charge rates, they actually cool down slightly as you charge them. At rapid charge rates, they heat up a lot less than NiMH or li-ion (assuming your charger shuts off when the battery is done).
The charge rates for cells are expressed as a multiple or fraction of C. Charging at C means your cell is charged in 1 hour. C/10 means 10 hours. 2C means 30 minutes. 60C means the one minute described in the article.
There's a little bit of a tradeoff between power density (how quickly you can get energy out of a cell) and energy density (how much energy you can get out of a cell). You want to make the surface area of the anode and cathode as large as possible for the former, and you want to make the mass of the anode and cathode as large as possible for the latter. This is also what differentiates lead-acid car batteries from lead-acid deep-cycle batteries. The lead plates in the car battery have lots and lots of holes to increase the surface area, and the plates in a deep-cycle battery are thick and solid to increase the mass.
I just showed you a case where the two stations get independent signals.
I happened to pick two examples where I ran the whole math:
- Send a sine wave to station SE but not NE and the same sine wave to station NE but not SW.
- Send a sine wave to station SE but not NE and the negation of that sine wave to station NE but not SW.
You can generalize that to sending any signal you want, separately to each remote station.
I can't make the math work for simultaneous transmission. Perhaps we could work backwards from the receivers for a few data points and look at the signals that must have been sent from the transmitters?
Let's go back to receiving the same phase of the same sine wave at both the NE and SE receivers, with a 3dB gain, from N and S transmitters 1 wavelength apart. To keep the math easy I'll pick the data points so that one transmitter is received exactly one point behind the other - sqrt(2)/2*360=255 degrees apart (105, 0, 255, and 149 degrees). Assuming the maximum power at N and S ranges from -1 to 1, the received signal for points 0, 1, 2, and 3 at both NE and SE must be 1.928, 0, -1.928, and 1.027. That means that:
N[0]+S[1]=SE[1] (0)
N[2]+S[1]=NE[2] (-1.928)
N[2]=N[0]-1.928 (remember, maximum power is -1 to 1, therefore the swing from N[0] to N[2] must use nearly all of this range, N[0] must be between.928 and 1, N[2] must be between -1 and -.928)
N[2]+S[3]=1.027 (but there is no number between -1 and -.928 that can be added to another number between -1 and 1 such that the sum is 1.027)
You're missing that the two sine waves are equal strength and phase (in your simplified, symmetric, case) only when both stations are supposed to hear an equal amount of signal and hear it with the same phase (as measured at the transmitting location).
But you repeatedlysaid that I could send signals simultaneously and independantly to multiple transmitters. If I cannot choose those signals to be identical or different on my whim, then they aren't really independant, are they? Since you are claiming a multiplication of total bitrate, you will need to make this simple test case work in order to prove your point to me.
(Also, I only care about the signal measured at each receiving location. Do whatever you want at the transmitter as long as you don't boost ERP/EIRP over a traditional config, which would presumably be tweaked to run just below the legal limits anyway. Sorry if that was unclear.)
Slashdot Mirror
Molniya orbits are used by communications satellites, not spy satellites, For example, Wikipedia notes that the Sirius network uses similar Tundra orbits - this allows it 24 hour coverage of the US with only 3 satellites. Lots of data from spy satellites is relayed to the destination country using comm satellites in Molniya orbits. The interesting part of the Molniya orbit is the apogee, not the perigee.
Irrelevant example? My examples were globalsecurity.org's entire list of active US military reconaissance spacecraft. If you don't believe me, then by all means do your own research, find the orbit data, find some of it that supports your assertions, and reply with references.
But but but but teh INTERPOL has expressed its concern about motion picture and sound recording policy to all of its member national police forces!!!11111one!
TEH INTERPOL!
Are you sure about that?
Such an orbit would mean the satellite is only at perigee a small percent of the time. Those orbits are great for maintaining communications coverage over a specific area from apogee using a very small satellite constellation. A major government, on the other hand, is just going to put a spy satellite in a low polar orbit so it can cover the entire globe. When it burns up, they'll probably have better optics technology ready for its replacement anyway.
Or, people who have a business need to shut out the world every now and then and concentrate, or people who have a business need to work with expensive or confidential stuff which they don't want to trust to a filing cabinet lock, etc.
Collaboration is a really nice sounding word, but ultimately collaboration, distraction, and gossip are just different products of the exact same thing.
The Kalina cycle engine uses an ammonia+water mixture as its working fluid for that reason. Also, the reference in that article claims the mixture boils at a range of temperatures instead of at a specific point, but does not say why.
You probably checked on photovoltaic solar power electricity generation. This article is about thermal solar power electricity generation. Instead of gobs of solar panels, they are using gobs of mirrors to make stuff very hot. It's basically like burning an ant with a magnifying glass, except the magnifier is several acres of heliostats (mirrors that track the sun) and the ant is a vat of molten salt the size of a semi truck. The molten salt spins a turbine, and you get power.
Look at the ingredients - some light metals (aluminum, iron/steel, some copper wiring, maybe titanium turbine blades), silvered glass mirrors, concrete, a little lampblack (carbon), fiberglass insulation, salt, water, and maybe some lead-free paint. I'd say that's pretty safely non-toxic.
It can't be used anywhere though - it can't concentrate diffuse light (such as from clouds) into heat, so these are mostly going to go into the desert areas that are almost always clear and sunny.
There's a saying: Of what you see on TV, believe 25%. 5% if the reporter is wearing a windbreaker.
The article was posted on the P.I.'s website at 1:55am, less than two hours after the problem occurred. That puts this fine piece of journalism in the esteemed company of football post-game loser interviews.
As a sysadmin, I hear accusations of "corrupted files" regularly. Very rarely is the problem actually a corrupted file. Shockingly rarely does anyone have any idea what file actually got corrupted. The most likely cause of this accusation (that I've seen) is DLL hell. It's common for someone to upgrade or downgrade a shared DLL when they install another application. This different version has a different set of bugs than the first version, and the original application wasn't ever tested with the different version. Strange problems crop up and reinstalling the original application miraculously fixes it. The DLL wasn't ever corrupt.
Let us know what they say when they've had a good night's sleep and have done a proper post-mortem.
Looking back on grade school, having a desk and no laptop, no Internet...
...man that sucked.
Err, then it's not a gas.
"99 percent of everything done in the world, good or bad, is done to pay a mortgage." -- Thank You For Smoking
They by and large want to succeed.
One word: havening.
Skin depth at 60Hz is 1cm. That means that in a 2cm-diameter conductor, only 1/e (37%) of the current flows through a point at the center vs. a point at the edge. This may only represent a 5-10% increase in resistance (you do the math - like I said, I'm too lazy), but that's still tens of megawatts of power lost.
Well, Sandia Labs has had their Solar Power Towers running as proof-of-concept for quite a while, and SEGS in Mojave has been around since the late 80s, but the rest of the big ones listed here are fairly recent (Nevada Solar One near Las Vegas and PS10 near Seville, Spain, just went online this year), and there are now several more plants under construction. It's really starting to take off.
One bad thing about solar concentrators is they require parallel light rays - direct (specular) sunlight. Clouds diffuse the light, making it impossible to concentrate. Photovoltaic plants deliver partial power on cloudy days - I don't think thermal solar delivers much at all. But many deserts rarely see clouds.
Generation does lose a lot from any heat engine (which is currently a required step for anything that generates electricity by making something hot: coal, oil, nuclear, geothermal, biomass, and natural gas). Wikipedia's combined cycle gas turbine article lists 59% efficiency as state of the art. The theoretical limit is not 100% efficiency - it is the Carnot Limit defined by the ratio of the high and low temperatures (natural gas burns at 1600K, the coldest you'll get the exhaust is 400K, so your absolute max is 75% efficiency).
Mechanical-electrical conversion (hydro, wind) is much more efficient. Electric generators are basically motors, and the large ones are commonly 95% efficient. The Francis turbines in use at hydro plants are upwards of 80% efficient at converting water pressure to rotor power. I don't know what the numbers are like for the wind turbines - probably much worse, since the goal isn't to make the turbine blades stop the air entirely.
Photovoltaic solar generation is the worst of them all. The most expensive cells that they put on space satellites are just over 40% efficient. The more cost-practical silicon-based cells are more like 12% efficient. As a result, a new development in large-scale solar is using a bunch of mirrors to focus the light into heat which can then spin a turbine (which may be 35-40% efficient).
Let's do the math. It'll be fun. Google says it's 4340 km from one arbitrarily-picked point in Arizona to another arbitrarily-picked point in New Hampshire. Wikipedia says the highest transmission voltage in use is about 1.2MV, and that the largest conductors used are about 750mm^2 of aluminum. (Let's also assume HVDC so I don't have to mess with skin effect calculations.) .0000000265 ohms/meter (aluminum's electrical resistance) divided by the result of .00075/4340000 (the cross-sectional area divided by the length) is 153 ohms, so 306 ohms for the round trip. If you tried to put 1666A through such a conductor (to move 2GW), you'd incur a voltage drop of 508kV. (1.2-.508)/1.2=58%.
Of course the line's buildout costs will be stratospheric, but 2GW would indeed power all of New Hampshire (11TWh used in 2003), all through wires about the size of your finger. (Figure 79% if you go a thumb wide with the wires, or scale things back to 1GW.)
And rail-based rocket sleds have reached mach 8.5.
The limiting factor for both is: how much do you want to spend buying, regrading, tunneling under, and/or bridging over land so that you can make the track straight enough?
Sorry, I could have phrased that better. What I meant to say is that, yes, companies' networks use separate VLANs for VoIP, but I've never seen such a network configured to effectively prevent a rogue device, such as a PC, from accessing that VLAN. Yes, my own observations are anecdotal - I'm sure a few people out there are doing things the right way.
More tin foil. Most phone system vendors will set a company's office phone system up on a separate VLAN, then allow access to that VLAN through any port on a wall that a phone was supposed to go to. They'll even tell you the VLAN ID (if you don't feel like sniffing it just yet) through DHCP. All you have to do is be able to configure your host to use 802.1q tagging for that VLAN. Most phones are also left with the default username/password (many accessible by web servers on the phone), and the provisioning data for any phone (including SIP usernames/passwords) is very often accessible through TFTP without any authentication. I've never seen an attempt to authenticate a device on a VoIP network before allowing it to connect (via protocols such as 802.1x).
People keep talking about separate VLANs for VoIP security but they never follow through. I believe its only real purpose is easy QoS, and these days many switches are more sophisticated and don't need separate VLANs to be able to distinguish VoIP traffic.
Even a brand-new certified general aviation aircraft is from the 60's. The engine technology is especially showing its age. Air cooling (exhaust-based cabin heat - hope it doesn't leak carbon monoxide), updraft carburetors, leaded fuel, magnetos, direct drive with its associated poor power density (Continental IO-540: 300hp with 540 in^3, my Civic does 127hp in 98 in^3), poor power to weight ratio, and poor efficiency (car engine designers have gradually been able to increase typical thermal efficiencies from 20-25% to 25-35% in the last 40 years). And if the engine price doesn't shock you, the cost of overhauling it every 2000 hours might.
Avionics are electronics for aviation (sensors and gauges analogous to your car's speedometer and tachometer), just a lot more of them, especially for flying into clouds) but somehow those electronics, unlike everything else electronic, have not come down to a reasonable price, despite the fact that a $40 Wiimote implements half the basic 6 instruments.
The only innovation in general aviation today is in the experimental (the official word for "non-certified") planes. The catch is that such a plane can't be directly purchased new - you, the builder/owner, must do the majority of the work in building it, meaning the manufacturer can only provide you an incomplete kit. Kit assembly will take hundreds or more likely thousands of hours of time and has probably been responsible for thousands of divorces. But it's the only way to get in the air on an upper-middle class income, and it's just about the only way to fly anything genuinely new.
VGA gets you 1V peak-to-peak at 75 ohms impedance (13 milliamps, probably per color). DVI gives you 5VDC @ 50mA through pins 14 and 15. The latter can drive a relay directly, the former would probably need a voltage multiplier circuit (which at those low voltages could probably be embedded on an IC, in fact you'd probably have to use schottky diodes) to charge a capacitor. Then you could use a voltage comparator op amp to dump the capacitor's energy into the relay quickly.
Yes they do, since that focus is never perfect. A cheapie laser pointer will show a 1/8" dot at 30 feet and a 1/4" smudge at 60 feet.
The big reasons it takes so long to charge batteries are heat and the surface area of the anode and cathode of each cell. It does not matter whether you, for example, pump 3A @ 4.2V into three li-ion cells in parallel or pump 1A @ 12.6V into three li-ion cells in series - each cell will see 4.2V @ 1A regardless (there will be slight differences because the cells are not identical, and will have different internal resistances at different charge states - charging/discharging cells in parallel actually exacerbates these differences, and that's one reason it's so rarely done.)
One of the really cool things about NiCd cells is that their charge cycle is endothermic - at standard charge rates, they actually cool down slightly as you charge them. At rapid charge rates, they heat up a lot less than NiMH or li-ion (assuming your charger shuts off when the battery is done).
The charge rates for cells are expressed as a multiple or fraction of C. Charging at C means your cell is charged in 1 hour. C/10 means 10 hours. 2C means 30 minutes. 60C means the one minute described in the article.
There's a little bit of a tradeoff between power density (how quickly you can get energy out of a cell) and energy density (how much energy you can get out of a cell). You want to make the surface area of the anode and cathode as large as possible for the former, and you want to make the mass of the anode and cathode as large as possible for the latter. This is also what differentiates lead-acid car batteries from lead-acid deep-cycle batteries. The lead plates in the car battery have lots and lots of holes to increase the surface area, and the plates in a deep-cycle battery are thick and solid to increase the mass.
I can't make the math work for simultaneous transmission. Perhaps we could work backwards from the receivers for a few data points and look at the signals that must have been sent from the transmitters?
Let's go back to receiving the same phase of the same sine wave at both the NE and SE receivers, with a 3dB gain, from N and S transmitters 1 wavelength apart. To keep the math easy I'll pick the data points so that one transmitter is received exactly one point behind the other - sqrt(2)/2*360=255 degrees apart (105, 0, 255, and 149 degrees). Assuming the maximum power at N and S ranges from -1 to 1, the received signal for points 0, 1, 2, and 3 at both NE and SE must be 1.928, 0, -1.928, and 1.027. That means that:
N[0]+S[1]=SE[1] (0) .928 and 1, N[2] must be between -1 and -.928)
N[2]+S[1]=NE[2] (-1.928)
N[2]=N[0]-1.928 (remember, maximum power is -1 to 1, therefore the swing from N[0] to N[2] must use nearly all of this range, N[0] must be between
N[2]+S[3]=1.027 (but there is no number between -1 and -.928 that can be added to another number between -1 and 1 such that the sum is 1.027)
But you repeatedly said that I could send signals simultaneously and independantly to multiple transmitters. If I cannot choose those signals to be identical or different on my whim, then they aren't really independant, are they? Since you are claiming a multiplication of total bitrate, you will need to make this simple test case work in order to prove your point to me.
(Also, I only care about the signal measured at each receiving location. Do whatever you want at the transmitter as long as you don't boost ERP/EIRP over a traditional config, which would presumably be tweaked to run just below the legal limits anyway. Sorry if that was unclear.)