This all simply argues that they're not plasma, not something superheated but which simply creates incidental light or diffracts in the air (such as actual light). Everything else falls under the principle of "sufficiently advanced tech = magic". Remember that the canon already well established force fields of various kinds (shields, tractor beams, hovering craft, etc), so the concept of the two objects not passing through each other without a solid physical core should not seem absurd if you accept the premise of those other things. And given that they have superluminal travel, they must have gravity control, so if you accept that as a premise, should it really seem absurd that they can invert the direction of the light beam (or whatever) at the ends of the blade? Not that that's the only possibility, of course; after all, why shouldn't said "force field" techs should be able to do the same? Or what if their tech is to encourage and control diffraction? I mean, there's no limit to the possibilities.
The key is that the canon leaves more than enough maneuvering room to explain the existence of such tech. The real question with Star Wars is why various tech elements never seem to be carried to their logical conclusions.
Spain continues to import electricity from France but only as a staging post en route to Morocco, Portugal and Andorra. "France has not increased its capacity and so its ability to export has decreased," Atienza said. "This has fallen further due to industrial strife." During recent strikes dozens of French power stations were forced to close and Spanish production had to be imported to meet the shortfall.
The problem of fission by-products could theoretically be addressed by fast reactors, however no such reactor has been proven feasible commercially yet
One could make an argument that even slow reactors have had a hard time proving their commercial viability. Even with their capped liabilities, almost all of the support for nuclear power in this country has come from K-Street, not Wall Street. Which should really say something.
However again these do not exist currently on utility scale and we may go into unforeseen problems when trying to build them; so we'll have here also to pour billions and billions of dollars/euros in research, tests, prototypes, etc, in the hope that we'll end up with a satisfactory, commercially viable LFTR.
Which raises the obvious question, since it's equally immature (which it absolutely is), why not just pour it into EGS/SWEGS instead? Everywhere has hot dry rock under them if you dig deep enough. And with SWEGS, you don't have to frack or worry about what the strata is like (beyond your drilling needs); it's basically a universal modular approach.
The Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University is a "John Doe from Podunk"? Were his colleages in that debate also the same? Is Hawking the sum of theoretical physics?
If we consider your average Slashdot poster as what a "Geek" is, I think it's fair to say that most would consider themselves intellectual -- just not focused on historic literature and philosophy. And I think the author was spot-on in their observations -- "geeks" are so interested in intellectual pursuits that they overstate their abilities in a given field to themselves (believng anything can be readily learned, even complex fields of study) and wanting to be on the side of those who tear-down paradigms. So whenever they hear anyone with credentials decry a majority position, they tend to side with said person, no matter how outspoken said person is in their field -- and said geeks generally are educated enough to understand said minority person's positions in detail but are not versed with the bountiful amount of contrary literature that shows why their stance is implausible.
Oh, and FYI: Global warming is a myth, hydrogen doesn't burn, Polywell or Focus Fusion is the future of fusion, the Big Bang didn't occur, and John Doe from Podunk, Illinois has just discovered something in his garage which overturns Dominant Paradigm X.
Thin film panels are a couple milligrams (if that) of solar material on top of a thin sheet of glass, plastic, or aluminum. There's not much energy at all put into making them. The challenges they face are not energy, but throughput.
That was supposed to read.1 square meters, not 1 square meter. The calculations done were assuming.1m^2..22m^2 would not give you "6-8W in ideal conditions"; it'd give you 90 watts with a high-efficiency panel, or 45 watts with a cheaper one.
That video you linked routinely shows anywhere from 25% to 50% of the US under clouds at the same time - that's a pretty big drop in supply.
The key is that it's never all under clouds -- or even mostly under clouds. A particular area may have an unusually cloudy period, but the whole US does not. Factor in Canada and Mexico, and the ratio becomes even more stable. As for the "pretty big drop in supply" remark, I must remind you again that this is known as "capacity factor", and is already factored into the cost equations and predicted output equations. Of *all* power plants, not just solar. Coal and natural gas power plants generally have capacity factors of 70-90%. Nuclear is generally around 90% -- not because it's any easier to keep running, but because it's more important to keep running due to the economics of them having a high capital cost and low marginal cost. Hydro plants average 45% in the US, although vary widely; it depends on how seasonal their rivers are and how big the reservoir is. Wind is usually 20-40%. Solar with no thermal storage is ~10% in a cloudy location, 25-30% in a sunny location.
Huh. Go look at the statistic for April and May of this year that we just got off of. Maybe 5 days isn't exactly the right number, maybe it's 10.
Which would otherwise be known as you being incorrect on your statement. You overstated the variation.
Are you suggesting that some areas of the country will purchase capacity and be producing on the order of 100% more energy capacity than they would be expecting to use (e.g. if most of the East Coast is seriously underpowered because virtually everything from Mississippi to Main is under a giant storm system for most of a day)?
Power is already traded over long distances, and yes, some areas are producers and others consumers. Hydro Quebec is a huge exporter of power from eastern Canada to the northeastern US. I live in a state that is increasingly exporting wind power out of state.
You seem to be saying that shipping very large amounts of power across very large distances will not be a problem?
Not "will not be". "Is not". As in, present tense. Hydro Quebec makes a living on long distance power transmission of huge amounts of power. There are other places in the world like this. Eastern Europe trades extensively with Norway and its neighbors through undersea HVDC lines, for example.
I know that advances are being made in superconductors and HVDC lines to reduce losses when transmitting power long distances, but again, if you have several days in a row where a large portion of the country are only producing 10% or 30% of the power they need, that seems like setting the stage for problems.
It is not, so long as your system is engineered for that. All that matters is what your system is engineered for. And, BTW, once again, you're totally ignoring my other asterisks.
Natural gas has has limited supply and is pretty expensive (we're in a period where, from what I've seen, NatGas prices have come down a fair amount, because of an explosion of Shale Gas drilling. That may last us a few decades (The Gas Industry Marketers like to proclaim we have 100 years of gas to produce; if you look into the numbers, that's actually about 80 years at current levels of consumption - but we are starting to increase Gas exports to places like China, we are talking about building new Gas power plants, using Gas to supplement Wind and Solar, and even use Gas for transportation - if we try to do all those things, that 80 year supply of gas could become 40 years).
I could pretty much write a book in regards to what you wrote there, but let's just hit some key points:
1) Peaking power fetches a premium on the open market, justifying natural gas costs. The actual cost per kWh to produce electri
You're talking about a single plant that stores 1.4GWh, and it only takes up 1 km^2 each for its reservoirs. That's some really impressive energy density. Remember, Dinorwig is a plant designed to be able to jump-start the whole national grid;) 2km^2 for that level of energy storage isn't bad at all.
Depends on what type of battery you use. All batteries are not created equal. If you use the sort of battery on a ThinkBook X1, it should have excellent thermal tolerance. The "fast charge" chemistries generally don't mind heat much.
What makes you think that it would *only* be solar powered? Is a charging port really that difficult?
Some back-of-the-book calculations suggest that it's not out of the ballpark. A large laptop keyboard like on my 17"-er may give you 1m^2 of surface area. You can get over 40% efficient solar cells (although they're expensive), and thus get 40W in ideal conditions, or more down-to-earth-priced solar cells and get 20W. Subtract for key interference, hands over the keyboard, suboptimal angles, blah blah blah and you're looking at ~20W and ~10W, respectively.
Most of the energy used by a large laptop is to power the screen; in the sun, all the moreso. The Apple approach allows you to get your light for the screen at 100% efficiency using the very sun that makes you need a bright screen to begin with, via reflection when available (using a backlight when not). So you can take all but the CCD out of the picture on that one. The other alternative is e-Ink, although that has its own downsides. Without most of the screen's power consumption, a power-optimized laptop could easy run on under 10W average.
So yeah, I think it's quite plausiible. Easy? No. Will there be show-stopper engineering difficulties? There certainly could be. But some quick calculations suggest it's plausible.
Two other notes: one, the geothermal plant isn't creating the CO2, only providing an alternate route up to the surface. Such areas generally have high rates of natural CO2 seepage on their own. The depth of the reservoir and the strata above it affect how long it will be before the depletion of the subsurface CO2 will have the effect of reducing surface CO2 flows (anywhere from days to millions of years), but in the long run, any CO2 emitted by the plant is CO2 not emitted by other means. And two, some new geothermal plants are looking at using supercritical CO2 as the working fluid -- wherein the plants are actually *sequestering* CO2 in carbonates, as some of the injected CO2 will be lost.
The amount varies widely depending on the location and the tech -- one study I saw in Iceland put the average emissions there at 122g/kWh. but with a range of 4-740kWh. The further you move toward EGS and away from conventional geo, and thus move away from the volcanic hot spot areas and into deeper strata, and using your own injected water instead of existing hot water, in general, the less CO2 is released. Also, closed-loop EGS appears to be the next big thing, which has basically no emissions.
Let me start you off with this. Tell me when you see the whole US clouded over.
A particular Ohio city is not an island (btw, there has never been a time in recorded history when a city in Ohio has had only five days of sun in 2 months). Ohio is connected on a grid to the rest of the country. The regional grids are increasingly being connected over longer and longer distances by high power runs. It doesn't matter if your particular area is cloudy, because somewhere else isn't.
A single wind or solar plant has a lot of randomness. A large number of them, spread out over a large region, have very little randomness. Also, FYI, but the time a power plant is down for is already built into its cost equation. That's known as the "capacity factor", and is a key element in economics planning for power plants.
Secondly, the grid *already* has to handle fluctuations. Not only fluctuations in supply -- yes, conventional power plants go down too, both for maintenance and for unexpected failures -- but even moreso due to demand. Demand fluctuates wildly, and a demand fluctuation is no different than a supply fluctuation. We deal with this by having "peakers" available. These are power plants that can rapidly scale their production up or down depending on the needs of the grid. One of the great things about solar thermal is that it basically comes with a built-in "peaker"; all you need is a natural gas burner, and you've got your backup at almost no extra charge. The turbines are already there, the transmission, etc.
Beyond all of that, please read the bullet points at the bottom of my last note.
You need 200 m^3 of water per second to generate 1 GW
That's a nonsensical statement. The amount of power produced relates to both volume *and* head.
Day/night buffers (like those used in China, like those to pair with solar) are several orders of magnitude smaller than those used on the large-head large-scale conventional hydro projects. Which is why conventional hydro projects take months or even years to fill.
You don't need *any* natural body of water with pumped hydro (although it's cheaper if there is one). You simply need an altitude differential.
That's only true for warm climates.
It's true in about 90% of the First World. And actually you've got it backwards; in most places, it's *warm* areas that use electric heat (since it's not used as often, and is more expensive/less efficient than gas heat)
You've never worked with a patent attorney before, have you? One of the main goals is severability; you try to get both overly broad and highly specific claims in there at several levels so that if certain parts are deemed indefensible, other parts still remain.
This is pretty straightforward. Google went to patent attorney saying, "Here's what we're doing, in detail; we want it patented." Patent attorney did what patent attorneys do and made it into the above.
Solar is usually about an order of magnitude more land-dense than hydroelectric (when you include the area taken up by the reservoir), and about on par with coal (when you include the land taken up by the coal mines required to fuel the plant and the few decades it takes life to regrow on them after an exhausted mine is abandoned)
Daily intermittence is readily countered by a wide range of factors.
* Thermal storage
* Pumped hydro energy storage (works with any type of power; already widespread in China for day/night demand averaging) (does not require a river or a large impounded area!)
* Integrated peaking (you already have a thermal power plant; adding a supplemental source of heat for when demand exceeds supply costs you almost nothing)
* The natural correlation between solar intensity and power consumption (night is off-peak, sunny days have more AC load, etc - -it's not perfect, but it's a nice start)
* Generation-source diversity (wind, solar, tide, wave, etc do not all line up with each other in terms of what generates when)
* Long-distance HVDC power transmission lets you take advantage of the fact that the sun doesn't set in all places at the same time.
* Smart grids and demand-flexible industry allow to shift when power is drawn to when it's abundant.
Google's also been really involved in enhanced geothermal, one of my favorite techs. For those not familiar, here's a good rundown of its promise and pitfalls. Namely, it's baseload, works basically anywhere on the planet (all that changes is the required depth of the borehole), is renewable with virtually no environmental impact, and can provide thousands of times more power than we currently consume. At the same time, it's not widespread currently for one main reason -- not that it doesn't work, but that it doesn't work *reliably*. When you fracture the rock to pump in water to heat, the fractures go wherever the heck *they* want, and in many cases your water just seeps away (also, the fraccing can cause minor -- up to just over mag. 5 in theory in most places, lower in practice -- earthquakes). Here's one of the latest ways around those pitfalls, using a closed-loop system with an underground heat exchanger instead of fraccing a new reservoir. That also has the advantage (or potential disadvantage, depending on how you look at it) of not bringing minerals back up with the water.
Shut up friends. My internet browser heard us saying the word Fry and it found a movie about Philip J. Fry for us. It also opened my calendar to Friday and ordered me some french fries.
No, that's the higher the *bandwidth*, regardless of whether said bandwidth is associated with higher resolution or not. You think increasing the resolution without increasing the bandwidth will help you any?
Slashdot Mirror
Reductio ad absurdum: Anarchy yields the greatest wealth.
This all simply argues that they're not plasma, not something superheated but which simply creates incidental light or diffracts in the air (such as actual light). Everything else falls under the principle of "sufficiently advanced tech = magic". Remember that the canon already well established force fields of various kinds (shields, tractor beams, hovering craft, etc), so the concept of the two objects not passing through each other without a solid physical core should not seem absurd if you accept the premise of those other things. And given that they have superluminal travel, they must have gravity control, so if you accept that as a premise, should it really seem absurd that they can invert the direction of the light beam (or whatever) at the ends of the blade? Not that that's the only possibility, of course; after all, why shouldn't said "force field" techs should be able to do the same? Or what if their tech is to encourage and control diffraction? I mean, there's no limit to the possibilities.
The key is that the canon leaves more than enough maneuvering room to explain the existence of such tech. The real question with Star Wars is why various tech elements never seem to be carried to their logical conclusions.
The energy cost payback for your average solar panel is 1-3 years. Some of the new thin film ones are measured in months.
To clarify the caveat:
Hardly a glowing review for French electricity. :P
The problem of fission by-products could theoretically be addressed by fast reactors, however no such reactor has been proven feasible commercially yet
One could make an argument that even slow reactors have had a hard time proving their commercial viability. Even with their capped liabilities, almost all of the support for nuclear power in this country has come from K-Street, not Wall Street. Which should really say something.
However again these do not exist currently on utility scale and we may go into unforeseen problems when trying to build them; so we'll have here also to pour billions and billions of dollars/euros in research, tests, prototypes, etc, in the hope that we'll end up with a satisfactory, commercially viable LFTR.
Which raises the obvious question, since it's equally immature (which it absolutely is), why not just pour it into EGS/SWEGS instead? Everywhere has hot dry rock under them if you dig deep enough. And with SWEGS, you don't have to frack or worry about what the strata is like (beyond your drilling needs); it's basically a universal modular approach.
The Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University is a "John Doe from Podunk"? Were his colleages in that debate also the same? Is Hawking the sum of theoretical physics?
If we consider your average Slashdot poster as what a "Geek" is, I think it's fair to say that most would consider themselves intellectual -- just not focused on historic literature and philosophy. And I think the author was spot-on in their observations -- "geeks" are so interested in intellectual pursuits that they overstate their abilities in a given field to themselves (believng anything can be readily learned, even complex fields of study) and wanting to be on the side of those who tear-down paradigms. So whenever they hear anyone with credentials decry a majority position, they tend to side with said person, no matter how outspoken said person is in their field -- and said geeks generally are educated enough to understand said minority person's positions in detail but are not versed with the bountiful amount of contrary literature that shows why their stance is implausible.
Oh, and FYI: Global warming is a myth, hydrogen doesn't burn, Polywell or Focus Fusion is the future of fusion, the Big Bang didn't occur, and John Doe from Podunk, Illinois has just discovered something in his garage which overturns Dominant Paradigm X.
Bulk structural aluminum? A ton.
Aluminum foil? Basically none.
I thought it was more a reference to this quote.
Thin film panels are a couple milligrams (if that) of solar material on top of a thin sheet of glass, plastic, or aluminum. There's not much energy at all put into making them. The challenges they face are not energy, but throughput.
That was supposed to read .1 square meters, not 1 square meter. The calculations done were assuming .1m^2. .22m^2 would not give you "6-8W in ideal conditions"; it'd give you 90 watts with a high-efficiency panel, or 45 watts with a cheaper one.
The key is that it's never all under clouds -- or even mostly under clouds. A particular area may have an unusually cloudy period, but the whole US does not. Factor in Canada and Mexico, and the ratio becomes even more stable. As for the "pretty big drop in supply" remark, I must remind you again that this is known as "capacity factor", and is already factored into the cost equations and predicted output equations. Of *all* power plants, not just solar. Coal and natural gas power plants generally have capacity factors of 70-90%. Nuclear is generally around 90% -- not because it's any easier to keep running, but because it's more important to keep running due to the economics of them having a high capital cost and low marginal cost. Hydro plants average 45% in the US, although vary widely; it depends on how seasonal their rivers are and how big the reservoir is. Wind is usually 20-40%. Solar with no thermal storage is ~10% in a cloudy location, 25-30% in a sunny location.
Which would otherwise be known as you being incorrect on your statement. You overstated the variation.
Power is already traded over long distances, and yes, some areas are producers and others consumers. Hydro Quebec is a huge exporter of power from eastern Canada to the northeastern US. I live in a state that is increasingly exporting wind power out of state.
Not "will not be". "Is not". As in, present tense. Hydro Quebec makes a living on long distance power transmission of huge amounts of power. There are other places in the world like this. Eastern Europe trades extensively with Norway and its neighbors through undersea HVDC lines, for example.
It is not, so long as your system is engineered for that. All that matters is what your system is engineered for. And, BTW, once again, you're totally ignoring my other asterisks.
I could pretty much write a book in regards to what you wrote there, but let's just hit some key points:
1) Peaking power fetches a premium on the open market, justifying natural gas costs. The actual cost per kWh to produce electri
You're talking about a single plant that stores 1.4GWh, and it only takes up 1 km^2 each for its reservoirs. That's some really impressive energy density. Remember, Dinorwig is a plant designed to be able to jump-start the whole national grid ;) 2km^2 for that level of energy storage isn't bad at all.
And look at how out of date that document you linked is. It's notably less now. Some of the thin-film manufacturers are now talking 3-6 months.
Depends on what type of battery you use. All batteries are not created equal. If you use the sort of battery on a ThinkBook X1, it should have excellent thermal tolerance. The "fast charge" chemistries generally don't mind heat much.
What makes you think that it would *only* be solar powered? Is a charging port really that difficult?
Some back-of-the-book calculations suggest that it's not out of the ballpark. A large laptop keyboard like on my 17"-er may give you 1m^2 of surface area. You can get over 40% efficient solar cells (although they're expensive), and thus get 40W in ideal conditions, or more down-to-earth-priced solar cells and get 20W. Subtract for key interference, hands over the keyboard, suboptimal angles, blah blah blah and you're looking at ~20W and ~10W, respectively.
Most of the energy used by a large laptop is to power the screen; in the sun, all the moreso. The Apple approach allows you to get your light for the screen at 100% efficiency using the very sun that makes you need a bright screen to begin with, via reflection when available (using a backlight when not). So you can take all but the CCD out of the picture on that one. The other alternative is e-Ink, although that has its own downsides. Without most of the screen's power consumption, a power-optimized laptop could easy run on under 10W average.
So yeah, I think it's quite plausiible. Easy? No. Will there be show-stopper engineering difficulties? There certainly could be. But some quick calculations suggest it's plausible.
Two other notes: one, the geothermal plant isn't creating the CO2, only providing an alternate route up to the surface. Such areas generally have high rates of natural CO2 seepage on their own. The depth of the reservoir and the strata above it affect how long it will be before the depletion of the subsurface CO2 will have the effect of reducing surface CO2 flows (anywhere from days to millions of years), but in the long run, any CO2 emitted by the plant is CO2 not emitted by other means. And two, some new geothermal plants are looking at using supercritical CO2 as the working fluid -- wherein the plants are actually *sequestering* CO2 in carbonates, as some of the injected CO2 will be lost.
The amount varies widely depending on the location and the tech -- one study I saw in Iceland put the average emissions there at 122g/kWh. but with a range of 4-740kWh. The further you move toward EGS and away from conventional geo, and thus move away from the volcanic hot spot areas and into deeper strata, and using your own injected water instead of existing hot water, in general, the less CO2 is released. Also, closed-loop EGS appears to be the next big thing, which has basically no emissions.
Let me start you off with this. Tell me when you see the whole US clouded over.
A particular Ohio city is not an island (btw, there has never been a time in recorded history when a city in Ohio has had only five days of sun in 2 months). Ohio is connected on a grid to the rest of the country. The regional grids are increasingly being connected over longer and longer distances by high power runs. It doesn't matter if your particular area is cloudy, because somewhere else isn't.
A single wind or solar plant has a lot of randomness. A large number of them, spread out over a large region, have very little randomness. Also, FYI, but the time a power plant is down for is already built into its cost equation. That's known as the "capacity factor", and is a key element in economics planning for power plants.
Secondly, the grid *already* has to handle fluctuations. Not only fluctuations in supply -- yes, conventional power plants go down too, both for maintenance and for unexpected failures -- but even moreso due to demand. Demand fluctuates wildly, and a demand fluctuation is no different than a supply fluctuation. We deal with this by having "peakers" available. These are power plants that can rapidly scale their production up or down depending on the needs of the grid. One of the great things about solar thermal is that it basically comes with a built-in "peaker"; all you need is a natural gas burner, and you've got your backup at almost no extra charge. The turbines are already there, the transmission, etc.
Beyond all of that, please read the bullet points at the bottom of my last note.
That's a nonsensical statement. The amount of power produced relates to both volume *and* head.
Day/night buffers (like those used in China, like those to pair with solar) are several orders of magnitude smaller than those used on the large-head large-scale conventional hydro projects. Which is why conventional hydro projects take months or even years to fill.
You don't need *any* natural body of water with pumped hydro (although it's cheaper if there is one). You simply need an altitude differential.
It's true in about 90% of the First World. And actually you've got it backwards; in most places, it's *warm* areas that use electric heat (since it's not used as often, and is more expensive/less efficient than gas heat)
You've never worked with a patent attorney before, have you? One of the main goals is severability; you try to get both overly broad and highly specific claims in there at several levels so that if certain parts are deemed indefensible, other parts still remain.
This is pretty straightforward. Google went to patent attorney saying, "Here's what we're doing, in detail; we want it patented." Patent attorney did what patent attorneys do and made it into the above.
Solar is usually about an order of magnitude more land-dense than hydroelectric (when you include the area taken up by the reservoir), and about on par with coal (when you include the land taken up by the coal mines required to fuel the plant and the few decades it takes life to regrow on them after an exhausted mine is abandoned)
Daily intermittence is readily countered by a wide range of factors.
* Thermal storage
* Pumped hydro energy storage (works with any type of power; already widespread in China for day/night demand averaging) (does not require a river or a large impounded area!)
* Integrated peaking (you already have a thermal power plant; adding a supplemental source of heat for when demand exceeds supply costs you almost nothing)
* The natural correlation between solar intensity and power consumption (night is off-peak, sunny days have more AC load, etc - -it's not perfect, but it's a nice start)
* Generation-source diversity (wind, solar, tide, wave, etc do not all line up with each other in terms of what generates when)
* Long-distance HVDC power transmission lets you take advantage of the fact that the sun doesn't set in all places at the same time.
* Smart grids and demand-flexible industry allow to shift when power is drawn to when it's abundant.
Google's also been really involved in enhanced geothermal, one of my favorite techs. For those not familiar, here's a good rundown of its promise and pitfalls. Namely, it's baseload, works basically anywhere on the planet (all that changes is the required depth of the borehole), is renewable with virtually no environmental impact, and can provide thousands of times more power than we currently consume. At the same time, it's not widespread currently for one main reason -- not that it doesn't work, but that it doesn't work *reliably*. When you fracture the rock to pump in water to heat, the fractures go wherever the heck *they* want, and in many cases your water just seeps away (also, the fraccing can cause minor -- up to just over mag. 5 in theory in most places, lower in practice -- earthquakes). Here's one of the latest ways around those pitfalls, using a closed-loop system with an underground heat exchanger instead of fraccing a new reservoir. That also has the advantage (or potential disadvantage, depending on how you look at it) of not bringing minerals back up with the water.
Shut up friends. My internet browser heard us saying the word Fry and it found a movie about Philip J. Fry for us. It also opened my calendar to Friday and ordered me some french fries.
No, that's the higher the *bandwidth*, regardless of whether said bandwidth is associated with higher resolution or not. You think increasing the resolution without increasing the bandwidth will help you any?