I think the point of the 'new' concentrators is that you don't have to steer the array. Sunlight incident from any angle will be steered to the cells full-strength. I imagine a dome of concentrator material will a ring of cells around the base. Wherever the sun is shining it's hitting the concentrator head-on and passing it to the edges via total internal reflection, I guess.
Anyway, thanks for the reply, and keep experimenting!
Agreed. I didn't mention all of the immune system receptors and other biological processes that act similarly. I'd hate to have instant diabetes because some nano-crap jammed up my insulin receptors or develop some other similar, horrible hormone issue. Being a portly gentleman who enjoys the gluttonous arts, I fear unending hunger most of all. Fire my Ghrelin receptors all the time, and I'd be in hell.
Absolutely. You might pronounce things like they're written! (It would be interesting if everyone went around for a day doing that. Right = Rig hit, etc).
I think I understand where they're coming from. They're quoting the efficiency gain of fixed size solar cells without the concentrator vs with a concentrator.
For example, 4 10mmx1m solar cell generate, say, 100W when directly illuminated by the sun. (40,000 mm^2 makes 2.5mW/mm^2). When placed on the edge of a stack of 1mx1m collector plates 10mm thick, they can generate 2500W (2.5mW/mm^2 * 1e6 mm^2). There's a factor of 25.
As has been stated below, The Constitution says, "The right of the people" not "The right of the United States Citizens".
From the Preamble to the Constitution:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
All men are created equal, and governments are created to secure these rights. Pretty simple - the US Constitution asserts that all (just) governments must secure the rights of all mankind, not just it's citizens. The power to do so is granted them by and with the consent of the governed. I would submit that some of the other "unalienable Rights" alongside "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are those enumerated in the Constitution.
My fear would be that nanoparticles of the exact wrong shape lodge themselves into an important neurotransmitter receptor and cause havoc in the brain or even possibly death by blocking the activity of the neurotransmitter or continuously firing the receptor. Same goes for liver receptors, etc.
I wouldn't want any of my receptors, anywhere, getting jammed up up with inert junk.
That 'reporter' always reminds me of Jim Carrey, so I expected him to say, "Whoa, dude! Like, wouldn't your heart explode or something at 10,000 mph?"
He reminds me of Carrey so much that I expect his face to stretch like in 'The Mask', or 'Bruce Almighty' hijinks to break out on the set at any moment.
Another data point: When I was in Scotland in 2005, petrol was 99p/litre.It looks like prices rose an average of 3.2p/litre/year from 1996 to 2005, and 7p/litre/year from 2005 to 2008. It would be interesting to see the actual curve if we had more data points.
Not true. I am a citizen of one of those countries, and as such may not be prevented from "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." They can't forbid me entry into my own country until I 'give up' an intrinsic right (one that cannot be 'given away' so to speak.)
As for a legal 'no man's land' - who says they have any jurisdiction? I have as much authority to search them as they have to search me if it's a no man's land. They cannot have it both ways - either its US soil and its laws apply, or its international territory and international law applies (or no law applies). I bet if someone committed a crime in that no man's land they'd end up in a US prison.
I don't care what the SCOTUS says. No law can override the plain language interpretation of the Constitution, IMHO. If it ain't an amendment, it ain't legal - simple as that.
Out of curiosity, how many miles per year does the average European drive? I can't seem to find readily-available stats online. The US average is 12,000 miles (19,312 km) per year. I'm closer to 9,000 miles (14,484 km) per year. My Mini can get 35+ miles/gallon, but the way I drive the poor thing I'm lucky to get 27. I use about 333 gallons/year, so that's $1333/year in fuel costs @ $4/gal.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Question: Did she submit the prints to the police, or did she get the only copy in case you were kidnapped? Around here, the prints _only_ go the the parents to hang onto in case the unthinkable happens.
"As you are pushing the magazine in you are actually putting a thumb print on the bullet," said Bond. "That's the person you want. That's the guy who loaded the gun."
Wow! Just loading a firearm is prima facie evidence of murder!
So if someone steals my loaded pistol, or even a pistol and ammo I've handled, I'm guilty of murder. Nice.
Excellent research, AC. I appreciate the link. I was 11 in 1976, so I was naive enough to believe the BS his campaign was spouting. I never revisited what I considered 'fact' from back then. I guess that proves the old adage about Ass_U_Me-ing.
As I mentioned in a subsequent reply to my own post, I misread the beliefs of the last 3 'D's, so in fact it was 3-3 for/against of the major players mentioned in the article.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of the human brainpower on the planet is wasted.
So let's gather all that wasted brainpower into a grid, or, ....Matrix..., and use it!
I think the point of the 'new' concentrators is that you don't have to steer the array. Sunlight incident from any angle will be steered to the cells full-strength. I imagine a dome of concentrator material will a ring of cells around the base. Wherever the sun is shining it's hitting the concentrator head-on and passing it to the edges via total internal reflection, I guess.
Anyway, thanks for the reply, and keep experimenting!
Agreed. I didn't mention all of the immune system receptors and other biological processes that act similarly. I'd hate to have instant diabetes because some nano-crap jammed up my insulin receptors or develop some other similar, horrible hormone issue. Being a portly gentleman who enjoys the gluttonous arts, I fear unending hunger most of all. Fire my Ghrelin receptors all the time, and I'd be in hell.
Absolutely. You might pronounce things like they're written! (It would be interesting if everyone went around for a day doing that. Right = Rig hit, etc).
...and PROTECT AND DEFEND our rights?
There, fixed that for you.
I think I understand where they're coming from. They're quoting the efficiency gain of fixed size solar cells without the concentrator vs with a concentrator.
For example, 4 10mmx1m solar cell generate, say, 100W when directly illuminated by the sun. (40,000 mm^2 makes 2.5mW/mm^2). When placed on the edge of a stack of 1mx1m collector plates 10mm thick, they can generate 2500W (2.5mW/mm^2 * 1e6 mm^2). There's a factor of 25.
From the Preamble to the Constitution:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
All men are created equal, and governments are created to secure these rights. Pretty simple - the US Constitution asserts that all (just) governments must secure the rights of all mankind, not just it's citizens. The power to do so is granted them by and with the consent of the governed. I would submit that some of the other "unalienable Rights" alongside "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are those enumerated in the Constitution.
I wouldn't want any of my receptors, anywhere, getting jammed up up with inert junk.
Meals Refusing to Exit, I'm told.
... THIS is tiny!
Thanks, and that's a 'grate' suggestion.
He reminds me of Carrey so much that I expect his face to stretch like in 'The Mask', or 'Bruce Almighty' hijinks to break out on the set at any moment.
lol! I needed a good laugh; thanks!
Another data point: When I was in Scotland in 2005, petrol was 99p/litre.It looks like prices rose an average of 3.2p/litre/year from 1996 to 2005, and 7p/litre/year from 2005 to 2008. It would be interesting to see the actual curve if we had more data points.
As for a legal 'no man's land' - who says they have any jurisdiction? I have as much authority to search them as they have to search me if it's a no man's land. They cannot have it both ways - either its US soil and its laws apply, or its international territory and international law applies (or no law applies). I bet if someone committed a crime in that no man's land they'd end up in a US prison.
I don't care what the SCOTUS says. No law can override the plain language interpretation of the Constitution, IMHO. If it ain't an amendment, it ain't legal - simple as that.
Out of curiosity, how many miles per year does the average European drive? I can't seem to find readily-available stats online. The US average is 12,000 miles (19,312 km) per year. I'm closer to 9,000 miles (14,484 km) per year. My Mini can get 35+ miles/gallon, but the way I drive the poor thing I'm lucky to get 27. I use about 333 gallons/year, so that's $1333/year in fuel costs @ $4/gal.
That's simply silly for them to claim that. If I'm not in the US yet, then they have no jurisdiction. They can't have it both ways.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Will Rogers be dead.
Question: Did she submit the prints to the police, or did she get the only copy in case you were kidnapped? Around here, the prints _only_ go the the parents to hang onto in case the unthinkable happens.
Wow! Just loading a firearm is prima facie evidence of murder!
So if someone steals my loaded pistol, or even a pistol and ammo I've handled, I'm guilty of murder. Nice.
The hi-res version looks like Gumby making a basketball hoop with his arms.
Excellent research, AC. I appreciate the link. I was 11 in 1976, so I was naive enough to believe the BS his campaign was spouting. I never revisited what I considered 'fact' from back then. I guess that proves the old adage about Ass_U_Me-ing.
As I mentioned in a subsequent reply to my own post, I misread the beliefs of the last 3 'D's, so in fact it was 3-3 for/against of the major players mentioned in the article.