The article noted that current-best solar cells are about 25% efficient, vs. 30% max. theoretical. How many percent more efficient are you figuring on the new solar cells being if space-made (vs. Earth-made)?
RTFA. 30% is max efficiency for single-layer cells. Multi-layered cells can get up to 75%.
Now spread the extra costs of space-made solar cells out over the number of cells that you think will actually pass QC & reentry. Where do you see the high-volume market willing to pay the $HUGE$ price premium for a few percent better efficiency?
I thought the original poster was talking about manufacturing panels in space, for use in space.
As gbell notes further down, efficiency doesn't mean too much, especially competing against fossil fuels. Cost per watt (call it financial efficiency) is what really matters.
True, but unless the cost of manufacture scales up faster than the efficiency, this is a win by both criteria.
This is also why superconductors which could work at nitrogen's liquification temperature or above are such a potentially great thing. Otherwise, you're dealing with much more expensive cooling.
Come again? What does the ubiquity of nitrogen have to do with issues about temperatures for semiconductors? Liquid hydrogen isn't expensive because hydrogen is hard to come by, you know. It's the refrigeration technique, not the medium, that costs so much.
Glad you all enjoyed it, anyway. Special thanks to the person with the sound effect. Hee hee, that one had me near-maniacal in a public computer lab.:)
Wow, that sounds cool. How would it work, though? I'm not familiar with chambered conduits -- how do you get an air seal to create suction if you've already got stuff in the conduit? Or would you pull out the bad fiber first? Guess I just need to know what chambered conduit is, exactly.
Re:Obligatory submarine joke...
on
Book on NR-1
·
· Score: 2
Yeah. I actually went back and forth for a while trying to come up with a plausible-yet-recognizable misspelling of "touché."
You think you were surprised -- I'm envisioning the world's most alarmed spider as you pull thread out of its ass as fast as it can produce it. Now there's an image for ya.
My understanding is that the cost of the medium (fiber itself) is quite low. The expense comes in when you need to terminate it, boost the signal, etc. Not to mention the trouble of digging trenches and laying fiber, of course.
When they do lay fiber, I believe (that is, I read in a Slashdot comment which seemed plausible for once) that they lay like 2 dozen cables when they only need one, just so they don't have to go digging again. So if a cable goes bad, they'd just switch to a good one at the endpoints, I suppose.
The stock value can rise due to science fiction, and stay elevated for as long as the typical stockbroker is convinced that the promised breakthrough is real. Or did you think stock value had some connection to company earning potential? It's all about perception.
And I don't think that's the case, because we're dealing with scientists rather than craftsmen. Not to say that scientists are somehow better or immune to their own prejudices and conceits, but rather they have different goals. A modern craftsman making a violin is going to work towards an abstract idea of a "good violin," one that sounds good to him and suchlike. This is a subjective process. On the other hand, a scientist attempting to recreate these old instruments has concrete, quantitatively defineable goals that are not so subjective. If we discover what makes these instruments different, the "how" will depend on developing a process which can re-create those qualities. Sometimes good engineering can provide an acceptable substitute for artistry. At the logical extreme, we could have replicators that would produce exquisite instruments without any of the painstaking work put in by old-time crafstmen. There's more than one way to skin a cat, that's all.
Sorry, but no. How much time and love was put into an instrument is not (directly) relevant -- all that matters is its physical makeup. The best instruments today are still painstakingly handmade -- just because there exist mass-produced versions doesn't mean nobody takes the time to produce quality anymore. This is a scientific question about determining in physical terms why one instrument sounds better.
Troll. The question is why old instruments (such as the famous Stradivarius violins) sound so good compared to modern instruments, when played by the same musician. And do you honestly believe that there aren't talented classical musicians out there today? Puh-leez.
Let me clarify. If an artist makes a bad deal and fails to reap the rewards he could have otherwise achieved, that's too bad but tough luck. But that's not what happened here. To offer an artist a share of "profits" while knowing all the while that due to shady accounting those profits will be zero is deceitful and wrong. It is negotiation in bad faith, and it should be considered fraud. Free market or no, fraud should be illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
RTFA. 30% is max efficiency for single-layer cells. Multi-layered cells can get up to 75%.
Now spread the extra costs of space-made solar cells out over the number of cells that you think will actually pass QC & reentry. Where do you see the high-volume market willing to pay the $HUGE$ price premium for a few percent better efficiency?
I thought the original poster was talking about manufacturing panels in space, for use in space.
As gbell notes further down, efficiency doesn't mean too much, especially competing against fossil fuels. Cost per watt (call it financial efficiency) is what really matters.
True, but unless the cost of manufacture scales up faster than the efficiency, this is a win by both criteria.
Come again? What does the ubiquity of nitrogen have to do with issues about temperatures for semiconductors? Liquid hydrogen isn't expensive because hydrogen is hard to come by, you know. It's the refrigeration technique, not the medium, that costs so much.
They don't call it a "handheld" for nothing.
A trackball will keep your place more reliably than a finger.
Or at least apply the polish more evenly.
Fuck it, gimme a beer.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=45059&threshol d=0&commentsort=3&tid=133&mode=thread&cid=4683 571
Glad you all enjoyed it, anyway. Special thanks to the person with the sound effect. Hee hee, that one had me near-maniacal in a public computer lab. :)
Wow, that sounds cool. How would it work, though? I'm not familiar with chambered conduits -- how do you get an air seal to create suction if you've already got stuff in the conduit? Or would you pull out the bad fiber first? Guess I just need to know what chambered conduit is, exactly.
Yeah. I actually went back and forth for a while trying to come up with a plausible-yet-recognizable misspelling of "touché."
You think you were surprised -- I'm envisioning the world's most alarmed spider as you pull thread out of its ass as fast as it can produce it. Now there's an image for ya.
Maybe the iBook was just on acid.
(wait for it...)
Touchay.
It doesn't work when you type it, you know.
Been working so far. Doesn't mean it's worth it.
Sure there is -- the parent poster had it. World War 3. It's called "nowhere to go but up."
sigh...
When they do lay fiber, I believe (that is, I read in a Slashdot comment which seemed plausible for once) that they lay like 2 dozen cables when they only need one, just so they don't have to go digging again. So if a cable goes bad, they'd just switch to a good one at the endpoints, I suppose.
The stock value can rise due to science fiction, and stay elevated for as long as the typical stockbroker is convinced that the promised breakthrough is real. Or did you think stock value had some connection to company earning potential? It's all about perception.
And I don't think that's the case, because we're dealing with scientists rather than craftsmen. Not to say that scientists are somehow better or immune to their own prejudices and conceits, but rather they have different goals. A modern craftsman making a violin is going to work towards an abstract idea of a "good violin," one that sounds good to him and suchlike. This is a subjective process. On the other hand, a scientist attempting to recreate these old instruments has concrete, quantitatively defineable goals that are not so subjective. If we discover what makes these instruments different, the "how" will depend on developing a process which can re-create those qualities. Sometimes good engineering can provide an acceptable substitute for artistry. At the logical extreme, we could have replicators that would produce exquisite instruments without any of the painstaking work put in by old-time crafstmen. There's more than one way to skin a cat, that's all.
Of course, I also live in Sweden and post on Slashdot, so I know that of which I speak.
Sorry, but no. How much time and love was put into an instrument is not (directly) relevant -- all that matters is its physical makeup. The best instruments today are still painstakingly handmade -- just because there exist mass-produced versions doesn't mean nobody takes the time to produce quality anymore. This is a scientific question about determining in physical terms why one instrument sounds better.
Troll. The question is why old instruments (such as the famous Stradivarius violins) sound so good compared to modern instruments, when played by the same musician. And do you honestly believe that there aren't talented classical musicians out there today? Puh-leez.
Let me clarify. If an artist makes a bad deal and fails to reap the rewards he could have otherwise achieved, that's too bad but tough luck. But that's not what happened here. To offer an artist a share of "profits" while knowing all the while that due to shady accounting those profits will be zero is deceitful and wrong. It is negotiation in bad faith, and it should be considered fraud. Free market or no, fraud should be illegal.
Okay, let's go ahead with that plan. Uh, make it so. :)