...then you use the parallel port and an opto-isolator chip or two, and with some semi-clever programming you can simulate stepping on the pad with mouseclicks on your pc. Once you get that working, you can tie in a digital camera focussed on the TV screen, and some video processing software...
First, in NZ (which is what the thread is about), Dec 21 is the *summer* solstice, not the winter.
I stand corrected on the summer/winter designation. I had assumed that astronomers would have just picked one designation and stuck with it, regardless of where they were on the planet. But they don't. Scientists can be so stupid at times.
Second, at 37 degrees south, in the summer the sun rises south of east *and* sets south of west. This is most extreme at the solstice where it rises about 30 degrees south of east, and *also* sets about 30 degrees *south* of west.
Similarly, at a similar latitude in the northern hemisphere (eg San Francisco), at the local summer solstice (eg June 20 or similar, depending on the year) the sun would rise around 30 degrees *north* of east, and set 30 degrees *north* of west.
It turns out that I was mistaken. You are correct. I was using the kstars astronomy program incorrectly. I was looking at where the ecliptic plane intersected the horizon, thinking that the sun followed the ecliptic during the day.
I wasn't punching in the sunrise and sunset times to see where the sun actually was with respect to the horizon. Silly me.
Third, I don't care about the camera, but I assume your "140 to 280 degrees" is a typo. Anyway, I was just correcting someone who said that in NZ the sun is always to the north. But yes, with a normal camera, even though the sun *isn't* always north in NZ (despite what someone claimed), if you point the camera south the sun is likely to be outside the field of view. So it is "outside" the camera, but not necessarily "behind" the camera.
Yes, it was a typo. It was supposed to be 140-220 (40 degrees either side of due south). The important point is that facing the camera south means that the sun won't get photographed.
[clip]
I'm sure you can find a better one at NASA or wherever.
No, it doesn't because it depends on what you call energy going in. Typically, when doing fuel production efficiency, you only count the energy that it takes to run the machinery to harvest the fuel compared to the energy stored in the fuel. So, they get 3.2 units of fuel out for each unit of fuel you put in.
No it doesn't. First of all Dec 21 is the winter solstice. Equinoxes occur in spring and fall, not in summer and winter. Second, although the sun will rise south of east, it will set north of west. Third, a normal camera has an angle of view of about 40 degrees, so it would "see" from heading 140 to 280 degrees. The sun would be outside it's field of view unless it was equipped with a wide angle lens.
It's not about the zoom, but about the lens area. The lens you quoted is roughly 50cm^2. The one in the article is 10000cm^2, or about 200 times more powerful than Canon lens.
From one of the articles: "Cylindrical Fresnel lenses provide a 7:1 concentration, allowing a single multijunction GaInP2/GaAs/Ge cell to collect solar energy equivalent to that gathered by seven cells."
In other words, a fresnel lens does not help in terms of energy gathering. On a cost or mass per area, it does.
Just make sure you tell the US, the Soviets, the Chinese, etc. that you are launching something into orbit. They've all got satellites watching for rocket launches. You wouldn't want people thinking that WW3 was going to start without them.
There was an 800m sheer cliff going down into the Atlantic on the left and 800m sheer cliff going up towards Cumbre Viejo on the right.
...However, I feel compelled to ask you where the water ("running across a road") was coming from if both sides of the road were 800m lower than the driving surface...
I have highlighted the words you seem to have missed. The road in question is half way up a 1600m cliff face.
A helium lift baloon would require zero power to get significant altitude. They can also gain more altitude than a plane, and much higher altitude than a helicopter.
In order to do that, you have to carry almost as much propellant with you to deorbit as it took to get you into orbit in the first place. Every extra kilo of propellant you carry up is one less kilo of payload you don't.
Slashdot Mirror
In addition, the tether point on the earth will, more than likely, include an aparatus for actively damping out any unwanted vibrations.
...then you use the parallel port and an opto-isolator chip or two, and with some semi-clever programming you can simulate stepping on the pad with mouseclicks on your pc. Once you get that working, you can tie in a digital camera focussed on the TV screen, and some video processing software...
Forget Manic difficulty, which move gives you the pulse rifle?
First, in NZ (which is what the thread is about), Dec 21 is the *summer* solstice, not the winter.
:)
:-)
I stand corrected on the summer/winter designation. I had assumed that astronomers would have just picked one designation and stuck with it, regardless of where they were on the planet. But they don't. Scientists can be so stupid at times.
Second, at 37 degrees south, in the summer the sun rises south of east *and* sets south of west. This is most extreme at the solstice where it rises about 30 degrees south of east, and *also* sets about 30 degrees *south* of west.
Similarly, at a similar latitude in the northern hemisphere (eg San Francisco), at the local summer solstice (eg June 20 or similar, depending on the year) the sun would rise around 30 degrees *north* of east, and set 30 degrees *north* of west.
It turns out that I was mistaken. You are correct. I was using the kstars astronomy program incorrectly. I was looking at where the ecliptic plane intersected the horizon, thinking that the sun followed the ecliptic during the day. I wasn't punching in the sunrise and sunset times to see where the sun actually was with respect to the horizon. Silly me.
Third, I don't care about the camera, but I assume your "140 to 280 degrees" is a typo. Anyway, I was just correcting someone who said that in NZ the sun is always to the north. But yes, with a normal camera, even though the sun *isn't* always north in NZ (despite what someone claimed), if you point the camera south the sun is likely to be outside the field of view. So it is "outside" the camera, but not necessarily "behind" the camera.
Yes, it was a typo. It was supposed to be 140-220 (40 degrees either side of due south). The important point is that facing the camera south means that the sun won't get photographed.
[clip]
I'm sure you can find a better one at NASA or wherever.
I found one! (Scroll down to figure six.)
Or if you don't believe that, go outside and have a look!
I'll have to do that next time I get south of the equator in December
No, it doesn't because it depends on what you call energy going in. Typically, when doing fuel production efficiency, you only count the energy that it takes to run the machinery to harvest the fuel compared to the energy stored in the fuel. So, they get 3.2 units of fuel out for each unit of fuel you put in.
Spoken as one who hasn't seen Gigli
It's a desert because of the lack of rainfall, not the lack of water.
No it doesn't. First of all Dec 21 is the winter solstice. Equinoxes occur in spring and fall, not in summer and winter. Second, although the sun will rise south of east, it will set north of west. Third, a normal camera has an angle of view of about 40 degrees, so it would "see" from heading 140 to 280 degrees. The sun would be outside it's field of view unless it was equipped with a wide angle lens.
By demanding the right to be able to turn off the European GPS satellites, perhaps?
Perhaps south? (New Zealand: Sun is always in the North)
link
It's not about the zoom, but about the lens area. The lens you quoted is roughly 50cm^2. The one in the article is 10000cm^2, or about 200 times more powerful than Canon lens.
From one of the articles: "Cylindrical Fresnel lenses provide a 7:1 concentration, allowing a single multijunction GaInP2/GaAs/Ge cell to collect solar energy equivalent to that gathered by seven cells."
In other words, a fresnel lens does not help in terms of energy gathering. On a cost or mass per area, it does.
Some would argue that Terminator 2, Aliens, and The Road Warrior are much better sequels.
It went for 72 straight weeks in London, Ont.
Maybe they couldn't use "The Clone Wars" because it was already licenced to the makers of the cartoon series.
He meant it as a compliment.
Just make sure you tell the US, the Soviets, the Chinese, etc. that you are launching something into orbit. They've all got satellites watching for rocket launches. You wouldn't want people thinking that WW3 was going to start without them.
Not to mention the fact that before the snowplow arrives, these things are buried under a few cms of snow and hence are not visible anyway.
I have highlighted the words you seem to have missed. The road in question is half way up a 1600m cliff face.
Just shift the clock by half an hour and be done with it.
Some spyware looks for the existance of other adware and takes over that adware's ad lookup, forcing both pieces to serve the spyware's ads.
A helium lift baloon would require zero power to get significant altitude. They can also gain more altitude than a plane, and much higher altitude than a helicopter.
According to X-Prize rules, the payload is one to three humans, and enough ballast to make up enough mass for three humans.
In order to do that, you have to carry almost as much propellant with you to deorbit as it took to get you into orbit in the first place. Every extra kilo of propellant you carry up is one less kilo of payload you don't.