I saw a presentation by a Prof. Krothpali (s/p?) back in 2005. He was head of a solar program in Florida I think. He estimated that with economies of scale, Stirling dish systems to power the US could be installed for $200 billion, requring something like 72x72mi. In fact, he compared this to the cost of the Iraqi war. It was convincing, but I don't think it included transmission.
'10s of trillions of dollars' You're way off base. We're only worth about 67 trillion in the US.
There are a couple Stirling dish projects scheduled in CA that are 800-900MW with options for 1GW+. India is building a 6GW coal plant. There is no fundamental reason why dish or trough solar thermal can not be the same size. They basically substitute combustion with mirrors, otherwise they are the same as coal, minus the mess. The dish stirling projects I noted above come from individual heat engines mounted on parabolic dishes, 25kW each. Easily distributed or planted in large fields.
No. Stirling cycle is reversible like Carnot, but practical Stirling engines are still only 60% of Carnot efficiency tops. (We're talking about cream of the crop NASA engines here too)
Don't get me wrong, they are still sweet as hell. IMO, the best option for concentrated solar thermal, but expensive. They are better than turbines because they can be used with higher temperatures.
nope. You tell me, what is the point of drawing inaccurate conclusions? If you admit mindless entertainment then I will agree with you. Less damage would be done to an already ignorant public if you just went back to watch farting cartoons.
It depends on a lot more then vehicle speed. Inaccurate blanket statements are an issue with mythbusters. Their conclusion is obviously constrained by several parameters including, but not limited to, wind spd, wind dir, vehicle geometry, AC size, AC COPR, AC control, temp, humidity, etc.
Many of these may very well change the conclusion by less than 10%, while others have a serious influence. In any event, five 5 percents add up.
That's my problem with mythbusters, they take the most laborious(boring) yet critical component out of experimentation: defining the problem & methodology. This is a good example because the conclusion is essentially worthless. Rather then celebrate science, they completely miss the point.
This argument is tired. Yahoo's share price was above the initial offer less than 6 months ago. Tech stocks were the 2nd largest hit recently next to financials. For comparison, Apple shit out almost -40% too, should shareholders support their buyout at the low market cap? Yahoo mgmt is right, the offer does undervalue their potential and they can offer their share holding investors greater value (key: if they can execute). Unfortunately, investors are outnumbered by gamblers these days.
"but you think the economy is working properly?"
No.
Why didn't you mention that in the first place
I didn't mention it in the first place because I don't believe it. How you came to this impression is beyond me.
You'll know what I think when I tell you. Until then, your guessing does you no good. Our back and forth is about your poor persuasive efforts. Stay on topic. We've come to the understanding that you are not mentally inhibited from understanding the issues. More likely, the problem is your inability to relate to another human being. In conversation it's important to engange someone without assigning them character traits based on a deeply flawed evaluation. Good luck with that!
You can't even bother to give a reason why people paying over 50% of their incomes on housing, suddenly losing an extra 10%+ of their incomes, wouldn't face homelessness. You're right, I couldn't bother to reply to your guestimation, because it was flat out fucking ridiculous. Heres one for ya, I'm one of them and I wouldn't have any problem. I know others and they are comfortable too?
Liar, thief, ya ya I got it. What I don't understand is this connection between above and me supporting the government, regulation, capitalism, or society. I never even disagreed with your thesis (even though you never really formally presented one), just simply your defense of it. Of course, that's before you revealed yourself to be a total clown. In fact, you almost had me convinced my initital valuation of you was wrong.
You certainly stretch the yardstick with your assumptions e.g, you'd have trouble satisfying your vague adjectives if you used the increase in forclosures instead of the total.
"I'd say that the millions of Americans spending over half their income on housing [unitedwayla.org] would be homeless if they lost over 10% of their incomes." I'd say your cited fact may be correct, but your guess is baseless and you are wrong.
"bear stearns, numbers, yadda, yadda" Bear Stearns lost over 20b in market cap. The people who escaped this decline are a small minority. Most shareholders got screwed. Retail vultures like me took their money.
"You want to find fault with my "presentation". What's really a problem..."
Um yeah, it has nothing to do with your vague, unspecific, and unsubstantiated claims. Instead of your poor persuasive style, it most definitely has to do with my obvious character flaws which you are now about to automagically discern from 50 written words...
for you is that you are all too happy to accept the good news about the economy, but the bad news shocks you too much. You want to dislike the messenger, and reject their message. Which makes you a completely typical American.
"bad news," eh? for me? you sure about that? Unfortunately, you have sunk to clown level.
I challenge these for starters. If they are true, then its your presentation that lacks all credibility.
-millions of people are getting their homes foreclosed
-millions more are always 6 weeks paychecks from losing their homes
-income has shrunk over the past 25 years
-But that [bs stock price] high was built on a bubble inflated by money lent from the Fed (taxpayers)
-Bear Stearns (and its shareholders, brokers and execs) raked in so many $BILLIONS over the past 10-20 years running the way that eventually ran out, that it was totally worth the price of doing business when its shares collapsed
-(much of which ultimately came from the Fed - taxpayers)
-since your [GP]lies (FYI, he posted 52wk high and low stock price.)
because credentials are a fallacy, especially since the army of credentialed people in this country have just dragged us into a nearly intractable banking crisis. Which is it? Are they totally incompetent or are the rich gaming the poor? BTW, how does a sophsiticated market economy even function without credentials? I think you vastly underestimate the implications of your claim.
The richer quarter of Americans might pay over 3/4 of the taxes, but they've got a lot more than 3/4 of the income. AND the top 50% of Americans by riches (without being a corporation, which usually pay no taxes [boston.com])
Well, which is it? These statements are mutually exclusive to me.
which is how business works Yeah, um, which planet are you from? There is established precedent for the feds saving your ass once you are large or integrated enough. Sometimes bailouts save the little guys too ya know...
FYI, I support global apocalypse, famine, pestilence, and survival of the most blood thirsty. I hope for a good old bank run. My loot is relative.
I am suspicious that you do not have the credentials to be making these claims. Both of your posts use adjectives and vague numbers, suggesting to me that this info emanated from the wrong end of your body. Could you provide some concrete evidence?
Not that I'm a cheerleader for the US banking system, federal reserve, fed government, plainly corrupt US markets, etc, etc, but you come off a bit delusional.
Do you think Bear Stearns should have crumbled? Do you want to see a bank run? What do you think happens to poor people then?
Wow, you are a total clown. This is a company ripping off someone's copyrighted work. It is not about students helping students. It is about a quick buck at the expense of someone else's work. Your opinion is astonishing, moreso if you actually RTFA.
The old days just provide the fun examples. Many major religions are still today very guilty of injustice. I'll leave you with some key words that should help you along your journey of discovery: gays, women, infidels, racism, jingoism, xenophobia, and castes. These ought to help you find many crimes against humanity that are currently espoused by several major religions.
That is fair statement, but by no means an excuse. I'm not in a mood to argue this further because I generally agree with you. However, please recognize there is a heavy dose of subjectivity in all 3 of your affirmations. =)
The grandparent exempted other religions from some wrong doing in a pretty hostile tone. His choice of the word 'but' highlighted a difference between Scientology and other religions. My response was two-fold: I argued, by lazily pointing to the historical record, that this difference does not exist. I also hoped that my reminder would help him recognize his own shallow comment.
Your justification is wrong. The only reason for relatively poor service is the fascist relationship between government and telcos. Telcos own the government in so far as telco legislation is concerned. There are a few small bleeps in US telco history where brave lawyers and politicians have attempted to combat corruption. Their efforts barely last past the next election cycle. Telcos have pioneered many of the abusive corporate behaviors we see over all major US industries today.
I don't understand your point. Hot things transfer energy to cold things. There are at least 2 prominent mechanisms of heat transfer besides radiation and they are both necessarily an artifact of an RF transmitter. The CEO's statement was physically accurate.
It is waste heat generated directly by the transmitter
Isn't this a side effect of the transmitter, since it happens during operation? That's how I read it anyway. He didn't specify whether it was em radiation or some other type of heat transfer. It seems like an accurate statement to me.
Step 1) Find a good state school with a good math or ee program. Get a B.S. degree in one of these fields or take most of your courses in one of these fields. If you have skillz already you will find a CS degree unchallenging.
Step 2) Do well. Go to graduate school at one of the schools you like and they will pay you to be there. If you just want a B.S. degree, it doesn't matter. You're just another stooge and 1 year after college it won't matter where you came from. It does, however; look inbred if you get all your degrees from one school (even MIT). Lol, I speak this from experience.
Other advice: Ignore all clowns suggesting the military. If you want leet military research, you are still better off remaining a civilian. If you want the good schools bad enough, then just take the loans. The loans won't kill you, heh except maybe with a CS degree. Seriously, get a degree in a better field at a school with the flexibility to be intimate with the CS dept.
Slashdot Mirror
I saw a presentation by a Prof. Krothpali (s/p?) back in 2005. He was head of a solar program in Florida I think. He estimated that with economies of scale, Stirling dish systems to power the US could be installed for $200 billion, requring something like 72x72mi. In fact, he compared this to the cost of the Iraqi war. It was convincing, but I don't think it included transmission.
'10s of trillions of dollars' You're way off base. We're only worth about 67 trillion in the US.
There are a couple Stirling dish projects scheduled in CA that are 800-900MW with options for 1GW+. India is building a 6GW coal plant. There is no fundamental reason why dish or trough solar thermal can not be the same size. They basically substitute combustion with mirrors, otherwise they are the same as coal, minus the mess. The dish stirling projects I noted above come from individual heat engines mounted on parabolic dishes, 25kW each. Easily distributed or planted in large fields.
PV absorbs a relatively narrow portion of the solar spectrum for electricity. Most of the absorbed energy just heats up the PV.
Solar thermal systems absorb and use heat. Heat is the desired end product so they don't have that extra inefficiency of PV.
No. Stirling cycle is reversible like Carnot, but practical Stirling engines are still only 60% of Carnot efficiency tops. (We're talking about cream of the crop NASA engines here too)
Don't get me wrong, they are still sweet as hell. IMO, the best option for concentrated solar thermal, but expensive. They are better than turbines because they can be used with higher temperatures.
Surprisingly, Florida does not have a very good solar resource. Concentrated systems are for the deserts.
nope. You tell me, what is the point of drawing inaccurate conclusions? If you admit mindless entertainment then I will agree with you. Less damage would be done to an already ignorant public if you just went back to watch farting cartoons.
It depends on a lot more then vehicle speed. Inaccurate blanket statements are an issue with mythbusters. Their conclusion is obviously constrained by several parameters including, but not limited to, wind spd, wind dir, vehicle geometry, AC size, AC COPR, AC control, temp, humidity, etc. Many of these may very well change the conclusion by less than 10%, while others have a serious influence. In any event, five 5 percents add up. That's my problem with mythbusters, they take the most laborious(boring) yet critical component out of experimentation: defining the problem & methodology. This is a good example because the conclusion is essentially worthless. Rather then celebrate science, they completely miss the point.
This argument is tired. Yahoo's share price was above the initial offer less than 6 months ago. Tech stocks were the 2nd largest hit recently next to financials. For comparison, Apple shit out almost -40% too, should shareholders support their buyout at the low market cap? Yahoo mgmt is right, the offer does undervalue their potential and they can offer their share holding investors greater value (key: if they can execute). Unfortunately, investors are outnumbered by gamblers these days.
"but you think the economy is working properly?"
No.
Why didn't you mention that in the first place
I didn't mention it in the first place because I don't believe it. How you came to this impression is beyond me. You'll know what I think when I tell you. Until then, your guessing does you no good. Our back and forth is about your poor persuasive efforts. Stay on topic. We've come to the understanding that you are not mentally inhibited from understanding the issues. More likely, the problem is your inability to relate to another human being. In conversation it's important to engange someone without assigning them character traits based on a deeply flawed evaluation. Good luck with that!
You can't even bother to give a reason why people paying over 50% of their incomes on housing, suddenly losing an extra 10%+ of their incomes, wouldn't face homelessness. You're right, I couldn't bother to reply to your guestimation, because it was flat out fucking ridiculous. Heres one for ya, I'm one of them and I wouldn't have any problem. I know others and they are comfortable too?
Liar, thief, ya ya I got it. What I don't understand is this connection between above and me supporting the government, regulation, capitalism, or society. I never even disagreed with your thesis (even though you never really formally presented one), just simply your defense of it. Of course, that's before you revealed yourself to be a total clown. In fact, you almost had me convinced my initital valuation of you was wrong.
You certainly stretch the yardstick with your assumptions e.g, you'd have trouble satisfying your vague adjectives if you used the increase in forclosures instead of the total.
..."
"I'd say that the millions of Americans spending over half their income on housing [unitedwayla.org] would be homeless if they lost over 10% of their incomes."
I'd say your cited fact may be correct, but your guess is baseless and you are wrong.
"bear stearns, numbers, yadda, yadda" Bear Stearns lost over 20b in market cap. The people who escaped this decline are a small minority. Most shareholders got screwed. Retail vultures like me took their money.
"You want to find fault with my "presentation". What's really a problem
Um yeah, it has nothing to do with your vague, unspecific, and unsubstantiated claims. Instead of your poor persuasive style, it most definitely has to do with my obvious character flaws which you are now about to automagically discern from 50 written words...
for you is that you are all too happy to accept the good news about the economy, but the bad news shocks you too much. You want to dislike the messenger, and reject their message. Which makes you a completely typical American.
"bad news," eh? for me? you sure about that?
Unfortunately, you have sunk to clown level.
I challenge these for starters. If they are true, then its your presentation that lacks all credibility.
-millions of people are getting their homes foreclosed
-millions more are always 6 weeks paychecks from losing their homes
-income has shrunk over the past 25 years
-But that [bs stock price] high was built on a bubble inflated by money lent from the Fed (taxpayers)
-Bear Stearns (and its shareholders, brokers and execs) raked in so many $BILLIONS over the past 10-20 years running the way that eventually ran out, that it was totally worth the price of doing business when its shares collapsed
-(much of which ultimately came from the Fed - taxpayers)
-since your [GP]lies (FYI, he posted 52wk high and low stock price.)
because credentials are a fallacy, especially since the army of credentialed people in this country have just dragged us into a nearly intractable banking crisis. Which is it? Are they totally incompetent or are the rich gaming the poor? BTW, how does a sophsiticated market economy even function without credentials? I think you vastly underestimate the implications of your claim.
The richer quarter of Americans might pay over 3/4 of the taxes, but they've got a lot more than 3/4 of the income. AND
the top 50% of Americans by riches (without being a corporation, which usually pay no taxes [boston.com]) Well, which is it? These statements are mutually exclusive to me.
which is how business works Yeah, um, which planet are you from? There is established precedent for the feds saving your ass once you are large or integrated enough. Sometimes bailouts save the little guys too ya know...
FYI, I support global apocalypse, famine, pestilence, and survival of the most blood thirsty. I hope for a good old bank run. My loot is relative.
Do you know what your talking about?
I am suspicious that you do not have the credentials to be making these claims. Both of your posts use adjectives and vague numbers, suggesting to me that this info emanated from the wrong end of your body. Could you provide some concrete evidence? Not that I'm a cheerleader for the US banking system, federal reserve, fed government, plainly corrupt US markets, etc, etc, but you come off a bit delusional.
Do you think Bear Stearns should have crumbled? Do you want to see a bank run? What do you think happens to poor people then?
You are a clown. What exactly did he say? Ignorant nonsense. Hey look, you have something in common! honk, honk
You are a total clown.
Wow, you are a total clown. This is a company ripping off someone's copyrighted work. It is not about students helping students. It is about a quick buck at the expense of someone else's work. Your opinion is astonishing, moreso if you actually RTFA.
The old days just provide the fun examples. Many major religions are still today very guilty of injustice. I'll leave you with some key words that should help you along your journey of discovery: gays, women, infidels, racism, jingoism, xenophobia, and castes. These ought to help you find many crimes against humanity that are currently espoused by several major religions.
That is fair statement, but by no means an excuse. I'm not in a mood to argue this further because I generally agree with you. However, please recognize there is a heavy dose of subjectivity in all 3 of your affirmations. =)
The grandparent exempted other religions from some wrong doing in a pretty hostile tone. His choice of the word 'but' highlighted a difference between Scientology and other religions. My response was two-fold: I argued, by lazily pointing to the historical record, that this difference does not exist. I also hoped that my reminder would help him recognize his own shallow comment.
"Get off my lawn"
Other religions have the benefit of time to hide their terrible deeds.
Your justification is wrong. The only reason for relatively poor service is the fascist relationship between government and telcos. Telcos own the government in so far as telco legislation is concerned. There are a few small bleeps in US telco history where brave lawyers and politicians have attempted to combat corruption. Their efforts barely last past the next election cycle. Telcos have pioneered many of the abusive corporate behaviors we see over all major US industries today.
I don't understand your point. Hot things transfer energy to cold things. There are at least 2 prominent mechanisms of heat transfer besides radiation and they are both necessarily an artifact of an RF transmitter. The CEO's statement was physically accurate.
It is waste heat generated directly by the transmitter
Isn't this a side effect of the transmitter, since it happens during operation? That's how I read it anyway. He didn't specify whether it was em radiation or some other type of heat transfer. It seems like an accurate statement to me.
[citation needed]
Step 1) Find a good state school with a good math or ee program. Get a B.S. degree in one of these fields or take most of your courses in one of these fields. If you have skillz already you will find a CS degree unchallenging.
Step 2) Do well. Go to graduate school at one of the schools you like and they will pay you to be there. If you just want a B.S. degree, it doesn't matter. You're just another stooge and 1 year after college it won't matter where you came from. It does, however; look inbred if you get all your degrees from one school (even MIT). Lol, I speak this from experience.
Other advice: Ignore all clowns suggesting the military. If you want leet military research, you are still better off remaining a civilian. If you want the good schools bad enough, then just take the loans. The loans won't kill you, heh except maybe with a CS degree. Seriously, get a degree in a better field at a school with the flexibility to be intimate with the CS dept.
Also, undergrad CalTech is for clowns.