From: Androcles on

"Pat Flannery" <flanner(a)daktel.com> wrote
> I can't be certain, but I will say that if you move a solar collector
> array closer to the sun it will gather more energy for a given size.

You should be certain before you give us your stupid opinion, Pat Flannery.





From: Androcles on

"Pat Flannery" <flanner(a)daktel.com> wrote in message
news:Fu6dnYyfV6jkXOvWnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d(a)posted.northdakotatelephone...
> Androcles wrote:
>> "Pat Flannery" <flanner(a)daktel.com> wrote
>>> I can't be certain, but I will say that if you move a solar collector
>>> array closer to the sun it will gather more energy for a given size.
>>
>> You should be certain before you give us your stupid opinion, Pat
>> Flannery.
>
> First of, I didn't write the part you quoted,

Well, zeroth off, I sure as hell didn't write the part you attributed to me
with your stupid snipping. I wonder who did?
You should be certain before you give us your misattributions, Flat Pannery.





From: Androcles on

"Pat Flannery" <flanner(a)daktel.com> wrote in message
news:OoOdnfFkiqrcVevWnZ2dnUVZ_oFi4p2d(a)posted.northdakotatelephone...
> Androcles wrote:
>>
>> Well, zeroth off, I sure as hell didn't write the part you attributed to
>> me
>> with your stupid snipping. I wonder who did?
>> You should be certain before you give us your misattributions, Flat
>> Pannery.
>
> Here's the whole posting from you that I replied to:
>
> "William Mook" <mokmedical(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fbbddf2d-60ea-4ed3-a183-23e920219728(a)k41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 18 2009, 4:43 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_q>
> wrote:
> > > "Jonathan" <H...(a)Again.net> wrote in message
> > >
> > > news:p5SdndXFAKoISrfWnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
> > >
> >> > >I like this idea, Relatively small mirrors would power
> >> > > the lasers, not huge solar cell arrays. The lasers would
> >> > > transmit their beams to other satellites that convert it to, and
> >> > > beam it down, as microwaves. No need for mile-size
> >> > > collectors in orbit.
> > >
> > > What are you babbling about?
>
> I can't be certain, but I will say that if you move a solar collector
> array closer to the sun it will gather more energy for a given size.
> =============================================
> It won't be in Earth orbit then.
>
>
> What exact part of that did you write? The way it's formated, it looks
> like this part:
>
> I can't be certain, but I will say that if you move a solar collector
> array closer to the sun it will gather more energy for a given size.
> =============================================
> It won't be in Earth orbit then.
>
> ...as everything else has quote arrows on it.
>
> Pat

When usenet posts get interrupted by gmail users, in this case Mook,
it prevents Microsoft's Outlook Express from automatically inserting
the indent markers, so I separate what I write with a line of: "=====".
Then you come along and snip (only you know why) and misattribute
who said what. The part I wrote was "It won't be in Earth orbit then",
so your target should have been Mook, not Androcles. The safe
thing to do is not snip. Snipping requires effort on your part and saving
Google even a kilobyte of storage space is a raindrop in the ocean.
This is not 1979 when 16 Kbytes of RAM and a 50 Megabyte hard
drive was state-of-the-art, 30 years have past since then and terabytes
are cheaper than dirt.










From: Androcles on

"Pat Flannery" <flanner(a)daktel.com> snipped
in message
news:MNCdnVCqtIoYS-vWnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d(a)posted.northdakotatelephone...

Androcles restored:

>>
>> Well, zeroth off, I sure as hell didn't write the part you attributed to
>> me
>> with your stupid snipping. I wonder who did?
>> You should be certain before you give us your misattributions, Flat
>> Pannery.
>
> Here's the whole posting from you that I replied to:
>
> "William Mook" <mokmedical(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fbbddf2d-60ea-4ed3-a183-23e920219728(a)k41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 18 2009, 4:43 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_q>
> wrote:
> > > "Jonathan" <H...(a)Again.net> wrote in message
> > >
> > > news:p5SdndXFAKoISrfWnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
> > >
> >> > >I like this idea, Relatively small mirrors would power
> >> > > the lasers, not huge solar cell arrays. The lasers would
> >> > > transmit their beams to other satellites that convert it to, and
> >> > > beam it down, as microwaves. No need for mile-size
> >> > > collectors in orbit.
> > >
> > > What are you babbling about?
>
> I can't be certain, but I will say that if you move a solar collector
> array closer to the sun it will gather more energy for a given size.
> =============================================
> It won't be in Earth orbit then.
>
>
> What exact part of that did you write? The way it's formated, it looks
> like this part:
>
> I can't be certain, but I will say that if you move a solar collector
> array closer to the sun it will gather more energy for a given size.
> =============================================
> It won't be in Earth orbit then.
>
> ...as everything else has quote arrows on it.
>
> Pat

When usenet posts get interrupted by gmail users, in this case Mook,
it prevents Microsoft's Outlook Express from automatically inserting
the indent markers, so I separate what I write with a line of: "=====".
Then you come along and snip (only you know why) and misattribute
who said what. The part I wrote was "It won't be in Earth orbit then",
so your target should have been Mook, not Androcles. The safe
thing to do is not snip. Snipping requires effort on your part and saving
Google even a kilobyte of storage space is a raindrop in the ocean.
This is not 1979 when 16 Kbytes of RAM and a 50 Megabyte hard
drive was state-of-the-art, 30 years have past since then and terabytes
are cheaper than dirt.












From: David Spain on
Frankly all this seems academic, I haven't seen anything posted that shows
a practical way to convert a laser beam to electricity, unlike a microwave
beam.

?

Dave
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Prev: Hawking and two times
Next: Special relativity in a nutshell