Threadjacking

[SY]

My Pappy once got lost when I wuz born.

[valveitude]

Cool, the only video I ever bothered to downlaod to my phone is Popeye in "Goonland".

This is the video that rated using my phone's memory. I work at an over the top "PC aware" government municipality. Whenever I feel like screaming, I find someplace to watch it..puts a smile on my face every time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lXA_C0WaG8

[KBK]

Was Hudson right? Everything fits.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This was achieved mainly by improving the technique for producing pure silicon - the basic material for making solar cells - from quartzites. The largest deposits of very pure quartzites are found in Russia, which had vast reserves of them. Recently the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Dubna, near Moscow, developed a photo cell with an efficiency of almost 50%. Scientists describe their product as a "star battery." It is an example of how nanotechnology can improve the workings of well-known processes.

They embedded tiny particles of gold* into a silicon wafer only 0.5 mm thick. The properties of the material changed so dramatically that while in ordinary cells one electron needs 5 to 6 light photons to be knocked out, in this case it is enough to have two, and it is possible that in the future only one will be required. In practice this means that 1 square meter of solar battery surface can yield 600 watts and later perhaps even 1 kW of electricity. Unlike normal silicon, the new material is sensitive to a wide range of solar radiation, from the ultraviolet to the infrared spectrums.

*They're talking about the nano gold.

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070803/70324027.html

[KBK]

The other shoe dropping. From the same article.

The Dubna researchers also made a supercapacitor using the same material. A cylinder 3 sm in diameter can store 900 times more power than that contained in a normal car battery. This is important because solar batteries function only during the day, but power is needed round the clock, so enough must be stored for the night.

And, once again, "...Unlike normal silicon, the new material is sensitive to a wide range of solar radiation, from the ultraviolet to the infrared spectrums."

A wideband doorway like that only means one thing. A primary resonance.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anyway, very expensive capacitors, but you don't need many of them.

[SY]

A wideband doorway like that only means one thing. A primary resonance.

Precisely the opposite. Just out of curiosity, have you ever bothered to learn basic physics?

[scott wurcer]

Originally posted by KBK
Was Hudson right? Everything fits.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This was achieved mainly by improving the technique for producing pure silicon - the basic material for making solar cells - from quartzites. The largest deposits of very pure quartzites are found in Russia, which had vast reserves of them. Recently the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Dubna, near Moscow, developed a photo cell with an efficiency of almost 50%. Scientists describe their product as a "star battery." It is an example of how nanotechnology can improve the workings of well-known processes.

They embedded tiny particles of gold* into a silicon wafer only 0.5 mm thick. The properties of the material changed so dramatically that while in ordinary cells one electron needs 5 to 6 light photons to be knocked out, in this case it is enough to have two, and it is possible that in the future only one will be required. In practice this means that 1 square meter of solar battery surface can yield 600 watts and later perhaps even 1 kW of electricity. Unlike normal silicon, the new material is sensitive to a wide range of solar radiation, from the ultraviolet to the infrared spectrums.

*They're talking about the nano gold.

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070803/70324027.html

A) Soviet scientists from the Leningrad Physical and Technical Institute were the first to produce an electric current in that fashion in the 1930s. True, the efficiency of the first solar sulfur-helium elements was barely 1%.

B) As early as 1839, Antoine-Cesar Becquerel exposed a chemical battery to the sun to see it produce voltage. This first conversion of sunlight to electricity was one percent efficient.

All right which one is correct?

The stuff about pure quartz (SiO2) reserves being needed to make pure silicon is equally nonsense. 42% efficient multiple bandgap solar cells have been made. BTW the heating of any cell precludes 100% efficiency.

[KBK]

Originally posted by SY


Precisely the opposite. Just out of curiosity, have you ever bothered to learn basic physics?

Just out of curiosity, have you ever bothered to explore beyond physics?

[KBK]

To continue, to take the seeming sting out of it:

As for being precicely the opposite, depends on what you thought I meant. Think of it as being an experession of noting a 'very important number' (or frequency).

Have you ever tried to design 'tonality', Sy? To create perfection (within cost constraints) in 'lack of absorption' of energy as a reflective surface? What I did in that case, is I simply started reading up on, the items in question, but most importantly, I worked with a gentleman who knows much about the ingredients..and through him, as a question and answer machine (intelligent search device) I managed to arrive a quite decent level of understanding of the situation. My own understanding, which quickly eclipsed his.

As stated earlier, I recently ran into a 'spectral chemist' who does similar work, but on an entirely professional labratory level, research, etc. I spoke to him on everything I had learned, and taught myself. He told me I was exactly right on everything. And what I had told him was the latest discoveries in light and matter, materials sicence, etc. Stuff I had dervived through sheer loigic applied to anomalous points in known phenomena.

Then I moved on to the next thing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Einstien was a terrible student. Not because he was un-intelligent, no. Exactly the opposite. He was driven, and therefore dismissed his educators whenever and wherever he could. He learned/studied only that which was important to him, to reach his goal. The rest he left in lectures and classes which he failed to attend. Einstien, it has been discovered, needed help with the math of what he was trying to express.

I do much of the same. I hone in on what I desire to learn. My greatest assest, is the ability to sift through information and find the relevant parts. Parts that are connected to what I seek to understand. And to retain much of it. Nothing is ever written down. I keep it all in my head, as a form of cummulative wisdom and information. I also go to people/places/etc who may have the missing pieces of the given puzzle I am working on.

So no, very little of physics. Enough to get by.

To tell you the truth, AFIK, and I'm definitely paying attention, there are very few times I've been wrong in this world about anything tied to physics/reality/etc. The few times I've been wrong, I've been so completely wrong that the negative result has been just as valuble as a positive result would have been.

May I respectfully suggest to you that your training and/or background might be impeding you on some or most of this stuff.

I had decided not to post this, but due to your question, I will.

For example, I had decided earlier that the conclusion that can be reached concerning the Hitachi Corp's 'single electron fired-single slit-double slit/observing/not observing' experiment... will eventually lead to the understanding that mathematically speaking, there will soon be the capacity, to derive a 'number' (value) for conciousness and/or 'determinism' in the absolute sense, not just for 'thought experiments'. Something hard, something tangible. Ie, the mathematical capacity for calculation and then....physical expression of such.

What this will lead to, is the understanding that human conciousness CAN affect the world through dimensions that are not seen, like electromagentism, gravity, etc. And a 'value', joining the numerical value of those forces will be known as 'conciousness' or 'determinism'. How that value or number will be expressed is the really interesting part.

The fact that it will be mathematically expressable, that alone will be a huge step. Imagine what that will bring to the table.

If you disagree, get ready to be wrong.

Go research the Hitachi experiment, and then you might find that logic will dictate an outome that is either exactly as I predict, or so close to it that it is indistinguishable.

In conclusion, in my opinion, studying phsyics would have slowed me down. I'm moving in multiple directions, here. I was easily an 'A' student any time I wanted to be. I just never gave a damn. Irrelevant.

When we create theory that is to stand the test of time, one way it can be thought of, is as a mold. A mold for the form, of future study, the groundwork, so to speak. But we also know that molds eventually need be broken. Eventually all molds must be broken. The march of time has shown this to be commonplace to the point of evoking a general rule.

Best to start off having never been in one (mold). That is, if one can handle it. If you are looking to go to places that few have been, and aren't in textbooks, it's best to start without them at all. This was a concious decision on my part, as a child. For the exact stated reasons. Which I concluded, as a child.

For example, physics, etc is relatively new. The idea of scientific theory is , in terms of lthe lifespan of the human race, quite a tiny component. Faraday, for example, came out of nowhere. He had the gift, but zero schooling. Deny him his due. Go ahead, try.

Point is, just in the first few centuries of AD, Julius Ceasar was considered a 'deity' and was worshipped. Effiges, prayer, etc. Imagine that. Things change, things change all the time. Point being, it's not all in the textbooks, and it is not all taught in schools.

[KBK]

Another anomolus point that will mess with your head.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Human FTL. Or, "precognition":

If your hand is hit by a hammer, the stimuli , or more correctly 'brain activity' to cause you to remove your hand from the point of impact occurrs in the brain instantaneously, exactly at the point in time the impact occurs at the hand.

If your brain is stimulated in that area instead..you realize the same feeling of impact, but the 'fake' stimuli must travel up the nerve from the hand to the brain...THEN you pull your hand back.

Perfect, 100% clean data, proving that human beings see through time.*

What does it mean? On it's own..not much! Impossible to tell with such small amounts of data. Ie, one point.

So go out and get some more, fer crikey's sake!!!!!!!!!! There are literally THOUSANDS of them!!!! Then...you'll finally have something you can sink your teeth into.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So go off psychologically deny it (whomever reads this), forget you just read this......so you can crawl back into your self imposed mental hole. Laugh, drink beer, watch TV, deny the world's political situations, etc. Sleep, sleep, sleep.....


That is exactly that point of human psychology which urination's me off so much.

*Well, OK. It could be that the stimuli moves through neural matter at the 'speed of light', ie pefect propogation, 670,616,629 MPH. That, as a return shot on my "FTL" comment, is difficult enough to pursue, and creates far more complex questions than it answers. Ones that people won't like either.

[BWRX]

Ken, I am amazed at your ability to continually write very long posts.

Originally posted by KBK
Einstien was a terrible student.

My greatest assest, is the ability to sift through information and find the relevant parts... And to retain much of it. Nothing is ever written down. I keep it all in my head, as a form of cummulative wisdom and information.

Anecdote: A colleague once asked Einstein what his phone number was. Albert proceeded to open a phone book and look up his own phone number. His colleague was amazed and said, "Albert you are considered a genius and one of the greatest minds of the 20th century. Why are you looking for your telephone number in the phone book?" Einstein is reputed to have replied, "I never memorize anything I can find in a book."