Posted by Eeyore on June 6, 2008, 10:07 pm
Bob F wrote:
> > Bob F wrote:
> >
> >> There are plenty of non-silicon technologies
> >> being worked on.
> >
> > Name them then.
> You should check out a thing called google.
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=organic+solar+cells
I wanted YOU to state which you think are viable technologies.
I have NO intention of reading a load of idiotic marketing piffle
intended to suck in gullible investors.
Let's face facts, you haven't a CLUE what you're talking about.
Graham
Posted by Bob F on June 7, 2008, 4:30 pm
> Bob F wrote:
>> > Bob F wrote:
>> >
>> >> There are plenty of non-silicon technologies
>> >> being worked on.
>> >
>> > Name them then.
>>
>> You should check out a thing called google.
>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=organic+solar+cells
> I wanted YOU to state which you think are viable technologies.
> I have NO intention of reading a load of idiotic marketing piffle
> intended to suck in gullible investors.
> Let's face facts, you haven't a CLUE what you're talking about.
POT, KETTLE, BLACK.
Posted by Eeyore on June 7, 2008, 4:56 pm
Bob F wrote:
> "Eeyore" wrote
> > Bob F wrote:
> >> "Eeyore" wrote
> >> > Bob F wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> There are plenty of non-silicon technologies
> >> >> being worked on.
> >> >
> >> > Name them then.
> >>
> >> You should check out a thing called google.
> >> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=organic+solar+cells
> >
> > I wanted YOU to state which you think are viable technologies.
> >
> > I have NO intention of reading a load of idiotic marketing piffle
> > intended to suck in gullible investors.
> >
> > Let's face facts, you haven't a CLUE what you're talking about.
> POT, KETTLE, BLACK.
Pardon ? I KNOW exactly what I'm talking about.
I did get as far as seeing that organic PV solar panels typically boast a
conversion efficiency of SIX percent.
That's no bloody good is it ?
Graham
Posted by Bob F on June 7, 2008, 5:16 pm
> Bob F wrote:
>> "Eeyore" wrote
>> > Bob F wrote:
>> >> "Eeyore" wrote
>> >> > Bob F wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> There are plenty of non-silicon technologies
>> >> >> being worked on.
>> >> >
>> >> > Name them then.
>> >>
>> >> You should check out a thing called google.
>> >> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=organic+solar+cells
>> >
>> > I wanted YOU to state which you think are viable technologies.
>> >
>> > I have NO intention of reading a load of idiotic marketing piffle
>> > intended to suck in gullible investors.
>> >
>> > Let's face facts, you haven't a CLUE what you're talking about.
>>
>> POT, KETTLE, BLACK.
> Pardon ? I KNOW exactly what I'm talking about.
> I did get as far as seeing that organic PV solar panels typically boast a
> conversion efficiency of SIX percent.
> That's no bloody good is it ?
Depends on the price and durability.
They are still in development. Do you doubt that improvements will be made?
Posted by BobG on June 7, 2008, 7:32 pm
> It would appear that a solar->mechanical energy conversion of 40% with a
> fluidyne is reasonable (and well below the Carnot maximum).
> If I were to fit a piston (connecting rod, crank, flywheel, etc) to the
> output tube, can you offer a ballpark guess as to how much the
> efficiency would be further reduced due to friction? Best/worst cases?
> Would the conversion efficiency still be better than PV?
==========================
==========================
===
Hi Morris. Put a big 15" woofer in a plexiglass box and run the output
pressure of the fluidyne into that. (Next version can tune the box to
resonate at the fluidyne osc freq.) The woofer will produce a sine
wave. Tell us the amplitude and we can have a design contest to make a
super efficient synchronous rectifier to grab the woofer out into a
boostcap.
XML site map
> >
> >> There are plenty of non-silicon technologies
> >> being worked on.
> >
> > Name them then.
> You should check out a thing called google.
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=organic+solar+cells