Just wondering..

[Alan Smith-10]

I've inherited a board, and I am spinning and I need (want) to eliminate the two internal power and ground layers.  I've tried the command "delete -2" but it comes back and says it can't delete internal layers.  There are no pours or routes that I can see, so how do you delete them?  I can just not process them on the gerbers but I would prefer to just have it clean.

       
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Neil Cherry]

Jinx wrote:
>>> I like cycling too. Apart from the exercise, you get to gawp and
>>> investigate all kinds of things that you wouldn't otherwise even
>> I've had a good year last year, saw many Red Hawks, no with a
>> snake in his mouth, three male American Bald Eagles and a couple
>> of female (I think). Plenty of Turkey Vultures
>
> I'm afraid I don't see anything that exotic on my travels. I did find
> an inhaler though and, in the spirit of not wasting anything, may take
> up asthma

I don't recommend it (asthma). It didn't dawn on me how bad
my asthma got until I sent an email in say I couldn't come into
work because I couldn't breath. The folks I work with were
busting on me for about a week. During that time I went to the
Doctor and he gave me a prescription. The medicine worked and
I had found that my breathing had dropped to 30% of what I
normally can do. Very nasty!

>> I tend to ride the middle of the road when I need to but I have
>> to be lit up. Nobody can see what doesn't reflect light.
>
> Cops would have you here for not being as far left as practicable.
> Major roads though I'll wait in/on the median

Cops around here haven't given me any trouble yet. If they do
I can argue it in court. The conditions of various sections
of the road warrant my taking the road. I'm usually pretty
quick to make room when it's safe and I try not to let more
than 5 cars build up behind me. There are some roadways
where I just won't ride (or avoid as much as possible).
A mile or two extra on a twenty mile ride is only 3 - 8
minutes more max, not a problem.

BTW, 'as practicable' is not in the gutter or off the
roadway.

>> Not allowed to bring bikes in until before or after rush hours
>> (before 6AM and after 9PM I think).
>
> Train patronage in Auckland isn't all it could be. There's usually
> room at any time
>
>> I have a nice trailer for carrying extras. I've ported about
>> 50 extra lbs
>
> My big trips used to be with a long, low trailer to get my oxy-
> acetylene bottles exchanged. Nothing else keeps motorists at
> a distance in quite the same way !! I don't do that any more
> (the distributor moved) but it still gets used for timber etc

I'd be more than a little nervous if there O tanks in that
mix. The tanks I'm used to are huge and heavy. That must be
one heck of a trailer!

--
Linux Home Automation         Neil Cherry       ncherry@...
http://www.linuxha.com/                         Main site
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/                    My HA Blog
Author of:     Linux Smart Homes For Dummies
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Andre Abelian-3]

Web,

Sorry for confusing question. My question is in general: on pic project pic18f4550
I am using external oscillator and configuration setting is EC and I did a
test to change it to HS then it worked and I forgot to change it back to EC
but the project is working and I am worried about it to understand the difference
between the EC and HS.

Now let me answer to my own question:
The only different between EC and HS is if osc out pin is used as I/O  
EC must be set then internally OSC out pin will be disconnected and be ready to use as I/O but when
HS is used OSC in and out pins are used OSC out pin as I/O can't be used and
it will simply oscillate. In my case I do not use OSC out pin as I/O so
I do not need to worry about it.

thank you

Andre
 




-----Original Message-----
From: piclist-bounces@... [mailto:piclist-bounces@...]On Behalf
Of M Wedin
Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 1:38 AM
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: Re: [PIC] Clock setting HSPLL vs ECPLL


What's wrong with asking why it works? Could be good to know when it no
longer works. And if it's the "proper" way to go.

Wed



2008/2/29, Rikard Bosnjakovic <rikard.bosnjakovic@...>:

>
> On 28/02/2008, Andre Abelian <aabelian@...> wrote:
>
> >  I used HSPLL instead of ECPLL to program some boards that it is too
> late
> >  to open them. HS is for crystal and EC is for external clock. HS works
> for both.
> >  Does any one know why HSPLL works for both and it is safe to use it.
>
>
> What boards?
>
> And I'm a bit confused. If HS works for both, why asking why it works
> for both? Are you talking about PIC-chips or complete set of
> demo-boards? Or, what are you really asking? We have no clue.
>
>
>
> --
> - Rikard - http://bos.hack.org/cv/
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[John Chung]

--- Andre Abelian <aabelian@...> wrote:

> Web,
>
> Sorry for confusing question. My question is in
> general: on pic project pic18f4550
> I am using external oscillator and configuration
> setting is EC and I did a
> test to change it to HS then it worked and I forgot
> to change it back to EC
> but the project is working and I am worried about it
> to understand the difference
> between the EC and HS.
>
> Now let me answer to my own question:
> The only different between EC and HS is if osc out
> pin is used as I/O  
> EC must be set then internally OSC out pin will be
> disconnected and be ready to use as I/O but when
> HS is used OSC in and out pins are used OSC out pin
> as I/O can't be used and
> it will simply oscillate. In my case I do not use
> OSC out pin as I/O so
> I do not need to worry about it.
>
> thank you
>
> Andre
>  
>
>

  EC is "External Clock with FOSC/4 output(on OSC2)"
  while ECPLL is "External Clock with PLL enabled
and FOSC/4 output on RA6(on OSC2)"

  I suggest strongly you choose and fix the OSC type.
I do not have a clear understanding with the ext OSC
you are using so just match to the appropriate source
and OSC type you are using. If you read the section on
HS osc you will notice the capacitor that can be used
with parallel crystal. It states that diff caps alters
the startup time......... So unless you have some
strict requirement you need to take this into account.


John


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Carey Fisher - NCS]

>  The answer is "I don't know and you don't know BUT the answer is
> 'we don't know' and not 'nothing'".
>
>
>         Russell
>
>  
Wow.  I'm saving this.  It expresses, very succinctly, the reality about
many important things.

And the rest of the post was outstanding in it's expository presentation
as well.  Thank you Russell!

Carey
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Vasile Surducan-2]

Go on the coper pour (if you have one) and hit delete. Will ask
"signal GND, class0 default? ( left=yes, right=next, ESC=cancel)", hit
left button of your mouse and you'll delete the ground or power plane,
line by line (the polygon shape will change).

On 2/29/08, alan smith <micro_eng2@...> wrote:

> I've inherited a board, and I am spinning and I need (want) to eliminate the two internal power and ground layers.  I've tried the command "delete -2" but it comes back and says it can't delete internal layers.  There are no pours or routes that I can see, so how do you delete them?  I can just not process them on the gerbers but I would prefer to just have it clean.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[James Newtons Massmind]

But you are happy for your offspring to be exposed to coal fired generating
plant exaust and coal ash (which is radioactive)?

Or to live with less electricity and therefore less of a technological
advantage?

Or to be more dependant on foreign oil?

--
James.

wouter van ooijen Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 00:22
> You are free to hold your own opinion, but IMO (no H) the health of my
> offspring is a far too high price to pay for a bit of 'enjoyment' now.

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[ivp]

> may take up asthma
>
> I don't recommend it (asthma)

Of course. That was a little (insensitive) joke on my part. I had
a flatmate who had bad asthma attacks. Used to scare the crap
out of us in the middle of the night
 
> BTW, 'as practicable' is not in the gutter or off the roadway

The council's Dig-Up-The-Roads Dept have made pretty much a
mess of the far-LHS. And as well as negotiating bumps, potholes
(do people still put pots in holes ?), there are the cans, bottles,
dead fauna, rocks and other puncture magnets. I don't know what
the roads are like where you are, but here you don't find many
urban roads that are straight for any distance. As you're aware,
Auckland is built on volcanic cones and so many roads are like
roller-coaster rides with many intersections at funny angles and
blind corners. Middle of the road is not where you want to be
 
> I'd be more than a little nervous if there O tanks in that
> mix. The tanks I'm used to are huge and heavy

These are just cubic metre bottle. Still heavy enough though

> That must be one heck of a trailer!

Well, it's long and under-slung, so the CoG is low. The bottle
weight is below the axle. Probably the brakes are the weak link

I'd show you a picture (old towbar and coupling)

http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/joecolquitt/0trailer.html

but it seems either my page or my ISP isn't working this morning

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[James Newtons Massmind]

By "nuke waste" I mean spent fuel rods from a fission reactor.

The radiation is exactly the same. And the sunbathers in oz are getting the
same TYPE of skin damaging radiation we get in SoCal, just more of it. So in
both cases, it is an issue of *quantity* not *quality*. All issues of
quantity can be solved with dilution. In Oz, don't go out in the sun as
much, and wear sun block / floppy hats. With nuke waste, spread it thinner
when you dispose of it, and put it deep in the earth in very stable
geological areas.

As to the level of radiation over the next 100 years: First the argument was
that it will be radioactive for millions of years and our distant offspring
will end up being exposed to it since we will have forgotten where it is;
which is actually more of a problem with the naturally occurring radioactive
ores since they are often in less stable areas and will be radioactive for a
longer time. Now the argument is that it will be more radioactive for a
short term, in a containment area that we WILL be here to monitor and
despite the fact that by the time we are likely to be exposed to it, it will
actually be LESS radioactive than the naturally occurring stuff, and that is
somehow a bad thing?

--
James.

-----Original Message-----
From: piclist-bounces@... [mailto:piclist-bounces@...] On Behalf Of
wouter van ooijen
Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 00:22
To: 'Microcontroller discussion list - Public.'
Subject: RE: [OT] Just wondering..

> The difference between naturally occurring radioactive
> materials and nuke waste is ONLY in terms of the level of
> radiation coming out of it.

Dunno what 'nuke waste' is (waste after an exploding nuke?), I was
talkinmg about what's left of the fuel rods after their lifetime. That
stuff is *very* different from natural uranium ore, for a starter it is
chemically different: there is a significant amount of plutonium in it.

> The type and effect of the
> radiation is absolutely the same.

I doubt that is correct, but if it were: amount of radiation does make a
different. Ask any aussie whether sunbathing is a good for your health.

> It actually has less total radiation over time. Some of the
> materials are producing a higher RATE of radiation, but they
> have a shorter half life, so over all, they will produce less
> total energy than the original substance.

Again I doubt if this is true, but for the sake of argument let's accept
it for now. So the radiation which would otherwise occur over a very
long time is now concentrated in let's say a few 100 years. I don't
think the people living in those few 100 years will like that.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu
 
 

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Herbert Graf-2]

On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 11:26 -0800, James Newton wrote:
> But you are happy for your offspring to be exposed to coal fired generating
> plant exaust and coal ash (which is radioactive)?
>
> Or to live with less electricity and therefore less of a technological
> advantage?
>
> Or to be more dependant on foreign oil?

Here, here James. It seems people are so open to being afraid of the
"badness" of nuclear, yet COMPLETELY IGNORE all the badness of all the
other poisons we spew into the air/water/ground that our descendants
will have to deal with.

I doubt very much they'll care WHICH poisons we are poisoning them with.

FWIW I'm a big nuclear proponent. Yes, it produces nasty stuff, but is
the nasty stuff per watt any worse then the nasty stuff per watt of
coal, or even natural gas?

TTYL
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Andre Abelian-3]

Sorry guys just forget about it.
if you change configuration settings to some thing else suppose
LP to HS or EC to some thing else and you see no different it is still working. Aren't
you going to ask what's the different between each other?
Like you said why it works?

thanks



-----Original Message-----
From: piclist-bounces@... [mailto:piclist-bounces@...]On Behalf
Of Rikard Bosnjakovic
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:01 PM
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: Re: [PIC] Clock setting HSPLL vs ECPLL


On 28/02/2008, Andre Abelian <aabelian@...> wrote:

>  I used HSPLL instead of ECPLL to program some boards that it is too late
>  to open them. HS is for crystal and EC is for external clock. HS works for both.
>  Does any one know why HSPLL works for both and it is safe to use it.

What boards?

And I'm a bit confused. If HS works for both, why asking why it works
for both? Are you talking about PIC-chips or complete set of
demo-boards? Or, what are you really asking? We have no clue.


--
- Rikard - http://bos.hack.org/cv/
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Bob Axtell]

Byron Jeff wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 03:21:59AM -0500, wouter van ooijen wrote:
>  
>>> The difference between naturally occurring radioactive
>>> materials and nuke waste is ONLY in terms of the level of
>>> radiation coming out of it.
>>>      
>> Dunno what 'nuke waste' is (waste after an exploding nuke?), I was
>> talkinmg about what's left of the fuel rods after their lifetime. That
>> stuff is *very* different from natural uranium ore, for a starter it is
>> chemically different: there is a significant amount of plutonium in it.
>>    
>
> Actually there isn't going to be. All fuel rods would be reprocessed and
> all of the useful fuel would be put back into new fuel rods.
>
> According to this site:
>
> http://www.uic.com.au/wast.htm
>
> Only 3% of the rod is actual waste and the other 97% (depleted uranium
> mixed with plutonium) would be extracted and reused.
>
>  
>>> It actually has less total radiation over time. Some of the
>>> materials are producing a higher RATE of radiation, but they
>>> have a shorter half life, so over all, they will produce less
>>> total energy than the original substance.
>>>      
>> Again I doubt if this is true, but for the sake of argument let's accept
>> it for now. So the radiation which would otherwise occur over a very
>> long time is now concentrated in let's say a few 100 years. I don't
>> think the people living in those few 100 years will like that.
>>    
>
> I would agree with you if the waste were made into a statue that was placed
> in a open public park. But when buried under hundreds of meters of solid
> rock, the residual radiation effect is minimal. That's why the EPA's
> estimate for Yucca Mountain for the first 10,000 years was so important,
> because virtually all of the highly radioactive waste products would have
> decayed by then.
>
> BAJ
>  

My main objection to nuclear power is simply that it seems obvious to me
and many others that capturing
solar energy to generate electricity would result in minimal damage to
anything. And we wouldn't even NEED
a Yucca Mtn.

But I am one of a few persons spitting against a hurricane, and its
pretty obvious that nuclear will win in the
end.

--Bob A
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Cedric Chang-2]

>
> On Feb 29, 2008, at 5:44 AM, Chris Smolinski wrote:
>
>>>> Only if you accept the premise that we must use the currently
>>>> 'accepted' amount of energy ( and at the current price).
>>>
>>>  Yes. I enjoy modern technology. I don't want to return to the 16th
>>>  century, with lifespans of 30 years.
>>
>> You are free to hold your own opinion, but IMO (no H) the health  
>> of my
>> offspring is a far too high price to pay for a bit of 'enjoyment'  
>> now.
>
> Yes, the health of my children is important also, which is why I want
> us to continue to maintain the current level of technology, as well
> as nutrition. If others wish to return to living in thatched huts,
> that's fine with me.

Me too   I have a bit of property you could set your igloo on and  
there is water nearby.  I will wave as I cruise by in my diesel  
powered PURE POD.
cc


--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Byron Jeff]

On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 05:31:53PM -0500, Bob Axtell wrote:

> Byron Jeff wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 03:21:59AM -0500, wouter van ooijen wrote:
> >
> >>> The difference between naturally occurring radioactive
> >>> materials and nuke waste is ONLY in terms of the level of
> >>> radiation coming out of it.
> >>>
> >> Dunno what 'nuke waste' is (waste after an exploding nuke?), I was
> >> talkinmg about what's left of the fuel rods after their lifetime. That
> >> stuff is *very* different from natural uranium ore, for a starter it is
> >> chemically different: there is a significant amount of plutonium in it.
> >>
> >
> > Actually there isn't going to be. All fuel rods would be reprocessed and
> > all of the useful fuel would be put back into new fuel rods.
> >
> > According to this site:
> >
> > http://www.uic.com.au/wast.htm
> >
> > Only 3% of the rod is actual waste and the other 97% (depleted uranium
> > mixed with plutonium) would be extracted and reused.
> >
> >
> >>> It actually has less total radiation over time. Some of the
> >>> materials are producing a higher RATE of radiation, but they
> >>> have a shorter half life, so over all, they will produce less
> >>> total energy than the original substance.
> >>>
> >> Again I doubt if this is true, but for the sake of argument let's accept
> >> it for now. So the radiation which would otherwise occur over a very
> >> long time is now concentrated in let's say a few 100 years. I don't
> >> think the people living in those few 100 years will like that.
> >>
> >
> > I would agree with you if the waste were made into a statue that was placed
> > in a open public park. But when buried under hundreds of meters of solid
> > rock, the residual radiation effect is minimal. That's why the EPA's
> > estimate for Yucca Mountain for the first 10,000 years was so important,
> > because virtually all of the highly radioactive waste products would have
> > decayed by then.
> >
> > BAJ
> >
>
> My main objection to nuclear power is simply that it seems obvious to me
> and many others that capturing
> solar energy to generate electricity would result in minimal damage to
> anything. And we wouldn't even NEED
> a Yucca Mtn.

Unfortunately that's a very narrow view. Two major points:

1) At the efficiency levels that solar converts to electricity, it takes
more energy to create solar panels than they produce.

2) Solar panels have nasty stuff in them too. They cause issues in both
production and waste.

>
> But I am one of a few persons spitting against a hurricane, and its
> pretty obvious that nuclear will win in the end.

It's not a done deal, though I wish that it could happen.

BAJ
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[James Newtons Massmind]

Byron Jeff Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 15:24
> 1) At the efficiency levels that solar converts to electricity, it takes
> more energy to create solar panels than they produce.

Ahhh... Huh? Could you provide a reference or supporting data for that
assertion? If it takes more energy to make a solar panel than it will ever
produce, wouldn't the cost of the panel exceed the value of the electricity
produced? Why would anyone produce a panel if that were the case? Wouldn't
the power to make it cost them more than the panel is worth?

http://techref.massmind.org/techref/other/solar/case1.htm my solar panels
cost $16,000. The system cost $21,000 TOTAL including professional
installation. I paid $12,759 after rebates. The first year, it made $1,400
worth of electricity. The panels are warranted for 25 years so they should
produce $29,400 dollars worth of electricity. And that assumes that the
price of electricity stays the same; which it has not:
http://techref.massmind.org/images/other/ePwrRates.GIF

> 2) Solar panels have nasty stuff in them too. They cause issues in both
> production and waste.

Pretty much everything has nasty stuff in it, but I would curious to know
exactly what they have that is any worse than roofing material.

--
James.

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Russell McMahon]

BCC recipients:

            Stop reading when eyes glaze over ...

______________

> 1) At the efficiency levels that solar converts to
> electricity, it takes
> more energy to create solar panels than they produce.


1. Reference?
2. Credible reference?
3. Peer reviewed credible reference?
4. Peer reviewed accurate credible reference? :-)


Modern solar panels have efficiencies of 13% - 15% for
single junction cells and around 30% for triple junction
cells in space applications where a wider spectrum is
available and used. Lifetimes for reasonable quality
terrestrial panels are a genuine 20 years wit the primary
degradation mode after early failures being the EVA
laminating adhesive. So this lifetime can be expected to
increase. There is some degradation of output over lifetime
but for poly and mono crystalline cells it is relatively
small. New amorphous continuous process thin film panels on
flexible substrates are expected to deliver a cost of around
$US1 "sometime soon". the panels

Consider an existing technology polycrystalline terrestrial
panel available off the shelf for about $US5/Watt in
commercial volumes and assume a pessimistic 10% delivered
efficiency. As panels are liable to be installed in volume
in areas where they are more likely to be useful let's
assume a mean insolation of 5 kWh/day/m^2. This is very
achievable in substantial areas in the US. Don't depend on
this figure in Moscow in mid winter (actually = 0.2
kWh/m^2/day average).

Over a 20 year lifetime the output per m^2 is 5 x 365 x 20 x
10% = 3,650 kWh. At say $US0.10/kWh (use your own
assumptions) that $365/m^2 of energy production / m^2. While
you many manage to get that figure down an order of
magnitude with DCF, support infrastructure, maintenance
(reasonably modest) and all the usual cost of doing business
sinks, at the resultant 10% of energy value $36.50 level
it's still highly arguable that energy costs of production
exceed energy value produced.

The main cost of production is in making the actual raw
cells - lovely paper thin pieces of super delicate wonder.
>From there on the cost of manufacture and the energy content
can be so low as to appal you - I've stood in a factory and
watched people turn the raw silicon cells into finished
panels using ultra cottage industry techniques at around
$US1/hour pay rates.

Solar is potentially on the edge of viability now. Large
scale installations in a number of countries are being
driven by massive government subsidy programs. But ongoing
advances in flexible thin film, economies of scale of
polycrystalline (helped by the volumes produced by current
subsidies) and new developments are well on the way to
making it viable against eg hydrocarbon energy alternatives.
IF there was a worldwide will to make it work (which barring
threatened alien invasion is not liable to happen), then we
could see solar as a genuinely viable and massively deployed
alternative to many existing systems within say 10 years.

Wind also is "getting there", but that's another story.


        Russell

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Dario Greggio (in giro)]

James Newton wrote:
> http://techref.massmind.org/techref/other/solar/case1.htm my solar panels
> cost $16,000. The system cost $21,000 TOTAL including professional
> installation. I paid $12,759 after rebates. The first year, it made $1,400
> worth of electricity. The panels are warranted for 25 years so they should
> produce $29,400 dollars worth of electricity. And that assumes that the
> price of electricity stays the same; which it has not:
> http://techref.massmind.org/images/other/ePwrRates.GIF

I'm doing the same at my (new) place James (have I already mentioned
that? :)
the figures in here are roughly the same.
I agree with you.

Though, I'd love easy and cheap nuclear power - I was raised with that
in mind!


--
Ciao, Dario
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Neil Cherry]

Jinx wrote:
>> may take up asthma
>>
>> I don't recommend it (asthma)
>
> Of course. That was a little (insensitive) joke on my part. I had
> a flatmate who had bad asthma attacks. Used to scare the crap
> out of us in the middle of the night

Sorry that was my attempt at a humorous response too (I'll
stick to engineering, I'm better at it). Most of the folks
laugh at my casualness towards my asthma. It's not like I
have a choice as to whether I have it or not. ;-)

>> BTW, 'as practicable' is not in the gutter or off the roadway
>
> The council's Dig-Up-The-Roads Dept have made pretty much a
> mess of the far-LHS. And as well as negotiating bumps, potholes
> (do people still put pots in holes ?), there are the cans, bottles,
> dead fauna, rocks and other puncture magnets. I don't know what
> the roads are like where you are, but here you don't find many
> urban roads that are straight for any distance. As you're aware,
> Auckland is built on volcanic cones and so many roads are like
> roller-coaster rides with many intersections at funny angles and
> blind corners. Middle of the road is not where you want to be

Well I live on a large sand bar (NJ) but otherwise the roads
sound similar (no pots in the roads here). We have a really
nice road they just dug up and, well for a lack of a better
word, repaved. Instead of fixing it properly they lowered
the speed limit by 15 mph. We have the very similar roads
as you describe and on very few of them do I not take the
lane. In NJ our roads are more crooked than our politicians.

>> I'd be more than a little nervous if there O tanks in that
>> mix. The tanks I'm used to are huge and heavy
>
> These are just cubic metre bottle. Still heavy enough though
>
>> That must be one heck of a trailer!
>
> Well, it's long and under-slung, so the CoG is low. The bottle
> weight is below the axle. Probably the brakes are the weak link
>
> I'd show you a picture (old towbar and coupling)
>
> http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/joecolquitt/0trailer.html
>
> but it seems either my page or my ISP isn't working this morning
>

If you get it posted please let me know. I'd love to see it.
--
Linux Home Automation         Neil Cherry       ncherry@...
http://www.linuxha.com/                         Main site
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/                    My HA Blog
Author of:     Linux Smart Homes For Dummies
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Cedric Chang-2]

>
> On Feb 29, 2008, at 3:31 PM, Bob Axtell wrote:
>
> Byron Jeff wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 03:21:59AM -0500, wouter van ooijen wrote:
>>
>>>> The difference between naturally occurring radioactive
>>>> materials and nuke waste is ONLY in terms of the level of
>>>> radiation coming out of it.
>>>>
>>> Dunno what 'nuke waste' is (waste after an exploding nuke?), I was
>>> talkinmg about what's left of the fuel rods after their lifetime.  
>>> That
>>> stuff is *very* different from natural uranium ore, for a starter  
>>> it is
>>> chemically different: there is a significant amount of plutonium  
>>> in it.
>>>
>>
>> Actually there isn't going to be. All fuel rods would be  
>> reprocessed and
>> all of the useful fuel would be put back into new fuel rods.
>>
>> According to this site:
>>
>> http://www.uic.com.au/wast.htm
>>
>> Only 3% of the rod is actual waste and the other 97% (depleted  
>> uranium
>> mixed with plutonium) would be extracted and reused.
>>
>>
>>>> It actually has less total radiation over time. Some of the
>>>> materials are producing a higher RATE of radiation, but they
>>>> have a shorter half life, so over all, they will produce less
>>>> total energy than the original substance.
>>>>
>>> Again I doubt if this is true, but for the sake of argument let's  
>>> accept
>>> it for now. So the radiation which would otherwise occur over a very
>>> long time is now concentrated in let's say a few 100 years. I don't
>>> think the people living in those few 100 years will like that.
>>>
>>
>> I would agree with you if the waste were made into a statue that  
>> was placed
>> in a open public park. But when buried under hundreds of meters of  
>> solid
>> rock, the residual radiation effect is minimal. That's why the EPA's
>> estimate for Yucca Mountain for the first 10,000 years was so  
>> important,
>> because virtually all of the highly radioactive waste products  
>> would have
>> decayed by then.
>>
>> BAJ
>>
>
> My main objection to nuclear power is simply that it seems obvious  
> to me
> and many others that capturing
> solar energy to generate electricity would result in minimal damage to
> anything. And we wouldn't even NEED
> a Yucca Mtn.
>
> But I am one of a few persons spitting against a hurricane, and its
> pretty obvious that nuclear will win in the
> end.
>
> --Bob A
>

Trot out the solar solution. Where does it go ? How much does it  
cost ? How does it fit in with the existing infrastructure ?  I am  
all for it if it is cost competitive.  If it is as cheap as nuclear  
to implement, let's rock and roll.
cc


--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Cedric Chang-2]

>
> On Feb 29, 2008, at 6:00 PM, James Newton wrote:
>
> Byron Jeff Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 15:24
>> 1) At the efficiency levels that solar converts to electricity, it  
>> takes
>> more energy to create solar panels than they produce.
>
> Ahhh... Huh? Could you provide a reference or supporting data for that
> assertion? If it takes more energy to make a solar panel than it  
> will ever
> produce, wouldn't the cost of the panel exceed the value of the  
> electricity
> produced? Why would anyone produce a panel if that were the case?  
> Wouldn't
> the power to make it cost them more than the panel is worth?
>
> http://techref.massmind.org/techref/other/solar/case1.htm my solar  
> panels
> cost $16,000. The system cost $21,000 TOTAL including professional
> installation. I paid $12,759 after rebates. The first year, it made  
> $1,400
> worth of electricity. The panels are warranted for 25 years so they  
> should
> produce $29,400 dollars worth of electricity. And that assumes that  
> the
> price of electricity stays the same; which it has not:
> http://techref.massmind.org/images/other/ePwrRates.GIF
>
>> 2) Solar panels have nasty stuff in them too. They cause issues in  
>> both
>> production and waste.
>
> Pretty much everything has nasty stuff in it, but I would curious  
> to know
> exactly what they have that is any worse than roofing material.
>
> --
> James.

Please tell me what you mean by rebate ?  Do you mean the  
manufacturer sold it for less, or taxpayers paid for part of your  
system ?  If taxpayers ponied up money, then the real the cost of the  
system must be the total cost , not the amount you paid.  Then you  
discount the $29,400 by the time value of money.
I went to the URL
http://www.money-zine.com/Calculators/Investment-Calculators/Time- 
Value-of-Money-Calculator/
I assumed that the rebate was taxpayer financed.  Based on that and  
your figures and guessing that after 25 years the value of the solar  
panel system was zero ( what think you ? ), the calculator said the  
investment returned $870 present value ; which is good ; you made a  
profit.  I assumed 4% opportunity cost.  At 6% , your profit is  
-3,103.30 ( a loss ).  at 10% your loss is $8,292.14.
Of course, this leaves out stuff like rising or falling energy  
costs , falling efficiency of the panels and whatever else I did not  
think of.  I believe that energy costs will actually fall over time ;  
certainly measured against inflation.
cc

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist