|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 1, 2010 16:26:20 GMT -4
The Wikipedia page on Cricket (the sport) is a good place to start. Ah, you seem to be under the mistaken assupmtion that we Americans would be interested in knowing how to play Cricket. Allow me to disillusion you. Its a weird sport. I don't watch weird sports. Just hockey.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 1, 2010 16:22:53 GMT -4
...I have to explain that, no, my PV system is grid tied. Unlike most PV systems, I do have batteries but they're only for grid outages. Battery depreciation is far too expensive to use them in any other way. In normal operation the grid is a far cheaper and more efficient "battery" than any actual battery now available. An electric grid is even more essential with solar and wind energy than with fossil fuels because of their intermittent nature. Sure, you can "go off the grid" if you're willing to fill your garage with enough batteries to run your house for the entire winter season with the surplus you generate in the summer. Or you can put up a vastly larger PV array to ensure having enough in the winter, and then let most of its capacity go to waste in the summer. Personally, I don't think we can afford to forego any viable means of electricity generation that doesn't burn a fossil fuel. It's a luxury we can't afford. Our supply must be as diverse as we can possibly make it. That includes solar, wind, geothermal, hydro and nuclear and whatever else works, using whatever scale of production makes sense for a particular technology. Interesting (and I don't care about going off topic at the moment). There's a house here in Canberra which is apparently so energy efficient that they could go off the grid if they wanted. Instead, because the local electricity utility pays more than 4 times the going rate for electricity for electricity generated from PV cells, they feed their excess back into the grid in return for the cash. Meanwhile, the owners offer tours of their house once a month to show off what they've done. I'm hoping to go on a tour in a month or two. Not that I'm a starry-eyed green, but that I'm a pragmatist. They have a web-site at www.canberrassustainablehouse.com.au/I don't think you guys have the cold winters we have "up here".
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 1, 2010 16:22:23 GMT -4
Okay, now that just seems a bit too small. I can't even see a quarter from nine feet away. You must have bad eye sight, 9 feet is under 3 metres away. I guess if it was as bright as the actual moon I'd have no problem seeing the quarter.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 31, 2010 22:28:06 GMT -4
I was thinking about this more and here's a question: Could I take a protractor and measure 1/2 degree? Would that be equivalent to the 1/2 degree that the moon is viewed as? See what I'm getting at? Because if that is equivalent, then you guys are right when you say that transmission from the moon are extremely narrow. I'll refer you to Ginnie's previous post, which I think answers the question. Another way to think about the apparent size of the Moon is t hat it is equivalent to viewing a quarter from nine feet away. It doesn't seem that small when you look at it in the sky but it really is. Okay, now that just seems a bit too small. I can't even see a quarter from nine feet away.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 31, 2010 21:25:52 GMT -4
For comparison, the diameter of the Moon as viewed from Earth is about 1/2 degree. So you can see that the antenna beam width is narrower than the size of the Moon. If the signal was not coming from the Moon it would be immediately obvious. I was thinking about this more and here's a question: Could I take a protractor and measure 1/2 degree? Would that be equivalent to the 1/2 degree that the moon is viewed as? See what I'm getting at? Because if that is equivalent, then you guys are right when you say that transmission from the moon are extremely narrow. I don't think the protractor would work unless you had a really, really big one. Remember, fireballs - we're not measuring the angle or where the moon is in the sky - we're measuring its size. A very rough way to see how big one degree of the sky is - hold up you hand at arms length and stick up your little finger. Its width would be about 1 degree. Look at it like this - from directly overhead to the horizon is 90 0. So, the width of the moon is 1/180 of that. It moves across the sky at about 15 0 per hour. Let's say, you were facing North... The moon seems to be bigger than that when you look at it, doesn't it? But this is the size it would be when looking at the whole sky from the eastern horizon to the western horizon. I think the diagram illustrates just how small the Moon actually is in the sky. You need accurate instruments to send and receive signals to and from the moon.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 31, 2010 17:58:53 GMT -4
"Apollo By the Numbers" - I'd forgotten about that one.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 30, 2010 21:46:00 GMT -4
How about one that lists the major problems that had to be overcome for a successful program? Those things really interest me, and they make good fodder for discussions with either HBs or other Apollo fans. I'm thinking of issues like the mode decision (LOR vs EOR or direct ascent), the problems with the F-1 engine, the Fire, LM weight shaving, the precision guidance that allowed A12 to land beside the Surveyor, and so on. I'd be more interested in a list of problems that actually occurred. I'll look for that. BTW: I've added a 3rd - Manned Missions from Vostok 1 to Apollo-Soyez, in a quick 5 page handy reference guide.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 30, 2010 20:13:41 GMT -4
I think I'll check out that thread again in a couple of years when something has actually been debated...
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 30, 2010 19:45:37 GMT -4
Hello Boys and Girls.... Everybody except for the newbies should know me by now - and you all probably realize that whilst most of you can speak about the Space Missions clearly and fluently from the top of your head without referencing books and manuals most of the time. I of course, have to go looking through my books, searching the web etc. for my info. Yes, I've read a lot about the missions, but I guess my other interests prevent that information from staying in my little brain, so I forget the particulars a lot of the time. So, to help myself out a bit, I'm compiling a mini-reference binder filled with outlines and important bits regarding the Space Program. Now, I want to keep the document as small as possible - limited to overview and dates/events sort of. e.g. what I have so far is this: A History of Satelites and Robotic Space Missions (5 pages) Listing: Mission (Explorer etc.) - Launch - Type - Mission Highlights (one or two lines) and TheApollo Missions (2 pages) Listing: Mission - Booster - Crew - Launch Date - Mission Goal - Mission result (up to ten lines) Just simple "Guides" if you will, each one just a few pages long. I hate when I forget which Surveyor they landed next to on the moon (checks guide - Surveyor 3) , or forgetting which Apollo Mission first flew and manned the LM (let me check - oh, Apollo 9) See what I mean? So, I know I'll add the Mercury and Gemini missions and the Russian missions too. But what other guides would be handy? ... maybe a Guide of all the Rockets from v2 to the Saturn V... that would be good... So if you have any other suggestions, please feel free to share it with me. Remember, these will only be 2 - 5 pages each. I need them to be concise yet of good use. BTW - I'm not interested in any Apollo Hoax debunking info (such as a Guide debunking parallel shadows etc. ).
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 30, 2010 17:33:12 GMT -4
I grew up with the absolute certainty that there were nuclear weapons pointed at my hometown, or at least its reasonable vicinity. But why would the Soviet Union need a landing place in case of a European war? Growing up, we thought that if the Russians bombed the U.S., they would come from over the Arctic and some could land on us.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 30, 2010 17:30:57 GMT -4
I for one really wish the cold war was faked, because then we'd have nuclear power all over and this global warming thing wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue. What? Are you arguing that nuclear power is causing global warming? Even the most rabid pro-warmists admit that nuclear power doesn't emit greenhouse gasses. Are you arguing that the Cold War caused global warming? And if it were faked then they wouldn't have built as many real tanks, planes, etc. that emit greenhouse gasses? Or are you trying to say something entirely different? I thought he was saying the opposite, but now you've confused me.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 28, 2010 15:29:26 GMT -4
Where does Tienanmen Square enter into things? Is that another spelling mistake gillianren? What's goin' on?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 28, 2010 13:23:10 GMT -4
Well, I certainly hope there was a Cold War! We didn't go through all that stress growing up for nuthin' !
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 27, 2010 8:05:39 GMT -4
What's on the O'Reilly Factor tonight? BREAKING NEWS ..................................... Seems like Obama is losing left wing support because David Letterman made a joke about him on having lots of vacation time after his first and only term in office. Now their having a discussion about it. "Was President Obama too busy buying shrimp to attend issues about the war in Iraq?" That's deep programming, folks... Wait... they're criticizing Obama for taking too much time off? I remember reading about Presidential vacation days some time ago, and Obama is hardly the worst. Bush Jr. took 69 vacation days during his first year in office. Reagan took off 42 days in 1981. Obama took 26 vacation days in 2009. He would have to take 43 vacation days this year just so his first and second year total would equal Bush's first year. President Obama’s Vacation DaysSure, 26 vacation days sound like a lot to most regular people, but Presidents never really get away from their work. Yeah. I think the reporter said it was Obama's sixth vacation this year or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 27, 2010 8:04:13 GMT -4
It is also worth noting that it tends, historically, to be conservatives of one stripe or another who are trying to limit the vote to just people who think as they do.Conservatives is a rather ill defined term, so that may be true, depending on who is include or excluded as "conservative." Replace conservatives with Democrats and that sentence is certainly correct. The nice thing about having given up all desire to be affiliated with the Republican party is that political discussions like this have become fun to watch. It is like the proverbial discussion on how many angles can dance on the head of a pin. Is it like a tribal thing?
|
|