Solar Power Satellite Concept

On Sep 10, 10:40*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 66456f50-8601-4c32-8f47-
, says...



On Sep 10, 9:20*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Airships are EASIER than what you're talking about,

No they're not.

You know what? *
You're the pointy haried boss straight out of Dilbert. *

Haired you mean - no I'm not.

You're as stubborn, pig-headed, and completely ignorant about
engineering.

Everyone in engineering hates those pointy haired bosses that Dilbert
writes about. You calling me one doesn't make it true.

In fact, I'm open minded and well versed in all aspects of
engineering.

So its definitely not true.

If you see something wrong in what I've said, you better damned well
be prepared to back it up. Otherwise, keep your ****ing mouth shut.
I say this as a friend.

Now, someone said airships are easier to make than inflatable wings.
WHY did they say that? They didn't say.

Haha - saying that because it was true is not an answer to the real
question - there is a technical reason - what was it? Specifically?

Now If they had no real underlying technical reason, then its just
fluff. If they had a real technical reason - why not come out and
state it at the beginning? The fact they didn't suggests they had no
real reason.

Now I didn't respond with my reasoning because it wasn't appropriate
given the lack of their reasoning.

When I go hot air ballooning, and compare it to when I go on a sail
plane, I am struck by the difference in wind loading. The balloon has
a far larger area per unit force than the sail plane. This makes the
balloon more difficult to manage in many ways. I can imagine, because
I'm a damned good engineer, what this means in terms of stress and
loads on each aircraft. Even a brief reading of engineering documents
for aircraft like the P-791 and the I-2000 show that its far easier in
many respects to build an inflatable wing than a balloon.

Now, when you state without any reference something like balloons are
easier to build than inflatable wings - I think of all this and say ,
no they're not.



Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?

On Sep 10, 10:13*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
On Sep 9, 12:33*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:
In article
otatelephone,
says...

On 9/8/2010 5:13 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

Perhaps you should. *There has been some *research* into inflatable
wings, but they've never been used on any operational aircraft, to my
knowledge.

CIA apparently used some of the Goodyear Inflatoplanes for extracting
agents from hostile territory. I imagine its rubber structure meant it
had a very low radar signature other than the engine.
The concept was that the agent would be inserted with the folded up
Inflatoplane in a big storage bag, bury or otherwise conceal it at some
remote hidden location (maybe hide it submerged in a lake?) and then
return to inflate it and leave when they wished to.

O.k. I'll have to ammend my comment to inflatable wings have not been
used on an operational aircraft as large as the shuttle ET. *Scaling the
concept up to ET size may prove problematic (still an R&D problem).

Is there any evidence that these things were ever used operationally
for anything? *I'm not buying the CIA story. *There are easier ways to
get in and out of places.

So far as I see, it was only ever an experimental aircraft.

Remember James Bond in Octopussy

Remember there is a difference between movie fantasy and reality.

He dude, YOU brought it up. The BD-5J is real enough and it folded up
into a smaller lighter package than the inflatoplane and had higher
performance. So, if the uses YOU were discussing were important, the
BD-5J would fit the bill better than the inflatoplane.


I know that's hard for you,

Nonsense.

given what you think of as a 'design',

Bull****. My design for the ET derived launcher is more complete
than vonBraun's Mars Project.

but
do try to keep it in mind.

**** you.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

In article 51a41d01-b5b9-41af-987f-5564cce2c369
@t7g2000vbj.googlegroups.com, says...

On Sep 10, 9:44*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
On Sep 8, 4:33*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article

O.k. I'll have to ammend my comment to inflatable wings have not been
used on an operational aircraft as large as the shuttle ET. *Scaling the
concept up to ET size may prove problematic (still an R&D problem).

Nonsense. *Wings have been built far larger than the one's I'm
proposing here.

But not inflatable wings, so we can all see just who is spouting
'nonsense' here.

Wait a minute, we've built inflatable wings and now how they work.
We've built big wings and no how they work. Jeff got it right when he
said the only thing I can do with that is build a parametric model.
That's right. The model suggests that we can build an inflatable wing
that lifts 50 tons and has at least a 12 to 1 lift to drag. It tells
us what we'll need to do it, and gives an estimate of the budget, and
even maps out the research program and what it will cost.

I thought you said there were no research projects in your design? I
see you're changing your story yet again, which is no surprise.

The problem with research projects like this is that very often the cost
simply can't be reliably estimated up front. A friend of mine says the
best engineer he knew always used to say, "things that are different,
just aren't the same". In other words, parametric analysis like this
will only get you so far, then you have to bite the bullet and actually
do the research to find out what you *don't* know. Sometimes you run
into problems that complicate the overall system design to the point
that it becomes virtually unworkable and the project eventually
collapses due to cost and schedule overruns.

It's almost always the unknown unknowns that get you in an R&D project,
and you've got five big R&D programs in your design.

You might want to look into risk assessment methodologies used by the
likes of NASA. You know, those green/red sort of tables...

Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?

In article 30164d89-f655-43a0-99aa-075eb01ed906
@m16g2000vbs.googlegroups.com, says...

On Sep 10, 10:32*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 83b8c596-cba8-4fef-acd7-
, says...



On Sep 9, 6:23*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article c58eac54-845a-4923-900c-7f41f2872fa6
@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com, says...

*The Skunkworks thought they had the
technology in hand for the composite LH2 X-33 tanks, but failed.

That's a lie. *Engineers and designers protested against the composite
hydrogen tank at the very moment they were informed of a management
decision to build a composite LH2 tank.

You're making the same sort of management decisions concerning what
sorts of technologies you want in this ET derived vehicle,

No I'm not. I'm being informed by past experience to do the easy
thing, not the hard thing - this is just the opposite of the X-33
program.

LMFAO!

and I'm
telling you as someone with an aerospace engineering degree

You're not the only one with one of those dude.

True, but I'm not going to be biased since I'm not trying to sell you
anything. There are plenty of engineers who engage in R&D who will
happily take your money, and give you all the good news you want all
along the way. Eventually the good news will turn to "we just need a
bit more time and a bit more money" and you'll have to figure out how to
manage that without killing the entire project.

that you've
got no less than five separate R&D programs on your hand

You are wrong.

You're entitled to your opinion, but experience and history says
otherwise.

with your
design because you're picking five technologies which have *not* proven
themselves in the way you're planning on using them.

Obviously you don't know how R&D programs are managed. I suppose you
could set things up the way you suggest. That would be dumb - there
are more efficient ways that make use of existing knowledge and
experience.

I really have no idea what you're babbling on about here, but results
speak louder than words. Come back when your five technologies prove
themselves by a successful flight and recovery of your design.

Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?

On Sep 10, 11:46*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 51a41d01-b5b9-41af-987f-5564cce2c369
@t7g2000vbj.googlegroups.com, says...





On Sep 10, 9:44*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
On Sep 8, 4:33*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article

O.k. I'll have to ammend my comment to inflatable wings have not been
used on an operational aircraft as large as the shuttle ET. *Scaling the
concept up to ET size may prove problematic (still an R&D problem)..

Nonsense. *Wings have been built far larger than the one's I'm
proposing here.

But not inflatable wings, so we can all see just who is spouting
'nonsense' here.

Wait *a minute, we've built inflatable wings and now how they work.
We've built big wings and no how they work. *Jeff got it right when he
said the only thing I can do with that is build a parametric model.
That's right. *The model suggests that we can build an inflatable wing
that lifts 50 tons and has at least a 12 to 1 lift to drag. *It tells
us what we'll need to do it, and gives an estimate of the budget, and
even maps out the research program and what it will cost.

I thought you said there were no research projects in your design?

haha - Nonsense. You are misquoting me.

*I
see you're changing your story yet again, which is no surprise.

Bull. I thought you said it was physically impossible to carry a wing
aloft to recover a booster?

The problem with research projects like this is that very often the cost
simply can't be reliably estimated up front. *

You misquote me and then draw a wrong conclusion from the misquote. I
said the development costs are well defined - I repeated the word
research in one of your endless stream of bull**** - only when you
used it in the context where it meant development, rather than argue
with you over every word - haha - you are now going over every word I
write and the making **** up to promote an erroneous view rather than
read it for meaning to get a proper view.

One has to wonder what motivates you two to tag team me like this.

Obviously there is development work in any project. Such work, if
given research into fundamentals as exist for all the elements I've
used on my design - there are open issues, and those issues are well
defined and budgets are worked out for those, along with schedules and
so forth. Such development work may fairly be called research in
certain context, and in that context I answered some of your
questions, as I've said, without arguing over the usage. Now, you are
trying to take that one word 'research' and say that I am changing up
on you and then you pontificate how you can't tell how much money
you'll spend in research. Well, you are misquoting the usage.
Certainly, in fundamental research where you don't know if the thing
will work at all, there is no way to estimate costs and challenges.
Equally certainly a development effort that makes use of earlier
fundamental findings can easily estimate cost and level of effort.

So, again you're wrong Jeff.

A friend of mine says the
best engineer he knew always used to say, "things that are different,
just aren't the same". *

That's true.

In other words, parametric analysis like this
will only get you so far,

That's true.

then you have to bite the bullet and actually
do the research

That's true - but please note this usage of the word research is
different than the research that is impossible to estimate costs. A
parametric model with a clear understanding of all the fundamentals is
the sort of 'research' or rather to make clear, 'development' that is
easy to estimate costs and level of effort.

A scientific investigtion into the fundamental nature of a thing is
called research. A close careful study of something to use it in a
specific way is also called research. The first usage is difficult to
quantify in terms of cost and benefit, as you allude to. The second
is easily quantified, particularly if the first sort of research is
done adequately.

You gave the X-33 as an example of what can 'fail' - Engineers knew
from the fundamentals that the multi-lobed composite hydrogen tank was
a point of failure and had very specific reasons for stating that.
Their reasoning and understanding far surpasses you or Freddie's
comments. I thoroughly analyzed the task and developed a design that
did just the opposite of the X-33. I chose things that were well
defined and got the job done easily.

to find out what you *don't* know. *

I don't design things using processes or things I don't know.

Sometimes you run
into problems

You always run into problems. That's why you avoid them at the outset
by choosing goals and processes that are known quantities - like the
elements I use in my launcher.

that complicate the overall system design to the point
that it becomes virtually unworkable and the project eventually
collapses due to cost and schedule overruns.

Yes, the X-33 gives a good example of that. The engineers demand to
make Al-Li tank which (they thought) would be substituted for the
failed composite tank was needed to 'motivate' engineers to join the
project. This points to the very sort of early-stage analysis I have
completed in choosing the technical details of my project.

It's almost always the unknown unknowns that get you in an R&D project,
and you've got five big R&D programs in your design. *

I do not have five big R&D programs - my design is based on the
successful results of technical programs that achieved and
characterized all their goals. The five you mention have resulted in
well defined collection of engineering data that is the basis of my
parametric modeling - and is the basis of my cost and time estimates
for the *development* program (which you wrongly misstated as a
research in the fundamental sense program).

You might want to look into risk assessment methodologies used by the
likes of NASA. *You know, those green/red sort of tables...

I designed a reusable nuclear thermal upper stage for the NEBA III
engine and spoke to the White House, DOD, NASA, and DOE along with
Congress about it. I am initimately familiar with risk assessment
processes. This launcher is child's play by comparison to that
nuclear stage.

Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?

On Sep 10, 11:53*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 30164d89-f655-43a0-99aa-075eb01ed906
@m16g2000vbs.googlegroups.com, says...





On Sep 10, 10:32*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 83b8c596-cba8-4fef-acd7-
, says....

On Sep 9, 6:23*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article c58eac54-845a-4923-900c-7f41f2872fa6
@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com, says...

*The Skunkworks thought they had the
technology in hand for the composite LH2 X-33 tanks, but failed.

That's a lie. *Engineers and designers protested against the composite
hydrogen tank at the very moment they were informed of a management
decision to build a composite LH2 tank.

You're making the same sort of management decisions concerning what
sorts of technologies you want in this ET derived vehicle,

No I'm not. *I'm being informed by past experience to do the easy
thing, not the hard thing - this is just the opposite of the X-33
program.

LMFAO! *

If you break the pills in half before you take them, and take them as
a divided dose before meals, you won't have these meaningless mood
swings.


and I'm
telling you as someone with an aerospace engineering degree

You're not the only one with one of those dude.

True,

Yep. There are lots more better than you out there.

but I'm not going to be biased since I'm not trying to sell you
anything.

No, you're just taking an inordinate amount of time trying to sell the
casual reader the bull that this system

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/Etdhlrlv-Addendum
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30943696/ETDHLRLV

won't work cannot work and cannot be done for the price and in the
time frame specified.

Why are you taking such great pains to spread this falsehood?


*There are plenty of engineers who engage in R&D who will
happily take your money, and give you all the good news you want all
along the way.

I suppose you work like that, but that's not how the good engineers
who know what the hell they're doing work.

*Eventually the good news will turn to "we just need a
bit more time and a bit more money" and you'll have to figure out how to
manage that without killing the entire project.

I'm sure the way you manage projects that has happened to you a lot.
It doesn't happen to me and it won't happen with this project.

that you've
got no less than five separate R&D programs on your hand

You are wrong.

You're entitled to your opinion,

Yes, my opinion is based on a careful analysis and years of running
successful programs.

but experience and history says
otherwise.

Your experience and history says otherwise, not mine.

with your
design because you're picking five technologies which have *not* proven
themselves in the way you're planning on using them.

Obviously you don't know how R&D programs are managed. *I suppose you
could set things up the way you suggest. *That would be dumb - there
are more efficient ways that make use of existing knowledge and
experience.

I really have no idea what you're babbling on about here,

Simple, you insist on treating each of the five elements you outlined
as a separate research program, ignoring the very excellent work that
has gone before. You also seem oblivious to the fact that there is a
distinct difference between fundamental research and developmental
research. The first has all the shortcomings you outlined. The
second does not. That you cannot see this difference suggests you are
being dishonest or stupid. In either case, anyone reading this can
safely ignore such advice based on ignorant or dishonest advice.

but results
speak louder than words.

True.

*Come back when your five technologies prove
themselves by a successful flight and recovery of your design.

Since I've already flown models in wind tunnels I suppose we will now
argue what constitutes flight and recovery and then success.

Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?

On Sep 10, 6:56*am, William Mook wrote:
On Sep 10, 12:57*am, Brad Guth wrote:



On Sep 5, 11:57*am, William Mook wrote:

On Sep 5, 12:26*am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Sep 4, 4:20*pm, William Mook wrote: On Sep 4, wrote:

* * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

I see that you're busy making friends again. *Do they mind being
toasted at the stake?

*~ BG

Are you talking to me or Fred?

By claiming you already know all there is to know about everything,

I've never claimed that. *I do at times see very clearly when you are
terribly and profoundly wrong - at those times I feel compelled to let
you know that reality doesn't support your error.

you're the one that's trying to make burnt toast out of most everyone
that comes too near.

I'm trying to help. *Reality doesn't need any defense to be what it
is. *It is those who understand and work with reality that achieve
things. *Those who ignore reality or think reality different than it
is cannot achieve anything.

I can't argue against that logic. *Unfortunately this realm of Google
Groups (Usenet/newsgroups) is rather saturated with brown-nosed
clowns, minions and parrots of the mainstream status-quo which
includes Big Energy and those Rothschilds that you seem to always hold
as harmless and unresponsible for anything bad or improper.

I actually agree with many of your notions,

I know.

but you can't seem to mellow out

So? *When someone asks me to mellow out I either want to hit them, or
shout at them. *Is there something wrong with that? *How the hell else
do you get anything done?

I like to return the favor of those topic/author stalking and bashing,
by using my battery of lose cannons, so I know exactly how you feel.

long enough for anyone to get to know the better medicated
side of Mook.

I don't take medications or mind altering drugs.

Perhaps you should reconsider that some of the positive benefits may
outperform the nasty side-effects.

That's crazy talk. *Even crazier to think I would take medical advice
from random people on usenet. *lol.



Setting folks on fire doesn't usually gain their support. *

Better me than reality - which is less forgiving.

Perhaps you
should stick with a private Google Group that others can only read and
email you their thoughts.

I will do as I like being a free person - and so will you - live with
it.

Message received, loud and clear. *Good luck with that "I did it my
way" tactic.

*~ BG

You know what I meant, and I'm not kidding. Your potential for good
is getting exposed as something untrustworthy or at least somewhat
bipolar.

I've already told you that 99.9% of Google Groups(Usenet/newsgroups)
are saturated with phony/bogus and even conspiracy worthy types.
Unfortunately for you, apparently there's not a bad guy or bad gal in
the whole lot, much less working as any team, so you can't seem to
figure out why your stuff isn't going anywhere.

If no one is ever in charge or responsible for whatever bad or
obstructive things that happen, then why are so many claiming credit
for whatever good stuff happens?

As of decades ago, this nation shouldn't have been dependent on
foreign energy. Clearly you have no honest intentions of revising a
damn thing other than publishing words and those numbers that make you
look good. Problem is, you can't seem to deliver.

~ BG

On Sep 10, 6:55*am, William Mook wrote:
On Sep 10, 12:41*am, Brad Guth wrote:



On Sep 5, 11:58 am, William Mook wrote:

On Sep 5, 12:31 am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Sep 4, 3:20 pm, William Mook wrote:

On Sep 4, 3:30 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:

William Mook wrote:
The shape of the airfoil is a very critical starting point in
designing a wing system.

True, but irrelevant to your earlier idiocy.

Not at all, totally relevant. *Especially for a wing that is deployed
in flight.

http://www.betsybyars.com/guy/soarin...ia/71-wvu.html

We're not talking about sailplanes, Mookie.

Yes we are. *IF you knew anything about what I was talking about you'd
know that I have designed a wing system that allows an ET sized
airframe to rocket away vertically and later when its propellant is
largely spent, is recovered by a tow plane as a glider - to be towed
back to its launch center and released so it may be reused.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/30943696/ETDHLRLV

This lets me put up on a regular basis very large power satellites
that are worth 100x what it cost me to build

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/S...-Satellite-GEO

These 5.2 km diameter 600+ ton satellites generate a total of 10,000
MW of power which are beamed to 8,000 ground stations simultaneously
using an advanced holographic technique I've designed;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QAUkt2VPHI

Freddie doesn't know what a Series 6 airfoil is or that its used on
the Tomahawk, or why.

And yet I work in the same area as the engineers who design and build
the thing.

You must sweep up after the real engineers then given the ranting
babble you write here. *Do they know you're online? *Sheez.

What's Mookie do, again?

I invent things, and build companies around them. *I built the first
computer based cash register. *I built the first credit card scanner
in the gas pump. *I have built the first ultra-low-cost solar power
system.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21646352/M...//www.scribd.c...

So, I don't think we need bother with his bull
about what he thinks regarding winged recovery of a spent stage using
wings.

In other words, you can't support your position so you want to just
ignore the critics.

There are three usages for the term 'critic' Freddie, these are;

1. a person who judges something
2. (Literary & Literary Critical Terms) a professional judge of art,
music, literature, etc.
3. a person who often finds fault and criticizes

You are a critic in the sense of #1 and #3. *You are NOT a critic in
the sense of #2 - since your judgments and fault finding are totally
gratuitous. *So, anything you have said thus far, can be gratuitously
ignored.

He also avoided answering any questions ...

You didn't ask any questions, Mookie.

Yes I did. *That's when you gave me instructions to send you an
invoice, remember? *hahaha...

You merely engaged in Mookie
Mewling.

Hahahahaha...

... about calculating terminal
velocity of a re-entering body by pointing out that the ET burns up on
re-entry. *So what? *I'm describing a system with an advanced TPS
system that survives re-entry.

So you're making **** up as you go. *Now we get a magical TPS to go
with the magical wings.

Freddie, things seem magical to the clueless. *So, I suppose you have
self identified as the clueless sot you *re.

You obviously didn't understand the references I gave that described
how these things work.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...ww..spacefligh...

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...ntrs.nasa.gov/...

Basically, an inflatable cap is deployed in front of an ET sized
airframe that protects the main body during ballistic re-entry..

Note this won't work.

Yes it will.

Please do an aerodynamic analysis of just what
something shaped like the ET with the density of the ET does when it
hits air

With a slightly flared base into which the aerospike engine in located
- and shrouds acting as strakes along its length- it will turn into
the direction of the wind. * This is confirmed by CFD analysis and
wind tunnel tests.

Hint: *It doesn't come down with one end first.

Freddie, we're talking about an ET sized airframe with added
aerodynamic features. *You started out your ill conceived objections
by saying the wings would weigh too much. *When I showed they wouldn't
you started making stuff up and falsely attributing it to me. *Now,
you're making more stuff up that has nothing to do with what I've
said. *Please go back and look at what I've designed before making
wrong statements about it.

Mere Mookie Mewling Masticated

Does it make you happy to say these things Freddie? *One has to wonder
about your motivation - and of course - your sanity! *hahahahaha..

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
*truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson

Thermal protection systems ...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...i=B6V1N-4B1RG8...

Not magical or fictional at all.

Freddie has never helped another soul on Earth, so why should he start
now? (much less helping you)

*~ BG

I never asked for Freddie's help since its not clear to me he is
capable of providing any sort of useful input given the babble he has
written here.

But clearly no one here is even half as smart as yourself. *You
obviously don't have a top 10 list to pick from, perhaps because
there's not 10 individuals on Earth qualified.

Perhaps most others here are better than myself, but it seems your
ability to sell whatever still isn't good enough, and you do not have
connections that are working on your behalf. *U happen to think Steven
Chu could change most of that for the better.

Too bad you still can't deliver a cheap tonne of that Mook hydrogen,
because that alone would make all other things possible. *When is your
first full scale commercial solar farm going to open for business?

What sort of expertise or connections are you looking for?

*~ BG

Brad, what you say makes little sense. *If you have $4 million - I can
get $56 million in matching funds from the DOE under a variety of
programs, and we'll turn a 200 MW coal fired plant -currently shut
down- into a hydrogen burner. *It will start at 20 MW and from the
revenue, we'll expand it to 200 MW over a three year period. *It will
cost about $1.80 per watt to retrofit and supply hydrogen. *When
generating it will be worth $9.15 per watt. *We have buyers at this
price to get the long term return on capital.

This isn't the first or the only program we're working on. *Its the
smallest. *$4 million will be worth $400 million in 5 years.

The only reason I mention it is that I am reserving profits from this
project to support my power satellite program. *Since you have an
interest in this, I thought you might like to join in.

If you don't have $4 million - quit yer bitchin' *haha - I will not
take partial payments - or money from those not qualified, or money
from those who in my opinion can't afford to lose it - I am not
planning on losing money for anyone - but that risk has to be spelled
out at the outset. *Nothing is guaranteed - except my commitment to
making this stuff work.

I do not have any spare $4 million, but if I did I'd be interested in
learning about your partners/investors and the other expertise
involved before handing my hard earned loot over to you.

Have you established a formal investment group? (IPO?)

If so, why do you need more than one Rothschild or Gates backer?

What does our Steven Chu have to say about any of your stuff?

~ BG

In article
,
William Mook wrote:

On Sep 6, 10:27*pm, "David M. Palmer" wrote:
In article
,

William Mook wrote:
I invent things, and build companies around them. *I built the first
computer based cash register. *I built the first credit card scanner
in the gas pump. *I have built the first ultra-low-cost solar power
system.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21646352/Mook-POS-Patent

I don't see the novelty vs. Apple II cash-register programs available a
decade earlier, but that's why I'm not a patent
attorney.http://books.google.com/books?id=TD4...&lpg=PT17&dq=a
pple+
II+cash+register&source=bl&ots=l0lTlNE9uJ&sig=iXzJ A21SBE-huXZt_0L6fu4Iik
I&hl=en&ei=MJiFTMfoG5L0swPz6oD3Bw&sa=X&oi=book_res ult&ct=result&resnum=7
&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=apple%20II%20cash%20r egister&f=false

Well, there were cash registers, but they were too slow when compared
to special purpose devices. My patent revolves around what is called
vectored interrupt. Press a button, or activate a device, and a
number is produced that tells the processor to jump to that location
in memory and immediately execute the code found there.

So you have a patent on using vectored interrupts in a cash register?
The IBM PC used vectored interrupts for its keyboard service routine.
Why weren't the PC-based cash registers of the era prior art? Were
unvectored interrupts really unacceptably slow when operated by the
lightning fingers of a minimum-wage checkout girl?



http://www.scribd.com/doc/20047598/M...ion-Ultra-low-...


It looks like you are claiming a solar concentrator with a 120 degree
FOV and a ~280x concentration. * *The problem is that Liouville's
Theorem limits the amount of concentration you can achieve in a
wide-angle acceptance system. *

Correct it looks like that, but its not. This is also known as the
Entendue limit. To explain it fully requires an explanation of how to
transform a problem into another basis and then extract rules, and
convert the problem back and see what those rules mean in the first
basis. This is how thermodynamic rules were first explained, and
these limitations are very much the basis these sorts of limitations
on how light behaves.

Providing a practical means to circumvent this limitation is the basis
of patent work we're working on right now.

So your original patent didn't actually work, so you are trying
something else?

....

Now, instead of moving a CPV target through the image plane, put an
array of lenses in the image plane the size of the dot that makes up
the sun. Arrange each lens to refract the dot of the sun - if present
- to the same location BEHIND the image plane. This is another way of
tracking - but with no moving parts. Since there are no moving parts,
assembly is simplified and costs reduced. Advanced holographic
techniques on plastic - the type you see on DVD packaging and credit
cards - may be used to efficiently produce large lens arrays at low
cost while maintaining accuracy and other features.

Pay attention to 1:40 through 1:44 in this video...

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

It shows in general how the system works.

What it shows is a drawing of how you want it to work. A broad cone of
light comes into the holographic lens, a pencil beam pointed exactly
where you want it comes out.

Holographic does not mean magic.

We have made systems that reliably concentrate light 5,000x

From all angles, over all wavelengths, with the light always hitting
the same point?

....

Otherwise you could make a system that
got brighter than the surface of the Sun, and violate the second law of
thermo. *(Assuming linear optics: e.g. the systems with wave shifters
and edge concentrators are a way around this. *Or you could use a solar
cell to drive a laser brighter than the sun's surface.)

If a single system could concentrate sunlight as you imagine it would
violate several thermodynamic laws. That's not what my system does.
Its best to think of my system as a tracking mechanism with no moving
parts. Its easy to see a fisheye lens can be used as a concentrator
by tracking the sun with it to keep the sun image at a particular spot
in the system. Its also easy to see we can keep the fisheye lens
stationary by moving the CPV 'target' to always be under the solar
image in the image plane. Then its easy to see at each location in
the image plane we can put a separate CPV target and switch it on when
illuminated.

OK

Finally its easy to see that we can put a secondary lens
at each location to redirect the solar image to a common CPV target.

And that's where it runs smack into the limits of physical reality.
Cone in-pencil out . And before you say bring up the case of a concave
lens, that's where the cone is focused on the far focal point of the
lens, and not your case where the light is focussed on a random point
in the plane of the lenslet array.

This is not one optical system but 200,000 optical systems that happen
to all use the same primary lens. No rules are violated, and no super-
performance is possible.

Put another sun in the sky at a different location. If what you say is
correct, its light will also fall on the same location. The sky is
big, so put 10,000 suns in the sky. With 5,000x concentration from
each sun, you have a total of 50 million times sunlight all hitting the
same spot, or about 6e10 W/m^2. This is a thousand times the flux from
a solar-temperature blackbody. Do you see the problem?

--
David M. Palmer (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)

On Sep 10, 9:35*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Sep 10, 6:55*am, William Mook wrote:



On Sep 10, 12:41*am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Sep 5, 11:58 am, William Mook wrote:

On Sep 5, 12:31 am, Brad Guth wrote:

On Sep 4, 3:20 pm, William Mook wrote:

On Sep 4, 3:30 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:

William Mook wrote:
The shape of the airfoil is a very critical starting point in
designing a wing system.

True, but irrelevant to your earlier idiocy.

Not at all, totally relevant. *Especially for a wing that is deployed
in flight.

http://www.betsybyars.com/guy/soarin...ia/71-wvu.html

We're not talking about sailplanes, Mookie.

Yes we are. *IF you knew anything about what I was talking about you'd
know that I have designed a wing system that allows an ET sized
airframe to rocket away vertically and later when its propellant is
largely spent, is recovered by a tow plane as a glider - to be towed
back to its launch center and released so it may be reused.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/30943696/ETDHLRLV

This lets me put up on a regular basis very large power satellites
that are worth 100x what it cost me to build

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/S...-Satellite-GEO

These 5.2 km diameter 600+ ton satellites generate a total of 10,000
MW of power which are beamed to 8,000 ground stations simultaneously
using an advanced holographic technique I've designed;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QAUkt2VPHI

Freddie doesn't know what a Series 6 airfoil is or that its used on
the Tomahawk, or why.

And yet I work in the same area as the engineers who design and build
the thing.

You must sweep up after the real engineers then given the ranting
babble you write here. *Do they know you're online? *Sheez.

What's Mookie do, again?

I invent things, and build companies around them. *I built the first
computer based cash register. *I built the first credit card scanner
in the gas pump. *I have built the first ultra-low-cost solar power
system.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21646352/M...//www.scribd.c...

So, I don't think we need bother with his bull
about what he thinks regarding winged recovery of a spent stage using
wings.

In other words, you can't support your position so you want to just
ignore the critics.

There are three usages for the term 'critic' Freddie, these are;

1. a person who judges something
2. (Literary & Literary Critical Terms) a professional judge of art,
music, literature, etc.
3. a person who often finds fault and criticizes

You are a critic in the sense of #1 and #3. *You are NOT a critic in
the sense of #2 - since your judgments and fault finding are totally
gratuitous. *So, anything you have said thus far, can be gratuitously
ignored.

He also avoided answering any questions ...

You didn't ask any questions, Mookie.

Yes I did. *That's when you gave me instructions to send you an
invoice, remember? *hahaha...

You merely engaged in Mookie
Mewling.

Hahahahaha...

... about calculating terminal
velocity of a re-entering body by pointing out that the ET burns up on
re-entry. *So what? *I'm describing a system with an advanced TPS
system that survives re-entry.

So you're making **** up as you go. *Now we get a magical TPS to go
with the magical wings.

Freddie, things seem magical to the clueless. *So, I suppose you have
self identified as the clueless sot you *re.

You obviously didn't understand the references I gave that described
how these things work.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...www.spacefligh...

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...ntrs.nasa.gov/...

Basically, an inflatable cap is deployed in front of an ET sized
airframe that protects the main body during ballistic re-entry.

Note this won't work.

Yes it will.

Please do an aerodynamic analysis of just what
something shaped like the ET with the density of the ET does when it
hits air

With a slightly flared base into which the aerospike engine in located
- and shrouds acting as strakes along its length- it will turn into
the direction of the wind. * This is confirmed by CFD analysis and
wind tunnel tests.

Hint: *It doesn't come down with one end first.

Freddie, we're talking about an ET sized airframe with added
aerodynamic features. *You started out your ill conceived objections
by saying the wings would weigh too much. *When I showed they wouldn't
you started making stuff up and falsely attributing it to me. *Now,
you're making more stuff up that has nothing to do with what I've
said. *Please go back and look at what I've designed before making
wrong statements about it.

Mere Mookie Mewling Masticated

Does it make you happy to say these things Freddie? *One has to wonder
about your motivation - and of course - your sanity! *hahahahaha..

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
*truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson

Thermal protection systems ...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...i=B6V1N-4B1RG8...

Not magical or fictional at all.

Freddie has never helped another soul on Earth, so why should he start
now? (much less helping you)

*~ BG

I never asked for Freddie's help since its not clear to me he is
capable of providing any sort of useful input given the babble he has
written here.

But clearly no one here is even half as smart as yourself. *You
obviously don't have a top 10 list to pick from, perhaps because
there's not 10 individuals on Earth qualified.

Perhaps most others here are better than myself, but it seems your
ability to sell whatever still isn't good enough, and you do not have
connections that are working on your behalf. *U happen to think Steven
Chu could change most of that for the better.

Too bad you still can't deliver a cheap tonne of that Mook hydrogen,
because that alone would make all other things possible. *When is your
first full scale commercial solar farm going to open for business?

What sort of expertise or connections are you looking for?

*~ BG

Brad, what you say makes little sense. *If you have $4 million - I can
get $56 million in matching funds from the DOE under a variety of
programs, and we'll turn a 200 MW coal fired plant -currently shut
down- into a hydrogen burner. *It will start at 20 MW and from the
revenue, we'll expand it to 200 MW over a three year period. *It will
cost about $1.80 per watt to retrofit and supply hydrogen. *When
generating it will be worth $9.15 per watt. *We have buyers at this
price to get the long term return on capital.

This isn't the first or the only program we're working on. *Its the
smallest. *$4 million will be worth $400 million in 5 years.

The only reason I mention it is that I am reserving profits from this
project to support my power satellite program. *Since you have an
interest in this, I thought you might like to join in.

If you don't have $4 million - quit yer bitchin' *haha - I will not
take partial payments - or money from those not qualified, or money
from those who in my opinion can't afford to lose it - I am not
planning on losing money for anyone - but that risk has to be spelled
out at the outset. *Nothing is guaranteed - except my commitment to
making this stuff work.

I do not have any spare $4 million, but if I did I'd be interested in
learning about your partners/investors and the other expertise
involved before handing my hard earned loot over to you.

That makes total sense.


Have you established a formal investment group? (IPO?)

I use a project financing model. The $4 million program is the
smallest program I have for early stage investors. There are over
1,000 coal fired plants in the USA, and 158 of them have been shut
down by environmental groups.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...S._Coal_Plants

These owners may like to use hydrogen. So, I create a JV between a
coal plant owner and myself to supply hydrogen - and convert the plant
to hydrogen. I need $1.80 per watt of base load capacity converted,
to pay for things and I generate $9.15 per watt when electricity is
flowing.

If so, why do you need more than one Rothschild or Gates backer?

http://www.us.capgemini.com/worldwealthreport09/

There are 10 million millionaires in the world worth $40 trillion.
There are 300,000 people worth $30 million or more. There are 10,000
worth $900 million or more, 300 worth $27 billion or more. Each has
their own concerns, capabilities, interests. Each has a plethora of
opportunities thrust upon them every single day. No one has given
them a believable means to organize their thinking about the long-term
viability of the planet its economy or environment. So, anyone who
says they've got the answer, regardless of the answer appears foolish
to them.

What does our Steven Chu have to say about any of your stuff?

Chu doesn't know about my stuff afaict. I have spoken to some at
OSTP. But, I've been too busy with money customers to worry about
them.

*~ BG

So, I have the ability to make solar panels from sheets of molded PET
plastic that are then welded together in a water bath. They focus
light on to a high temperature photovoltaic electrolysis unit to
produce hydrogen and oxygen with 60% efficiency. Hydrogen is
collected in standing tanks and gathered stored in underground
formations. Hydrogen is retrieved from underground, along with
mobilized gas and oil, separated from the other materials, which are
sold, and then sent by pipeline at the rate its needed for whatever
you do with it.

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

Some of the things that are done with hydrogen at $100 per ton to make
it worth over $1,000 per ton;

(1) convert CO2 to CH4 with the Sabatier reaction
(a) sell CH4
(b) Convert CH4 and O2 to CH3OH (methanol) and sell it
(c) Convert methanol to DME and sell it
(d) Convert DME to Gasoline and sell it

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3541469

(2) convert Coal to Gasoline and sell it
(3) Convert air to liquid ammonia and sell it
(4) Sell hydrogen
(5) Burn Hydrogen to make electricity
(a) buy old closed down power plants and re-start with
hydrogen sell new power plant
(b) Use electricity and salt water to make bleach and sell
it
(i) Use bleach to make hydrochloric acid and sodium
hydroxide mine ores reduce them sell metals
(6) Use hydrogen to mobilize stationary reserves of oil and gas
(a) buy depleted wells re-start them, sell restarted wells
(7) Use hydrogen to boil sea-water and produce salt and fresh water
- sell both
(8) Use hydrogen as a scavenger gas to reduce ores to metals
without CO2

Another thing is to orbit a single 10,000 MW satellite and beam energy
to 8,000 ground stations at a rate of 1.25 MW net - at $10 per watt
($2 per watt down and $0.44 per watt per year)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/S...-Satellite-GEO