... OIL has Doubled in One Year! $120 bbl While NASA Dreams of Moon Rocks!

On May 12, 4:09 pm, Vincent Brannigan wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 12, 2:43 pm, Vincent Brannigan wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 12, 7:13 am, Vincent Brannigan wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
If you've got better science or better physics that explains why a
6400% inflation in fossil energy within 64 years is perfectly good to
go, then do share and share alike.
O , who can argue with that
Just a question
how do you "inflate" fossil energy ?
64 years ago was 1944.
For the USA inflation adjusted price of gasoline see
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...6_fcvt_fotw426.....
$2.28 in 2005 dollars
Vince
If we all had the “USA inflation adjusted” income to go along with
your “USA inflation adjusted price of gasoline”, as such there
wouldn’t hardly any problem, whereas I too could manage to get by on
that USA inflation adjusted income of $10,000/month (same as $156.25/
mo as of 64 years ago).
. –BradGuth
We have established that you can't read
now you prove that you cant multiply

the inflation correction for 156.25 in 1944 is $1,840.38 at the present
time

http://www.aier.org/research/cost-of-living-calculator/

Vincent M Brannigan

U of Maryland Consumer Economics Program
Assistant Prof 1977-83
Associate Prof 1983-1991
Professor 1991-92

have a nice day

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-003.pdf
“i n 1946 and resided in nonfarm areas was about $2,100 as compared
with $1,000 for women”

Divide that average income roughly in half for the typical nonwhite or
farm worker (this only applies to the nonfamily employed worker
because, the bulk of whatever the local/farm family member received
was paid via room and board).

Since I would have been much higher paid than average, by at least
twice that average of $175/month, makes my 1946 earnings worth $350/
month. Now multiply that by 64 = $22,400/month.

This is where you make your mistake

Read the cite

so far you fail the quiz



Do you even know the meaning of _duh_?
. –BradGuth

yes it is the typical response of students who are so limited in
background or cognitive ability that they cannot answer a question

Vince

You're simply amazing, what a total all American bigot and bipolar
freak that you are.

Pay me 64 times as much as 64 years ago and I'll call it good, you
fossil oil sucking asshole.

Of course, in many other places in this world that you obviously do
not care about, that would be like getting paid 256 fold more than 64
years ago.
. - Brad Guth

On May 12, 4:10 pm, Vincent Brannigan wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 12, 2:36 pm, Vincent Brannigan wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 12, 7:13 am, Vincent Brannigan wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
If you've got better science or better physics that explains why a
6400% inflation in fossil energy within 64 years is perfectly good to
go, then do share and share alike.
O , who can argue with that
Just a question
how do you "inflate" fossil energy ?
64 years ago was 1944.
For the USA inflation adjusted price of gasoline see
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...6_fcvt_fotw426....
$2.28 in 2005 dollars
Vince
What's the matter, isn't 6400% of fossil energy inflation in 64 years
quit good enough?
I can inflate balloons or prices or currency

But the laws of thermodynamics preclude inflating energy

You know exactly what I'd meant. Proves who you really are, doesn't
it.
. - BG

I've told you who I am

I'm a real person

you are either a bot or a 4th grader

Vince

Just a nice honest guy that worked damn hard for what little I've
got. Sorry about that. Unlike yourself, I appreciate what little
others have, especially when they are taking care of their own kind
(that is until we came along).
.. - Brad Guth

On Mon, 12 May 2008 22:51:29 -0700 (PDT), Totorkon
wrote:

Your talking gauge wars. Europe uses the standard 1435mm even with
its electric trains

Give or take Spain and Russia, both of which are wider.

Casady

On May 13, 7:02 am, Vincent Brannigan wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 12, 4:09 pm, Vincent Brannigan wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 12, 2:43 pm, Vincent Brannigan wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 12, 7:13 am, Vincent Brannigan wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
If you've got better science or better physics that explains why a
6400% inflation in fossil energy within 64 years is perfectly good to
go, then do share and share alike.
O , who can argue with that
Just a question
how do you "inflate" fossil energy ?
64 years ago was 1944.
For the USA inflation adjusted price of gasoline see
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...6_fcvt_fotw426.....
$2.28 in 2005 dollars
Vince
If we all had the “USA inflation adjusted” income to go along with
your “USA inflation adjusted price of gasoline”, as such there
wouldn’t hardly any problem, whereas I too could manage to get by on
that USA inflation adjusted income of $10,000/month (same as $156.25/
mo as of 64 years ago).
. –BradGuth
We have established that you can't read
now you prove that you cant multiply
the inflation correction for 156.25 in 1944 is $1,840.38 at the present
time
http://www.aier.org/research/cost-of-living-calculator/
Vincent M Brannigan
U of Maryland Consumer Economics Program
Assistant Prof 1977-83
Associate Prof 1983-1991
Professor 1991-92
have a nice day
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-003.pdf
“i n 1946 and resided in nonfarm areas was about $2,100 as compared
with $1,000 for women”
Divide that average income roughly in half for the typical nonwhite or
farm worker (this only applies to the nonfamily employed worker
because, the bulk of whatever the local/farm family member received
was paid via room and board).
Since I would have been much higher paid than average, by at least
twice that average of $175/month, makes my 1946 earnings worth $350/
month. Now multiply that by 64 = $22,400/month.
This is where you make your mistake

Read the cite

so far you fail the quiz

Do you even know the meaning of _duh_?
. –BradGuth
yes it is the typical response of students who are so limited in
background or cognitive ability that they cannot answer a question

Vince

You're simply amazing, what a total all American bigot and bipolar
freak that you are.

Pay me 64 times as much as 64 years ago and I'll call it good, you
fossil oil sucking asshole.

Of course, in many other places in this world that you obviously do
not care about, that would be like getting paid 256 fold more than 64
years ago.
. - Brad Guth

you simply cannot do math can you?

prices have not inflated by "64 times" in 64 years

When you get to 4th grade you will start doing decimals

Since 1944 the CPI conversion factor is 11.7784
from the cite ntoed above

Conversion Factor: 11.7784
Percent Change: 1,077.84

now run along and do your homework

Vince

I thought them fat Rothschilds did a way better job of educating their
brown-nosed minions. In your case, guess not.
. - Brad Guth

Totorkon wrote:

Your talking gauge wars. Europe uses the standard 1435mm even with
its electric trains. It would be a big step just to transfer cargos
from trucks to trains, which are four times as efficient.

I'm talking far larger trains than we are presently using running on far
wider tracks, real monsters with boxcars of around four times their
current capacity, with the other cars that have the ability to carry
around a couple of hundred passengers.
As fuel cost increase, simple economics may make this a necessary
development for moving freight...and as a alternative to air, bus, or
automobile transport to get people places over a long distance.

In the case of SPS, kick that initial expense up via a order of
magnitude or three, and you realize the initial investment this is going
to require.
There's no easy way for us to get from where we are to that wonder world
in a incremental manner that a company or government could afford.
For starters, you need _huge_ SSTO vehicles - that no one knows how to
make yet - that can carry worthwhile payloads.
Figuring out how to build those (assuming they are even possible with
existing or near-term future technology) is going to eat up tens of
billions of dollars by the time they are done.


Just getting 'to orbit' rates down to a magical $1K/lb would be enough
to launch a thousand proposals and perhaps endear the public. SSTO
isn't the way to go.


It's the simple way to go, and simplicity may pay off in the long run
over sophisticated two or more component vehicles.
The other possibility is a giant and cheap disposable booster.
One advantage that would simplify things greatly is to build the SPS
satellites in LEO (far more benign than GEO as far as radiation goes,
and a lot easier to reach) then attach ion engines to them and let them
use their electrical generating capacity to slowly work themselves out
to their intended final orbit in GEO.
By turning the solar array full-on or edge-on to the sun as it orbits
during ascent into GEO, the array could also be used as a large solar sail.

(snip)

Still, if someday private enterprise could launch, construct and
operate a power satellite for profit, it would begin a new age and the
human prospect of survival for as long as the sun shines.


Don't forget the solar wind; that's going to degrade the solar arrays
over time, so that there will be maintenance needed.
There's another big downside he
A company that could build the SPS constellation and owns its output can
hold the countries that use that energy over a barrel.
Either you pay what they want or your country goes into a electrical
blackout.

Pat

In article tatelephone,
Pat Flannery wrote:

Don't forget the solar wind; that's going to degrade the solar arrays
over time, so that there will be maintenance needed.

WTF would you be putting arrays outside 6-odd Earth radii geocentric distance?
Inside that, you're in the magnetosphere - that is, sheltered from the
solar wind, even at the sub-solar point in your orbit.

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

On May 13, 11:56 am, Vincent Brannigan wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
you simply cannot do math can you?

prices have not inflated by "64 times" in 64 years

When you get to 4th grade you will start doing decimals

Since 1944 the CPI conversion factor is 11.7784
from the cite ntoed above

Conversion Factor: 11.7784
Percent Change: 1,077.84

now run along and do your homework

Vince

I thought them fat Rothschilds did a way better job of educating their
brown-nosed minions. In your case, guess not.
. - Brad Guth

Your mommy is calling

go home

Vince

Pay anyone 64 times whatever take-home loot they were getting as of 64
years ago, and as such I bet they'll not bitch about having to pay $5/
gallon.
.. - Brad Guth

On May 13, 2:09 pm, (Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:
In article tatelephone,
Pat Flannery wrote:



Don't forget the solar wind; that's going to degrade the solar arrays
over time, so that there will be maintenance needed.

WTF would you be putting arrays outside 6-odd Earth radii geocentric distance?
Inside that, you're in the magnetosphere - that is, sheltered from the
solar wind, even at the sub-solar point in your orbit.

I could give you folks a rather nifty 2r platform as tethered away
from my LSE-CM/ISS that's tethered into the moon. I had plans of
providing 1.2 TW worth of laser cannon power, as to do whatever
with.
.. - Brad Guth

Andrew Robert Breen wrote:

WTF would you be putting arrays outside 6-odd Earth radii geocentric distance?
Inside that, you're in the magnetosphere - that is, sheltered from the
solar wind, even at the sub-solar point in your orbit.


Huh? Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO) is at 22,233 miles up.
You hit the inner Van Allen belt at a altitude of around 430 miles.
If you aren't going to have your workers getting fried by radiation,
that means you have to have the power satellites assembled below that
altitude.
You clear the outer Van Allen belt at around 6,200 miles up, but once
you are above that altitude you still have the radiation from solar
storms to contend with.
A SPS constellation in GEO kills two birds with one stone:
The downlink microwave transmitters don't have to move as the SOS
crosses the sky, and the receiver antennae on Earth's surface doesn't
have to be switching from one SPS to another as they rise above and fall
below the horizon (even that would be problematical for the big flat
receiver array that's generally proposed, as you want the SPS power beam
to hit it at a ninety-degree angle or close to it.)
The SPS constellation doesn't spend much time being eclipsed by the
Earth coming between it and the Sun, like at lower altitudes where
satellites go into Earth's shadow as they orbit - so power can be
generated and transmitted down pretty much 24/7 except near the spring
and fall equinoxes.

Pat

In article tatelephone,
Pat Flannery wrote:


Andrew Robert Breen wrote:

WTF would you be putting arrays outside 6-odd Earth radii geocentric distance?
Inside that, you're in the magnetosphere - that is, sheltered from the
solar wind, even at the sub-solar point in your orbit.


Huh? Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO) is at 22,233 miles up.

Yes..

You hit the inner Van Allen belt at a altitude of around 430 miles.

... which isn't the solar wind. That's out beyond the magnetopause.

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)