Our 0.11% hollow moon, and near infinite vacuum of Selene L1 /Brad Guth

Where’s the objective evidence that our Selene/moon is not the least
bit hollow? (solid as a rock seems rather highly unlikely, especially
if there’s ongoing mineral compressions, decay and those pesky
radioactive elements that coexist and thereby unavoidably produce
various gasses, along with an off-center core that couldn’t have tidal
migrated without leaving a porous interior of voids behind)

Apparently our moon(Selene) also has hidden hydrogen peroxide(h2o2)
within its 25 K cold traps, in that its decomposition release (such
as triggered by way of the LCROSS surface impactor) provided those
detectable hydroxyl radicals.
“The ultraviolet visible spectrometer detected hydroxyl signatures
just after impact that are consistent with a water vapor cloud in
sunlight.”

But where's our public funded science pertaining to the Earth-moon L1
(Selene L1)? In other words, how extra hot or ultra cold and what's
all that ultra-extreme vacuum like?

If those polar cold traps are suggesting an environment near 25 K (as
reported by our LRO team of NASA approved wizards), then perhaps 3%
of the time the Selene L1 environment might become considerably
colder, as well as offering a vacuum of at least 3e-21 bar (a million
fold less pressure than the lunar surface), which should only pull
more heat out of that tidal enhanced near absolute vacuum environment,
as well as otherwise allowing more heat in whenever exposed to direct
plus indirect sunlight (including moon IR and earthshine) that’s
available 97+% of the time.

Since most everything original about our Apollo mission R&D and their
obtained science along with their half century advanced technology is
either missing, remains as need-to-know or public nondisclosure/
inaccessible, where's the other 99.9% of our public funded LRO
science?

Most of our Apollo missions were those surrounded by a physically dark
as coal lunar terrain, as having converted the bulk of solar energy
into secondary IR worth an average 1218 w/m2 (you’ll simply have to
disregard all those mission images as having that surface albedo of 65+
% and offering nothing UV reactive). Otherwise such heat is heat
(including earthshine that’s 50 times greater intensity than
moonlight), and otherwise it’s exactly the same as being here on Earth
except as if you were surrounded on all sides (including top to bottom
by an array of 1218 watt/m2 radiant heat within each and every visible
square meter for as far as the eye can see, as well as supposedly
having essentially no significant atmospheric attenuation, as so much
so toasty that even in the shade it would have remained extremely hot
from all of that unavoidable surrounding secondary IR radiation.

“LRO takes measurements from an altitude of about 31 miles, so
researchers are not sure what dosages astronauts will see at the
surface”

Actually the direct solar energy of 1367 w/m2 (as raw/naked average
solar energy w/UV is perhaps closer to 1630 w/m2) was also
unavoidable. As equally the ultra extreme cold of what’s continually
shaded within a deep polar crater being a low as 25 K (22 mw/m2) is
obviously an example where as little as 4.7 mw/m2 of geothermal energy
is available from that thick polar crust.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png

And why did I bother to say these exact same things as of nearly a
decade ago, that our naked, crystal dry and highly electrostatic
charged lunar surface of such physically dark and unusually dense
mineral deposits, along with its issues of those significant mascons
plus unavoidable secondary/recoil forms of local radiation that’s
coming at you from all directions, was anything but DNA friendly.
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0912/20lroresults/
As sun activity increases, the impact of solar energetic particles
will increase relative to galactic cosmic rays.

"We are in a period during this historic solar minimum where the
radiation rates are elevated but are at tolerable levels in terms of
radiation risk," Spence said.
But the CRaTER instrument also discovered unexpected levels of
radiation closer to the lunar surface, where the moon should block
cosmic rays.

Many scientists believed the moon's mass would shield astronauts
working on the surface, but LRO's discovery shows something on the
moon is producing a secondary source of radiation.

"The net affect could be that you don't get much help from the moon at
all," Spence said. "In fact, some of the secondary particles might be
even more hazardous in terms of their radiation dose."

LRO takes measurements from an altitude of about 31 miles, so
researchers are not sure what dosages astronauts will see at the
surface. Spence said surface radiation levels from the secondary lunar
source may be as high as the dose from galactic cosmic rays.

A leading hypothesis for the lunar radiation source is the interaction
between cosmic rays and soil. As energetic particles strike regolith,
the collisions could liberate other particles and hurl them high above
the moon.

Spence said the revelations would not prohibit human exploration of
the moon, but researchers are eager to learn more about the surprising
radiation fluxes.

As solar activity increases, LRO will gather information on radiation
dangers posed by particles in the solar wind. LRO data, combined with
results from a fleet of space weather monitors and solar
observatories, will hopefully lead to more accurate forecasts of solar
events emitting high radiation, according to Wargo.

Such predictions are the "holy grail" for lunar scientists, Wargo
said.
"There are often precursors to the solar proton events, so you have
some hope if you're outside a habitation or out of shielding to get
back to some safer place where there's significant shielding," Spence
said. "I think at the moon there are ways to mitigate and deal with
both types of radiation risk."

-

This following context means the tidal offset core of our moon/Selene
is perhaps more inert dead and subsequently colder than the subdued
core of Mars. For the moment, I’ve estimated a lunar polar surface
“cold trap” heat flux of 4.7 mw/m2 (surrounding terrain of secondary/
recoil IR making the LRO readings worth 22 mw/m2)
..
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0912/20lroresults/
"The moon has one of the most extreme thermal environments of any
body in the solar system," said David Paige, principal investigator
for the Diviner payload at the University of California, Los Angeles.

In October, Diviner detected a cold trap in Hermite crater with
temperatures of nearly -415 degrees Fahrenheit.

"To put that kind of temperature into perspective, nothing like this
has ever yet been measured in the solar system," Paige said. "One
would have to maybe travel far beyond the Kuiper Belt to find an
object with a temperature this low."

-

I’m finding it most interesting that so many of our best scientists
are suddenly at shock and awe or other amazement as to what levels of
extreme hot and cold and radiation risk our moon has to offer anyone
standing upon its naked surface, especially as surrounded by all that
unusually dense assortment of raw elements that’ll unavoidably turn
cosmic energy into everything from soft X-rays to gamma., plus
whatever our sun contributes directly and otherwise causing everything
from the secondary/recoil IR average of 1217+ w/m2 (maximum 1452 w/m2)
to that of hard X-rays that can rather easily become lethal saturation
within as little as hours or even worse case minutes worth of
exposure. Oddly, not one frame of any X-ray sensitive Kodak film from
our Apollo era showed us any hint of such radiation dosage or even
thermal trauma, as though it wasn’t even measurable or otherwise worth
any further review.

In the polar crater shade, the most flexible of moonsuit synthetic
materials would become so cryogenic at 25 K they (whereas most gasses
become liquids or solids) could crack or even cause artificial
materials to shatter. (25 K is significantly colder than liquid
nitrogen of 63 K), and a meter above that rather poorly warmed surface
of such 3e-15 bar vacuum should be an even colder.

Apparently my previous suggestions of digging in so as to having
thermal stability and a few meters worth of basalt between your frail
DNA and all of that surrounding surface radiation exposure was just
foolishness on my part. However, in many places that unusual crust/
bedrock or composite soil of our physically dark moon is likely
several times more background radioactive than Earth (exactly as
though that moon isn’t nearly as old as Earth), so as for not being
exactly inert or failsafe to human DNA even if you’re entirely
situated deep underground. Essentially, it’s as though that moon is
not made of Earth because, some of the gamma spectrographic mapped
locations as offering thorium, uranium and radium deposits upon or
within that moon will simply have to be avoided regardless of being
dug in.

So, just because the moon is potentially 0.1% hollow doesn’t insure
that your frail DNA is going to be entirely safe within all such
naturally or artificially made hollow locations. Potentially harmful
mineral ores and deposits of whatever’s radioactive should have been
easily mapped as of 4+ decades ago, because the sufficient technology
having existed, at least to within a km2 resolution, and as of most
recently a surface resolution of 10 x 10 or 100 m2 should have this
surface background dosage nailed as to what sorts of heavy minerals
and radioactive substances exist, and even to what likely depths. The
UV fluorescence imaging and subsequent mapping of surface minerals
should have been well established by now, by LRO in far greater detail
than ever before.

Odd there's not a peep of anything constructive about this colder than
liquid nitrogen environment. At the cryogenic 25 K environment should
accommodate loads of dry ice (solid CO2) plus solids of pure oxygen
and perhaps even crystal solids of Radon starting at 200 K (because
that moon does have its own radium plus numerous surface deposits).

However, we can't even seem to deploy surface probes as safely soft-
landed onto our physically dark moon(Selene) that offers direct
readings from those polar craters of 25 K (that's actually way colder
than liquid nitrogen), suggesting the moon itself is giving off
something much less than 22 mw/m2.

At 25 K there's a lot of potentially insulating gas (greenhouse gas)
keeping such deep crater shadowed “cold traps” warmer than otherwise
possible. (at 25 K even liquid nitrogen is going to be insulative)

Too bad we don’t have any surface probe(s) reporting continuous
objective data back from such extreme cold spots. It’s almost as
though we actually do not have the necessary expertise and required
technology of deploying such robotic probe landers. Also, we should
only further imagine the terrific Stirling solar energy conversion at
near 375 K differential/m2 (1000 m2 focused onto a hydrogen boiler and
those unlimited cold energy sinks of something near 25 K is going to
easily generate 821 kw of nearly continuous clean energy to do
whatever with).

The S3TEC Center of ongoing research offers 85.4% conversion, whereas
it seems likely 1.2 MW per thousand m2 is technically obtainable,
especially if such advanced PVs were applied on the most elevated
lunar polar surface, whereas that sunlight is nearly continuous and
still saturated with UV that PVs love to convert into electrons.
http://s3tec.mit.edu/index.php?optio...1&It emid=100

Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On 1/2/2010 12:07 PM, BradGuth wrote:

Where’s the objective evidence that our Selene/moon is not the least

Where's the objective evidence that Guthball has a brain?

On Jan 2, 10:34*am, Nightcrawler wrote:
On 1/2/2010 12:07 PM, BradGuth wrote:

Where’s the objective evidence that our Selene/moon is not the least

Where's the objective evidence that Guthball has a brain?

"Our 99% hollow head of Guthball once again spewed..."

In other words, you've still got nothing whatsoever.

Why don't you knock our socks off with the best available science
you've got?

How about some public funded supercomputer simulations, of how such a
thick and mineral saturated crust as having quickly solidified,
evolves along with a tidal offset core (supposedly of hot iron), and
remains today as a passive solid without internal fluids (meaning
crystal dry), as well as gasless and otherwise solid as any inert
(zero decay) rock that's no longer affected by whatever tidal morphing
or gravity compression forces?

~ BG

On 1/2/2010 12:54 PM, BradGuth wrote:

More enane rambling snipped

Hey, dimbulb, ever read this report?

http://www.solarviews.com/eng/moonpr1.htm

On Jan 2, 11:22*am, Nightcrawler wrote:
On 1/2/2010 12:54 PM, BradGuth wrote:

More enane rambling snipped

Hey, dimbulb, ever read this report?

http://www.solarviews.com/eng/moonpr1.htm

Been there, done that NASA infomercial that was created for the
LeapFrog certified likes of yourself, but thanks anyway.

Ever heard of a geode rock?

Earth has lots of nifty cavities and terrific geode pockets that are
really big, not to mention those empty oil, gas and vast volumes of
fresh water aquifer cavities that are near empty or having been
seawater flooded. Thus far we've uncovered and/or having mapped the
natural volumetric extent of perhaps 0.1% of what's available (should
the need arise).

~ BG

On 1/2/2010 3:04 PM, BradGuth wrote:
On Jan 2, 11:22 am, wrote:
On 1/2/2010 12:54 PM, BradGuth wrote:

More enane rambling snipped

Hey, dimbulb, ever read this report?

http://www.solarviews.com/eng/moonpr1.htm

Been there, done that NASA infomercial that was created for the
LeapFrog certified likes of yourself, but thanks anyway.

Ever heard of a geode rock?

Earth has lots of nifty cavities and terrific geode pockets that are
really big, not to mention those empty oil, gas and vast volumes of
fresh water aquifer cavities that are near empty or having been
seawater flooded. Thus far we've uncovered and/or having mapped the
natural volumetric extent of perhaps0.1% of what's available (should
the need arise).

~ BG

Weeeeeeeeeeee.

On Jan 2, 1:40*pm, Nightcrawler wrote:
On 1/2/2010 3:04 PM, BradGuth wrote:



On Jan 2, 11:22 am, *wrote:
On 1/2/2010 12:54 PM, BradGuth wrote:

More enane rambling snipped

Hey, dimbulb, ever read this report?

http://www.solarviews.com/eng/moonpr1.htm

Been there, done that NASA infomercial that was created for the
LeapFrog certified likes of yourself, but thanks anyway.

Ever heard of a geode rock?

Earth has lots of nifty cavities and terrific geode pockets that are
really big, not to mention those empty oil, gas and vast volumes of
fresh water aquifer cavities that are near empty or having been
seawater flooded. *Thus far we've uncovered and/or having mapped the
natural volumetric extent of perhaps0.1% of what's available (should
the need arise).

* ~ BG

Weeeeeeeeeeee.

Ever heard of vogs?

Ever studied geology-101?

Ever read a National Geographic?

Ever give an honest **** about anything, other than yourself?

~ BG

On Jan 2, 1:40*pm, Nightcrawler wrote:
On 1/2/2010 3:04 PM, BradGuth wrote:



On Jan 2, 11:22 am, *wrote:
On 1/2/2010 12:54 PM, BradGuth wrote:

More enane rambling snipped

Hey, dimbulb, ever read this report?

http://www.solarviews.com/eng/moonpr1.htm

Been there, done that NASA infomercial that was created for the
LeapFrog certified likes of yourself, but thanks anyway.

Ever heard of a geode rock?

Earth has lots of nifty cavities and terrific geode pockets that are
really big, not to mention those empty oil, gas and vast volumes of
fresh water aquifer cavities that are near empty or having been
seawater flooded. *Thus far we've uncovered and/or having mapped the
natural volumetric extent of perhaps0.1% of what's available (should
the need arise).

* ~ BG

Weeeeeeeeeeee.

Sorry about my vog brain-fart (make that "vugs")

Ever heard of vugs?

Ever studied geology-101?

Ever read a National Geographic?

Ever give an honest **** about anything, other than yourself?

~ BG

Earth has lots of nifty cavities and terrific volcanic formed voids,
plus geode pockets that are really big, not to mention those empty
oil, gas, coal and other mineral wells/shafts and mines, plus
otherwise terrific volumes of fresh water aquifer cavities that are
near empty or having been intentionally seawater flooded. Thus far
we've uncovered and/or having mapped the natural volumetric extent of
perhaps 0.1% of what's available (should the need arise, the smart
and less dumbfounded ones could survive underground).

On behalf of those stuck in perpetual naysay, obfuscation and denial:
Ever heard of vugs?
Ever heard of a geode rock?
Ever studied Earth geology-101?
Ever read a National Geographic?
Ever give an honest **** about anything, other than yourself?

~ BG


On Jan 2, 10:07*am, BradGuth wrote:
Where’s the objective evidence that our Selene/moon is not the least
bit hollow? (solid as a rock seems rather highly unlikely, especially
if there’s ongoing mineral compressions, decay and those pesky
radioactive elements that coexist and thereby unavoidably produce
various gasses, along with an off-center core that couldn’t have tidal
migrated without leaving a porous interior of voids behind)

Apparently our moon(Selene) also has hidden hydrogen peroxide(h2o2)
within its 25 K cold traps, in that its decomposition release (such
as triggered by way of the LCROSS surface impactor) provided those
detectable hydroxyl radicals.
*“The ultraviolet visible spectrometer detected hydroxyl signatures
just after impact that are consistent with a water vapor cloud in
sunlight.”

But where's our public funded science pertaining to the Earth-moon L1
(Selene L1)? *In other words, how extra hot or ultra cold and what's
all that ultra-extreme vacuum like?

If those polar cold traps are suggesting an environment near 25 K (as
reported by our LRO team of NASA approved wizards), then perhaps 3%
of the time the Selene L1 environment might become considerably
colder, as well as offering a vacuum of at least 3e-21 bar (a million
fold less pressure than the lunar surface), which should only pull
more heat out of that tidal enhanced near absolute vacuum environment,
as well as otherwise allowing more heat in whenever exposed to direct
plus indirect sunlight (including moon IR and earthshine) that’s
available 97+% of the time.

Since most everything original about our Apollo mission R&D and their
obtained science along with their half century advanced technology is
either missing, remains as need-to-know or public nondisclosure/
inaccessible, where's the other 99.9% of our public funded LRO
science?

Most of our Apollo missions were those surrounded by a physically dark
as coal lunar terrain, as having converted the bulk of solar energy
into secondary IR worth an average 1218 w/m2 (you’ll simply have to
disregard all those mission images as having that surface albedo of 65+
% and offering nothing UV reactive). *Otherwise such heat is heat
(including earthshine that’s 50 times greater intensity than
moonlight), and otherwise it’s exactly the same as being here on Earth
except as if you were surrounded on all sides (including top to bottom
by an array of 1218 watt/m2 radiant heat within each and every visible
square meter for as far as the eye can see, as well as supposedly
having essentially no significant atmospheric attenuation, as so much
so toasty that even in the shade it would have remained extremely hot
from all of that unavoidable surrounding secondary IR radiation.

*“LRO takes measurements from an altitude of about 31 miles, so
researchers are not sure what dosages astronauts will see at the
surface”

Actually the direct solar energy of 1367 w/m2 (as raw/naked average
solar energy w/UV is perhaps closer to 1630 w/m2) was also
unavoidable. *As equally the ultra extreme cold of what’s continually
shaded within a deep polar crater being a low as 25 K (22 mw/m2) is
obviously an example where as little as 4.7 mw/m2 of geothermal energy
is available from that thick polar crust.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png

And why did I bother to say these exact same things as of nearly a
decade ago, that our naked, crystal dry and highly electrostatic
charged lunar surface of such physically dark and unusually dense
mineral deposits, along with its issues of those significant mascons
plus unavoidable secondary/recoil forms of local radiation that’s
coming at you from all directions, was anything but DNA friendly.
*http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0912/20lroresults/
*As sun activity increases, the impact of solar energetic particles
will increase relative to galactic cosmic rays.

"We are in a period during this historic solar minimum where the
radiation rates are elevated but are at tolerable levels in terms of
radiation risk," Spence said.
But the CRaTER instrument also discovered unexpected levels of
radiation closer to the lunar surface, where the moon should block
cosmic rays.

Many scientists believed the moon's mass would shield astronauts
working on the surface, but LRO's discovery shows something on the
moon is producing a secondary source of radiation.

"The net affect could be that you don't get much help from the moon at
all," Spence said. "In fact, some of the secondary particles might be
even more hazardous in terms of their radiation dose."

LRO takes measurements from an altitude of about 31 miles, so
researchers are not sure what dosages astronauts will see at the
surface. Spence said surface radiation levels from the secondary lunar
source may be as high as the dose from galactic cosmic rays.

A leading hypothesis for the lunar radiation source is the interaction
between cosmic rays and soil. As energetic particles strike regolith,
the collisions could liberate other particles and hurl them high above
the moon.

Spence said the revelations would not prohibit human exploration of
the moon, but researchers are eager to learn more about the surprising
radiation fluxes.

As solar activity increases, LRO will gather information on radiation
dangers posed by particles in the solar wind. LRO data, combined with
results from a fleet of space weather monitors and solar
observatories, will hopefully lead to more accurate forecasts of solar
events emitting high radiation, according to Wargo.

Such predictions are the "holy grail" for lunar scientists, Wargo
said.
"There are often precursors to the solar proton events, so you have
some hope if you're outside a habitation or out of shielding to get
back to some safer place where there's significant shielding," Spence
said. "I think at the moon there are ways to mitigate and deal with
both types of radiation risk."

-

This following context means the tidal offset core of our moon/Selene
is perhaps more inert dead and subsequently colder than the subdued
core of Mars. *For the moment, I’ve estimated a lunar polar surface
“cold trap” heat flux of 4.7 mw/m2 (surrounding terrain of secondary/
recoil IR making the LRO readings worth 22 mw/m2)
.
*http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0912/20lroresults/
*"The moon has one of the most extreme thermal environments of any
body in the solar system," said David Paige, principal investigator
for the Diviner payload at the University of California, Los Angeles.

In October, Diviner detected a cold trap in Hermite crater with
temperatures of nearly -415 degrees Fahrenheit.

"To put that kind of temperature into perspective, nothing like this
has ever yet been measured in the solar system," Paige said. "One
would have to maybe travel far beyond the Kuiper Belt to find an
object with a temperature this low."

-

I’m finding it most interesting that so many of our best scientists
are suddenly at shock and awe or other amazement as to what levels of
extreme hot and cold and radiation risk our moon has to offer anyone
standing upon its naked surface, especially as surrounded by all that
unusually dense assortment of raw elements that’ll unavoidably turn
cosmic energy into everything from soft X-rays to gamma., plus
whatever our sun contributes directly and otherwise causing everything
from the secondary/recoil IR average of 1217+ w/m2 (maximum 1452 w/m2)
to that of hard X-rays that can rather easily become lethal saturation
within as little as hours or even worse case minutes worth of
exposure. *Oddly, not one frame of any X-ray sensitive Kodak film from
our Apollo era showed us any hint of such radiation dosage or even
thermal trauma, as though it wasn’t even measurable or otherwise worth
any further review.

In the polar crater shade, the most flexible of moonsuit synthetic
materials would become so cryogenic at 25 K they (whereas most gasses
become liquids or solids) could crack or even cause artificial
materials to shatter. (25 K is significantly colder than liquid
nitrogen of 63 K), and a meter above that rather poorly warmed surface
of such 3e-15 bar vacuum should be an even colder.

Apparently my previous suggestions of digging in so as to having
thermal stability and a few meters worth of basalt between your frail
DNA and all of that surrounding surface radiation exposure was just
foolishness on my part. *However, in many places that unusual crust/
bedrock or composite soil of our physically dark moon is likely
several times more background radioactive than Earth (exactly as
though that moon isn’t nearly as old as Earth), so as for not being
exactly inert or failsafe to human DNA even if you’re entirely
situated deep underground. *Essentially, it’s as though that moon is
not made of Earth because, some of the gamma spectrographic mapped
locations as offering thorium, uranium and radium deposits upon or
within that moon will simply have to be avoided regardless of being
dug in.

So, just because the moon is potentially 0.1% hollow doesn’t insure
that your frail DNA is going to be entirely safe within all such
naturally or artificially made hollow locations. *Potentially harmful
mineral ores and deposits of whatever’s radioactive should have been
easily mapped as of 4+ decades ago, because the sufficient technology
having existed, at least to within a km2 resolution, and as of most
recently a surface resolution of 10 x 10 or 100 m2 should have this
surface background dosage nailed as to what sorts of heavy minerals
and radioactive substances exist, and even to what likely depths. *The
UV fluorescence imaging and subsequent mapping of surface minerals
should have been well established by now, by LRO in far greater detail
than ever before.

Odd there's not a peep of anything constructive about this colder than
liquid nitrogen environment. *At the cryogenic 25 K environment should
accommodate loads of dry ice (solid CO2) plus solids of pure oxygen
and perhaps even crystal solids of Radon starting at 200 K (because
that moon does have its own radium plus numerous surface deposits).

However, we can't even seem to deploy surface probes as safely soft-
landed onto our physically dark moon(Selene) that offers direct
readings from those polar craters of 25 K (that's actually way colder
than liquid nitrogen), suggesting the moon itself is giving off
something much less than 22 mw/m2.

At 25 K there's a lot of potentially insulating gas (greenhouse gas)
keeping such deep crater shadowed “cold traps” warmer than otherwise
possible. (at 25 K even liquid nitrogen is going to be insulative)

Too bad we don’t have any surface probe(s) reporting continuous
objective data back from such extreme cold spots. *It’s almost as
though we actually do not have the necessary expertise and required
technology of deploying such robotic probe landers. *Also, we should
only further imagine the terrific Stirling solar energy conversion at
near 375 K differential/m2 (1000 m2 focused onto a hydrogen boiler and
those unlimited cold energy sinks of something near 25 K is going to
easily generate 821 kw of nearly continuous clean energy to do
whatever with).

The S3TEC Center of ongoing research offers 85.4% conversion, whereas
it seems likely 1.2 MW per thousand m2 is technically obtainable,
especially if such advanced PVs were applied on the most elevated
lunar polar surface, whereas that sunlight is nearly continuous and
still saturated with UV that PVs love to convert into electrons.
*http://s3tec.mit.edu/index.php?optio...article&id=81&...

* Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On 1/2/2010 4:15 PM, BradGuth wrote:

Ever heard of vogs?

Ever studied geology-101?

Ever read a National Geographic?

Ever give an honest **** about anything, other than yourself?

Quit talking to/about yourself. It makes you look bad.