Tony

If you can remember this is my original post, You see satellites and the space station using solar panels to fuel themselves. Is it not possible to generate electricity in space. Knowing that if you spin something in space it spins forever unlike earth where it takes a force to move something. and a conductor cutting the flux in a magnet produces current. Unless I am missing some information, it should be real easy to produce a great deal electricity in space. So why do they use monster size expensive solar panels instead? Sorry to everyone that disagrees, Fact: NASA in conjunction with the Italians have done an experiment in space, similar to what I am suggesting and it proved successful. I am right you are all wrong. Proof: http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWSROOM/...996/96-009.html Read it and weep! Losers!!! The tether experiment is way cheaper than solar panel, and can produce far more electricity than solar panels. You people are absolute morons, concede defeat - Read the article.

Sorry to everyone that disagrees, Fact: NASA in conjunction with the Europeans have done an experiment in space, similar to what I am suggesting and it proved successful. I am right you are all wrong. Proof: http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWSROOM/news/releases/1996/96-009.html Read it and weep! To all those who oppose well.

As for the radio waves I was talking about. David Edward Hughes. Marconi was an innovator. Watson & Crick 1953

Understand this, let's not fight. When a wire moves through a magnetic field, a voltage is induced, and by Faraday's law, the amount of induced voltage is propotional to the number of loops in the wire and the rate at which the wire moves with respect to the magnetic field. Lenz's Law defines the polarity of the induced voltage. This is fundamentally how electricity is generated. On earth it take energy to move something, in space it takes initial energy to move something. The difference is that in space it will not stop moving unless something stops it moving. If resistances in the generator fuelling the sateliite cause the generator to slow down beyond a point where not enough voltage is generated to power the satellite. The amount of electricity produced at that stage would be so great, that energy stored in fuel cells would reset the generator to say 3,000 rpm, detach, and then refuel themsleves. So what's the problem with that?

You're talking crap.The only thing stopping electricity being produced on earth is motion. Motion is the key, hydro plants use water, gravity, and pressure to spin a turbine and produce electricity. The pressure produced by burning fuels produce gases are also used in this way. In space what goes up does not come down. Your rules do not not apply. If you spin something in *SPACE*. WAKE UP JACK IT WILL NOT STOP. Thus you get to spin the turbine depicted in the above example without needing to constantly use a force like on earth. You know I am right. Stop trying to stifle science.

Are you hearing things, no there just radio waves. That's perliminary physics, da. If you spin something in space, it spins forever unless something stops it. So if I put a simple generator in space, initially spin the magent at about 10million rps, it will spin a very long time. Copper is a conductor but is not attacted to magnets. Thus the copper will not stop the magnet spinning, more so if you use superconductor new superconductive wire. can you finish this for me?

Not so, science is still relatively new.

http://www.freewebs.com/gemco/

O.K but what should it be. 1) Should it be a language where you program new computer applications such as C++ using genetic code are the rule setter. So instead of compiling, linking and building a program writtem in C++, you instead, generate DNS fragments, join it to a carrier module and them introduce it to the host cell for amplification. or 2) Should it be a language where you can create new organisms based on typing AGCT which are latter put into classess. I think the latter. We could probably then put all the new organisms in an aquariem and create a screensaver

Stick and stones may break my bones but words can never harm me. On earth it takes constant force to move something. If you take a look at a hydro power station, water is used to spin a turbine. The water tide, gravity is also used as well as added pressurized pipes. When the water stops the turbine quickly comes to a halt. In space things are totally different. When you initially move something in space it does not slow down. But keeps moving. The only resistances you are talking about are the load on the circuit.

First of all you have never been to space. I had to say that. e.g you could re-spin it mechanically, if it slows down. say you're the generator is spinning at 10,000 rpm, over time due to resistances it may slow down, it so you then mechanically re-spin the gen back to 10,000rpm. I am thinking you would get much more energy out of the generator, some of that energy could then be used at given time used to keep the rpms up.

I think that's a matter of design.

check this article I posted, should help you. File Input/Output ckick here

I have an idea to create the Genetic Engineering Programming Language. In the hope it would help biologists understand microscopic organisms. The language could allow biologists to build organisms in a computing environment using the sohpisticated language. What are your ideas? & What does the Genetic Engineering Programming Language mean to you.

Great, congratulations. This will you time to review the subject and clarify things you may not have grasped. by the Geek from hell.

You see satellites and the space station using solar panels to fuel themselves. Is it not possible to generate electricity in space. Knowing that if you spin something in space it spins forever unlike earth where it takes a force to move something. and a conductor cutting the flux in a magnet produces current. Unless I am missing some information, it should be real easy to produce a great deal electricity in space. So why do they use monster size expensive solar panels instead?

The potential is current multipled by e.m.f. The potential is current squared muliplyed by the resistance. Are you saying a dual power supply could be more efficient than a single PSU.

It's not about money, its about presentation. I have a 4 node network here. I use those adapters that turn a power outlet attached to the wall into a six socket outlet. With everything I have to plug in peripherals included it is FULL. I will probably have to start attaching double adapters to it or buy one that has more capacity. I even have all the monitors attached to the pc power supply through the socket provided and it's still full. It short PC's with peripheral require many power outlets and it becomes a cable mess, most would agree. Having a system where eveything I want to plug in into power is available at my PC power supply like the monitor outlet on most power supplies means that eveything can run from there and only one plug is then needed to the power outlet. Cleaner. Then if I had a power supply that fueled about 4 PC's in a peer to peer arrangement I would only need one power outlet per 4 PC's. It is a much more organised arrangement for networks. I won't need to install alot of power points in my network. I won't be overloading power outlets. It also saves many buying identical power supplies. The space that saves could be used for more slimline casing. I could case the external power supply and make the environment quiter without PSU fans fanning all the time. etc.

Thanks Sayonara, I read the article. So in order to supply about 2 PC's with one power supply I would need about a 700watt power supply. I first thought that their would be no issue with doing this. But now am convinced that the amount Watt's the power supply can deliver will play a role. Theoretically I believe it is not out of the question or a bad idea to run muliple PC's with one external power supply. I have a 4 node network here and wish to run them off one power supply in a peer to peer or diasy chain arrangement. http://www.themodfathers.com/article.php?82.0 http://www.speedy3d.com/articles/case_mod_p3/index.shtml

You Lose Dave!

Why would yo want to do that! Assembly Language Step by Step Anyway. I found this company on the Internet that makes 2000watt power supplies for PC's, after emailing them they say I could run up to 12 PC's per unit in a peer to peer arrangement. That would save me installing alot of power points in my network. It would also save overloading power outlets with other peripherals. It also saves 11x$40 buying power supplies. PC's are also alot quieter without fans fanning all the time. http://www.globtek.com

So you say the capacity of the power supply would not be enough. The PC's would request too much power. So in order to this right. I would need about 350 watts per PC. Not to say that 2 PC's would request 350 watts all the time. I read an article that tested power supplies, and it said most PC power supplies either stop working entirely or would get real hot and possibly start a fire at about 250 to 300 watts work done. I think the capcity of the components in the power supply would need upgrading to sustain this need.

Gee, I need an answer here from someone who knows. I have a standard ATX PC power supply 240v - approx 300watts. What I have done is made all the +5v +12v adapters that power the motherboard and drives etc into dual adapters so I have two of each. Now what I am trying to do is hook up 2 pc's with one power supply. What are the issues with doing this. Will it work or will it blow up or overload or not be able to fuel the load?

Here my idea for an amp. An amplifier about 80 to 100watt RMS made of quaility amplification technology preferably valve, combo. Equipped as part of the amp or as a seperate package. A sine wave invertor and about 2 to 4 to 6+ hour current supply parralel wired battery cells. Also integrated with a charger for auto-charging when in AC 240V mains. All these parts are off the self, a seperate package minus the amp could probably fuel a 4 piece band. 2-4-6+ hours continuous. So get out your Jungle boogie cuz, we're gonna have a party. What do you think?

Do you know of any scientific fields, research and theory available on the area of predicting the future. Predicting The Future Forces and Factors Take a card, spin it into the air. The foce applied to the spin may cause it to spin 10 times before gravity causes the card to hit the ground and stop. As the card started face up as that is how I left the card on a table. The card will land face up. I apply more force just enough to spin it 11 times in the air before gravity will cause it to hit the ground the card lands face down. I try it again then a gust of win comes alond acting on the spinning card causeing a force of 11 spins I appieed to the card to only spin 2 times the card lands face up. If you had of left 5 minutes later you would not have being involved in a car accident, luckily no one was injured. But I think its a complicated set of factors which led you to be involved in this incident. You cannot at this time predict the forces and the factors because they have not yet occurred. So absolutely no clue is given to a fact i.e an accident. Time cloaks the future. An asteroid on a collision cause can be predicted if all factors are taken into account. It has a predetermined projection. In the same way we would have to monitor every vehicle and know its projection to determine whether an accident will happen. At this stage we do not know if an accident will even happen. I am actually working on a lotto pools prediction programme. Any avenues of research to act as a basis for devising correct lotto numbers. All avenues welcome. Thanks Tony.