Alt-BEAM Archive

Message #08443



To: beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
From: JVernonM@aol.com
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 13:53:03 EST
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: silicon VS SunCeram


In a message dated 12/19/99 1:00:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,
bshannon@tiac.net writes:

> The concept that the SunCeram cells are more efficient in lower light
> levels is an
> interesting assertion, but I think its false.
Agreed. Suncerams are optimized for sunlight. That's why calculators use a
different combination of strata. They are optimized for indoor use. This is
common knowledge and I'm not sure how this got flip flopped.

See ya,
Jim
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Exhibit/8281/beamart.html
ICQ# 55657870



8444 Sun, 19 Dec 1999 14:18:13 EST [alt-beam] Re: silicon VS SunCeram beam@sgiblab.sgi.com JVernonM@aol.com In a message dated 12/19/99 2:00:06 PM Eastern Standard Time,
JVernonM@aol.com writes:

> Suncerams are optimized for sunlight. That's why calculators use a
> different combination of strata. They are optimized for indoor use.
I should clarify this. They are both amorphous (sp) cells. But one is
optimized for sunlight, and the other for dimmer indoor light. Silicon cells
do perform better in dimmer light. Once you get a bot with higher current
needs than a popper, most of us (Tilden included) opt for batteries. The
suncerams just don't cut it unless you start ganging them up. One of the only
ways around this is a government job that allows you to put 800.00 port
escaps into your bot to run adequately with less cells. This is counter
productive to the extreme since it makes a very simple robot cost more than a
much more complex bot running dual pentiums. The answer, of course, is to
devise a power house that delivers much more current. Silicon cells do this
quite nicely.

See ya,
Jim
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Exhibit/8281/beamart.html
ICQ# 55657870



8445 Sun, 19 Dec 1999 21:02:26 +0100 [alt-beam] Re: Miller Engine - licensing...--I'm behind dave on this one. beam@sgiblab.sgi.com Thomas Pilgaard Nielsen Bob Shannon wrote:

> But I guess that when this sort of misinformation, and fundemental
> misunderstanding
> of intellectual property law is posted on the list, people who see a pr=
oblem
> should
> keep their mouths shut rather than point out the problem.

Excuse me for being an ignorant but I don't see who you're aiming at. If =
you are
adressing me, would you be so kind as to enlighten me - I have no idea wh=
at you
mean.

- Thomas


> Thomas Pilgaard Nielsen wrote:
>
> > Dennison Bertram wrote:
> >
> > Yep, me too. I don't see why Dave shouldn't credit Miller for this. I=
MHO it
> > reveals honesty and engagement in the community. A newbie as I am Dav=
es pages
> > were one of the first I got to about beam. I've enjoyed and used the =
resources
> > he provides innoumerous times.
> >
> > Not to offend you Jim - I still see your point.
> >
> > Cheers - Thomas

--
---
"Stj=E5lne tusser skriver bedst."
Yvonne Miller


Home