I had a win 95 and later a win 98 system, both where very stable, mainly used for development and only for occasional gaming, like Decent or Settlers or War Craft (not, WoW, the RTS).

The win 98 one only crashed when it was time to replace the processor fan.

I was impressed at that time about MS ...

This one is build on the tip of a natural hill: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... around 1919 already

This one is not on an artificial hill either, but only has a few meters difference between the upper and the lower reservoir: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

This one is close to what I meant: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

This one is on an artificial hill: http://www.swr.de/kaffee-oder-... easy to see on the pictures

I was wrong with the price of solar power, mixed it up with the earnings you make on the stock exchange.

However wind is cheaper than coal ... we are already closing coal plants, new built ones, because they can not compete with the price on the market.

If you don't remember, my flat is only 100sqm ... but the size should have no effect on electric bills. As like you: I only have one kitchen, e.g.

The cost per sqm is only relevant for heating and in your case AC. The rooms that are not in use should not use energy, pretty simple.

And for the standard of living, it is common knowledge :D no citations needed. But perhaps my percentage is wrong and the amount of americans living on the standard of an european is much lower. On the other hand you have weird ideas of standard of living anyway ...

While your post makes sense, here you are wrong: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Evidence is evidence. No special extraordinarility needed.

just having it tested by NASA is no sign of validity
Of course it is not.
However when I have to bet on either the NASA or on a basement couch potato, I rather take NASA :D

I would suggest to read about some terms, like winter and summer.

Also it would help to look on a map, to get an idea how Russia looks like.

Just because it is warmer, neither the summer is longer nor is the winter shorter.

Both seasons are more or less defined by the amount of light available. Or the length of the day.

Regarding latitude: russia has enough areas "south enough" to feed itself, if they had not done the same bullshit the americans did: exhausting the plains, having erosion, lack of water (Baikal lake etc.) they would be a paradise.

For the physics you can google yourself.
As articles about the EM drive are showing up on /. since 3 or 4 years, and the physics is published since at least 2000, which was 15 years ago if you are bad in math, it should not be difficult for you to figure how the drive is "supposed" to work.

How exactly do you want to be spoon fed? If you have not even read up the basics, what exactly do you ask me to tell you about it?

When somebody sounds like a total fucking crackpot, they almost always are.
Did not know that NASA is meanwhile down to crackpots. (Regarding the EM drive)
Or that the US Navy is now down to crack pots as well. (Regarding cold fusion)

You must have a strange definition of "crackpot" ... or must live in some basement playing counterstrike all day and night.

(If you want to know how to get banned from a server by doing 10 head shots in a row, obviously without cheating, I tell you ... it is super simple)

If you're not throwing anything out of the back of the rocket, you're violating conservation of momentum.
Care to explain: why?

Hm?

Yes?

Next try?

Instead of inputing energy to fuel and kicking out the back, they input the energy to the virtual pairs that are in all space.

"Impulse Drives" don't work by pushing "against something".

The inventor knows.
He formulated the theory of the device. And actually it is pretty easy to grasp for a layman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

Can't be so surprising that a scientist draws/imagines a "thing" and engineers build it and: surprise, surprise, it works like the scientist thought it out. (*facepalm*)

The creationists must have done good work in america to destroy the "faith" in science!

(...also, is the acceleration graph linear, curved sharply in either direction, hits a curve at a certain point... what?)
As long as you don't change power input, acceleration is always linear.
No idea why you ask this, that is a no brainer.

it appears to violate conventional physics and the law of conservation of momentum;
No, it does not, otherwise it would not work.

the engine, invented by British scientist Roger Sawyer, converts electric power to thrust without the need for any propellant by bouncing microwaves within a closed container. So, with no expulsion of propellant, thereâ(TM)s nothing to balance the change in the spacecraftâ(TM)s momentum during acceleration.
The expulsion (should that not be expulsion or something?) are micro waves ... hence the name: EM drive.

I really wonder how retarded the /. community and in general the science community got meanwhile.

There is no violation of any physical law as we know it in EM drives. If you believe otherwise, point one out.

I gave you two links that proof you wrong.

There is no 20% loss in AC - DC or DC - AC conversion.

As I said before, thee is no law of physics that implies that.

Of the shelf equipment is in the greater than 95% range.

So even if you want to count back and forth to see the total loss, it is around 10% or less. Not 20% not 25%.

No, it is not rude to ask someone to google.

This thread is full with "claims" which where not even true 30 years ago ... but people repeat their 30 years old half wrong ideas.

efficiency at maximum draw and very much poorer efficiency with low loads

Then you don't feed the grid, or convert, if the load is low, how simple is that?

No idea what you find rude.
And no idea what you "believe" reasonable or unreasonable.

There is no real loss involved in AC/DC conversion. Why should it?

This one is 98% efficient:
http://www.power-mag.com/pdf/f...

This one 98.5%: https://www.google.de/url?sa=t...

Sorry, your idea and the other /. ers that AC/DC conversion sucks up 25% is completely insane. There is no physical law thinkable of to cause such a loss.

Maintaining the infrastructure to deliver that power is largely a fixed cost
No it is not.
Reread the post you answered to.
Grid costs are over 50% driven by the actual power transported by it.
For the rest, the fixed part, you pay in most countries a fixed base connection fee.

The equation doesn't change just because they buy the power from a third party.
Of course it does. The distance changes, hence the losses change, hence the reserve energy or compensation energy changes.

You forget: the spot market is a financial instrument. The power/energy you buy there has to be transported from the point of production to the point of usage.

So the correct way to charge a solar panel owner is to charge a fixed connection fee, and a fee for each kWh he is consuming from or feeding into the grid. (Like it is in Europe e.g.) The fixed fee is for the maintenance the variable fee is for the transportation costs.