AlbertG
Industrial
- Aug 9, 2005
- 42
Good day, all.
I'm starting this thread as a follow-up to a previous posting (which went on for about 3 years at the forum):
thread2-58711
The whole works ended, in my opinion, not so satisfactorily. The stake which seemed to kill off all further viability discussion for the technology was a NASA test paper, Abrego2_AHS02.pdf (Google it). The disappointing "figure of merit" (50%) which the paper cited could, perhaps, be attributed in part to the "farmhouse blower" configuration which they chose as their exemplary apparatus.
Ok, I may be WAAAAY out in left field here, but this:
despite its pedigree (in the minds of some), seems to be a far more suitable configuration to base authoritative performance analysis upon than what we see in the aforementioned paper from the space folks.
I'm no expert, but would anyone care to open things up with a discussion of scalability and the like based upon what the model people seem to have already proven here?
Kindling for a fire, anyone???
Have fun!
I'm starting this thread as a follow-up to a previous posting (which went on for about 3 years at the forum):
thread2-58711
The whole works ended, in my opinion, not so satisfactorily. The stake which seemed to kill off all further viability discussion for the technology was a NASA test paper, Abrego2_AHS02.pdf (Google it). The disappointing "figure of merit" (50%) which the paper cited could, perhaps, be attributed in part to the "farmhouse blower" configuration which they chose as their exemplary apparatus.
Ok, I may be WAAAAY out in left field here, but this:
despite its pedigree (in the minds of some), seems to be a far more suitable configuration to base authoritative performance analysis upon than what we see in the aforementioned paper from the space folks.
I'm no expert, but would anyone care to open things up with a discussion of scalability and the like based upon what the model people seem to have already proven here?
Kindling for a fire, anyone???
Have fun!
