1001 things that won' t save the planet. Or even come close.
geoff wrote:
In message , magwitch
writes
New Scientist is, in a peer-reviewed scientific sense, mostly a
comic for those who like to appear cleverer than they really are.
New scientist is, for those who have moved on to other things, a way
to keep in touch
What with? Rosy fantasies such as robot-operated solar panels on the
moon will be beaming us free energy via 'immensely powerful' laser
beams and we'll all live happily ever after. Yebbut...
The person quoted to have achieved 42.8% efficiency (Allen Barnett)
googles as being something of a leader in the field
If you claim the figure is wrong, write to NS with your proof - I'll
look out for the apology
either way, the absolute figure is not the most important thing
The cost of solar arrays when built in the quantities required means
that they will be significantly than they are ATM
That doesn't mean that when figures and references are quoted in
articles that they are wrong
True. Just that no-one gets the chance to refute or analyse in any
meaningful way that the waffle published in NS is aything more than a
fuzzy opinion.
Every other journal has a panel of peer-reviewers, why doesn't NS?
It's a popular journal,
If you want to refute anything that is printed there - do it
I, like most people who are no longer involved in research or
development, have very little time nowadays to read scientific papers,
unless they are terminally sad, anyway
Or seriously interested in current science in all it's difficult, dull
and mentally challenging glory,
I no longer have more than a passing interest
My business is electronics and not cutting edge
and not just in posing as an armchair expert down the pub in front of
your mates.
And who is doing that ?
or has your mind gone the same way as your teeth ?
oh ... as you were
|