User talk:Awnd329
Congratulations; you've attracted your first vandal. It looks like someone else has reverted their edit already. I stuck a warning on the vandal's page to deter further shennanigans.
Did you recently post about the Aerovator Wikipedia article to an external forum? --Christopher Thomas 05:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting. No, I did not mention the article. Awnd329 14:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Email address
[edit]I'm not sure it's wise to leave your email address unobscured like that, as Wikipedia is occasionally spidered. Also, if you gave an email address when you signed up (and your "preferences" settings are set up to allow it), people can email you by clicking on the "email this user" link on the left, without you actually having to reveal your address to them. --Christopher Thomas 15:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Edit summaries
[edit]As a courtesy, when you're editing, it's usually considered a good idea to fill in the "edit summary" box with a one-line description of what you added. This makes the article and talk page histories easier to follow. --Christopher Thomas 18:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Tower versus cable
[edit]The true situation is much closer than you assume. The weight of the cable per tonne of payload is easily calculated at the lowest point on the elevator, and you can calculate what percentage of the weight of the payload is cable in say the lowest 100km. I just did that and got a figure of about 5%, (~62GPa cable and that's without any safety factor on top.) In other words, the lower 100km adds 5% * SF to the cost of the elevator. The CNTs are actually quite expensive in and off themselves...
- I get 2%, using Bob Muncks spreadsheet from the yahoo group. And, I think the safety factor cancels.
- In no way. If the safety factor is 2, the cost of the entire cable doubles.WolfKeeper 18:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, yes, but it doubles before and after, so the relative savings are still 2% (or 5%), no? Andreas 19:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- In no way. If the safety factor is 2, the cost of the entire cable doubles.WolfKeeper 18:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Whichever it is, it does not justify a tower, or even a mountain location. Andreas 17:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter. You have to cite it. I have seen the calculation somewhere or other, and they did seem to justify it mathematically. I didn't particularly like it either, but you've got no right to take out bits you don't like, merely because you don't like it.WolfKeeper 18:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- I took it out because it wasn't cited. Just like you. Why don't I have the right? It is not that I don't like it, it is that I think it is not true. Taking it out will improve Wikipedia. Unless it is backed up by a reference, I believe I have every right to take it out. Andreas 19:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter. You have to cite it. I have seen the calculation somewhere or other, and they did seem to justify it mathematically. I didn't particularly like it either, but you've got no right to take out bits you don't like, merely because you don't like it.WolfKeeper 18:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The calculation I saw somewhere else suggested that a compressive tower might actually be cost effective :-( WolfKeeper 04:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- The biggest problem with towers is that you cannot just reel them out like a ribbon. Even if you had a stable design for a 100 km tower, you would need hundreds of years and armies of construction workers to get it assembled. Andreas 17:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. Hundreds of man years. On the other hand the CNT is seriously expensive. You would actually have armies of people building *that* in the background. That's where the cost of cable comes from. Right? If the calculation shows it's cheaper to use a tower for the last few kilometres, then that's what you may have to do.WolfKeeper 18:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- True. But you will need material for the tower, too, and I wouldn't assume off-hand that it is any cheaper. It may have to be CNT as well, and it will have to be structured to withstand compression and buckling. Besides, nobody knows how expensive mass-produced CNT will be. None of the ingredients are in short supply, I believe. We may soon have CNT garbage bags. Andreas 19:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. Hundreds of man years. On the other hand the CNT is seriously expensive. You would actually have armies of people building *that* in the background. That's where the cost of cable comes from. Right? If the calculation shows it's cheaper to use a tower for the last few kilometres, then that's what you may have to do.WolfKeeper 18:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Notification of automated file description generation
[edit]Your upload of File:Aerovator horizontal profile.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Another one of your uploads, File:Aerovator element forces.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
