>>>> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>> >In article <5opre5l7226fgfgh047rhr9u2ld55to...@4ax.com>,
>>>> > Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

>>>> >> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:39:23 -0400, John Wilkins
>>>> >> <j...@wilkins.id.au>
>>>> >> wrote in talk.origins:

>>>> >> >In article
>>>> >> ><18dcba02-8cd5-451e-8204-ea00dd93e...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> >> >Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:

>>>> >> >> On Nov 1, 12:07?pm, Paul J Gans <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >...
>>>> >> >> > >> >The stature of a man cannot be measured in
>>>> >> >> > >> >millimeters. CF "The
>>>> >> >> > >> >measure
>>>> >> >> > >> >of a man cannot be found on a yardstick." Henri
>>>> >> >> > >> >Marie Raymond de
>>>> >> >> > >> >Toulouse-Lautrec-Monfa said something to that
>>>> >> >> > >> >effect.

>>>> >> >> > >> Of course it can't be found on a yardstick. ?He
>>>> >> >> > >> said nothing
>>>> >> >> > >> about finding it using a rational set of measuring
>>>> >> >> > >> units.
>>>> >> >> > >The measure of a man is given in ISO units.

>>>> >> >> > Exactly. ?And yards are not ISO. ?They aren't even so
>>>> >> >> > so. ?USians
>>>> >> >> > don't understand how alone they are in the world with
>>>> >> >> > their
>>>> >> >> > Fahrenheit, miles, quarts, and stupid screw threads.

>>>> >> >> > Reminds me of how the Ottoman Empire resisted the
>>>> >> >> > printing press.
>>>> >> >> > Scribes were good enough for their grandfathers and
>>>> >> >> > so scribes were
>>>> >> >> > good enough for them.

>>>> >> >> > They fell so far back in education that the once
>>>> >> >> > overwhelming empire
>>>> >> >> > became irrelevant.

>>>> >> >> What your two cases share is that old assumption of
>>>> >> >> empires, that once
>>>> >> >> an empire always an empire, meaning they'd always be
>>>> >> >> able to impose
>>>> >> >> their standards on the rest of the World, or the
>>>> >> >> right-thinking part
>>>> >> >> of it.

>>>> >> >So we can expect America to become metricated in about
>>>> >> >another 20 years
>>>> >> >then, right?

>>>> >> It's been that way since I was a kid. 20 years from now.
>>>> >> For the
>>>> >> foreseeable future.

>>>> >Ah, then about when power production from hydrogen fusion
>>>> >becomes
>>>> >economically possible.

>>>> It is, or almost, economically possible right now.  It is
>>>> called
>>>> using solar panels...   ;-)

>>>I thought solar thermal was closer, but that's technically
>>>correct,
>>>although a violation of normal language to use "fusion power"
>>>in that
>>>sense.

>> How do you think we would get energy from fusion power?  The
>> usual proposal is to convert the heat generated into power
>> using conventional heat engines.  That's how fission power
>> plants
>> work.

>> Direct conversion using solar cells converts the heat directly
>> to
>> electricity.

>> --
>>   --- Paul J. Gans

>There are a number of problems with solar panels. One is
>obvious - it won't keep you warm at night, sans batteries. A
>less-well known one which tips the scale toward solar thermal is
>that only about 10% of the incident light is absorbed & turned
>into electricity (with current technology at least). Another is
>that as I understand it, there is a looming shortage of the heavy
>metals that go into the panels to produce the photoelectrons.
>Silica, while it competes with the computer industry, is unlikely
>to run out soon, given it's #2 in elemental abundance on Earth.
>Ross Macfarlane
>whose solar panels produce 2.2 MW-Hrs per year