glass_machine

Related Searches: glass C edge double sided edging machine glass T edge double sided edging machine glass washing machine horizontal glass washing machine solar glass Solar Glass supplier Dragonsolar nano coated glass Dragonsolar solar glass Antireflection coating glass Dragonsolar patterned glass

bab5_solar

The Third Degree Burner is based on the shell of our previous vehicle, the Afterburner II. The chassis, suspension, drive train, electrical systems, and telemetry have all been completely rebuilt to accomidate the new SunRayce rule requiring 4 wheels (the Afterburner II has 3 wheels). The only components remaining from the Afterburner II are the front fairings (aerodynamic wheel guards) and the top portion of the shell.

While much has been rebuilt, the design (with the exception of the 4th wheel) looks extremely similar to the Afterburner II's. The chassis is a carbon-honeycomb box structure. The suspension combines Risse Racing Technology shocks with custom-designed aluminum members. The aerodynamic shell is molded from kevlar and epoxy, in order to be light and rigid while providing a safe, energy-absorbent structure around the driver. The solar cells are made by ASE America and are 14.5 % efficient. They are split up into modules of 4x7 cells on average, each module being entirely sealed inside a rigid resin and glass matrix.

The electrical system combines New Generation Motor Corp's hub motor with GB Battery's Nickel-Metal-Hydride cells, along with the solar array and some accessories (turn signals, horn, telemetry, etc.). The entire combination is extremely efficient, enabling the car to drive 45 mi/hr on the power of a single hair dryer.

solar-panel

Extreme precision is required when removing coatings and slicing solar cells. This dual-head unit combines two galvanometers that are moving simultaneously on the gantry, while the table underneath moves. All motion is completed using lead screws.

lawn-solar-power

purchased a 45W Solar Panel Kit from Harbor Freight a couple weeks ago (three 15W solar panels and a cheapie charge controller for $199), but had problems with the controller right off the bat. I messed around with it for a couple of days before deciding that it was junk and started checking around for a better one. On the advice of some friends and a silver-tongued tech rep at Xantrex, I purchased a Xantrex C40 solar controller on eBay for $112. This is about twice what I had wanted to pay and a bit of overkill for my immediate application, but since I have a couple more solar electric projects in mind and wanted to keep my options open, I opted for the C40 because it seemed to have plenty of power (40 amps) and be the ultimate in flexibility.

solarpowered-chair

A group at Southern Taiwan University of Technology have created the world's first solar-powered wheelchair (which may or may not be true). Allegedly the thing runs entirely off solar energy and needs no plugging in. It was designed to be gentler on the environment and prevent people from being stuck out in the rain because their traditional electric battery ran out. So apparently it runs on rain too and not just sun. Because most of the time it's raining out there isn't much sun. What can I say, I'm a keen observer. But you know what there is a lot of when it rains? Worms. That's because when rain mixes with dirt it makes worms. It's a chemical reaction or something.

About tanks, and why they're a necessity in modern ground forces

.

I intended to write about this topic (What's a tank good for, and does its end near?) for a while. A reply written by me on a forum turned out to be so long and exhaustive that it's really what I had planned for the blog. Lazy as I am, I'll copy it.

[...] however my confusion remains. What is/ where is the utility and value of the MBT?

The Main Battle Tank is a vehicle that was developed for intentional use in line-of-sight combat. its crew is capable of justifying the investment into the tank team and the hardware by exploiting the degree of protection offered by the tank for the critical mass of survivability on the battlefield.

This critical mass does not include invulnerability, but rather vastly reduced or entirely negated effectiveness of most threat weapons. The tank is still vulnerable to few threat weapons - crew training and tank tactics are required to counter these threats for additional survivability on the mission.

The high survivability in comparison to "light" forces (especially on open ground) in combination with the internal combustion engine's power offer a high mobility (with a heavyweight weaponry and ammunition) on the battlefield.

This high practical mobility in face of many threats can be exploited by large unit and formation tactics to great effect.

Tanks can also be used with assault gun tactics; in this case they serve on the offence as fire support platforms with weapons and ammunitions heavier than practical for dismounted troops.

The best targets for a tank are those which justify the expenditure of scarce ammunition and the risk involved. Hostile main battle tanks are sometimes in this category, sometimes not. It depends on the other forces' ability to deal with them (does your army have enough effective threats against hostile tanks?).

(This ability was in doubt since 1940. Anti-tank guns were largely immobile, dedicated tank destroyers/Jagdpanzer were a kind of tank themselves, infantry and engineer anti-tank munitions were very rarely able to withstand concentrated breakthrough attempts.

The problem continued during the Cold War when shaped charge-based weapons were able to penetrate tanks mostly with unpredictable effect. Their employment either required vicinity (and weighed down the dismounted troops) or depended on missile guidances and long flight times - both offering countermeasure opportunities to the enemy.

In short; there was little trust in the non-tank-based anti-tank capabilities.)

 

[End of forum reply]

Positions such as "it's necessary for Blitzkrieg" or "it's the best anti-tank weapon" fall short of really explaining the military-technical phenomenon of the tank. Armoured combat vehicles (not necessarily only main battle tanks) fill a niche for which there's no satisfactory substitute. That's why they don't go away.

Some tank designs can prove to be unsatisfactory - especially if they don't reach the critical mass of protection. This explains the demise of the light tank since WW2. Other tanks prove unsatisfactory because they aren't efficient enough or don't fit into the operational doctrine any more (such as short-legged heavy tanks as the T-10).

Finally, there's the main battle tank which actually evolved into a very mobile heavy tank during the 70's when the Leopard 2 was developed.

Quote "Jane's Weapon Systems 1976":

Previously, when a tank had better armour the performance and mobility declined; in designing the Leopard 2 the Germans have reversed this trend, the end result being a superior vehicle.

Leopard 2A4, externally similar to the early Leopard 2 as introduced in '79.

So the tank is here to stay (although in much-reduced quantity as it seems). Countermeasures against it provoke counter-countermeasures. This seems to be unavoidable because modern armies need to fill the armoured combat vehicle's niche and there's simply no satisfactory substitute.

Tanks are dying and becoming obsolete all the time - but there will always appear some (new models or upgrades) that are not obsolete (yet).

Sven Ortmann

.

Heliotrope Sun-tracking Solar Panels

Infantry skill horror photo

.

(First of all: This is not meant nation-specific.)

This is the infantry skill horror photo of the month:

It's the classic "spray and pray over an obstacle" firing stance, guaranteeing a waste of ammunition.There's no visible laser beam and little hope that he's just illuminating something.

No matter what exactly he does; he seems to believe that hostiles are within rang of his M4 carbine (effective to 150-300 m depending on your expectation of effect on target) and exposes himself very much to hostile fire. He's certainly not using his carbine for aimed fire.

It's even worse:

This disastrous photo made it into the public as an official army photo!

As seen through a night-vision device, U.S. Army Sgt. Joseph P. Khamvongsa returns fire against an insurgent attack on Combat Outpost Badel, Afghanistan, Aug. 25. 2010. Khamvongsa, a forward observer, is assigned to Company B, 2nd Battalion, 327th Infantry Regiment. U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Gary A. Witte

source, hat tip to Ken White

It's even a NCO, part of the NCO corps that's supposed to keep the individual and small unit skill level of the army high.

For comparison:

Third World untrained ragtag militia fighters, the laughing-stock of infantry-interested internet users.

http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/1702/image0023oo.jpg

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7514/image0139tz.jpg

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/4034/image0103bt.jpg

I wrote about less extreme failures in a longer post "How to get yourself killed in combat against competent enemies" last year.

Let's hope that this soldier is a lone exception, along with the equally clueless photographer.

Sven Ortmann

.

Defending the indefensible: a how-to guide

.

I'm apparently still in the mod to dump more or less old articles here (only good ones, of course!).

"Defending the indefensible: a how-to guide"

By Stephen M. Walt

Foreign Policy Blog

.