PesWiki.com

Menu

Talk:Directory:Green and Gold Energy

Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 14, 2016 at 9:31 pm.

  • One error has been found on this page. Administrator will correct this soon.
  • This page has been imported from the old peswiki website. This message will be removed once updated.

Discussion page for Directory:Green and Gold Energy

Image:SunBall roofmount 95x95.jpg

Award-winning solar technology uses Fresnel lenses to focus sun's energy onto photovoltaic cells. 5.8 cents per kWh. (http://www.greenandgoldenergy.com.au) (NEC Specialist: Congress:Member:Richard George)

Comments

Looks Good

On Apr. 13, 2008, New Energy Congress member, Congress:Member:Jonathan Bonanno wrote:

I just bumped into Greg at a CPV conference in Madrid. GGE was a major sponsor of the event and just announced a $50 mil. purchase order for Emcore TJ cells...so I think he has some serious funding or at least revenue.

The product looks good and based on the amount of licenses that he has sold, SunCube must work.

It looks like this is for real!!

At this point with the previous order and the new order for Emcore, it look like this is a company that is definitely in the fray and may be one to watch. DWagner 8/29/2007

some well-meant comments

Hi Greg.

About "Open Policy"

My first reaction was: "there are too many "me-me-me-I" in there, looks as young as the technology." So I've been doing a bit of 'applied psycho-linguistics' as freedom in nrg is a topic that is dear to me, and I am only aiming at helping you for the best impact. I sincerely hope that you'll take that well because you're right to be talking about war, and there's no time to waste in petty considerations (is there enough time left for action? not for many any longer already and it's a baffling thing to be true when saying it).

Six "I" or "me" in the first four sentences. No way you need all that, and in so short it's too much.

"to ensure my and the products' survival": why not "to ensure the company and the products' survival"? Everybody's got a "I" to maintain ('got enough worry with myself' style, if you get the drift), so yours sends them/us back to them/ourselves,not what we want there. "the company" looks more altruist - and at the same time if I were you I'd be suspicious of whoever's more interested in me than in the company's product, you may wonder why if it happens more than once I should think...)

"I fully realize the dirty tricks...". if you still think you are the only one, time to look around maybe? :) joke said, what's wrong with "we" instead of "I"? But then, out of consideration for those ones a "we" would have a better feel. Also, it does no harm aiming at the future when it's brighter than today. And for the others who are still stuck it's only fair (and strategically good too) to make them feel better by crediting them with some knowledge. Plus, I'd add "...realize the SORT OF dirty tricks..." - saves you/us from another lie. On that regard, I haven't even got time to check the details of the near-always juicy sories in the 2 links on that topic of dirty tricks ("I'll do it later", but will they?). I hope you realize that OUR only hope is InForMaTion. People aren't stupid, you don't even need a whole sentence to introduce the notion of dirty tricks something like: "(Whoever)'s dirty trick in (the place)" or "at (this or that"). Analysis of why make it short: no-one likes (to not be able to make money of) dirty tricks (because that means someone else is making some). Knowing that the parenthesis are meant for anyone for whom the sentence is not true without them, that covers a few. So that's your red flag. Then you name the nasty(ies), so that that much gained for InFoRMaTion straight away without further effort (from them/us, but hey). Better you spend your time doing that than writing long useless sentences to bring the guys to read what you can tell them in one word. (as for me, I count on you writing a lot more stuff, so I won't have to write all the details again:).

"so others can copy what I have done": that's the one "I" that I agree with (there's gotta be one somewhere). Please leave it.

"I have offered other concentrator developers to swap, on a equal kWh basis, SunCubes for their concentrator technology..." This looks interesting, looks like it actually deserves another "I" (of course it's counted!) and even more so needs a link to some more explanation(s).

"The more that solar concentrators appearing on rooftops the more the entire concentrator industry will survive." I am wholeheartedly for that, cool vision of a sea of sol. conc. rising on cities roofs, sweet. Though I'd remove the "that" (sounds clumsy) and therefore change the verb's tense: "The more solar concentrators appear on rooftops..." - try to go for slogan-ish sentences that get remembered more easily. In the same idea, is there another name for 'concentrators'? The word's got 'weird' connotations in some registers, and moreover it's here used twice in the same sentence - we could even suppress the second one and replace it by: "the more that entire industry will survive": it's explicit enough per se in context.

Untuned exageration rings bad: rest assured that you are not "the first-timer about openness", and when it's true we don't even think of anyone else approval - like you're heavily asking for, so that does not ring true at all which is a shame because it's likely quite true in essence. That sort of things only strikes a chord when it's a flagrant trademark, but here the reaction goes like, "he's got some guts saying I haven't been as open as he is!" Let's also note that it's hardly feasible for anyone else to be more open with "your" own system than yourself, is it - as your sentence suggests. See the problem with that first-timing? If you absolutely insist on leading at least share it with 'pionneer". But I think it's immature to want to lead up to forgetting about others (in fact it's downright wrong!) and would change that into "We at SunBall and SunCube are constantly striving to be synonyms of openness." Unless you work on your own, after all it is possible and then I'd just put "SunBall and SunCube are ...".

"We are in the first stage of a real war ... and their income is under real threat." That sounds good enough, but you honestly don't need the middle sentence of it. It makes the lot heavy, does not give any info that's not implied by the third one - again, people are not stupid come to it they fully realize that they are giving their tax money to thieves, liars and murderers, actually, and are getting quite pd off by it these days (altern. by their being accompliceship being so poorly paid).

Comments