Hide your sulphuric acid...

[Peter]

What you want is a linear phase low pass filter. Williams and Taylor are a full bottle on the subject.

https://www.amazon.com/Electronic-Filter-Handbook-McGraw-Hill-Handbooks/dp/0071471715

This means that you get a smooth and monotonic transition between voltage steps. It doesn\'t roll off the high frequency content of the step edge all that fast - a higher order linear phase filter will do that better, but you need more precise reactance values to keep close enough to linear phase.

The two amplifier version of the Sallen-Keys 2-pole low pass filter lets you use the same value of capacitance in both the capacitors, and you can use E92 resistors to get very close to the linear-phase characteristic.

Do you mean the one here
https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/filter/second-order-filters.html
but two of them cascaded?

 

[Peter]

What you want is a linear phase low pass filter. Williams and Taylor are a full bottle on the subject.

https://www.amazon.com/Electronic-Filter-Handbook-McGraw-Hill-Handbooks/dp/0071471715

This means that you get a smooth and monotonic transition between voltage steps. It doesn\'t roll off the high frequency content of the step edge all that fast - a higher order linear phase filter will do that better, but you need more precise reactance values to keep close enough to linear phase.

The two amplifier version of the Sallen-Keys 2-pole low pass filter lets you use the same value of capacitance in both the capacitors, and you can use E92 resistors to get very close to the linear-phase characteristic.

Do you mean the one here
https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/filter/second-order-filters.html
but two of them cascaded?

 

[Edward Hernandez]

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn\'t even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Mon, 15 Nov 2021 05:03:37 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <smspn9$dj6$3@dont-email.me>.

Q+OzOgvJ5ZGu

 

[Edward Hernandez]

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn\'t even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Mon, 15 Nov 2021 05:09:34 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <smsq2e$dj6$5@dont-email.me>.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
follow it\'s own rules that it uses to troll other posters.

jYMU4QgFsiaA

 

[Edward Hernandez]

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn\'t even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Mon, 15 Nov 2021 05:09:34 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <smsq2e$dj6$5@dont-email.me>.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
follow it\'s own rules that it uses to troll other posters.

jYMU4QgFsiaA

 

[Edward Hernandez]

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn\'t even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Mon, 15 Nov 2021 05:09:34 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <smsq2e$dj6$5@dont-email.me>.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
follow it\'s own rules that it uses to troll other posters.

jYMU4QgFsiaA

 

[Peter]

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote

One obvious solution is to use a normal LDO and have a diode in series
with the input, so long as you can be sure nothing funny will be
hapenning inside with the ground lead which could still pass negative
current.

Or put a schottky diode on the output but take the feedback from after
the diode.

Sure, but then you are building your own regulator.

 

[Peter]

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote

One obvious solution is to use a normal LDO and have a diode in series
with the input, so long as you can be sure nothing funny will be
hapenning inside with the ground lead which could still pass negative
current.

Or put a schottky diode on the output but take the feedback from after
the diode.

Sure, but then you are building your own regulator.

 

[Edward Hernandez]

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn\'t even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Mon, 15 Nov 2021 05:09:34 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <smsq2e$dj6$5@dont-email.me>.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
follow it\'s own rules that it uses to troll other posters.

jYMU4QgFsiaA

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 12-Nov-21 1:01 pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 14:48:38 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid
wrote:

Bought a couple of oscilloscope probes today to replace those damaged/lost.

They don\'t fit, because the plastic surround exceeds the specified
diameter for a BNC plug. My scope has a hole in its front plate to
accommodate a standard BNC plug, but it\'s not big enough for this
oversized plastic variant.

This probably saves several cents per probe, but created a problem I
didn\'t need.

Sylvia.

I had a similar problem with some long forgotten piece of SCADA
hardware. The BNC plugs fit, but they were so close together that
even the official insertion/removal tool didn\'t fit. However, this
was using a 50 ohm system, not the much higher impedance of a scope
probe.

I created an adapter of sorts to elevate every other connector. It
was a UG-88C/U plug with BNC panel mount receptacle crammed into the
plug. A short piece of bare wire connected the center pins and an
ugly solder blob connected the grounds:
https://www.newark.com/amphenol-rf/ug-88c-u/rf-coaxial-bnc-plug-50-ohm-cable/dp/04M6671
https://www.newark.com/amphenol-rf/31-10/connector-bnc-bhd-jack-str-50/dp/38F1322?st=bnc%20panel
The resulting adapter added about 1 inch to the length of the 50 ohm
connection. Whether the added capacitance will cause problems on your
oscilloscope will need to be determined.

If you want to just see if such an adapter has a chance of working,
try connecting a BNC M-M adapter (UG-491A/U) to a BNC F-F adapter
(UG-914/U). This will extend the line length by 1.75 inches. If it
works, build a shorter adaptor.

I bought a male to male adapter and a female to female adapter, and
joined them together. Seems to work OK for the kinds of frequency I deal
with - it\'s only a 20MHz scope anyway.

The extra length of metal attached to the socket does make it easier to
damage the socket though.

Sylvia.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Thu, 11 Nov 2021 22:01:33 +0000) it happened Peter
<nospam@nospam9876.com> wrote in <smk3rt$72m$1@dont-email.me>:

Sometimes one needs to power a circuit from one source or another.

Most LDOs, or indeed most normal regs, feed current back up to the
source. LDOs tend to use a PMOS pass transistor which has a parasitic
diode.

I am doing a design where I am using the Ricoh R1191 for this

https://eu.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Ricoh-Electronic-Devices-Company/R1191N033B-TR-FE?qs=%2Fha2pyFaduhEV6ZG3xOqbaXpStP%2FIzlm74g8
V5lGNcwdefxpMkR8XA%3D%3D

which has a series diode, so the dropout voltage is about 0.7V.

It\'s not dirt cheap but not crazy-priced either.

I am wondering why this is rare. Is it not possible to make a PMOS
device without the parasitic diode? Or have some other series element
which gets turned off when there is no input? It reminds me of an
active rectifier in switching power supplies, to avoid the Vf of the
diode(s). There is even a circuit for a bridge rectifier, although
that was commercially implemented with a complicated chip to drive the
four gates, IIRC.

One obvious solution is to use a normal LDO and have a diode in series
with the input, so long as you can be sure nothing funny will be
hapenning inside with the ground lead which could still pass negative
current.

IIRC the correct way to parallel 2 voltage regulators is have each one sense its output current
and if too high drive the current reference of the other one higher until both deliver the same current.
If you just parallel voltage controlled ones then one is likely to do all the work
due to minuscule output voltage differences.
For example one could go into current limit at 100% current and the other will then do say 10%.
Much simpler to get or design one bigger one?

 

[server]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 00:22:45 -0500, \"Tom Del Rosso\"
<fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Note: an LM317 is not an LDO. A lot of people have taken to using
\"LDO\" for most any linear reg.

But do all LDO\'s use a PNP or PMOS and the converse?

Most positive ones do.

LM1117 is an \"MDO\", an npn output transistor with a single Vbe
junction drop from V+ to Vout. Nice part. It will make 3.3 from +5.

There have been some regs that use n-type devices but had an aux
supply voltage for the gate drive. I\'ve designed some like that, with
an opamp and an nfet pass device and dropouts near 0.1 volts. The nfet
becomes ohmic.





--

Father Brown\'s figure remained quite dark and still;
but in that instant he had lost his head. His head was
always most valuable when he had lost it.

 

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 10:22:52 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

The best way to treat Sloman is to ignore him, which is appropriate
since, as you say, he doesn\'t matter. He\'s only here because...

Oh, he\'s published in, for instance, Rev. Sci. Inst., which means his
peers disagree about \'the best\' attitude. His peers know their business.
Larkin, for one, makes reference to things he\'s seen in that
journal, it does have good content (though, like datasheets, quality varies).

 

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 10:22:52 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

The best way to treat Sloman is to ignore him, which is appropriate
since, as you say, he doesn\'t matter. He\'s only here because...

Oh, he\'s published in, for instance, Rev. Sci. Inst., which means his
peers disagree about \'the best\' attitude. His peers know their business.
Larkin, for one, makes reference to things he\'s seen in that
journal, it does have good content (though, like datasheets, quality varies).

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 12-Nov-21 1:01 pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 14:48:38 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid
wrote:

Bought a couple of oscilloscope probes today to replace those damaged/lost.

They don\'t fit, because the plastic surround exceeds the specified
diameter for a BNC plug. My scope has a hole in its front plate to
accommodate a standard BNC plug, but it\'s not big enough for this
oversized plastic variant.

This probably saves several cents per probe, but created a problem I
didn\'t need.

Sylvia.

I had a similar problem with some long forgotten piece of SCADA
hardware. The BNC plugs fit, but they were so close together that
even the official insertion/removal tool didn\'t fit. However, this
was using a 50 ohm system, not the much higher impedance of a scope
probe.

I created an adapter of sorts to elevate every other connector. It
was a UG-88C/U plug with BNC panel mount receptacle crammed into the
plug. A short piece of bare wire connected the center pins and an
ugly solder blob connected the grounds:
https://www.newark.com/amphenol-rf/ug-88c-u/rf-coaxial-bnc-plug-50-ohm-cable/dp/04M6671
https://www.newark.com/amphenol-rf/31-10/connector-bnc-bhd-jack-str-50/dp/38F1322?st=bnc%20panel
The resulting adapter added about 1 inch to the length of the 50 ohm
connection. Whether the added capacitance will cause problems on your
oscilloscope will need to be determined.

If you want to just see if such an adapter has a chance of working,
try connecting a BNC M-M adapter (UG-491A/U) to a BNC F-F adapter
(UG-914/U). This will extend the line length by 1.75 inches. If it
works, build a shorter adaptor.

I bought a male to male adapter and a female to female adapter, and
joined them together. Seems to work OK for the kinds of frequency I deal
with - it\'s only a 20MHz scope anyway.

The extra length of metal attached to the socket does make it easier to
damage the socket though.

Sylvia.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 4:08:15 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 4:58:53 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 10:53:20 PM UTC+11, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
On 11/13/2021 11:34, Michael Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2021 03:22, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 1:52:54 PM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:
https://www.euronews.com/2021/11/10/france-vows-to-build-new-nuclear-reactors-to-meet-climate-goals


Lately France has been bashing us for being pansies.

That\'s so embarrassing.

France is being stupidly macho about nuclear reactors - essentially
they made a foolish investment because De Gaulle wanted France to be
nuclear power, and they\'ve never had to guts to admit that it was a
silly idea.

John Doe is silly enough to see this as a virtue.

France ranks 71 in the world for CO2 emissions per capita, the UK ranks
44. That\'s pretty much the difference between having a lot of nukes and a few.

Or between having a lot of solar panels and windmills, and a few. There are quite a few ways of generating energy that don\'t involve emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.

So perhaps BS could explain how it\'s \"stupidly macho\".

Nuclear power is expensive, even before you start working out the real cost of disposing of long-lived radio-active waste. The original motivation for having lots of nuclear reactors was having atom bombs and nuclear powered submarines, which is a pretty macho choice. Sticking with nuclear power after it became obvious quite how expensive it was is stupid.

Some useful data here, compare how well France and Sweden do in CO2 rankings compared with less nuke enthusiastic peers.

As you don\'t seem to realise, nuclear fission reactors aren\'t the only way of generating energy with emitting CO2. Sweden happens to have quite a lot of old-fashioned hydro-electric power too - apparently it is still supplying about 50% of its electric power.

Some 30 years ago I thought it would not be too long before \"they\" get it that nuclear power is the only way we know of to make the clean energy we need.

It isn\'t. Nuclear freaks do make this claim more or less non-stop, but it isn\'t remotely true.

Alas the anti-nuclear propaganda has been so efficient that even now the public does not get it. They keep on dreaming of windmills and similar nonsense.

There\'s nothing nonsensical about using wind-farms to generate electric power. Like solar power, it isn\'t there all the time, but grid scale storage is practical - if you\'ve got and appreciable hydro-electric generating capacity, it\'s easy enough to rework it for pumped storage, and grid-scale batteries are becoming more popular.

Australia has a lot of roof-top solar panels, and there\'s a push to get householders to buy enough battery storage to keep their homes running over-night - the people who run the grid don\'t like having to buy in power from household solar cells, and don\'t pay much for it. In the longer term, electric cars put a battery of about the right size in almost every household.

Hey Sloman, what is \"stupidly macho\" are the comments you are making! Germany is BUYING a lot of France\'s nuclear-generated power after they \"stupidly\" shut down their own reactors.

So what. It is still there to be bought (though the French had to shut down nearly half of their nuclear reactors a few years ago when cracks in some of the steel castings inside the reactors came to light). Germany shutting down it\'s nuclear reactors was bit quixotic it didn\'t make them much safer - the bulk of the nuclear waste still has to be disposed of sometime, but a shut-down nuclear reactor is less likely to do a Fukushima on you, and German public opinion hadn\'t reacted well to that.

What is \"stupid\" is relying on intermittent power that requires 100% fossil (like everybody\'s favorite source: COAL) or nuclear backup, or your perpetually loved blackouts. This is EXACTLY what happened this year to the UK:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2021/10/13/europes-energy-crisis-underscores-the-dangers-of-the-proposed-clean-electricity-performance-program/?sh=4909964c473a

The UK does lots of stuff wrong. Coal isn\'t anybody\'s favourite source - gas is marginally cleaner and lot easier to turn up and down as demand varies..

You don\'t seem to have a clue about this subject either.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 4:08:15 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 4:58:53 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 10:53:20 PM UTC+11, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
On 11/13/2021 11:34, Michael Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2021 03:22, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 1:52:54 PM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:
https://www.euronews.com/2021/11/10/france-vows-to-build-new-nuclear-reactors-to-meet-climate-goals


Lately France has been bashing us for being pansies.

That\'s so embarrassing.

France is being stupidly macho about nuclear reactors - essentially
they made a foolish investment because De Gaulle wanted France to be
nuclear power, and they\'ve never had to guts to admit that it was a
silly idea.

John Doe is silly enough to see this as a virtue.

France ranks 71 in the world for CO2 emissions per capita, the UK ranks
44. That\'s pretty much the difference between having a lot of nukes and a few.

Or between having a lot of solar panels and windmills, and a few. There are quite a few ways of generating energy that don\'t involve emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.

So perhaps BS could explain how it\'s \"stupidly macho\".

Nuclear power is expensive, even before you start working out the real cost of disposing of long-lived radio-active waste. The original motivation for having lots of nuclear reactors was having atom bombs and nuclear powered submarines, which is a pretty macho choice. Sticking with nuclear power after it became obvious quite how expensive it was is stupid.

Some useful data here, compare how well France and Sweden do in CO2 rankings compared with less nuke enthusiastic peers.

As you don\'t seem to realise, nuclear fission reactors aren\'t the only way of generating energy with emitting CO2. Sweden happens to have quite a lot of old-fashioned hydro-electric power too - apparently it is still supplying about 50% of its electric power.

Some 30 years ago I thought it would not be too long before \"they\" get it that nuclear power is the only way we know of to make the clean energy we need.

It isn\'t. Nuclear freaks do make this claim more or less non-stop, but it isn\'t remotely true.

Alas the anti-nuclear propaganda has been so efficient that even now the public does not get it. They keep on dreaming of windmills and similar nonsense.

There\'s nothing nonsensical about using wind-farms to generate electric power. Like solar power, it isn\'t there all the time, but grid scale storage is practical - if you\'ve got and appreciable hydro-electric generating capacity, it\'s easy enough to rework it for pumped storage, and grid-scale batteries are becoming more popular.

Australia has a lot of roof-top solar panels, and there\'s a push to get householders to buy enough battery storage to keep their homes running over-night - the people who run the grid don\'t like having to buy in power from household solar cells, and don\'t pay much for it. In the longer term, electric cars put a battery of about the right size in almost every household.

Hey Sloman, what is \"stupidly macho\" are the comments you are making! Germany is BUYING a lot of France\'s nuclear-generated power after they \"stupidly\" shut down their own reactors.

So what. It is still there to be bought (though the French had to shut down nearly half of their nuclear reactors a few years ago when cracks in some of the steel castings inside the reactors came to light). Germany shutting down it\'s nuclear reactors was bit quixotic it didn\'t make them much safer - the bulk of the nuclear waste still has to be disposed of sometime, but a shut-down nuclear reactor is less likely to do a Fukushima on you, and German public opinion hadn\'t reacted well to that.

What is \"stupid\" is relying on intermittent power that requires 100% fossil (like everybody\'s favorite source: COAL) or nuclear backup, or your perpetually loved blackouts. This is EXACTLY what happened this year to the UK:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2021/10/13/europes-energy-crisis-underscores-the-dangers-of-the-proposed-clean-electricity-performance-program/?sh=4909964c473a

The UK does lots of stuff wrong. Coal isn\'t anybody\'s favourite source - gas is marginally cleaner and lot easier to turn up and down as demand varies..

You don\'t seem to have a clue about this subject either.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 4:08:15 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 4:58:53 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 10:53:20 PM UTC+11, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
On 11/13/2021 11:34, Michael Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2021 03:22, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 1:52:54 PM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:
https://www.euronews.com/2021/11/10/france-vows-to-build-new-nuclear-reactors-to-meet-climate-goals


Lately France has been bashing us for being pansies.

That\'s so embarrassing.

France is being stupidly macho about nuclear reactors - essentially
they made a foolish investment because De Gaulle wanted France to be
nuclear power, and they\'ve never had to guts to admit that it was a
silly idea.

John Doe is silly enough to see this as a virtue.

France ranks 71 in the world for CO2 emissions per capita, the UK ranks
44. That\'s pretty much the difference between having a lot of nukes and a few.

Or between having a lot of solar panels and windmills, and a few. There are quite a few ways of generating energy that don\'t involve emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.

So perhaps BS could explain how it\'s \"stupidly macho\".

Nuclear power is expensive, even before you start working out the real cost of disposing of long-lived radio-active waste. The original motivation for having lots of nuclear reactors was having atom bombs and nuclear powered submarines, which is a pretty macho choice. Sticking with nuclear power after it became obvious quite how expensive it was is stupid.

Some useful data here, compare how well France and Sweden do in CO2 rankings compared with less nuke enthusiastic peers.

As you don\'t seem to realise, nuclear fission reactors aren\'t the only way of generating energy with emitting CO2. Sweden happens to have quite a lot of old-fashioned hydro-electric power too - apparently it is still supplying about 50% of its electric power.

Some 30 years ago I thought it would not be too long before \"they\" get it that nuclear power is the only way we know of to make the clean energy we need.

It isn\'t. Nuclear freaks do make this claim more or less non-stop, but it isn\'t remotely true.

Alas the anti-nuclear propaganda has been so efficient that even now the public does not get it. They keep on dreaming of windmills and similar nonsense.

There\'s nothing nonsensical about using wind-farms to generate electric power. Like solar power, it isn\'t there all the time, but grid scale storage is practical - if you\'ve got and appreciable hydro-electric generating capacity, it\'s easy enough to rework it for pumped storage, and grid-scale batteries are becoming more popular.

Australia has a lot of roof-top solar panels, and there\'s a push to get householders to buy enough battery storage to keep their homes running over-night - the people who run the grid don\'t like having to buy in power from household solar cells, and don\'t pay much for it. In the longer term, electric cars put a battery of about the right size in almost every household.

Hey Sloman, what is \"stupidly macho\" are the comments you are making! Germany is BUYING a lot of France\'s nuclear-generated power after they \"stupidly\" shut down their own reactors.

So what. It is still there to be bought (though the French had to shut down nearly half of their nuclear reactors a few years ago when cracks in some of the steel castings inside the reactors came to light). Germany shutting down it\'s nuclear reactors was bit quixotic it didn\'t make them much safer - the bulk of the nuclear waste still has to be disposed of sometime, but a shut-down nuclear reactor is less likely to do a Fukushima on you, and German public opinion hadn\'t reacted well to that.

What is \"stupid\" is relying on intermittent power that requires 100% fossil (like everybody\'s favorite source: COAL) or nuclear backup, or your perpetually loved blackouts. This is EXACTLY what happened this year to the UK:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2021/10/13/europes-energy-crisis-underscores-the-dangers-of-the-proposed-clean-electricity-performance-program/?sh=4909964c473a

The UK does lots of stuff wrong. Coal isn\'t anybody\'s favourite source - gas is marginally cleaner and lot easier to turn up and down as demand varies..

You don\'t seem to have a clue about this subject either.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 12/11/21 09:15, Martin Brown wrote:

On 11/11/2021 22:38, Tom Gardner wrote:
The medical profession is on its knees, and the government\'s
only response is to do the thing that is effective with
politicians: bribe them with money. Since medics aren\'t
particularly motivated by money, that is having not much
effect.

I hadn\'t noticed the government being overly generous with the medics. Most
recently they have been berating GP\'s for not having enough face to face
meetings with their hypochondriac patients.

Looks like they are offering GPs ~£5000 to have more face-to-face meetings.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/oct/14/englands-gps-to-get-250m-boost-if-they-see-more-patients-face-to-face

That seems to be around the going price for \"sponsoring\" an MP,
but it can be argued that viruses are more of a danger to GPs
than knives are to MPs

As someone said about US politicians, \"I knew they could be
bought, but I was horrified to find I could afford one\".

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 12/11/21 09:15, Martin Brown wrote:

On 11/11/2021 22:38, Tom Gardner wrote:
The medical profession is on its knees, and the government\'s
only response is to do the thing that is effective with
politicians: bribe them with money. Since medics aren\'t
particularly motivated by money, that is having not much
effect.

I hadn\'t noticed the government being overly generous with the medics. Most
recently they have been berating GP\'s for not having enough face to face
meetings with their hypochondriac patients.

Looks like they are offering GPs ~£5000 to have more face-to-face meetings.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/oct/14/englands-gps-to-get-250m-boost-if-they-see-more-patients-face-to-face

That seems to be around the going price for \"sponsoring\" an MP,
but it can be argued that viruses are more of a danger to GPs
than knives are to MPs

As someone said about US politicians, \"I knew they could be
bought, but I was horrified to find I could afford one\".