Wind turbines used to absorb a power surplus?...

[Vir Campestris]

On 13/04/2023 03:46, rbowman wrote:

https://us.motorsport.com/f1/video/f1s-mechanical-power-steering-system-
explained/372440/

Nice video on the hydraulic assisted rack and pinion steering. It
preserves the feel that is lost in many passenger cars.

My car is 20 years old, and the last of its type. It has a hydraulic
assisted rack and pinion that gets the feel in a really simple way.

It turns down as you speed up, and is off by 30MPH.

It\'s really only there for parking. It did fail once, and I did notice!

Andy

 

[alan_m]

On 12/04/2023 18:34, Rod Speed wrote:

But both are fly by wire with full computer control.
nothing even remotely like F1 racing

But the G forces are

If its all so long distance firing why do they have to train around the
Mach Loop in Wales?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLk6bZ7AnUM

If not fast jets what about
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6S-bXSvVk

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

 

[SteveW]

On 14/04/2023 00:10, alan_m wrote:

On 12/04/2023 18:34, Rod Speed wrote:

But both are fly by wire with full computer control.
nothing even remotely like F1 racing

But the G forces are

If its all so long distance firing why do they have to train around the
Mach Loop in Wales?

Probably to train for ground attack - such as the low level attacks on
airbases during the Gulf Wars. Air to air battles are probably at pretty
long range these days, but bombs can only be dropped close up.

 

[Rod Speed]

On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 09:10:57 +1000, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

On 12/04/2023 18:34, Rod Speed wrote:

But both are fly by wire with full computer control.
nothing even remotely like F1 racing

But the G forces are

Nope, those that fly the latest high performance
fighters wear pressure suits. F1 drivers don\'t

If its all so long distance firing why do they have to train around the
Mach Loop in Wales?

Thats ground attack and making themselves
invisible to those extreme range missiles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLk6bZ7AnUM

If not fast jets what about
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6S-bXSvVk

They dont wear pressure suits either.

 

[Rod Speed]

On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 09:28:35 +1000, SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk>
wrote:

On 14/04/2023 00:10, alan_m wrote:
On 12/04/2023 18:34, Rod Speed wrote:

But both are fly by wire with full computer control.
nothing even remotely like F1 racing
But the G forces are
If its all so long distance firing why do they have to train around
the Mach Loop in Wales?

Probably to train for ground attack - such as the low level attacks on
airbases during the Gulf Wars. Air to air battles are probably at pretty
long range these days,

No one dog fights anymore.

> but bombs can only be dropped close up.

That\'s wrong too. The B52 doesnt do close up.

 

[alan_m]

On 12/04/2023 12:47, Andrew wrote:

On 12/04/2023 09:35, Martin Brown wrote:

Again privatising de facto monopolies like water utilities is to blame.

ROFL. Raw untreated sewage discharges into the sea were far worse before
privatisation. In those days piping it out to sea without even basic
filtration was how the water companies did it. There have been massive
investments to reduce or eliminate this, like the ginormous holding
tank bored under the entire length of Brighton and Hove promenade to
capture the combined rain+foul drains output during heavy rain. Then it
is pumped along to the coast towards Newhaven and treated using modern
UV treatment and other stuff.

There are even fish in the Thames in London now.

There were also the massive number of water leaks that that had to be
fixed and were ignored before privatisation.




--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

 

[alan_m]

On 12/04/2023 12:59, Andrew wrote:

Network Rail have spent billions upgrading and improving a system that
was run into the ground during WW2 and was then simply patched up for
decades by BR, who, as everyone old enough will remember, ran such a
fantastic, clean, punctual service with helpful, friendly staff (*NOT*)

Our local rail service was called the Misery Line and had rolling stock
that had been scrapped by other regions.

If company X sells cheaper tickets for a slower, stopping service then
clearly you cannot use that ticket to travel along the same line on
a faster service which charges higher prices. You, the passenger have
to choice. With BR you had no choice.

BR had some strange pricing as well. I can remember that in my area a
day return ticket was cheaper than a day single (way) ticket.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

 

[Peeler]

On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 09:50:02 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin\'s latest trollshit unread>

--
Marland addressing senile Rodent\'s tall stories:
\"Do you really think people believe your stories you come up with to boost
your self esteem.\"
Message-ID: <h88tt7FplhkU1@mid.individual.net>

 

[Peeler]

On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 09:48:03 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin\'s latest trollshit unread>

--
John addressing the senile Australian pest:
\"You are a complete idiot. But you make me larf. LOL\"
MID: <f9056fe6-1479-40ff-8cc0-8118292c547e@googlegroups.com>

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 14/04/2023 00:10, alan_m wrote:

On 12/04/2023 18:34, Rod Speed wrote:

But both are fly by wire with full computer control.
nothing even remotely like F1 racing

But the G forces are

If its all so long distance firing why do they have to train around the
Mach Loop in Wales?

Because attacking the ground is different from air combat, and they
still have to get close (like 100km) to targets without being spotted on
radar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLk6bZ7AnUM

If not fast jets what about
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6S-bXSvVk

--
In todays liberal progressive conflict-free education system, everyone
gets full Marx.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 23:09:56 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid..invalid> wrote:

On 31/03/2023 20:03, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 09:13:17 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

On 3/31/2023 7:15 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 22:12:34 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> writes:
On 3/19/2023 11:50 PM, alan_m wrote:
On 19/03/2023 23:45, Sylvia Else wrote:

The problem there is that it\'s not economic to have the equipment
required to do that standing around unused waiting for the occasions
when power is available.

If the climate activists have their way there will not be any other
source of backup equipment after 2030 to provide any electricity when
the wind doesn\'t blow or the sun doesn\'t shine.

There seems to be another climate emergency (or whatever its called this
week) conference going on soon. On the early morning news there was an
activist from California and one from the UK spouting off about we have
the technology of Windmills and Solar (nothing else) to replace all
fossil fuel generation by 2030.

In Extinction Rebellion have their way there will be no oil to
lubricate the moving parts for the windmills, no oil to make tyres for
their bicycles and no tarmac for their cycle lanes.


And the GOP\'ers just want us to burn it all up.


30% of a BBL of crude is used as chemical feedstocks and binders for
aggregate (asphalt/macadam). Those, leaving aside any potential to
contaminate soil or water, do not contribute to the CO2 in the
atmosphere. It\'s the other 70% of the crude, refined into fuels,
that when burned add CO2 to the atmosphere.

Using the limited remaining reserves of crude for the former instead of
burning it up will allow the CO2 fraction in the atmosphere to start dropping and
still provide the chemical feedstocks we need to feed 8 billion humans. Win-Win. Even
the oil companies will still be profitable.

To be carbon neutral doesn\'t necessarily mean that the world cannot use
oil; just not burn more than the natural carbon cycle can remove on
short timescales (e.g annually). Likewise coal. Eventually, of course,
both resources will be exhausted - there\'s no reason not to start the
process of weaning off them now, and rapidly.


The reason to not wean rapidly is that the planet has billions of
terribly poor people who often live on top of huge coal and oil and
gas resources.

CO2 is good for them too; it makes crops grow. Warm is good; cold
kills.




\"While increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere encourage plant
growth, they also reduce the nutritional value of plants, which can have
a larger impact on nutrition and food safety worldwide. \"


https://www.dropbox.com/s/0tm8wyli83nt1v4/human-progress.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/t5a1jf8249qqci2/food-consumption-calories.png?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jf8rjfh93e13rre/Corn_Yield.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fwry3ehftrzvgzc/CO2-GDP_Curves.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8q248o5l3127f2k/CO2.jpg?raw=1

But in eight years we\'ll all be dead from climate change.




only in the sense that if i cant afford to heat my home i will die of
pneumonia...

No, you will simply burn more calories, which will be plentiful with the extra crops.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sat, 01 Apr 2023 00:57:02 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 23:09:56 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

only in the sense that if i cant afford to heat my home i will die of
pneumonia...


I may die of cardiac arrest when I get the bill for the propane fill-up
this week.

Siphon your neighbour\'s propane.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sat, 01 Apr 2023 06:41:23 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 19:18:15 -0700, John Larkin wrote:


How cold do you think it might get inside your house if you had no heat?
In much of the US, it would be uncomfortable but not dangerous.

No heat? Depending on the week this winter 10 below. We don\'t all live in
California.

Are you a girl?

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sat, 01 Apr 2023 13:15:33 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid..invalid> wrote:

On 01/04/2023 03:18, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 23:09:56 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 31/03/2023 20:03, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 09:13:17 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

On 3/31/2023 7:15 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 22:12:34 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> writes:
On 3/19/2023 11:50 PM, alan_m wrote:
On 19/03/2023 23:45, Sylvia Else wrote:

The problem there is that it\'s not economic to have the equipment
required to do that standing around unused waiting for the occasions
when power is available.

If the climate activists have their way there will not be any other
source of backup equipment after 2030 to provide any electricity when
the wind doesn\'t blow or the sun doesn\'t shine.

There seems to be another climate emergency (or whatever its called this
week) conference going on soon. On the early morning news there was an
activist from California and one from the UK spouting off about we have
the technology of Windmills and Solar (nothing else) to replace all
fossil fuel generation by 2030.

In Extinction Rebellion have their way there will be no oil to
lubricate the moving parts for the windmills, no oil to make tyres for
their bicycles and no tarmac for their cycle lanes.


And the GOP\'ers just want us to burn it all up.


30% of a BBL of crude is used as chemical feedstocks and binders for
aggregate (asphalt/macadam). Those, leaving aside any potential to
contaminate soil or water, do not contribute to the CO2 in the
atmosphere. It\'s the other 70% of the crude, refined into fuels,
that when burned add CO2 to the atmosphere.

Using the limited remaining reserves of crude for the former instead of
burning it up will allow the CO2 fraction in the atmosphere to start dropping and
still provide the chemical feedstocks we need to feed 8 billion humans. Win-Win. Even
the oil companies will still be profitable.

To be carbon neutral doesn\'t necessarily mean that the world cannot use
oil; just not burn more than the natural carbon cycle can remove on
short timescales (e.g annually). Likewise coal. Eventually, of course,
both resources will be exhausted - there\'s no reason not to start the
process of weaning off them now, and rapidly.


The reason to not wean rapidly is that the planet has billions of
terribly poor people who often live on top of huge coal and oil and
gas resources.

CO2 is good for them too; it makes crops grow. Warm is good; cold
kills.




\"While increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere encourage plant
growth, they also reduce the nutritional value of plants, which can have
a larger impact on nutrition and food safety worldwide. \"


https://www.dropbox.com/s/0tm8wyli83nt1v4/human-progress.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/t5a1jf8249qqci2/food-consumption-calories..png?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jf8rjfh93e13rre/Corn_Yield.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fwry3ehftrzvgzc/CO2-GDP_Curves.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8q248o5l3127f2k/CO2.jpg?raw=1

But in eight years we\'ll all be dead from climate change.




only in the sense that if i cant afford to heat my home i will die of
pneumonia...

How cold do you think it might get inside your house if you had no
heat? In much of the US, it would be uncomfortable but not dangerous.

It is already dangerous to me to go much below 16°C.

My home without heat? - sub zero certainly,. I was brought up in a home
with no heat essentially.

It was hell. Ice in the windows INSIDE.

Why would that be hell? Do you never go camping?

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sat, 01 Apr 2023 03:18:15 +0100, John Larkin <jlarkin@highlandsnipmetechnology.com> wrote:

On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 23:09:56 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 31/03/2023 20:03, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 09:13:17 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

On 3/31/2023 7:15 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 22:12:34 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> writes:
On 3/19/2023 11:50 PM, alan_m wrote:
On 19/03/2023 23:45, Sylvia Else wrote:

The problem there is that it\'s not economic to have the equipment
required to do that standing around unused waiting for the occasions
when power is available.

If the climate activists have their way there will not be any other
source of backup equipment after 2030 to provide any electricity when
the wind doesn\'t blow or the sun doesn\'t shine.

There seems to be another climate emergency (or whatever its called this
week) conference going on soon. On the early morning news there was an
activist from California and one from the UK spouting off about we have
the technology of Windmills and Solar (nothing else) to replace all
fossil fuel generation by 2030.

In Extinction Rebellion have their way there will be no oil to
lubricate the moving parts for the windmills, no oil to make tyres for
their bicycles and no tarmac for their cycle lanes.


And the GOP\'ers just want us to burn it all up.


30% of a BBL of crude is used as chemical feedstocks and binders for
aggregate (asphalt/macadam). Those, leaving aside any potential to
contaminate soil or water, do not contribute to the CO2 in the
atmosphere. It\'s the other 70% of the crude, refined into fuels,
that when burned add CO2 to the atmosphere.

Using the limited remaining reserves of crude for the former instead of
burning it up will allow the CO2 fraction in the atmosphere to start dropping and
still provide the chemical feedstocks we need to feed 8 billion humans. Win-Win. Even
the oil companies will still be profitable.

To be carbon neutral doesn\'t necessarily mean that the world cannot use
oil; just not burn more than the natural carbon cycle can remove on
short timescales (e.g annually). Likewise coal. Eventually, of course,
both resources will be exhausted - there\'s no reason not to start the
process of weaning off them now, and rapidly.


The reason to not wean rapidly is that the planet has billions of
terribly poor people who often live on top of huge coal and oil and
gas resources.

CO2 is good for them too; it makes crops grow. Warm is good; cold
kills.




\"While increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere encourage plant
growth, they also reduce the nutritional value of plants, which can have
a larger impact on nutrition and food safety worldwide. \"


https://www.dropbox.com/s/0tm8wyli83nt1v4/human-progress.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/t5a1jf8249qqci2/food-consumption-calories.png?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jf8rjfh93e13rre/Corn_Yield.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fwry3ehftrzvgzc/CO2-GDP_Curves.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8q248o5l3127f2k/CO2.jpg?raw=1

But in eight years we\'ll all be dead from climate change.




only in the sense that if i cant afford to heat my home i will die of
pneumonia...

How cold do you think it might get inside your house if you had no
heat? In much of the US, it would be uncomfortable but not dangerous.

But but but, the climate is warming up, we won\'t need heat.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sat, 01 Apr 2023 15:02:36 +0100, Ed P <esp@snet.xxx> wrote:

On 4/1/2023 8:13 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/03/2023 23:51, Ed P wrote:
On 3/31/2023 6:09 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/03/2023 20:03, John Larkin wrote:



only in the sense that if i cant afford to heat my home i will die of
pneumonia...


You said your house was insulated. Why would you need more heat?

No insulation is perfect. My home is large.


So are those boilers we discussed. As you note, insulation does not fix
everything. Thanks for making my point.

It fixes 99% of it.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 23:09:56 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid..invalid> wrote:

On 31/03/2023 20:03, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 09:13:17 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

On 3/31/2023 7:15 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 22:12:34 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> writes:
On 3/19/2023 11:50 PM, alan_m wrote:
On 19/03/2023 23:45, Sylvia Else wrote:

The problem there is that it\'s not economic to have the equipment
required to do that standing around unused waiting for the occasions
when power is available.

If the climate activists have their way there will not be any other
source of backup equipment after 2030 to provide any electricity when
the wind doesn\'t blow or the sun doesn\'t shine.

There seems to be another climate emergency (or whatever its called this
week) conference going on soon. On the early morning news there was an
activist from California and one from the UK spouting off about we have
the technology of Windmills and Solar (nothing else) to replace all
fossil fuel generation by 2030.

In Extinction Rebellion have their way there will be no oil to
lubricate the moving parts for the windmills, no oil to make tyres for
their bicycles and no tarmac for their cycle lanes.


And the GOP\'ers just want us to burn it all up.


30% of a BBL of crude is used as chemical feedstocks and binders for
aggregate (asphalt/macadam). Those, leaving aside any potential to
contaminate soil or water, do not contribute to the CO2 in the
atmosphere. It\'s the other 70% of the crude, refined into fuels,
that when burned add CO2 to the atmosphere.

Using the limited remaining reserves of crude for the former instead of
burning it up will allow the CO2 fraction in the atmosphere to start dropping and
still provide the chemical feedstocks we need to feed 8 billion humans. Win-Win. Even
the oil companies will still be profitable.

To be carbon neutral doesn\'t necessarily mean that the world cannot use
oil; just not burn more than the natural carbon cycle can remove on
short timescales (e.g annually). Likewise coal. Eventually, of course,
both resources will be exhausted - there\'s no reason not to start the
process of weaning off them now, and rapidly.


The reason to not wean rapidly is that the planet has billions of
terribly poor people who often live on top of huge coal and oil and
gas resources.

CO2 is good for them too; it makes crops grow. Warm is good; cold
kills.




\"While increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere encourage plant
growth, they also reduce the nutritional value of plants, which can have
a larger impact on nutrition and food safety worldwide. \"


https://www.dropbox.com/s/0tm8wyli83nt1v4/human-progress.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/t5a1jf8249qqci2/food-consumption-calories.png?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jf8rjfh93e13rre/Corn_Yield.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fwry3ehftrzvgzc/CO2-GDP_Curves.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8q248o5l3127f2k/CO2.jpg?raw=1

But in eight years we\'ll all be dead from climate change.




only in the sense that if i cant afford to heat my home i will die of
pneumonia...

No, you will simply burn more calories, which will be plentiful with the extra crops.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 23:09:56 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid..invalid> wrote:

On 31/03/2023 20:03, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 09:13:17 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

On 3/31/2023 7:15 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 22:12:34 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> writes:
On 3/19/2023 11:50 PM, alan_m wrote:
On 19/03/2023 23:45, Sylvia Else wrote:

The problem there is that it\'s not economic to have the equipment
required to do that standing around unused waiting for the occasions
when power is available.

If the climate activists have their way there will not be any other
source of backup equipment after 2030 to provide any electricity when
the wind doesn\'t blow or the sun doesn\'t shine.

There seems to be another climate emergency (or whatever its called this
week) conference going on soon. On the early morning news there was an
activist from California and one from the UK spouting off about we have
the technology of Windmills and Solar (nothing else) to replace all
fossil fuel generation by 2030.

In Extinction Rebellion have their way there will be no oil to
lubricate the moving parts for the windmills, no oil to make tyres for
their bicycles and no tarmac for their cycle lanes.


And the GOP\'ers just want us to burn it all up.


30% of a BBL of crude is used as chemical feedstocks and binders for
aggregate (asphalt/macadam). Those, leaving aside any potential to
contaminate soil or water, do not contribute to the CO2 in the
atmosphere. It\'s the other 70% of the crude, refined into fuels,
that when burned add CO2 to the atmosphere.

Using the limited remaining reserves of crude for the former instead of
burning it up will allow the CO2 fraction in the atmosphere to start dropping and
still provide the chemical feedstocks we need to feed 8 billion humans. Win-Win. Even
the oil companies will still be profitable.

To be carbon neutral doesn\'t necessarily mean that the world cannot use
oil; just not burn more than the natural carbon cycle can remove on
short timescales (e.g annually). Likewise coal. Eventually, of course,
both resources will be exhausted - there\'s no reason not to start the
process of weaning off them now, and rapidly.


The reason to not wean rapidly is that the planet has billions of
terribly poor people who often live on top of huge coal and oil and
gas resources.

CO2 is good for them too; it makes crops grow. Warm is good; cold
kills.




\"While increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere encourage plant
growth, they also reduce the nutritional value of plants, which can have
a larger impact on nutrition and food safety worldwide. \"


https://www.dropbox.com/s/0tm8wyli83nt1v4/human-progress.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/t5a1jf8249qqci2/food-consumption-calories.png?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jf8rjfh93e13rre/Corn_Yield.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fwry3ehftrzvgzc/CO2-GDP_Curves.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8q248o5l3127f2k/CO2.jpg?raw=1

But in eight years we\'ll all be dead from climate change.




only in the sense that if i cant afford to heat my home i will die of
pneumonia...

No, you will simply burn more calories, which will be plentiful with the extra crops.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 5:45:02 AM UTC+10, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Sat, 01 Apr 2023 03:18:15 +0100, John Larkin <jla...@highlandsnipmetechnology.com> wrote:
On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 23:09:56 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 31/03/2023 20:03, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 09:13:17 -0700, Bob F <bobn...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/31/2023 7:15 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 22:12:34 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
Bob F <bobn...@gmail.com> writes:
On 3/19/2023 11:50 PM, alan_m wrote:
On 19/03/2023 23:45, Sylvia Else wrote:

<snip>

But in eight years we\'ll all be dead from climate change.

only in the sense that if i cant afford to heat my home i will die of pneumonia...

Food insecurity is more likely to kill you. Sadly, not all that fast.

How cold do you think it might get inside your house if you had no
heat? In much of the US, it would be uncomfortable but not dangerous.

But but but, the climate is warming up, we won\'t need heat.

The climate is warming, but that does bring more extreme weather. One side effect of climate change is that cold air masses from the Antarctic have taken to getting as far north as Southern Australia. When I was a kid, unseasonable cold weather froze a couple of tourists to death in the Cradle Mountain national park in Tasmania in January (which is high summer in Tasmania), This is now more likely than it used to be.

Sadly, this isn\'t going to free us from Commander Kinsey.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Wed, 05 Apr 2023 13:05:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 21/03/2023 15:16, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 11:26:43 +0000, Vir Campestris
vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 18/03/2023 11:54, alan_m wrote:
How do you think a wind farm works when there is no wind? For 50% of the
windmills you turn on the fan mode so the rest of them can generate
electricity. It\'s the perfect perpetual motion scheme on a gigantic scale.

Please don\'t say things like that. There are people out there who will
believe you.

Just as they believe we can have 100% of our power coming from wind.

Andy

I invented the concept of connecting a motor to a generator and making
free power. I think I was about 7 years old.

Youtube is full of similar schemes.

I did the same. Two step up gears connected back to the same shaft to
get a gearbox that drove itself. It took me a long time to work out why
it locked up solid.

It\'s a good way to make your brain explode.

Here\'s another one, the output is simultaneously 12V and 24V:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mnty9k2rkgmneml/Dual%20bridge%20rectifier.jpg?dl=0
LTSpice says it\'s 24V, but I\'m not convinced.
Will it fizz or will it bang?