Switch off at the socket?
 

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
:
: "Jerry" wrote in message
: ...
:
: "Bill Wright" wrote in message
: ...
: : Yes, free immigration has lead to the population rising to
70m
: over the next
: : few years, snip trolling racists crap
:
: The bit you snipped was where I said there's be race riots.
What's racist
: about saying that?

Because it will not happen the way you suggest, your so called
indigenous British population will fight each other for the
scraps of food should severe famine hit the UK, race is
irrelevant but closet resists like you Bill just can't understand
that simple fact, if you were put in a position were you had to
kill a *White* Anglo-Saxon person to stop your family starving
you would do so - just like what happens in Africa or places like
Haiti etc.

:
: Irrelevant, climate change could mean that the UK couldn't
even
: feed it's indigenous 1945 population level never mind it's
1970
: or 2007 population level. Kindly take you BNP style clap-trap
: elsewhere.
: So saying that the population will rise as a result of
immigration is BNP
: style clap-trap is it?

Yes, in the context that you used it.

Switch off at the socket?
 

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , Norman Wells
writes
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , Java Jive
writes

Unless it's fed by gravity, like the Chatsworth one that was
mentioned, and does not use mains water that is thereby wasted,
which instead you could have drunk or used to shower, it is, as
you say, not strictly necessary, and is consuming CO2.


Isn't consuming CO2 meant to be a GOOD THING? ;-)

We need more consumption of CO2!

Carbon Capture is the way to go and it is the ONLY way that Britain
will make a significant difference.

No, sadly, it just joins the list of other things where Britain can
make no difference whatsoever.

Nope. Atmospheric extraction and carbon capture is an area where the
UK could make a significant impact.

Atmospheric extraction is totally unfeasible. Have you _any_ idea how big
the atmosphere is, and how small in comparison any man-made extractor would
be?

How many would we need do you think?

And wouldn't it be better to use trees as we always have?

The atmosphere tends to have a
habit of circulating on a global scale, so our small geographic area
eventually accesses all of the planet's atmosphere. Indeed, any
atmospheric extraction plant in any country would be insignificantly
smaller than the UK, so our limited size is not an issue. The UK has
extracted so much of its underground resources that there are many
suitable voids for the indefinite storage of liquid and solid carbon
deposits.
However, any small country could, with the right technology,
investment and political will (which is the most likely barrier in
the UK), punch well above its weight with carbon capture. Indeed,
with the appropriate carbon trading agreements in place, it could be
as profitable a business as any currently vomiting CO2 across the
planet.

Sadly, no it won't.

Switch off at the socket?
 

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:50:02 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

Well, I'm terribly sorry about that, but the point I was replying
to was:

60 million people doing anything would easily have a big effect.

and that's what I dealt with.

That's fair enough

The possibility of a global agreement, when China, India and the
USA don't seem in the least inclined to join in, seems pretty
remote. If they don't agree swingeing cuts and implement them,
anything we do in Britain is totally irrelevant, so it's pointless
trying, and paying a high price for doing so. It's like
volunteering to starve ten years before anyone else sees the need.

And my point is that if everone takes that attitude, we're doomed,
because no agreement will ever be reached if everyone is saying:
"No, you must jump first!"

Absolutely. But Britain jumping first will have no effect at all.
That's my point. We're as significant in that respect as the Cayman
Islands or Tuvalu.

WE can set an example that it can be done. And we know it SHOULD be
done.

Not if it serves no purpose.

Switch off at the socket?
 

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , Java Jive
writes

Unless it's fed by gravity, like the Chatsworth one that was
mentioned, and does not use mains water that is thereby wasted,
which instead you could have drunk or used to shower, it is, as
you say, not strictly necessary, and is consuming CO2.


Isn't consuming CO2 meant to be a GOOD THING? ;-)

We need more consumption of CO2!

Carbon Capture is the way to go and it is the ONLY way that Britain
will make a significant difference.

No, sadly, it just joins the list of other things where Britain can
make no difference whatsoever.

When will people realise just how insignificant and impotent we are
in a global context?

Actually, we are not.

I think we rank about tenth in therms of GDP.

We still produce just 1.7% of the world's CO2. What difference would it
make if the UK were to sink without trace tonight?

By how many seconds do you think it would delay global catastrophe?

Switch off at the socket?
 

Java Jive wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:35:47 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
1GW, enough for two big cities it says and it will have been doing it
for 39 years when it finally closes.

But how much energy did it take to build it? How much to mine the
ore, refine it (these in another country, so it doesn't appear in our
carbon account), ship it to the UK, maybe process it some more, 'burn'
it, make the waste safe for transport, transport it, process it, and
store it INDEFINITELY into the future, for we will be expending energy
looking after and containing nuclear waste long after the sites that
produced it have been decommissioned. How much energy will it take
entirely to decommission the plant safely at the end of its working
life? By the time you've added up that lot, just how much 'net'
energy will the plant have produced?


About 1%-3% of the energy it produces, typically. Is what is used by it
to produce the actual structure and take it down afterwards.

Somewhat better than a windmill.

The data you need is all in David Mackay's excellent and very unbiased
(he is a committed greenie, but with the ability to think and do sums as
well) book, and website www.withouthotair.com


If any? A recent BBC programmes about Windscale/Sellafield cast doubt
on how much energy it ever produced.

They are actually designed with rushed production of weapons grade
plutonium in mind. Power generation was a bit of a smokescreen. A handy
politically acceptable by-product if you like. After all the damned
piles WERE producing a lot of heat, as part of the desired nuclear
reactins., and needed cooling, so it made sense to strap a boiler and a
turbine on the back, and do something with it.


After all, it was primarily
built as a source of weapons-grade plutonium, not to supply
electricity, which was just a public cover story, and the programme
stated that it was sometimes drawing power from the grid rather than
supplying power to it!


Exactly. Historically intersting, but in no way relevant to modern
plants designed to produce power safely and economically, and be
dismantles safely and economically afterwards.


A recent BBC programme about Dounreay revealed that its
decommissioning employs as many people as it ever did when it was
operational. This inevitably means that it will produce incidental
CO2 until decommissioning ends in 2025, even though it hasn't been
operational since 1994.

Indeed. An early set that wasn't designed to be taken apart in the sort
of Elfin Safety regime that would have had post war technologists
sputtering their coffee all over their slide rules.

And that's not even to mention environmental radio-active hazards ...


Which are, frank;ly, alomost non existent.

A school-friend's family had to pour all their milk into the sea
during the incident at the then Windscale plant.


Says who?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire

There are Welsh farmers still unable to sell their lamb after
Chernobyl:

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wa...1466-20822842/

The same BBC programme revealed (newly to me, at least) that there are
heavy particles washing along the coast from Dounreay:


Ther are heavy particles washing along the Channel and bristol channel
from Dartmoor and Exmoor..

natural radon is the greatest source of radioactive related deaths in
the country, by IIRC a factor of several thousand over the nuclear industry.


http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0952-4...b-754751b7c89c

And, don't forget, every spillage, leak, incident, or whatever,
whether it be major like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, or the more
frequent lesser problems, besides the instantly alarming concerns
about radio-activity, have an associated energetic cost in cleanup
operations, etc.


Trivial ion compariso=n to the power generated, and arguably about a
1000 times more diligent than the actual facts say is necessary.

The really big windmills are 2MW so you need 1500 "jumbo jets on a
stick" spread out over the country to have even a hope in hell of
matching this one nuke station.

It is certainly true that wind has its own problems, the chief of
which are that most of the population do not choose to live where most
of the wind is, the number of windfarms that are required to be built
in an impossibly short time, and the only commercial manufacturer in
the UK has just closed. However, planning permission aside, a
windfarm has a much smaller lead time, and a much smaller initial CO2
outlay to recover. We need to use as much wind as we can, but it
clearly won't be sufficient on its own.

WE don't need to use any wind. Its an appalingly inefficient way to
generate usable power. It has no real justification beyond seeming to
the naive, to be a green solution to a real problem. In reality its no
solution at all, but it gets the greenies of peoples backs whilst they
work on real solutions.

Switch off at the socket?
 

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
[email protected] wrote:


"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
"Owain" wrote in message
...
On 16 Sep, 23:42, "Max Demian" wrote:
Energy is neither created nor destroyed
Only according to classical physics.
Except in nuclear power stations and in stars. ;)
And springs and batteries and everything else that stores energy.
(Not that
you can measure the differences in mass.)

Surely if you're storing energy you're not creating or destroying
it? Maybe, but it violates the conservation of mass.

You can store energy without converting it to mass.
Chemical (batteries), and mechanical (springs) methods store energy
without converting it to mass.


Oh, but they DO.

Did you go to school?

Its a very very very small change though. We calculated the difference
in weight between a discharged and charged lithium batery. Much less
than a microgram IIRC.

You calculated it _assuming_ that energy was converted into mass, which in
fact it isn't. Had you _measured_ it and found that the mass increased on
charging and decreased on discharging, then you'd be on to something,
probably a Nobel prize.

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Sep 17, 2:36*pm, "Bill Wright"
wrote:
"Jerry" wrote in message

...

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
: Yes, free immigration has lead to the population rising to 70m
over the next
: few years, snip trolling racists crap

The bit you snipped was where I said there's be race riots. What's racist
about saying that?

It's just Jerry saying he hasn't got a cogent argument against someone
he disagrees with.

MBQ

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...

snip more trolling from MBQ

Switch off at the socket?
 

On 16 Sep, 21:45, Owain wrote:
On 16 Sep, 21:14, Java Jive wrote:

But if, following your bad example, we say to the Chinese: "You are
producing too much CO2!" they will just say to us: "Per capita, you
produce twice as much as us! *Don't lecture to us at least until
you've taken your own population in hand!"

Or "stop buying stuff from us, because the emissions from our
factories are actually your emissions but displaced"

Owain

Wise words.

Mary

Switch off at the socket?
 

Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:22:00 +0100, brightside S9
wrote:

But the population is rising at an unsustainable rate anyway.

That's the really fundamental problem we have and very few people seem
to be addressing it.
Influential people are needed to sell that, maybe
maybe http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7996230.stm
is a start.

We either do it voluntarily, or the planet will do it for us or cause us
to do it to ourselves. The first signs of the planet doing it are in
evidence now.
It wouldn't take much for there to be global war once the first real
wobble occurs. The financial system will go first (like it nearly did last
year) and once that has gone everything else goes downhill rapidly.
Lots of people will die though starvation or being killed by someone else
in competition for resources.

Yes. 'Limits to Growth' was written in the 60's.

We managed to find more oil.,, better medicines, better farming, so we
staved off its dire predictions for 40 years. This led many to say we
could stave them off forever.

As the falling optimist said 'I haven't hit anything yet, what's the
problem?'

Its my considered opinion that we did hit something. The end of growth
as we know it, and it nearly crashed the worlds financial systenm. Now
we are trying to restart growth, but it cannot happen - teh next phase
of this crisis I had expected to materialise about now, but the signs
are its delayed somewhat, and may hit sometime next year.

Switch off at the socket?
 

Bill Wright wrote:
"Jerry" wrote in message
...
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
: Yes, free immigration has lead to the population rising to 70m
over the next
: few years, snip trolling racists crap
The bit you snipped was where I said there's be race riots. What's racist
about saying that?

Irrelevant, climate change could mean that the UK couldn't even
feed it's indigenous 1945 population level never mind it's 1970
or 2007 population level. Kindly take you BNP style clap-trap
elsewhere.
So saying that the population will rise as a result of immigration is BNP
style clap-trap is it? Well the government and their advisers must all be in
the BNP then, because that's what they say.
What we have here is an attempt to prevent discussion of a serious problem
(population and immigration) by calling someone a racist.


Well in fact, the Poles have all gone home, since there aren't any
jobs..my nephew has gone to Australia, where hard work still merits a
decent wage..

Emigration of the able will lower the population, until all we have left
are te dross of society, and teh immigrants for whom even a crap society
is better than where they came from.

Its all Socialist policies leading to a lowest common denominator state.
All the good **** off, and all the dross collects, because the system is
geared towards paying the useless and taxing the useful.

If Darwinian survival consists in being a Vicki Carr, then that's what
we will be like.

Sadly, the BNP are supported by the Vicki Carrs of this world. Now if we
could export those sort of people to..Mmm. Afghanistan? that would be ideal.





Bill

Switch off at the socket?
 

The message
from "Norman Wells" contains these words:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
[email protected] wrote:


"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
"Owain" wrote in message
...
On 16 Sep, 23:42, "Max Demian" wrote:
Energy is neither created nor destroyed
Only according to classical physics.
Except in nuclear power stations and in stars. ;)
And springs and batteries and everything else that stores energy.
(Not that
you can measure the differences in mass.)

Surely if you're storing energy you're not creating or destroying
it? Maybe, but it violates the conservation of mass.

You can store energy without converting it to mass.
Chemical (batteries), and mechanical (springs) methods store energy
without converting it to mass.


Oh, but they DO.

Did you go to school?

Its a very very very small change though. We calculated the difference
in weight between a discharged and charged lithium batery. Much less
than a microgram IIRC.

You calculated it _assuming_ that energy was converted into mass, which in
fact it isn't. Had you _measured_ it and found that the mass increased on
charging and decreased on discharging, then you'd be on to something,
probably a Nobel prize.

That "Something" has already been proved. Let's take a non chemical
energy storage method then, such as a massive flywheel (typically
several tons' worth running in a vacuum on magnetic bearings to minimise
'self discharge' effects), as an example.

The flywheel will increase in mass as it is spun up to its safe maximum
speed. Admittedly, this increase in mass will only be a matter of nano
to microgrammes out of a total mass of, let's say, 10,000,000 grammes so
is extremely difficult to measure.

The same increase in mass per Mjoule of energy stored takes place
regardless of whether it is gross 'mechanical' storage or, more subtly,
in a chemical storage process (provided we can consider the whole
storage system as an 'enclosed black box' - tricky when trying to deal
with pumped storage hydro-electric systems ;-).

The fact that the resulting changes of mass in gross mechanical or
chemical methods of energy storage are so very small compared to the
overall mass of the systems involved as to, practically speaking, be
nigh on impossible to measure is no excuse to discount the change of
mass that the theory states will take place.

--
Regards, John.

Please remove the "ohggcyht" before replying.
The address has been munged to reject Spam-bots.

Switch off at the socket?
 

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:50:02 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

Well, I'm terribly sorry about that, but the point I was replying
to was:

60 million people doing anything would easily have a big effect.

and that's what I dealt with.

That's fair enough

The possibility of a global agreement, when China, India and the
USA don't seem in the least inclined to join in, seems pretty
remote. If they don't agree swingeing cuts and implement them,
anything we do in Britain is totally irrelevant, so it's pointless
trying, and paying a high price for doing so. It's like
volunteering to starve ten years before anyone else sees the need.

And my point is that if everone takes that attitude, we're doomed,
because no agreement will ever be reached if everyone is saying:
"No, you must jump first!"

Absolutely. But Britain jumping first will have no effect at all.
That's my point. We're as significant in that respect as the Cayman
Islands or Tuvalu.

WE can set an example that it can be done. And we know it SHOULD be
done.

Not if it serves no purpose.

Why did you snip the rest of what I wrote where I explained what purpose
it did in fact serve?

To make a false point?

Switch off at the socket?
 

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , Java Jive
writes

Unless it's fed by gravity, like the Chatsworth one that was
mentioned, and does not use mains water that is thereby wasted,
which instead you could have drunk or used to shower, it is, as
you say, not strictly necessary, and is consuming CO2.


Isn't consuming CO2 meant to be a GOOD THING? ;-)

We need more consumption of CO2!

Carbon Capture is the way to go and it is the ONLY way that Britain
will make a significant difference.

No, sadly, it just joins the list of other things where Britain can
make no difference whatsoever.

When will people realise just how insignificant and impotent we are
in a global context?

Actually, we are not.

I think we rank about tenth in therms of GDP.

We still produce just 1.7% of the world's CO2.

We may PRIDUCE only 1/7%, BUT the fact of our GDP shows that we are
indirectly RESPONIBLE for about 10%.

What difference would it
make if the UK were to sink without trace tonight?


About 10%.

By how many seconds do you think it would delay global catastrophe?


Dunno. 5-10 years probably.

Switch off at the socket?
 

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
[email protected] wrote:


"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
"Owain" wrote in message
...

On 16 Sep, 23:42, "Max Demian" wrote:
Energy is neither created nor destroyed
Only according to classical physics.
Except in nuclear power stations and in stars. ;)
And springs and batteries and everything else that stores energy.
(Not that
you can measure the differences in mass.)

Surely if you're storing energy you're not creating or destroying
it? Maybe, but it violates the conservation of mass.

You can store energy without converting it to mass.
Chemical (batteries), and mechanical (springs) methods store energy
without converting it to mass.


Oh, but they DO.

Did you go to school?


Got a degree from Cambridge University as it happens, in engineering,
and a physics A level from when it actually meant something..taught by a
Cambridge PhD in physics....

Its a very very very small change though. We calculated the difference
in weight between a discharged and charged lithium batery. Much less
than a microgram IIRC.

You calculated it _assuming_ that energy was converted into mass, which
in fact it isn't. Had you _measured_ it and found that the mass
increased on charging and decreased on discharging, then you'd be on to
something, probably a Nobel prize.


No, Id be simply confirming Einstein's relativity theory, which wouldn't
note more than two lines in the new scientist.

Switch off at the socket?
 

The Natural Philosopher gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

When will people realise just how insignificant and impotent we are
in a global context?

Actually, we are not.

I think we rank about tenth in therms of GDP.

We still produce just 1.7% of the world's CO2.

We may PRIDUCE only 1/7%, BUT the fact of our GDP shows that we are
indirectly RESPONIBLE for about 10%.

You seem to be getting "tenth" (place) and "10%" confused.

We might be 6th/7th in the world for GDP, but our GDP is "only" around 3%
of the world's GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...es_by_GDP_(PPP)

'course, you also seem to be assuming that every $ of GDP is responsible
for an equal emission of CO2...

Switch off at the socket?
 

Adrian gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

We might be 6th/7th in the world for GDP, but our GDP is "only" around
3% of the world's GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...es_by_GDP_(PPP)

Oops. Sorry. That's the "frigged figures" tables.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_GDP_(nominal)
6th, with 4.5%.

'course, you also seem to be assuming that every $ of GDP is responsible
for an equal emission of CO2...

Switch off at the socket?
 

Adrian wrote:
The Natural Philosopher gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

When will people realise just how insignificant and impotent we are
in a global context?

Actually, we are not.

I think we rank about tenth in therms of GDP.

We still produce just 1.7% of the world's CO2.

We may PRIDUCE only 1/7%, BUT the fact of our GDP shows that we are
indirectly RESPONIBLE for about 10%.

You seem to be getting "tenth" (place) and "10%" confused.

We might be 6th/7th in the world for GDP, but our GDP is "only" around 3%
of the world's GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...es_by_GDP_(PPP)

'course, you also seem to be assuming that every $ of GDP is responsible
for an equal emission of CO2...

Its a reasonably valid assumption.. and is slightly kind to developed
societies whose GDP depends MORE on energy than the underdeveloped.

Switch off at the socket?
 

Adrian wrote:
Adrian gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

We might be 6th/7th in the world for GDP, but our GDP is "only" around
3% of the world's GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...es_by_GDP_(PPP)

Oops. Sorry. That's the "frigged figures" tables.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_GDP_(nominal)
6th, with 4.5%.


Indeed. I could not remember the exact figure, but that feels about right.

We are disproportionately important in terms of some science, most
literature and a lot of music though.

I BELIEVE we actually generate MORE written English than the rest of the
world put together, and English is the de facto international language.

One thinmg taht did come over clearly from Mackays book, is just how
MUCH energy it takes to sustain a western lifestyle, and how little of
that is actually direct domestic consumption. Its far more about the
travelling you do, the goods you buy, especially food, and the
infrastructure you take for granted, than about the light bulbs you
leave on..

Switch off at the socket?
 

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Energy is neither created nor destroyed
Only according to classical physics.
Except in nuclear power stations and in stars. ;)
And springs and batteries and everything else that stores energy.
(Not that
you can measure the differences in mass.)

Surely if you're storing energy you're not creating or destroying
it? Maybe, but it violates the conservation of mass.

You can store energy without converting it to mass.
Chemical (batteries), and mechanical (springs) methods store energy
without converting it to mass.

Oh, but they DO.

Did you go to school?

Got a degree from Cambridge University as it happens, in engineering,
and a physics A level from when it actually meant something..taught
by a Cambridge PhD in physics....

If you really believe what you've written, both your degree and your
precious A-level are worthless. You clearly have no understanding whatever
about the conditions required for matter and energy to be interconverted,
and no appreciation at all of the fact that nuclear reactions are invariably
necessary.

If they're really admitting people with your level of ignorance to your
paper qualifications, frankly it's a disgrace.

Its a very very very small change though. We calculated the
difference in weight between a discharged and charged lithium
batery. Much less than a microgram IIRC.

You calculated it _assuming_ that energy was converted into mass,
which in fact it isn't. Had you _measured_ it and found that the
mass increased on charging and decreased on discharging, then you'd
be on to something, probably a Nobel prize.


No, Id be simply confirming Einstein's relativity theory, which
wouldn't note more than two lines in the new scientist.

No, you'd be confirming 'cold fusion' which created quite a stir a few years
back. It's Nobel prize time if you can, ignominy if you can't.

Switch off at the socket?
 

Johnny B Good wrote:
The message
from "Norman Wells" contains these words:

Its a very very very small change though. We calculated the
difference in weight between a discharged and charged lithium
batery. Much less than a microgram IIRC.

You calculated it _assuming_ that energy was converted into mass,
which in fact it isn't. Had you _measured_ it and found that the
mass increased on charging and decreased on discharging, then you'd
be on to something, probably a Nobel prize.

That "Something" has already been proved.

Has it indeed - who by?

Let's take a non chemical
energy storage method then, such as a massive flywheel (typically
several tons' worth running in a vacuum on magnetic bearings to
minimise 'self discharge' effects), as an example.

The flywheel will increase in mass as it is spun up to its safe
maximum speed.

Will it indeed - who says?

Admittedly, this increase in mass will only be a
matter of nano to microgrammes out of a total mass of, let's say,
10,000,000 grammes so is extremely difficult to measure.

The same increase in mass per Mjoule of energy stored takes place
regardless of whether it is gross 'mechanical' storage or, more
subtly, in a chemical storage process

Does it indeed - who says?


(provided we can consider the
whole storage system as an 'enclosed black box' - tricky when trying
to deal with pumped storage hydro-electric systems ;-).

The fact that the resulting changes of mass in gross mechanical or
chemical methods of energy storage are so very small compared to the
overall mass of the systems involved as to, practically speaking, be
nigh on impossible to measure is no excuse to discount the change of
mass that the theory states will take place.

What theory?

Switch off at the socket?
 

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Adrian wrote:
Adrian gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

We might be 6th/7th in the world for GDP, but our GDP is "only"
around 3% of the world's GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...es_by_GDP_(PPP)

Oops. Sorry. That's the "frigged figures" tables.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_GDP_(nominal)
6th, with 4.5%.


Indeed. I could not remember the exact figure, but that feels about
right.
We are disproportionately important in terms of some science, most
literature and a lot of music though.

And how important is that in a discussion on CO2 emissions?


I BELIEVE we actually generate MORE written English than the rest of
the world put together, and English is the de facto international
language.

Well, we can't be having that. We should be capturing it and pumping it
securely underground surely.

Switch off at the socket?
 

Man-wai Chang to The Door (+MS=32B) wrote:
This energy isn't wasted. Its given off as heat, which is quite useful
in a domestic house.

... if and only if you are living in cold regions.... :)


You are posting to four newsgroups tagged "UK" (United Kingdom). It
_is_ cold for all of us. Not like HK...

Andy

Switch off at the socket?
 

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Energy is neither created nor destroyed
Only according to classical physics.
Except in nuclear power stations and in stars. ;)
And springs and batteries and everything else that stores energy.
(Not that
you can measure the differences in mass.)

Surely if you're storing energy you're not creating or destroying
it? Maybe, but it violates the conservation of mass.

You can store energy without converting it to mass.
Chemical (batteries), and mechanical (springs) methods store energy
without converting it to mass.

Oh, but they DO.

Did you go to school?

Got a degree from Cambridge University as it happens, in engineering,
and a physics A level from when it actually meant something..taught
by a Cambridge PhD in physics....

If you really believe what you've written, both your degree and your
precious A-level are worthless. You clearly have no understanding
whatever about the conditions required for matter and energy to be
interconverted, and no appreciation at all of the fact that nuclear
reactions are invariably necessary.

If they're really admitting people with your level of ignorance to your
paper qualifications, frankly it's a disgrace.

Its a very very very small change though. We calculated the
difference in weight between a discharged and charged lithium
batery. Much less than a microgram IIRC.

You calculated it _assuming_ that energy was converted into mass,
which in fact it isn't. Had you _measured_ it and found that the
mass increased on charging and decreased on discharging, then you'd
be on to something, probably a Nobel prize.


No, Id be simply confirming Einstein's relativity theory, which
wouldn't note more than two lines in the new scientist.

No, you'd be confirming 'cold fusion' which created quite a stir a few
years back. It's Nobel prize time if you can, ignominy if you can't.

well at least 5 posters agree with me, none with you. So who looks a
dickhead?

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:52:07 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

After all, it was primarily built as a source of weapons-grade plutonium,
not to supply electricity, which was just a public cover story,
and the programme stated that it was sometimes drawing power from the
grid rather than supplying power to it!

Excellent points to keep in mind, and presumably the government thought
that it was in the best interests of the citizens of the UKofGB&NI to
produce plutonium rather than electric power.

It would seem that the French do thing differently though, as France
produces 77% of its electricity by nuclear power, and thus they are
not held hostage to coal, gas, and oil supplies in the same way as
UKofGB&NI electric power generators.

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:47:12 +0100, Jerry wrote:

if you were put in a position were you had to kill a *White* Anglo-Saxon
person to stop your family starving you would do so

Is that because they taste better than persons of other ethnicities?

Better get a baby roaster BBQ from your nearest Sears before they sell out.

http://www.theregister.co.UK/2009/08/21/sears_baby_roaster/

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:51:31 +0100, Mark wrote:

We still in the G7, G8, G10, G15 etc... Someone must think our views
are not insignificant.

Or that the UKofGB&NI is a sufficiently affluent and large mass market
for the multinational corporations to target with their goods and services.

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:13:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The end of growth as we know it, and it nearly crashed the worlds
financial systenm.

No, what crashed the world's financial systems was the selling on of
domestic mortgage debt which had been generated from banks loaning out
money to people who did not and would never have the means to repay
the loan.

Switch off at the socket?
 

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
snip

[ in reply to someone else ]
: well at least 5 posters agree with me, none with you. So who
looks a
: dickhead?
:

The you and the other five, were is the proof that you (and they)
are correct?

Claiming that you're correct just because others agree doesn't
mean that you are correct, many pages on Wikipedia are wrong but
because the consensus between those who shout the loudest on the
talk pages think that they are correct the page holds incorrect
information...
--
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...
Sorry, mail to this address goes unread.
Please reply via group.

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:29:06 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

Will it indeed - who says?

Considering the simpler case of an object of rest mass m0 with linear
velocity v, the mass of the object m in the frame of reference (presumably
non accelerating???) of the observer is given, according to Einstein, by

m = m0 / SquareRoot [ 1 - v**2 / c**2 ]

c is the velocity of electro-magnetic waves in a perfect vacuum.

Thus as v increases, m will increase and become infinitely large as
v approaches c, and imaginary it it were possible for v to exceed c.

So remember the faster you drive your vehicle, you will need more energy
for the same increase in velocity as at slower speeds, even if you
were driving in a perfect vacuum.

The usual caveats apply that all mathematical representations
of systems in the real universe are imperfect approximate descriptions
of the real (tm) thing.

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:31:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Energy is defined to be constant throughout the universe.
*Usable* energy is not.

Good point to make.

And when all of the usable energy is used up, what will the final
temperature of The Universe be? ;)

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:52:43 +0100, Charles asked:

why not just throw the main breaker on the consumer unit?

Because then the food in the refrigerator and freezer would go green,
as previously discussed, with dire consequences for the digestive
tract of those who proceed to ingest the food.

Switch off at the socket?
 

In article , J G Miller wrote:
The end of growth as we know it, and it nearly crashed the worlds
financial systenm.

No, what crashed the world's financial systems was the selling on of
domestic mortgage debt which had been generated from banks loaning out
money to people who did not and would never have the means to repay
the loan.

In other words, selling bits of paper they knew to be worthless.

If you or I did this, it would be called fraud, but somehow the big
financial institutions can dress it up in fancy language and get away
with it.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:22:20 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

You clearly have no understanding whatever about the conditions required
for matter and energy to be interconverted, and no appreciation at all
of the fact that *nuclear reactions are invariably necessary*.

They must be teaching lies in physics class in schools these days.

https://www.sei.IE/Schools/Secondary_Schools/Subjects/Physics/Unit_2_-_Energy/Mass_as_Energy/

QUOTE

Conversely, even quite a large amount of energy is equivalent to a very small
amount of mass. This is why we do not notice the *increase in the mass* of a
car, for example, when it *gains speed*. The following example illustrates
just how small this increase in mass is:

UNQUOTE

Switch off at the socket?
 

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


You calculated it _assuming_ that energy was converted into mass,
which in fact it isn't. Had you _measured_ it and found that the
mass increased on charging and decreased on discharging, then you'd
be on to something, probably a Nobel prize.

No, Id be simply confirming Einstein's relativity theory, which
wouldn't note more than two lines in the new scientist.

No, you'd be confirming 'cold fusion' which created quite a stir a
few years back. It's Nobel prize time if you can, ignominy if you
can't.
well at least 5 posters agree with me, none with you. So who looks a
dickhead?

That's strange. I've never thought of truth as just a matter of a show of
hands.

The degree of ignorance of even the simplest science never fails to astonish
me, even among those who think their educational attainments mean something.

Switch off at the socket?
 

Jerry wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
snip

[ in reply to someone else ]
: well at least 5 posters agree with me, none with you. So who
looks a
: dickhead?
:

The you and the other five, were is the proof that you (and they)
are correct?

Claiming that you're correct just because others agree doesn't
mean that you are correct, many pages on Wikipedia are wrong but
because the consensus between those who shout the loudest on the
talk pages think that they are correct the page holds incorrect
information...

Because relativity says its so. ANY release of energy is accompanied by
a loss of mass.

Its vanishingly small for typical mechanical and chemical energy, but
its there just the same.

If it isn't, relativity is falsified, and there is a huge hue and cry
out for an alternative.

Switch off at the socket?
 

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


You calculated it _assuming_ that energy was converted into mass,
which in fact it isn't. Had you _measured_ it and found that the
mass increased on charging and decreased on discharging, then you'd
be on to something, probably a Nobel prize.

No, Id be simply confirming Einstein's relativity theory, which
wouldn't note more than two lines in the new scientist.

No, you'd be confirming 'cold fusion' which created quite a stir a
few years back. It's Nobel prize time if you can, ignominy if you
can't.
well at least 5 posters agree with me, none with you. So who looks a
dickhead?

That's strange. I've never thought of truth as just a matter of a show
of hands.

The degree of ignorance of even the simplest science never fails to
astonish me, even among those who think their educational attainments
mean something.


The degres of ignorance of those who think that simple science actually
represents teh world accurately, never fails to astound me either.

E=mC^2. its there., If its wrong, you are right, if its right, you are
wrong.

Period.

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:58:25 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:13:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The end of growth as we know it, and it nearly crashed the worlds
financial systenm.

No, what crashed the world's financial systems was the selling on of
domestic mortgage debt which had been generated from banks loaning out
money to people who did not and would never have the means to repay
the loan.

It still doesn't make sense AFAICS week after week (as last night) on
Location^3 young couples in their early 20's search for houses in the
£ 400 - 500k bracket which they intend to buy on a mortgage serviced
out of earned income (after tax naturally). 8-|

Derek

Switch off at the socket?
 

J G Miller wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:13:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The end of growth as we know it, and it nearly crashed the worlds
financial systenm.

No, what crashed the world's financial systems was the selling on of
domestic mortgage debt which had been generated from banks loaning out
money to people who did not and would never have the means to repay
the loan.

Of course they could have repaid the loans if only someone had lent them
more money, or their governments, so they could have created yet more
stupid jobs, and raised the demand for housing even higher, so their
loans became trivial in terms of the house values.

Perpetual growth is an open ended Ponzi scheme, which worked as long a s
populations expanded along with tax takes and GDP. As soon as the growth
faltered - and it was high energy prices that caused that - the
inherent feedback put it into reverse.

Switch off at the socket?
 

Norman Wells coughed up some electrons that declared:


No, you'd be confirming 'cold fusion' which created quite a stir a few
years
back. It's Nobel prize time if you can, ignominy if you can't.

My degree's in Physics and you are clearly missing the subtle beauty of
mass/energy unification.

Fusion, and fission are both mechanisms for the transformation of some
constituent atoms into other atoms or isotopes which happen to have less
*mass at rest* (which is an important concept).

The different in mass, or mass "lost" manifests itself as energy produced.

However, you do not need to go to the extremes of nuclear reactions for
E=mc2 to become relevant.

Light is a very good example to consider.

The photon is considered to have zero mass *at rest* and yet photons possess
momentum related to their wavelength - a very "pure" manifestation of
mass/energy equivalence.