Switch off at the socket?
 

On 2009-09-28, Java Jive wrote:
Thank you John. As you are being polite ...

My sig is like it is for a reason, but tell me what you'd like changed
and I'll see whether I can agree.

If you fix your sigsep (see other posts), all you need to do
is stop top posting, and you might get out of my killfile
(not that I expect being in it would bother you unduly).

--
David Taylor

Switch off at the socket?
 

In article ,
John Rumm writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Would you care to elaborate on that? (Not disagreeing: just curious.)
[]

The design evolving, or being well suited to modern usage?

Changes include increasing the size of the earth wire since the original
spec could leave spurs inadequately protected under fault conditions
with re-wireable fuses. Switching from re-wireable fuses to cartridge
fuses and then MCBs, routine inclusion of RCDs, sleeving of plug pins
etc. Each of these have made improvements along the way. As have better
understanding of cable heating a cooling modes, and the influence the
way they are installed can have.

The other factor, which has been a big one in the UK, but is almost
completely missing in most of the world, has been the competition
between different electrical accessory manufacturers to produce
products which are safer than those from their competitors, in order
to gain a competitive advantage based on increased safety. This has
resulted in steady safety leapfrogging between manufacturers, and
long term, an across the board increase in the quality and ease of
use of electrical accessories.

This was actually pointed out to me by an engineer working for a US
wiring accessory manufacturer, who was very envious of the market in
the UK. He said he can't sell a 75c socket in the US no matter how
good it is, because someone else sells a 50c one, and everyone there
buys on price alone. Contrast that with the UK where manufacturers
such as MK and Crabtree which invest in safety design manage to grab a
larger portion of the market than the dirt cheap low end manufacturers,
because investment in safety sells here.

I wonder if this competitive safety between manufacturers was actually
started by the competition to design what became the 13A plug back in
the 1930's? It does seem to stem from around then in old adverts.
Conversely, if you take a stroll around the electrical isles of Home
Depot (the US equivalent of B&Q), it is like looking back at the wiring
accessories we used to use in the 1930's.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Switch off at the socket?
 

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:24:14 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller wrote:

We have hydro plants on streams that can generate a couple
kilowatts
Sounds like Scottish Power generate more than a *couple of kilowatts* to
me from hydro electric schemes --

Lanark Hydro Electric Scheme 17 MW
Galloway Hydro Electric Scheme 106.5 MW

Sloy 152MW
Foyers 300MW

Ben Cruachan 440MW
Dinorwig 1728 MW
Ffestiniog 360 MW

Switch off at the socket?
 

Derek Geldard wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:01:41 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


I am getting pretty bored with your inability to do maths, read and
maintain logical argument, do honest research without speciously
introducing straw men at every turn.

But,

- world uranium output is what it is because no more is currently
needed. There is plenty more there.The use of CURRENT production to
imply a limit on FUTURE production is basically worthy only of a
green****er or politician.


-300GW is a figure obtained by taking the governments figures for total
energy consumption, and multiplying it by appropriate efficiency figures
to map it into putative electrical generation figures. Its pretty much
the same as taking the current peak electrical demand and dividing it by
the 27% or so of energy that is actually currently used to generate
electrical power. I.e. we need ABOUT 4 times the current generating
capacity to eliminate fossil fuels from everything we do. Now whereas
windmillers like to take peak output and map that to percentage of
current electrical generation, handily neglecting the fact that
electrical generation is only about 1/4 of what we burn CO2 wise, and
windmills never operate at their peak for long, I actually am trying to
sole an energy supply problem. Not win contracts for windmills. The lot
has to go. All fossil fuel, apart from stuff that simply cant be done in
any other way. Mainly military and aircraft use.

Thereby making us strategically independent of oil and gas producing
countries.

Or windmills that are very vulnerable to terrorists, vandals, or
probably even someone with a stanley knife.


And with a little stockpiling able to be self sufficient for a lot
longer than we are with no gas or oil or coal now, and would ever be
with windmills, which require a LOT if imported materials to construct them.


The state that this goverment has got this country into, out of
incompetance and rthe need to placate the lily-livered lefties
because they need their vote, I seriously doubt we could maintain a
country full of windmills because we don't have the capability to make
the replacement parts inside the country if ever the chips were down.


Let alone the sort of dedicated all weathers get the job done at any
cost sort of professional technicians to keep em working.

Can YOU see the usual council estate chav up a ladder in the North sea
on a freezing rain lashed January night, saying 'pass up the spare ball
race, while I tap this one out gently: Mustn't leave Southend without
'Big Brother, must we?'



Derek

Switch off at the socket?
 

Java Jive wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:04:24 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Java Jive wrote:
FACT: Our current electricity consumption is 46 GW.
FACT It actually peaks at around 65GW and represents less than a third
of where carbon based energy goes.

FACT: That is still a lot less than the misleading figure of 300GW
you have been giving in this subthread about electricity generation.


FACT electrical generation accounts for less than 30% of the UK's total
energy consumption.

Thickhead.

FACT if we are to get rid of CO2 emissions, there is only one way
currently being proposed to run almost everything. Electrical generation.

If all you want to do is make green noises, says so and we can ignore you.

Others here are trying to make this an essentially carbon neutral
economy without dropping the standard of living and population levels
back to the stone age. (Hint: even a steel knife takes a LOT of CO2 to
make).

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:43:45 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:48:11 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

WE have established there is less than 2GW total hydro in this country,

Not true. See the link below

and there are no suitable sites for much more.

Not true. For example, these are just some I've stumbled across
researching posts in the last couple of days or so ...


And how many did you come across in the last couple of days or so
which postulated a contrary opinion ?

Derek

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:37:44 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

A terrorist would have to knock out a hell of a lot of windmills
scattered over the country to make a difference. It would be a lot
easier to fly some planes into some nuclear power stations.

This is an extremely valid security reason for not putting all of one's
energy producing eggs in the same basket.

Diversity is the key to future stability and sufficiency in electrical
power/heating generation from roof top solar cells, micro-hydroelectric
schemes, to CHP, to clean coal power stations, and nuclear power stations.

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:52:36 +0000, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

Contrast that with the UK where manufacturers such as MK
and Crabtree which invest in safety design manage to grab a larger
portion of the market than the dirt cheap low end manufacturers

That is if you are still able to find somewhere convenient that sells them,
eg B&Q last year stopped stocking MK products, no doubt because the profits
on lower volume sales were insufficient to warrant the potential cost of
shelf space etc which they took up.

So maybe B&Q is starting to look more like Home Depot with el cheapo
electrical components?

Switch off at the socket?
 

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Or windmills that are very vulnerable to terrorists, vandals, or
probably even someone with a stanley knife.


Be fair. The delicate bits of windmills are 50ft in the air, safe from
the average chav. And to damage enough of them to make any difference
to our supply situation would take a _lot_ of effort. There are
_thousands_ of them.

Andy

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:09:47 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

Done. Does it work any better now?

You forgot the carriage return after the --space
so that your =========== is on the line following the --space

And thank you for finally doing something about it.