Did I not explain it very well?
 

In article , pete no-
scribeth thus
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:22:25 +0000, tony sayer wrote:


It's that sort of blind ignorance coupled with supreme confidence in
one's knowledge, so typical of the arts educated elite in this country
that leads to these people pontificating about windfarms and other
environmental issues.

Bill

Yes now that is really scary. That Merkel in Germany now wants to do
away with all the reactors they have and go renewables..

"That Merkel" had a PhD in Physics and undoubtedly knows far more
about nuclear reactions that most posters here. I doubt that she
_wants_ to dump nuclear power, just that the politics of the country
requires it (at present). Remeber the "Atomkraft? nein danke" campaign?

Shame on her then! .. well if she knows more then most she should say so
and come out with what is science and engineering aspects, and be
respected for her "know how";!..


Just absolutely stupid rather than wait and see what went wrong and then
make informed -engineering- decisions on the matter..

All that tells us is that the decision has nothing to do with the technical
questions and everything to do with public opinion (which is all that
politicians can "do")


They would be better off educating the public as to the facts around
those subjects.

And the public know more about the workings of witchcraft than they do a
nuclear power station;!...
--
Tony Sayer

Did I not explain it very well?
 

Bill Wright wrote:

Never rely on an RCD. I've heard of people having scary shocks and the
RCD not tripping. Maybe an RCD would cut the power off if you were
getting a really bad shock, but it might not be fast enough to save you.
I think RCDs are a 'desperate last resort' thing.

I'm saying this because I've heard people airily dismiss the dangers of
using electric garden equipment in wet conditions on the grounds that
there's a RCD.

The UK spec, bs7671, does seem to allow rather high currents. Trip current
30mA -- and trip time of 40mS at 150mA.

Yet in the US it's 5mA. It's safer, but a web search show a lot of
complaints about nuisance tripping, and equipment manufacturers being slow
to make low-leakage equipment. I understand that each house will have
several "circuits", each with its own "ground fault circuit interrupter",
so only a few wall sockets will be affected by a trip.

I have searched for UK plugs and sockets with built-in RCDs, and UK
plug-in RCDs, in the hope of finding one rated at less than 30mA, but with
no luck so far.

--
Dave Farrance

Did I not explain it very well?
 

Mark Carver wrote:

It's the 'Euro' 2-pin plugs that you can, with care (don't try this at
home) stuff into a UK 13A socket, I've watched countless foreigners do it
!

Yeah, but I'm not yet convinced Dave P is right. I don't think you get
both systems combined on "most decent sockets". If I'm wrong, though,
then I'll have learned something new today.

STeveT

Did I not explain it very well?
 

Dave Farrance wrote:

The UK spec, bs7671, does seem to allow rather high currents. Trip
current 30mA -- and trip time of 40mS at 150mA.

To be fair, I understand that those trip figures were based on proper
research and medical experience. And the RCD is supposed to avoid
death, not merely discomfort.

I suspect there will be a bell-shaped curve around the current required
to kill an average person, and that the 30mA will be a specified number
of standard deviations below that mean. In other words, a 30mA RCD is
only expected to prevent 98% of deaths (say), not 100%.

Don't know, though; this is only based on vague memories and some
common sense.

It gets slightly more complicated, of course, because the first ones
were ELCBs. Did they have the same trip figures, does anyone know?

SteveT

Did I not explain it very well?
 

On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 01:13:42 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

Richard Tobin wrote:
In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:

If someone is concerned about "radioactivity" from microwave ovens,
then showing them that microwave radiation is of much longer
wavelength (lower energy) than X-rays and gamma rays is quite
appropriate, though probably also futile.

They'd say, "But I'm not worried about X Rays, and I've never heard of
gamma rays, what worries me is radioactivity like you get from bombs and
power stations. That's not X Rays is it?"

And you'd wish you hadn't bothered.

The two Japanese workers who are in hospital after standing in water at
one the the nuclear power station buildings have beta radiation
(electron) burns to the feet and lower legs. TV was reporting this
briefly but accurately until somepne described them as having been
poisoned.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

Did I not explain it very well?
 

tony sayer wrote:

Think about this. In today's Guardian, not my read at all her paper, but
she is a college lecturer, there is a bit praising an electric car to
the hilt and its NO EMISSIONS!.. Yay!..

You know, that drives me absolutely nuts. The next time I read that an
electric car is "zero emissions" I think I'll head-butt the nearest
wall.

You don't need any more than the most basic understanding of science to
learn that energy has to come from somewhere, and that for the next few
decades it'll have to keep coming from fossil fuels.

Jeremy Clarkson keeps making a similar stupid mistake. He thinks
hydrogen is the answer to everything, "because it's the most abundant
element in the universe". Yes, Jeremy, and it takes as much energy to
extract it from the compounds in which it is found as you get from
burning it. Nett effect: zero. Hydrogen is not a source of energy,
just a convenient way of storing and transporting it.

Basic concepts like this are just so trivially simple, I truly cannot
understand why they aren't universally understood. At least by
everyone who doesn't have an actual learning disability.

SteveT

Did I not explain it very well?
 

J G Miller wrote:

On Saturday, March 26th, 2011 at 00:11:49h +0000, Richard Tobin suggested:

If someone is concerned about "radioactivity" from microwave ovens ...

But what about radioactivity from smoke alarms? ;)

http://www.straightdope.COM/columns/read/212/is-my-household-smoke-detector-emitting-radioactive-rays

I built a Maplin radiation monitor kit in the 1980s, and never had any
means of testing it until I opened up a smoke alarm. I had to open it up
because there was no detectable radiation leakage at all from the smoke
detector module. The americium-241 source was mounted in a little metal
plate that could be conveniently held with a surgical clamp.

If I held the source more than 2cm away from the radiation monitor, no
radiation could be detected. If I held it within 1cm, then it thundered
and end-stopped the meter. So it's a rich source of very low energy
alpha-particles that are rapidly slowed by air.

--
Dave Farrance

Did I not explain it very well?
 

I knew a Hungarian car mechanic who refused to have a microwave oven
because he thought it was radioactive!

I even showed him a copy of the EM spectrum chart and pointed out where
microwaves were at the medium-high end of radio waves in comparison to IR
from his regular oven and radiation way over yonder beyond UV.

But radioactivity is ionising radiation. It won't appear on an EM spectrum
chart.

Bill

Actually Bill, it depends on what form the radioactivity is, if its alpha
(Helium nuclei) or beta (high speed electrons) then you are correct in
saying its not electromagnetic radiation.

Alpha radiation can be stopped with a sheet of paper, and Beta radiation can
be stopped by 3mm aluminium.

Now if the radiation is Gamma, then that is in fact electromagnetic, it will
have a wavelength and frequency in the region of 0.01 nanomeres and 10^19
Hz respectively.

This will require some serious amounts of lead and concrete to block.

Regards

Stephen

Did I not explain it very well?
 

On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 21:16:51 +0000, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:22:25 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:



It's that sort of blind ignorance coupled with supreme confidence in
one's knowledge, so typical of the arts educated elite in this country
that leads to these people pontificating about windfarms and other
environmental issues.

Bill

Yes now that is really scary. That Merkel in Germany now wants to do
away with all the reactors they have and go renewables..

Just absolutely stupid rather than wait and see what went wrong and then
make informed -engineering- decisions on the matter..

I agree totally.

There is natural concentration on the six reactors that are in trouble
at the Fukushika No 1 (Daiichi) plant. However, there is a second plant
11.5 kilometres to the south, Fukushima No 2 (Daini) Nuclear Power
Plant, which has four reactors. These have not been in the news because
the problems there have been much less and manageable.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS...i_1403112.html

So it would be valuable to know what the differences are that resulted
in serious damage to one plant and much less serious to the other.

This website has news reports by people in the industry:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/fukushi...arthquake.html

This paper says that they were 4 nuclear power plants in the area with
reactors operating at the time of the quake.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/fu...nt_inf129.html



--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

Did I not explain it very well?
 

On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 10:23:27 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , pete no-
scribeth thus
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:22:25 +0000, tony sayer wrote:


It's that sort of blind ignorance coupled with supreme confidence in
one's knowledge, so typical of the arts educated elite in this country
that leads to these people pontificating about windfarms and other
environmental issues.

Bill

Yes now that is really scary. That Merkel in Germany now wants to do
away with all the reactors they have and go renewables..

"That Merkel" had a PhD in Physics and undoubtedly knows far more
about nuclear reactions that most posters here. I doubt that she
_wants_ to dump nuclear power, just that the politics of the country
requires it (at present). Remeber the "Atomkraft? nein danke" campaign?

Shame on her then! .. well if she knows more then most she should say so
and come out with what is science and engineering aspects, and be
respected for her "know how";!..

A couple of points:

Merkel is a scientist not an engineer. Not all scientists have
"engineering minds".

Even if she is good at applying science she could not make firm
statements about Germany's nuclear power plants versus Japan's until she
knows what happened to the damaged installations in Japan and the
detailed chain of causation.


Just absolutely stupid rather than wait and see what went wrong and then
make informed -engineering- decisions on the matter..

All that tells us is that the decision has nothing to do with the technical
questions and everything to do with public opinion (which is all that
politicians can "do")


They would be better off educating the public as to the facts around
those subjects.

And the public know more about the workings of witchcraft than they do a
nuclear power station;!...

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)