Did I not explain it very well?
 

In article ,
Mark Carver wrote:
Steve Thackery wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Two shutters that need both line and neutral pins inserted at the same
time to clear them. To allow the use of low current two pin shaver etc
plugs.

Hang on, they don't fit in a three pin socket anyway, do they? Pin
spacing, size and shape are different.

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 !

They are designed for precisely this - low current apps anywhere in
Europe. But require the appropriate UK socket - not one with an earth pin
operated shutter. I thought all newish 13 amp sockets were like this -
about the same time as DP switching came in.

--
*Starfishes have no brains *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Did I not explain it very well?
 

"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 23:44:18 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

Ian Field wrote:

As I remember it, most coffin dodgers feared that a light socket
switched on
with no bulb in it would leak electricity and poison them like gas.

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.

Gamma rays from radioactive decay are EM. They're up there beyond
X-Rays. Both X- and Gamma rays are ionizing.

Reminds me of all the EM spectrum diagrams they printed in books shown
'cosmic rays' right at the top end. They continued doing this well into the
1960s despite its being determined that cosmic rays are really charged
particles around 1930.

--
Max Demian

Did I not explain it very well?
 

On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 09:09:59 +0000, Mark Carver
wrote:

Steve Thackery wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Two shutters that need both line and neutral pins inserted at the same
time to clear them. To allow the use of low current two pin shaver etc
plugs.

Hang on, they don't fit in a three pin socket anyway, do they? Pin
spacing, size and shape are different.

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 !

Memories of the old round pin sockets and stacks of "adaptors" - the
earth pin of a 5 amp plug was the same size as the live 15 amp socket

Did I not explain it very well?
 

On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 18:58:03 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

Max Demian wrote:

This customer is CEO of a quango with a multi-million pound budget.

and could you do his job.....I very much doubt it. So its what you know
and what you don't need to know.

The CEO had been given the knowledge. He just didn't process it very well,
which is necessary for most jobs I would have thought.


That's exactly it.

I've met more than a few.

Sadly with the Golden Handshakes and Golden Parachutes as they go
round destroying one company after another they often end up
significantly better off than the competent kind.

Did I not explain it very well?
 

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

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.

The whales are getting their own back, you only *think* it was a
natural disaster

Did I not explain it very well?
 

On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 10:17:44 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

No connection has been made of where the power for the electric car will
come from.

Let alone the structure and contents of the batteries etc.

Did I not explain it very well?
 

On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 11:31:03 GMT, Steve Thackery
wrote:

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.

"Education consists of teaching you what questions NOT to ask. The
failures become scientists" (atrrib?)

Rapeseed oil will run a diesel with minimal processing, you can
actually get more energy out than you use in growing it. Best thing to
do with it IMO.

Did I not explain it very well?
 

On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 19:10:05 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Friday, March 25th, 2011 at 17:34:40h +0000, Jumbo Jack suggested:

So its what you know and what you don't need to know.

No, it is who knows you that counts.

How much did George Osborne know about running the finances
of a nation before he was appointed to the job?

He does not even have a degree in economics, but one in
modern history.

I've met a few people who would probably be competent at the job, but
strangely none of them would want it.

Did I not explain it very well?
 

In article , Peter Duncanson
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 10:23:27 +0000, tony sayer wrote:


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

And decisions like "to use 'nuclear' energy or not" aren't purely matters
of science and engineering. They also involve judgements about risks, and
the costs and details to be chosen (or not). So quite a lot of political,
social, and economic judgement and 'soft' choices about which option is
worth choosing or to be avoided.

Hence it seems quite possible for two people to have learned the same
'science' or be equally capable 'engineers' - yet make different decisions
about if a given way to achieve a result is the best, or not. People also
change their minds (we hope) when experience gives them reasons to do so.

Even if a decision was sensible at the time, others later can come along
and change things in a way the original decision-maker may not have
expected. And of course you have to expect the unexpected. Sod's Law still
rules. :-)

The problem here is that life doesn't allow you to get out of the game
alive. So any decision *not* to use a given method simply brings its own
risks, costs, and possible harm. if you want energy/power then it has to
come from somewhere, and that will involve costs - not all of which are in
cash. Changing decision tends to move where the costs arise with no
certainty that one option *will* be cheaper than another.

Polticians solve this by being out of office and pointing at everyone else.
:-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Did I not explain it very well?
 

In article ,
Albert Ross wrote:

Rapeseed oil will run a diesel with minimal processing, you can
actually get more energy out than you use in growing it. Best thing to
do with it IMO.

Have you created perpetual motion?

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16