TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

In article ,
peter wrote:

"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 May 2011 22:52:56 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

Graham. wrote:
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
I've seen a few news items about the moorland fires, and in each case
the wind turbines in the background have been stationary,
despite the obvious wind. I wonder why?

Bill

If you saw the items in the press it might just boil down to
shortcomings in that medium ;-)

I hadn't thought of that. Damn.

Yes. Damn these modern cameras with their brief exposures. Where's
decent motion blur when you need it?

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

I have thought for sometime that a method of storing energy from wind
turbines would be to use electrolysis to split oxygen and hydrogen from
water and store the hydrogen as an energy source for engines.


particularly if the electricity is being generated on islands some distance
from the mainland. It would save expensive undersea cabling.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

On Wednesday, May 4th, 2011 at 19:14:59h +0100, Peter Duncanson wrote:

They could either run their own very fast turbines, or they could pack
their bags and come to live with us on the sunny side of the planet.

Well quite a number from India and Pakistan have already done that,
much to the discontent of William Wright, Esquire.

With the Earth's rotation slowed down to once a year

Well according to various sources, the rotation of the earth is
being slowed down by the pull of the moon.

Apart from tides and maybe some earthquakes, what has the
moon ever done for us?

TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

In message , J G Miller
writes
On Wednesday, May 4th, 2011 at 19:14:59h +0100, Peter Duncanson wrote:

They could either run their own very fast turbines, or they could pack
their bags and come to live with us on the sunny side of the planet.

Well quite a number from India and Pakistan have already done that,
much to the discontent of William Wright, Esquire.

With the Earth's rotation slowed down to once a year

Well according to various sources, the rotation of the earth is
being slowed down by the pull of the moon.

Apart from tides and maybe some earthquakes, what has the
moon ever done for us?

Provided a rhyme for "June", "spoon", "tune", "spittoon" etc?
And, without the moon, "Gimme the moonlight, gimme the girl, and leave
the rest to me" would make no sense.
--
Ian

TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
Although you were most probably joking, the surprising answer is
"Quite a lot!" ...

The moon is believed to be the result of an impact early in the
Earth's existence between it and another object which may have been
about the same size as Mars. If the logistics of this impact had been
in any way different, the results of it may well have been different,
and we may not have existed ...

The Earth's daily rotation and yearly orbit are constantly being
perturbed by all the other gravitational influences in the solar
system. In particular, its rotational axis precesses like that of a
spinning top, so that the poles rotate around the night sky
completely, IRC, about every 26,000 years. There is evidence from
studies of the wider solar system, I think including the moons of
other planets, that our moon acts like a stabiliser on the Earth's
rotational axis thus preventing it from doing things like flipping
over entirely on its side, as some moons have done.

The surface of the moon is pitted with impact craters from meteorites
that, if they hadn't been vacuumed up by the moon's gravity, would
probably have fallen to earth and disrupted the evolution of life
here. As we already know at least one such an impact most probably
wiped out the dinosaurs, our very existence here could be viewed as a
result of the precise sequence of all such impacts that did actually
occur, and a different sequence of impacts may have had a different
result, which in our terms would be probably be less desirable.

AIUI, many leading scientists in the field believe that tides were
crucial for the migration of early life from the sea to the land, by
providing a habitat along the shore that was and is intermediate
between the two.

Also, in the days before artificial light, it provided useful illumination
at night. Whereas the Sun only provides illumination when it is daylight
anyway.

--
Max Demian

TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

Max Demian wrote:
"Java wrote in message
...
Although you were most probably joking, the surprising answer is
"Quite a lot!" ...

The moon is believed to be the result of an impact early in the
Earth's existence between it and another object which may have been
about the same size as Mars. If the logistics of this impact had been
in any way different, the results of it may well have been different,
and we may not have existed ...

The Earth's daily rotation and yearly orbit are constantly being
perturbed by all the other gravitational influences in the solar
system. In particular, its rotational axis precesses like that of a
spinning top, so that the poles rotate around the night sky
completely, IRC, about every 26,000 years. There is evidence from
studies of the wider solar system, I think including the moons of
other planets, that our moon acts like a stabiliser on the Earth's
rotational axis thus preventing it from doing things like flipping
over entirely on its side, as some moons have done.

The surface of the moon is pitted with impact craters from meteorites
that, if they hadn't been vacuumed up by the moon's gravity, would
probably have fallen to earth and disrupted the evolution of life
here. As we already know at least one such an impact most probably
wiped out the dinosaurs, our very existence here could be viewed as a
result of the precise sequence of all such impacts that did actually
occur, and a different sequence of impacts may have had a different
result, which in our terms would be probably be less desirable.

AIUI, many leading scientists in the field believe that tides were
crucial for the migration of early life from the sea to the land, by
providing a habitat along the shore that was and is intermediate
between the two.

Also, in the days before artificial light, it provided useful illumination
at night. Whereas the Sun only provides illumination when it is daylight
anyway.


Pretty poor arrangement in my opinion, surely the sun would be of more
use at night when it's dark. They should swap around.

--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com

TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

David Kennedy wrote:
Max Demian wrote:


Pretty poor arrangement in my opinion, surely the sun would be of more
use at night when it's dark. They should swap around.


There has to be a snag to that.

Anyway, on planets that are in a solar system where there are two suns,
leading to days and nights of irregular length, I wonder what time
system they use. And when would you plant your flowers?

Bill

TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

On 05/05/2011 13:52, J G Miller wrote:

Apart from tides and maybe some earthquakes, what has the
moon ever done for us?

Read this and learn.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_...oon%22&x=0&y=0

AKA

http://tinyurl.com/6bpxoss

Andy

TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2011 13:52, J G Miller wrote:

Apart from tides and maybe some earthquakes, what has the
moon ever done for us?

Read this and learn.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_...oon%22&x=0&y=0

AKA

http://tinyurl.com/6bpxoss

As I remember it, the good doctor has it both ways.

--
Max Demian

TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

On Wed, 04 May 2011 09:37:02 +0100, Hugh Newbury
wrote:

On 03/05/11 20:07, Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2011 19:12:19 +0100, Bill
wrote:

I've seen a few news items about the moorland fires, and in each case
the wind turbines in the background have been stationary, despite the
obvious wind. I wonder why?

So they don't fan the flames?

That's only a joke folks.

GK Chesterton maintained that the wind is caused by the trees waving
their branches about.

I saw that from the dippy one in Friends, hadn't realised there was an
earlier source. Thanks!

TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

On Thu, 05 May 2011 17:48:54 +0100, David Kennedy
wrote:

Max Demian wrote:

Also, in the days before artificial light, it provided useful illumination
at night. Whereas the Sun only provides illumination when it is daylight
anyway.


Pretty poor arrangement in my opinion, surely the sun would be of more
use at night when it's dark. They should swap around.

If you two can look serious while blurting this stuff there's a job
for you as a Science presenter at the Beeb . . .