TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

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

TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

On 03/05/2011 19:12, Bill Wright 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?

Bill

Perhaps they were paid to shut down, like these in Scotland?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13253876

Six Scottish windfarms were paid up to £300,000 to stop producing
energy, it has emerged.

The turbines, at a range of sites across Scotland, were stopped because
the grid network could not absorb all the energy they generated.

TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

On Tue, 03 May 2011 19:12:19 +0100, Bill Wright
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.

There is presumably a danger of the turbines and the cables from them
being damaged by fire. It would be safer for firefighters not to be near
damaged live cables. I don't know how the turbines are controlled. If
they receive control signals through surface or subsurface cables there
would be a risk of fire damage to those cables leading to out of control
turbines.

Just a few thoughts.

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

TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

"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 ;-)

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

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.

Bill

TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

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)

TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

So they don't fan the flames?

That's exactly what BBC Radio 4 reported a few minutes ago.

Is there a cunning plan to run them as fans in order to make it rain?
--
Robin
PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com

TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

Brian Gaff wrote:

I'm not sure how one can say it cannot absorb all the energy, as the energy
is not used if its not needed.

There was mention of a temporary grid fault ... possibly meaning the
parts of the grid the turbines feed into were at/above maximum capacity?

TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

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.

Hugh

--

Hugh Newbury

www.evershot-weather.org

TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

In article ,
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.

almost as believable as the 'dark-sucker' for light bulbs - they don't emit
light, they suck in dark and when they are full they go black.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

On 04/05/11 09:40, charles wrote:
In ,
Hugh 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.

almost as believable as the 'dark-sucker' for light bulbs - they don't emit
light, they suck in dark and when they are full they go black.

I should perhaps have said that Chesterton was a great joker.

Hugh

TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

In article ,
Hugh Newbury wrote:
On 04/05/11 09:40, charles wrote:
In ,
Hugh 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.

almost as believable as the 'dark-sucker' for light bulbs - they don't
emit light, they suck in dark and when they are full they go black.

I should perhaps have said that Chesterton was a great joker.

I guessed that. but just google for 'dark sucker'.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

"Hugh Newbury" wrote in message
...
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 believed that very briefly. Aged 5 or 6, I asked, "How do trees make the
wind?" As soon as I said it I realised my mistake.

--
Max Demian

TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

In article , Brian Gaff
scribeth thus
I'm not sure how one can say it cannot absorb all the energy, as the energy
is not used if its not needed. More to the point is that as has been noted
before, you only need the extra at peak times and running them wears them
out requires maintenance etc. The snag often is there is no wind when you
want power!

Brian


The big problem with wind power, it need's Storage which it hasn't got
in sufficient size!...
--
Tony Sayer

TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

On Wed, 4 May 2011 07:52:51 +0100, "Robin" wrote:

So they don't fan the flames?

That's exactly what BBC Radio 4 reported a few minutes ago.

Oh dear! (To put it mildly.)

A wind turbine extracts energy from the wind and therefore slows down
the wind. The slowing effect may be too small to be of any use.

Is there a cunning plan to run them as fans in order to make it rain?

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

TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

In message , Max Demian
writes
"Hugh Newbury" wrote in message
...
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 believed that very briefly. Aged 5 or 6, I asked, "How do trees make the
wind?" As soon as I said it I realised my mistake.

I've got a brilliant idea.
When more electricity is needed, and there isn't enough wind to turn the
windfarm turbines, why can't they use half the turbines as motors? Those
'windmills' would then act as fans, and the wind they produce would make
the other wind turbines turn, and generate the much-needed electricity.

I'll get me coat....
--
Ian

TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

Ian Jackson wrote:

I've got a brilliant idea.
When more electricity is needed, and there isn't enough wind to turn the
windfarm turbines, why can't they use half the turbines as motors? Those
'windmills' would then act as fans, and the wind they produce would make
the other wind turbines turn, and generate the much-needed electricity.

I'll get me coat....

In terms of logic, economy, and scientific credibility, your idea sits
well with UK energy policy.

Bill

TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

On Wed, 4 May 2011 13:59:18 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , Max Demian
writes
"Hugh Newbury" wrote in message
...
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 believed that very briefly. Aged 5 or 6, I asked, "How do trees make the
wind?" As soon as I said it I realised my mistake.

I've got a brilliant idea.
When more electricity is needed, and there isn't enough wind to turn the
windfarm turbines, why can't they use half the turbines as motors? Those
'windmills' would then act as fans, and the wind they produce would make
the other wind turbines turn, and generate the much-needed electricity.

I'll get me coat....

Yer coat will protect you against the draughts.

Plan B: use electrically-powered air pumps to compress air which is then
stored in massive cylinders. Later allow the air out to turn the wind
turbines.

I've had an idea swimming around in my mind for a few years. Now might
be the time to present it in public.

1. Select a suitable modest sized mountain.

2. Cut a horizontal slice out of it.

3. Install hydraulic rams between the floor and roof of the sliced-out
space.

4. When there is surplus electricity being generated use it to pump
hydraulic fluid and thereby raise the upper section of the mountain.
When there is a need for additional electricity allow the weight of
the mountain to push the hydraulic fluid through turbines driving
alternators.

There may be a few minor obstacles to overcome before this
earth-shatteringly brilliant scheme can become a reality.

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

TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

Peter Duncanson wrote:

I've had an idea swimming around in my mind for a few years. Now might
be the time to present it in public.

1. Select a suitable modest sized mountain.

2. Cut a horizontal slice out of it.

3. Install hydraulic rams between the floor and roof of the sliced-out
space.

4. When there is surplus electricity being generated use it to pump
hydraulic fluid and thereby raise the upper section of the mountain.
When there is a need for additional electricity allow the weight of
the mountain to push the hydraulic fluid through turbines driving
alternators.

Seems a lot of trouble to go to considering rock has a density only 2x
to 3x that of water ... perhaps you could find a whole mountain of Galena?

TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

On Wednesday, May 4th, 2011 at 15:14:37h +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

Seems a lot of trouble to go to considering rock has a density only 2x
to 3x that of water ... perhaps you could find a whole mountain of
Galena?

Yes we have done this one before, and was met with appropriate ridicule
and scorn.

Mercury 13,6x (if I am reading the figures correctly)

If rivers of mercury were good enough for the late Qin Shi Huang ...

TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

In article , Bill Wright wrote:
I've got a brilliant idea.
When more electricity is needed, and there isn't enough wind to turn the
windfarm turbines, why can't they use half the turbines as motors? Those
'windmills' would then act as fans, and the wind they produce would make
the other wind turbines turn, and generate the much-needed electricity.

I'll get me coat....

In terms of logic, economy, and scientific credibility, your idea sits
well with UK energy policy.

No, that's silly. They should run them really fast as motors to slow the
Earth's orbit and eventually bring it to a stop so that we're facing towards
the Sun all the time. Then we can use solar power...

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

TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

On Wednesday, May 4th, 2011 at 16:40:17h +0100, Roderick Stewart wrote:

No, that's silly. They should run them really fast as motors to slow the
Earth's orbit and eventually bring it to a stop so that we're facing
towards the Sun all the time. Then we can use solar power...

I do not think the billions living in East Asia would be too happy
being kept in the dark all the time.

TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

On Wed, 4 May 2011 15:59:45 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Wednesday, May 4th, 2011 at 16:40:17h +0100, Roderick Stewart wrote:

No, that's silly. They should run them really fast as motors to slow the
Earth's orbit and eventually bring it to a stop so that we're facing
towards the Sun all the time. Then we can use solar power...

I do not think the billions living in East Asia would be too happy
being kept in the dark all the time.

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.

With the Earth's rotation slowed down to once a year (to keep our bit
facing the Sun) TV and communications satellites will no longer be
geostationary. They will be moving across the sky once every 24 hrs.

More work for satellite dish erectors!


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

TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

Peter Duncanson wrote:

With the Earth's rotation slowed down to once a year (to keep our bit
facing the Sun) TV and communications satellites will no longer be
geostationary. They will be moving across the sky once every 24 hrs.

I suppose the only possible geostationary orbit would be at the same
distance as the sun.

Bill

TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

Bill Wright wrote:

Peter Duncanson wrote:

With the Earth's rotation slowed down to once a year (to keep our bit
facing the Sun) TV and communications satellites will no longer be
geostationary. They will be moving across the sky once every 24 hrs.

I suppose the only possible geostationary orbit would be at the same
distance as the sun.

If the satellites didn't want to be co-located with the sun, they'd need
one HELL of a propulsion system ...

TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

Bill Wright wrote:

I suppose the only possible geostationary orbit would be at the same
distance as the sun.

Presumably also the lagrange points? Though number 3 would be a bugger
for signal and number 1 would fry the LNBs pretty well ...

TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

On 04/05/2011 16:37, J G Miller wrote:
On Wednesday, May 4th, 2011 at 15:14:37h +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

Seems a lot of trouble to go to considering rock has a density only 2x
to 3x that of water ... perhaps you could find a whole mountain of
Galena?

Yes we have done this one before, and was met with appropriate ridicule
and scorn.

Mercury 13,6x (if I am reading the figures correctly)

If rivers of mercury were good enough for the late Qin Shi Huang ...

Ha! Finally a use for all that depleted uranium! (Density = 19.1)

Andy

TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

"Andy Champ" wrote in message . uk...
On 04/05/2011 16:37, J G Miller wrote:
On Wednesday, May 4th, 2011 at 15:14:37h +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

Seems a lot of trouble to go to considering rock has a density only 2x
to 3x that of water ... perhaps you could find a whole mountain of
Galena?

Yes we have done this one before, and was met with appropriate ridicule
and scorn.

Mercury 13,6x (if I am reading the figures correctly)

If rivers of mercury were good enough for the late Qin Shi Huang ...

Ha! Finally a use for all that depleted uranium! (Density = 19.1)

Andy

But they were large balls, large balls,
Twice as heavy as lead, cha, cha;
And with two twists of his muscular wrists,
He threw them right over his head.
Sera-aboom, sera-a-boom, sera-a-boom boom boom.

Coat?


--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

"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.

Peter

TOT moorland fires and turbines
 

In message , peter
writes

"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.

Peter


Why store it, when they could just build some badly needed new towns?
--
Ian

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 . . .