I am such a dick!

In article , Roderick
Stewart writes
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:24:18 +0100, charles
wrote:

Wow! That thread really got us going eh! I will not switch off any
of my appliances from the mains and see how much it affects the leccy
bill.

Here we go Marky, I'll chuck this in now:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6725955.stm

a: How can this idea be 'Green' ?

b: Won't upset those that feel 'radiation' is A Bad Thing ?

c: How will you ensure your neighbours aren't nicking your lekky ?

Discuss

and it is reported to be only 40% efficient :-(

If it radiates, at 10MHz, sufficient power to light a 60W bulb with
40% efficiency, doesn't that make it a 150W shortwave transmittier?
Would it even be legal for somebody who had passed the RSGB exam to
switch it on?

Re-read the article, whilst it could be clearer the system uses magnetic
coupling not electromagnetic, so there should be a very little RF
radiated from it.

--
Ian G8ILZ
There are always two people in every pictu the photographer and the viewer.
~Ansel Adams

In message , Mark Carver
wrote
Prometheus wrote:

[snip]

I have an ideal for making moving things around easier, but I don't
know what colour it should be.

Good, it's not just me then ?

This rubbish was the 3rd or 4th story on Friday night's main BBC 1 10pm News.

Of all the worthy and tangible science or engineering related topics
they could cover, they chose this !



The only science that a news program covers is that which comes with a
press release, usually aimed at getting more research money.
--
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

In article ,
Prometheus wrote:
In article , Roderick
Stewart writes
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:24:18 +0100, charles
wrote:

Wow! That thread really got us going eh! I will not switch off any
of my appliances from the mains and see how much it affects the leccy
bill.

Here we go Marky, I'll chuck this in now:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6725955.stm

a: How can this idea be 'Green' ?

b: Won't upset those that feel 'radiation' is A Bad Thing ?

c: How will you ensure your neighbours aren't nicking your lekky ?

Discuss

and it is reported to be only 40% efficient :-(

If it radiates, at 10MHz, sufficient power to light a 60W bulb with
40% efficiency, doesn't that make it a 150W shortwave transmittier?
Would it even be legal for somebody who had passed the RSGB exam to
switch it on?

Re-read the article, whilst it could be clearer the system uses magnetic
coupling not electromagnetic, so there should be a very little RF
radiated from it.

That sounded to me like psuedo science mumbo-jumbo. "The near field is
magnetic, but the far field is electromagnetic." They've conveniently
ignored that the far field still exists and presumably accounts for the
other 60% of the energy.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:18:49 +0100, charles
wrote:

If it radiates, at 10MHz, sufficient power to light a 60W bulb with
40% efficiency, doesn't that make it a 150W shortwave transmittier?
Would it even be legal for somebody who had passed the RSGB exam to
switch it on?

Re-read the article, whilst it could be clearer the system uses magnetic
coupling not electromagnetic, so there should be a very little RF
radiated from it.

That sounded to me like psuedo science mumbo-jumbo. "The near field is
magnetic, but the far field is electromagnetic." They've conveniently
ignored that the far field still exists and presumably accounts for the
other 60% of the energy.

Exactly. I can't imagine how you could pump 150W at 10MHz into a coil
and expect it not to behave like a transmitter.

From the brief and rather simplified account given by the expert they
brought into the News24 studio, I got the impression they only
envisaged this to be used for low powered things like pocket gadgets
over a short range. In other words, it would be a sort of domestic
induction loop which would save you the bother of remembering to
charge your phone. I'm interested, but not excited.

It is, of course, practically guaranteed that if this is ever put into
practice, the usual band of technically ill-informed protesters will
declare it to be a risk to health, a cause of cancer etc etc, despite
the lack of any evidence, and the fact that at least three generations
have grown up in a world wherein there is practically nowhere you can
go without being bathed in RF from cradle to grave anyway.

Rod.

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:53:38 +0100, Prometheus
wrote:

Still, perhaps they have a
way of powering my 3kW heater without frying the cat when she walks
through the power-beam; hyper-space or sub-ether perhaps.

If they had something you could point through the wall and fry your
neighbour's cat, or noisy hi-fi system or whatever, they might have a
few potential customers for it. :-)

But for now I agree it does just seem that they've re-invented the
tuned transformer. I wonder how they think radio and TV sets have been
working without them all these years?

Rod.

In message , Roderick
Stewart writes
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:53:38 +0100, Prometheus
wrote:

Still, perhaps they have a
way of powering my 3kW heater without frying the cat when she walks
through the power-beam; hyper-space or sub-ether perhaps.

If they had something you could point through the wall and fry your
neighbour's cat, or noisy hi-fi system or whatever, they might have a
few potential customers for it. :-)

But for now I agree it does just seem that they've re-invented the
tuned transformer. I wonder how they think radio and TV sets have been
working without them all these years?

Rod.

Yahoo/Google 'magnetic loop antenna'.
http://home.datacomm.ch/hb9abx/loop1-e.htm
http://www.laud.no/la6nca/loop/
http://www.g4fon.net/MagLoop.htm
http://www.geocities.com/gw0tqm/magloop/magbuild.htm
http://www.standpipe.com/w2bri/
and about 375,000 more!
Ian.
--

Dom Robinson wrote:
I am aware that there are some "plausible"
objections can caveats, but I am certainly
not qualified to decide between the information.

You can't decide between when the government or the media are telling you the
truth and when they're talking complete bull****?

Do you also have trouble working out which way round to sit on the lavatory?

If you're arrogant enough to think that
the forces of government, media etc
are powerless against your mighty intellect,
you're deluded.

BugBear

Alan wrote in
:

In message , Rob
wrote

"Phil Cook" wrote in
message ...
Dave wrote:

I don't think cars should be allowed to be driven along city streets
spewing out noxious chemicals often only carrying one person when
there is a perfectly good alternative means of transport available.

Electric buses and cars are the answer, but they seem no nearer to
becoming popular than they did 10 years ago!

Electric vehicles are not 'green' - the pollution is just generated
elsewhere.

Surely a power station is more efficient at generating power than a
combustion engine??

In message , Stone Free
spam_KillKillKillstone_freeNoSpamPleaseWereBritis writes
Alan wrote in
:

In message , Rob
wrote

"Phil Cook" wrote in
message ...
Dave wrote:

I don't think cars should be allowed to be driven along city streets
spewing out noxious chemicals often only carrying one person when
there is a perfectly good alternative means of transport available.

Electric buses and cars are the answer, but they seem no nearer to
becoming popular than they did 10 years ago!

Electric vehicles are not 'green' - the pollution is just generated
elsewhere.

Surely a power station is more efficient at generating power than a
combustion engine??

You have to balance the better efficiency of the power station (plus its
better ability to filter out pollutants) with the losses involved (and
hence inefficiency) in charging and discharging batteries. Another
obvious thing is that, with a power station, the pollution usually
occurs in out-of-the-way places, where it affects fewer people.

You should also compare the costs and side-effects of manufacturing
conventional internal combustion and battery vehicles, the end-of-life
disposal/recycling of the materials they are made of etc.

If you want to be really fair, you could probably literally go on for
ever finding yet another factor which should be taken into account.
Those wishing to make a particular point often are very selective in how
they argue their case.
Ian.
--

"Chas Gill" wrote in message
...

Speak for yourself Chas!



I never speak for anyone else! ;-)

But in your first post of this thread you said:

'The truth is that most of us, given the opportunity, would not know where
to start and if we tried we would surely **** it up big time.'

That is hardly speaking for yourself. You are just assuming everyone else
is the same as you..

Just because you think YOU would f*ck up big time, please don't tar us all
with the same brush !!!