Switch off at the socket?

[email protected] wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

ROI is critically dependent on the interest rate you borrow the cash at.

For both nuclear and wind, with wind being slightly less so, since it
has far higher ongoing costs than nuclear.

ROI is not critical if its to fight GW.
What is critical is that it saves CO2.
Wind power saves little, if any, CO2 over its expected life.
There is no issue with wind power, it just doesn't do what is required
as a solution to GW.

If you examine WHY the ROI is important, it becomes clear.

Cost are, across the world, labour costs. So if something is expensive,
its because more people are employed to process raw materials to make
it, or because someone ios making a lot of money as profit.

As we have seen in this thread, people who actually understand science
and technology are very rare, so we might not even have enough skilled
people to erect the windmills.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

8


Is it so hard to grasp that the water at the bottom is fractionally
lighter because its lost energy, but fractionally slightly less light
because SOME of its potential energy is retained as heat energy?


Waffle.

So now you are claiming that the potential energy in the water at the top is
in real mass?
It can't be in relativistic energy as the water at the top is colder and
hence stuff is moving more slowly.
Just where is this energy if its not relativistic? More water at the top?

Just admit you don't have a clue.

In message en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart writes
In article , Bof wrote:
My new flatscreen uses 14W[1] in standby and between 80W and 150W in
use, the old CRT (c 1995) used around 2W in standby and 60-80W running.

[1] that's if there's someone in the room, if you leave the room empty
for some time and come back it's dropped to 1W

That's creepy - a TV set that watches the viewers!

It is.

The other thing that was spooky was that when the TV was using around
150W, if I went up to the TV to take a closer look at the meter the
power dropped to around 80W like the TV was feeling guilty about its
consumption. Put that down to me blocking the ambient light from its
sensor.

--
bof at bof dot me dot uk

[email protected] wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

8


Is it so hard to grasp that the water at the bottom is fractionally
lighter because its lost energy, but fractionally slightly less light
because SOME of its potential energy is retained as heat energy?


Waffle.

So now you are claiming that the potential energy in the water at the
top is in real mass?

No, I am saying that is what Einstein's theories say.

It can't be in relativistic energy as the water at the top is colder and
hence stuff is moving more slowly.

There is no such thing as relativistic energy. There is only energy, of
which mass is an aspect.


Just where is this energy if its not relativistic? More water at the top?


In the mas of the water molecules.

Just admit you don't have a clue.

Why? Its not me that doesn't understand the implications of relativity
in the slightest.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 01:51:24 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

He has a failed O level in politics and media studies.

That's a bit unfair on media studies students at least they aren't
stuck in the last century even if they are a thick as two short
planks.

No, I agree. They are stuck in the middle ages, instead.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
[email protected] wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

8


Is it so hard to grasp that the water at the bottom is fractionally
lighter because its lost energy, but fractionally slightly less light
because SOME of its potential energy is retained as heat energy?


Waffle.

So now you are claiming that the potential energy in the water at the top
is in real mass?

No, I am saying that is what Einstein's theories say.

And I am saying it doesn't apply.

It can't be in relativistic energy as the water at the top is colder and
hence stuff is moving more slowly.

There is no such thing as relativistic energy. There is only energy, of
which mass is an aspect.


Just where is this energy if its not relativistic? More water at the top?


In the mas of the water molecules.

How?
They are moving slower in the one you claim has more mass.
E=mc2 says they have less energy.


Just admit you don't have a clue.

Why? Its not me that doesn't understand the implications of relativity in
the slightest.

Go on then explain why when E=mc2 says you are wrong you still disagree?

[email protected] wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
[email protected] wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

8


Is it so hard to grasp that the water at the bottom is fractionally
lighter because its lost energy, but fractionally slightly less
light because SOME of its potential energy is retained as heat energy?


Waffle.

So now you are claiming that the potential energy in the water at the
top is in real mass?

No, I am saying that is what Einstein's theories say.

And I am saying it doesn't apply.

It can't be in relativistic energy as the water at the top is colder
and hence stuff is moving more slowly.

There is no such thing as relativistic energy. There is only energy,
of which mass is an aspect.


Just where is this energy if its not relativistic? More water at the
top?


In the mas of the water molecules.

How?
They are moving slower in the one you claim has more mass.
E=mc2 says they have less energy.


Just admit you don't have a clue.

Why? Its not me that doesn't understand the implications of relativity
in the slightest.

Go on then explain why when E=mc2 says you are wrong you still disagree?

because E=mC^2 says I am right.

energy has mass.

There are more ways of storing energy than binding it to kinetic energy
of molecules.

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:55:56 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

but still no-one will state the definition _they_ use of something so basic and
fundamental as 'mass'.

This definition has been repeated in different forms numerous times, but
you are such a troll that you refuse to accept that is what the accepted
defintion of mass is.

For example, on Friday, September 18th, 2009 at 17:35:42 +0000 (UTC)
in message ,

"Mass is the quantity of inertia possessed by an object."

Yet you continue to use the defintion for amount of substance as the
definition of mass.

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:31:00 +0100, Norman Wells trolled:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What holds the atoms in this arrangement? why don't they wander off
independently?

Friction, shape, conformation, and lack of desire to be adventurous.


And how come they take up crystalline forms?

Everyone should have a hobby.


What further proof is needed that Norman Wells has no intention of
serious discussion?


___________________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please don't |
/ O O\__ feed |
/ \ the trolls |
/ \ \ |
/ _ \ \ ----------------------
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | __||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | /| | --|
| | |// |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ // |
/ _ \\ _ // | /
* / \_ /- | - | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


There are more ways of storing energy than binding it to kinetic energy of
molecules.

go on then which one are you going for now?