Solar flare threatens to disrupt Earth's communications and power

On 11/06/2011 01:59, Bill Wright wrote:

Ah so that's why elephants and mice react differently when they hit the
ground...

Surely you meant surprised sperm whales and bowls of petunias. The
mice, after all, would be observing from a safe distance... :~)

--
Andy

On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 19:14:16 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:


No-one forced the working classes to leave the fields and go down the
mines.

Bevin boys?


Few Bevin Boys were recruited from farms because in general agriculture
was a protected occupation.

My father nwas in a protected occupation, but that bwasn't a guarantee
against being called up - as he found out in 1940
--
Cheers

Peter

(Reply to address is a spam trap - pse reply to the group)

In article , Andy
Champ
wrote:
On 10/06/2011 18:41, Bill Wright wrote:

Well why do we bother with tidal flow power generation then? Why not
go to the source? Drive a shaft into the earth at the north pole and
use its rotation to power a huge dynamo. It's so obvious. It would
only mean tipping the dynamo on end so its axle was vertical. Or you
could use gears even.


Having read through the thread: Bill, You need something else to tie the
dynamo to.

Jim, the size of the earth that matters is the cross-sectional area. Oh
hang on, that's what you mean isn't it?

Yes (ignoring other effects). I couldn't see where the value had come from
so was wondering if someone had assumed it was 'half the surface of a
sphere' instead of the projected disc area.

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

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:

Since the moon is about the same size as the sun when viewed from the
earth, surely the two bodies should exert the same gravitational forces
on the earth.

Yes, that's why it's so much eaier to carry a sheet of metal with
the edge facing downwards instead of the surface...

Or to put it another way, the sun is mych deeper than the moon.

Well why do we bother with tidal flow power generation then? Why not go
to the source? Drive a shaft into the earth at the north pole and use
its rotation to power a huge dynamo.

"Give me a place to stand and I will move the earth" - Archimedes.

Perhaps you could attach the dynamo body to the lumeniferous ether,
it's supposed to be quite rigid.

What you really want is a big crank pivoted at one of the poles, with
the other end attached to the moon.

-- Richard

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:

Since the moon is about the same size as the sun when viewed from the
earth, surely the two bodies should exert the same gravitational forces
on the earth.

Apart from the irrelevance of size (angle subtended), this is also the
wrong question as far as tides are concerned.

The sun weighs about 27 million times as much as the moon, and is about
400 times as far away, so its gravitational attraction on the earth
(M/r^2) is about 170 *greater* than the moon's.

But the size of the tide is not determined by the strength of the
gravitational attraction, but by the difference in that attraction on
the near and far surfaces of the earth. That difference varies as
1/r^3, and that is why the sun's tidal effect is *less* than the
moon's.

-- Richard

On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 13:52:14 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 12:14:26 +0100, SpamTrapSeeSig wrote:

The original subject, however, was news reporting, which is populated by
pretty-yet-ill-educated people. There are indeed exceptions, but I tire
of dreadful science/environmental reporting by people too ignorant, too
politically correct, or just too doctrinaire, to ask tough and important
questions.

Or just come out with completely incorrect statements and not over
particulary techincal or complex subjects either. Things that I
consider to be "general knowledge".

They repeat and reinforce dogma.

"Diabetics cause the disease by being fat and they make themselves fat
by eating fat"

Er no, insulin resistance causes some people to become diabetic, some
people to become fat and some people to become fat *and* diabetic.
This is caused by eating excess carbs.

Not to mention Type 1 diabetes, LADA, MODY and other genetic forms,
none of which are connected to overweight.

Oh and no-one's life has EVER been saved, just *prolonged*. Well there
was that Jesus guy once, allegedly, but the spin doctors may have got
at that story

On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 14:19:36 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

Brian wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 19:40:55 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe
wrote:

If we really wish to create a more egalitarian global society, that is
one in which the difference in living conditions between the poorest
and the richest is less than it is now, it follows that a
levelling-to-somewhere-in-the-the-middle process is required.

No, ******** to that. We've got where we are by having stable democratic
nations that have provided an environment for science and technology and
efficient production.

Taking Africa as an example, they are rich in natural resources, yet
despite all the help given by the west are still not operating
efficiently enough to feed and clothe their people properly. Why this is
I can't imagine, but in any case it's their own fault so there's no
reason we should be levelled down.

The White Man pays them peanuts for their resources, takes them away
and "adds value" in their own countries

On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 18:35:15 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

wrote:

There are good arguments that the various european powers left the place
in a bit of a mess socially and politically when they legged it but frankly
they've had more than long enough to sort themselves out so I tend to agree.

Why is it that they don't seem to be able to operate stable democracies?
Is it a racial characteristics issue, or merely that they have no
tradition of stability and society? I know the former possibility can't
be discussed thanks to PC fascism but a few free thinkers like myself
are prepared to consider such ideas.

Not a few of their Leaders were trained in the UK, Eton and Sandhurst
come to mind

They learned how to impose their tribal loyalties with modern weaponry
from the Normans

On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 02:34:17 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:


If the world was ever sufficiently well organised and sufficiently
over-populated then I can certainly conceive of a law being made that
everyone over a certain age should be liquidised. I suggest you watch
the film "Logan's Run".

Or read up on the NHS, PLC

"Albert Ross" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 14:19:36 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

Brian wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 19:40:55 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe
wrote:

If we really wish to create a more egalitarian global society, that is
one in which the difference in living conditions between the poorest
and the richest is less than it is now, it follows that a
levelling-to-somewhere-in-the-the-middle process is required.

No, ******** to that. We've got where we are by having stable democratic
nations that have provided an environment for science and technology and
efficient production.

Taking Africa as an example, they are rich in natural resources, yet
despite all the help given by the west are still not operating
efficiently enough to feed and clothe their people properly. Why this is
I can't imagine, but in any case it's their own fault so there's no
reason we should be levelled down.

The White Man pays them peanuts for their resources, takes them away
and "adds value" in their own countries


Bearing in mind of course, that if white civilisation didn't exist, then the
majority of their resources wouldn't even be worth peanuts