• OT: EV Charging Stations Stripped of Copper Cables

    From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jul 3 22:56:52 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    It had to happen sooner or later.....

    https://tinyurl.com/yhy74y7v

    Coming soon to a charging station near you.....

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Thu Jul 4 13:46:59 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 4/07/2024 8:56 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    It had to happen sooner or later.....

    https://tinyurl.com/yhy74y7v

    Coming soon to a charging station near you.....

    Actually

    https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/seattle-thieves-targeting-ev-charging-stations-has-reached-epidemic-proportions

    Inductively coupled charging stations could bury the copper cables where
    they were harder to dig out, and it's not hard to embed a sense wire
    loop in the cable assembly that can generate an alarm as soon as the
    cable is cut.

    This just a reflection of poor engineering design, but neither Cursitor
    Doom nor ZeroHedge have that kind of insight.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Thu Jul 4 07:39:02 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 04/07/2024 04:46, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 4/07/2024 8:56 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    It had to happen sooner or later.....

    https://tinyurl.com/yhy74y7v

    Coming soon to a charging station near you.....

    Actually

    https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/seattle-thieves-targeting-ev-charging-stations-has-reached-epidemic-proportions

    Inductively coupled charging stations could bury the copper cables where
    they were harder to dig out, and it's not hard to embed a sense wire
    loop in the cable assembly that can generate an alarm as soon as the
    cable is cut.

    This just a reflection of poor engineering design, but neither Cursitor
    Doom nor ZeroHedge have that kind of insight.

    Dear boyty, the whole renewable/ heat pump/EV thing is just a reflection
    pof poor engineering design, but apparently you don't have that kind of insight.

    Its amazing how emotionally attached to greenCrap some people are...

    --
    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
    In practice, there is.
    -- Yogi Berra

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From alan_m@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Thu Jul 4 09:17:42 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 04/07/2024 04:46, Bill Sloman wrote:

    Inductively coupled charging stations could bury the copper cables where
    they were harder to dig out, and it's not hard to embed a sense wire
    loop in the cable assembly that can generate an alarm as soon as the
    cable is cut.

    This just a reflection of poor engineering design, but neither Cursitor
    Doom nor ZeroHedge have that kind of insight.


    And how big and heavy does the coil on the car have to be for fast charging?


    --
    mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From alan_m@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Thu Jul 4 10:06:01 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 04/07/2024 09:25, Bill Sloman wrote:

    What a load of pretentious crap. Renewable energy sources are the
    cheapest power sources around,

    Another half truth by the industry. It's only cheaper when it works and
    if you ignore the backup required for when it doesn't and the extra infrastructure costs required to distribute it. There is growing
    concern about the cost of distribution network (pylons and wires) that
    need to be installed to far flung parts of the country and there are
    already campaigns from the "not in my backyard" groups opposed to this extension to the national grid. Even green environmentalists are
    complaining about the installation of wind turbines on the sky line in
    areas of natural beauty. Just wait until we are all forced to have
    electric central heating and EVs and we use 2x to 3x more electricity
    and the infrastructure in our urban roads has to be upgraded to meet
    demand. Decades of disruption and a high cost that has to passed on to
    the consumer.


    and EV let you travel more cheaply than
    you can in a car with an internal combustion engine.

    Not for long. The UK Government relies on the large amounts of fuel tax
    from petrol and diesel. As EVs become more popular this tax revenue diminishes. The Government will soon claw it back in one way or another.
    Road fund tax or pay by the mile toll charges etc.

    Are you actually factoring in the extra cost of a EV and depreciation
    into your mileage costs?



    --
    mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to The Natural Philosopher on Thu Jul 4 18:25:08 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 4/07/2024 4:39 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 04:46, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 4/07/2024 8:56 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    It had to happen sooner or later.....

    https://tinyurl.com/yhy74y7v

    Coming soon to a charging station near you.....

    Actually

    https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/seattle-thieves-targeting-ev-charging-stations-has-reached-epidemic-proportions

    Inductively coupled charging stations could bury the copper cables
    where they were harder to dig out, and it's not hard to embed a sense
    wire loop in the cable assembly that can generate an alarm as soon as
    the cable is cut.

    This just a reflection of poor engineering design, but neither
    Cursitor Doom nor ZeroHedge have that kind of insight.

    Dear boy, the whole renewable/ heat pump/EV thing is just a reflection
    of poor engineering design, but apparently you don't have that kind of insight.

    What a load of pretentious crap. Renewable energy sources are the
    cheapest power sources around, and EV let you travel more cheaply than
    you can in a car with an internal combustion engine. If you had any kind
    of clue about engineering design, you'd be aware of that, but you are a right-wing twit in the Cursitor Doom and John Larkin style and lap up
    all the right-wing propganda aimed at twits like you.

    Its amazing how emotionally attached to greenCrap some people are...

    Not half as amazing as Cursitor Doom, attachment to ZeroHedge or John
    Larkin's faith in Anthony Watts

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger)

    If you don't know anything about science you won't realise quite how
    silly this is.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jul 4 10:58:07 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 04/07/2024 10:06, alan_m wrote:
    Another half truth by the industry. It's only cheaper when it works and
    if you ignore the backup required for when it doesn't and the extra infrastructure costs required to distribute it.

    It isn't even cheaper then.
    Some of us have run the numbers...

    Per gigawatt a wind turbine is cheaper than a nuclear power station but
    that ignores
    - the shorter lifetime of the windmill
    - the capacity factor of the windmill
    - the massive maintenance cost associated with a windmill.

    Before you even get into the ancillary crap needed to attempt to make a
    silk purse out of a pigs ear...

    --
    "Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have
    forgotten your aim."

    George Santayana

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Thu Jul 4 10:55:12 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 04/07/2024 09:25, Bill Sloman wrote:
    What a load of pretentious crap. Renewable energy sources are the
    cheapest power sources around,

    Bless!

    and EV let you travel more cheaply than
    you can in a car with an internal combustion engine.
    Not at today's renewable electricity prices. And disastrous [
    depreciation on EVs

    If you had any kind
    of clue about engineering design,
    I am a professional engineer with a Cambridge degree in Electrical
    sciences and a lifetime in engineering design
    That;s how I do know what I say is true

    you'd be aware of that, but you are a
    right-wing twit in the Cursitor Doom and John Larkin style and lap up
    all the right-wing propganda aimed at twits like you.


    Projection. He's swallowed the eco koolaid.
    Facts no longer matter, Pure Faith will see him thorough

    Its amazing how emotionally attached to greenCrap some people are...

    Not half as amazing as Cursitor Doom, attachment to ZeroHedge or John Larkin's faith in Anthony Watts

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger)

    If you don't know anything about science you won't realise quite how
    silly this is.

    Oh dear. I suspect I know far more about real science than you do.

    --
    “it should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
    (or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
    about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
    the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
    'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
    a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
    rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
    things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
    you live neither in Joseph Stalin’s Communist era, nor in the Orwellian utopia of 1984.”

    Vaclav Klaus

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to The Natural Philosopher on Thu Jul 4 20:49:58 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 4/07/2024 7:58 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 10:06, alan_m wrote:
    Another half truth by the industry. It's only cheaper when it works
    and if you ignore the backup required for when it doesn't and the
    extra infrastructure costs required to distribute it.

    It isn't even cheaper then.
    Some of us have run the numbers...

    Per gigawatt a wind turbine is cheaper than a nuclear power station but
    that ignores
    - the shorter lifetime of the windmill
    - the capacity factor of the windmill
    - the massive maintenance cost associated with a windmill.

    But you are happy to ignore the massive costs of providing secure
    storage for nuclear waste for the hundred's of thousands of years it
    take for the longer half-life isotopes to decay into stable isotopes.

    Before you even get into the ancillary crap needed to attempt to make a
    silk purse out of a pigs ear...

    It's actually a sow's ear. And a nuclear power station is no silk purse.

    If you want a flexible power source, a nuclear power station isn't an
    option.

    "The ability of a PWR to run at less than full power for much of the
    time depends on whether it is in the early part of its 18 to 24-month refuelling cycle or late in it, and whether it is designed with special
    control rods which diminish power levels throughout the core without
    shutting it down. Thus, though the ability on any individual PWR reactor
    to run on a sustained basis at low power decreases markedly as it
    progresses through the refuelling cycle, there is considerable scope for running a fleet of reactors in load-following mode. European Utility Requirements (EUR) since 2001 specify that new reactor designs must be
    capable of load-following between 50 and 100% of capacity with a rate of
    change of electric output of 3-5% per minute. The economic consequences
    are mainly due to diminished load factor of a capital-intensive plant."

    Gas turbine power generators are much more flexible, and pumped and
    battery storage is even more flexible.

    You can need quite a bit of it, but that gets figured into price of
    renewable energy, even if you aren't aware of it.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney



    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RJH@21:1/5 to The Natural Philosopher on Thu Jul 4 11:10:41 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 4 Jul 2024 at 10:58:07 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

    On 04/07/2024 10:06, alan_m wrote:
    Another half truth by the industry. It's only cheaper when it works and
    if you ignore the backup required for when it doesn't and the extra
    infrastructure costs required to distribute it.

    It isn't even cheaper then.
    Some of us have run the numbers...


    Care to share ;-)

    Per gigawatt a wind turbine is cheaper than a nuclear power station but
    that ignores
    - the shorter lifetime of the windmill
    - the capacity factor of the windmill
    - the massive maintenance cost associated with a windmill.


    I find it hard to believe that the revenue costs (per unit of electricity) of
    a wind turbine exceeds those of nuclear.

    Before you even get into the ancillary crap needed to attempt to make a
    silk purse out of a pigs ear...


    --
    Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jul 4 20:38:35 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 4/07/2024 7:06 pm, alan_m wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 09:25, Bill Sloman wrote:

    What a load of pretentious crap. Renewable energy sources are the
    cheapest power sources around,

    Another half truth by the industry. It's only cheaper when it works and
    if you ignore the backup required for when it doesn't and the extra infrastructure costs required to distribute it.


    Rubbish.

    There is growing concern about the cost of distribution network (pylons and wires) that
    need to be installed to far flung parts of the country and there are
    already campaigns from the "not in my backyard" groups opposed to this extension to the national grid.

    There always are. The grid gets built anyway.

    Even green environmentalists are
    complaining about the installation of wind turbines on the sky line in
    areas of natural beauty.

    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Having local power distribution to
    keep your household appliances running does tend to trump aesthetic considerations.

    Just wait until we are all forced to have
    electric central heating and EVs and we use 2x to 3x more electricity
    and the infrastructure in our urban roads has to be upgraded to meet
    demand. Decades of disruption and a high cost that has to passed on to
    the consumer.

    The electrical distribution infra-structure has been being extended and enlarged since we got to the point of having national grids at all - and
    half the cost of the electricity I use pays for the distribution system.

    Renewables come in smaller modules than the old coal and gas-fired
    plants, so they can be put closer to where the power is consumed.

    and EV let you travel more cheaply than you can in a car with an
    internal combustion engine.

    Not for long. The UK Government relies on the large amounts of fuel tax
    from petrol and diesel.  As EVs become more popular this tax revenue diminishes. The Government will soon claw it back in one way or another.
    Road fund tax or pay by the mile toll charges etc.

    Think about it - though you wouldn't be peddling this fatuous line if
    you could think. I'm already paying road tolls to use Sydney's freeways.

    Electricity isn't susceptible to separate taxation in the way that
    internal combustion engine fuel is, and the price advantage is in the
    better efficiency of the energy delivery to the car wheels.

    Are you actually factoring in the extra cost of a EV and depreciation
    into your mileage costs?

    EV's used to be more expensive that combustion-engined vehicle because
    they were produced in smaller volumes. This isn't true any longer, and -
    as machines - EV's are quite a bit less complicated. Think about that
    too if you ever get a brain implant.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to The Natural Philosopher on Thu Jul 4 21:07:57 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 4/07/2024 7:55 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 09:25, Bill Sloman wrote:
    What a load of pretentious crap. Renewable energy sources are the
    cheapest power sources around,

    Bless!

    and EV let you travel more cheaply than you can in a car with an
    internal combustion engine.

    Not at today's renewable electricity prices. And disastrous [
    depreciation on EVs

    Evidence?

     If you had any kind
    of clue about engineering design,

    I am a professional engineer with a Cambridge degree in Electrical
    sciences and a lifetime in engineering design
    That;s how I do know what I say is true.

    When I worked at Cambridge Instruments as an electronic engineer I had
    to put up with a lot of clowns like you.

    They had the delusion that their Cambridge degree was of a different
    nature to the kind education offered elsewhere in the world - it was
    heavier on math, but short on connections to reality. The good ones
    could become useful practical engineers, but it took a year or two of de-programming.

    EMI Central Research was less infested with the sub-species, and rather
    more efficient at the de-programming.
    you'd be aware of that, but you are a
    right-wing twit in the Cursitor Doom and John Larkin style and lap up
    all the right-wing propganda aimed at twits like you.

    Projection.  He's swallowed the eco koolaid.
    Facts no longer matter, Pure Faith will see him thorough.

    And how many papers have you published in peer-reviewed scientific
    journals? You post under a pseudonym, so can't make that claim at all.

    https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22a+w+sloman%22&oq=

    Its amazing how emotionally attached to greenCrap some people are...

    Not half as amazing as Cursitor Doom, attachment to ZeroHedge or John
    Larkin's faith in Anthony Watts

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger)

    If you don't know anything about science you won't realise quite how
    silly this is.

    Oh dear. I suspect I know far more about real science than you do.

    Of course you do. You have the delusion that your Cambridge degree was
    of a different and superior nature to the kind education offered
    elsewhere in the world, but the difference is largely confined to
    boosting your opinion of yourself and your fellow students, plus a bit
    of English snobbery about people who get their hands onto the equipment
    they work on, rather than relying on mathematical modelling.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney



    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Thu Jul 4 12:15:03 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 04/07/2024 11:49, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 4/07/2024 7:58 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 10:06, alan_m wrote:
    Another half truth by the industry. It's only cheaper when it works
    and if you ignore the backup required for when it doesn't and the
    extra infrastructure costs required to distribute it.

    It isn't even cheaper then.
    Some of us have run the numbers...

    Per gigawatt a wind turbine is cheaper than a nuclear power station
    but that ignores
    - the shorter lifetime of the windmill
    - the capacity factor of the windmill
    - the massive maintenance cost associated with a windmill.

    But you are happy to ignore the massive costs of providing secure
    storage for nuclear waste for the hundred's of thousands of years it
    take for the longer half-life isotopes to decay into stable isotopes.

    Ity is not massive.
    In fact its trivial
    How long will the concrete bases of wind turbines last?
    Will they ever be returned to Green Field
    Who will pay for it?

    Before you even get into the ancillary crap needed to attempt to make
    a silk purse out of a pigs ear...

    It's actually a sow's ear. And a nuclear power station is no silk purse.

    If you want a flexible power source, a nuclear power station isn't an
    option.

    Of course it is
    More lies

    "The ability of a PWR to run at less than full power for much of the
    time depends on whether it is in the early part of its 18 to 24-month refuelling cycle or late in it, and whether it is designed with special control rods which diminish power levels throughout the core without
    shutting it down. Thus, though the ability on any individual PWR reactor
    to run on a sustained basis at low power decreases markedly as it
    progresses through the refuelling cycle, there is considerable scope for running a fleet of reactors in load-following mode. European Utility Requirements (EUR) since 2001 specify that new reactor designs must be capable of load-following between 50 and 100% of capacity with a rate of change of electric output of 3-5% per minute. The economic consequences
    are mainly due to diminished load factor of a capital-intensive plant."

    Old tech. You can design a reactor to load follow, but it doesn't make
    best use of capital when you have any hydro


    Natrium have a perfectly sound idea for this

    Gas turbine power generators are much more flexible, and pumped and
    battery storage is even more flexible.

    You can need quite a bit of it, but that gets figured into price of
    renewable energy, even if you aren't aware of it.

    Battery storage is to replace the spinning mass of conventional
    turbiunes,. It has absolutely no ability to keep a solar grid up
    overnight, or w wind grid operational in a flat calm

    And NONE of this gets figured into the PUBLISHED CLAIMS about wind
    costs, since no wind farm meet the cost of any of it.

    Consumers do instead,


    --
    “it should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
    (or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
    about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
    the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
    'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
    a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
    rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
    things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
    you live neither in Joseph Stalin’s Communist era, nor in the Orwellian utopia of 1984.”

    Vaclav Klaus

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@21:1/5 to RJH on Thu Jul 4 12:52:58 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 04/07/2024 12:10, RJH wrote:
    On 4 Jul 2024 at 10:58:07 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

    On 04/07/2024 10:06, alan_m wrote:
    Another half truth by the industry. It's only cheaper when it works and
    if you ignore the backup required for when it doesn't and the extra
    infrastructure costs required to distribute it.

    It isn't even cheaper then.
    Some of us have run the numbers...


    Care to share ;-)

    Per gigawatt a wind turbine is cheaper than a nuclear power station but
    that ignores
    - the shorter lifetime of the windmill
    - the capacity factor of the windmill
    - the massive maintenance cost associated with a windmill.


    I find it hard to believe that the revenue costs (per unit of electricity) of a wind turbine exceeds those of nuclear.

    Its not open to belief. Its open to FACT

    But you need to have some understanding of finance and accounting.

    If you can borrow money at 5% because there is a 'green' fund, and your
    income is GUARANTEED by government, you are at a considerable advantage
    over a nuclear company who has to borrow at market rates, and with a
    possible premium because the risk of nuclear being stopped by the next government is very real as happened in Germany where Vattenfall EON and
    RWE successfully sued the german government for billions for breach of contract...

    ..then naturally the costs will be far higher.
    But if you remove all the tax breaks, cheap debt, and subsidies ROCS
    and carbon credits from renewables and compare them on a levelised
    lifetime basis, then wind is 2-3 times more expensive than nuclear and
    solar about 5 times.

    Just on the basis of the wind and solar farms themselves, not including
    costs that they don't bear, like battery backup grid extensions long DC interconnectors decommissioning and gas backup


    --
    When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over
    the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that
    authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

    Frédéric Bastiat

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to The Natural Philosopher on Thu Jul 4 21:55:59 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 4/07/2024 9:15 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 11:49, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 4/07/2024 7:58 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 10:06, alan_m wrote:
    Another half truth by the industry. It's only cheaper when it works
    and if you ignore the backup required for when it doesn't and the
    extra infrastructure costs required to distribute it.

    It isn't even cheaper then.
    Some of us have run the numbers...

    Per gigawatt a wind turbine is cheaper than a nuclear power station
    but that ignores
    - the shorter lifetime of the windmill
    - the capacity factor of the windmill
    - the massive maintenance cost associated with a windmill.

    But you are happy to ignore the massive costs of providing secure
    storage for nuclear waste for the hundred's of thousands of years it
    take for the longer half-life isotopes to decay into stable isotopes.

    It is not massive.
    In fact its trivial.

    We've needed that kind of repository for some seventy years now, and the
    late Lou Vance, one of my friends from my time as an undergraduate,
    spent most of his post-Ph.D. in Australia's CSIRO Synroc project.

    https://www.ansto.gov.au/news/new-global-first-of-a-kind-ansto-synroc-facility

    We've got the technology. but we still haven't got any repository.

    How long will the concrete bases of wind turbines last?
    Will they ever be returned to Green Field
    Who will pay for it?

    Before you even get into the ancillary crap needed to attempt to make
    a silk purse out of a pigs ear...

    It's actually a sow's ear. And a nuclear power station is no silk purse.

    If you want a flexible power source, a nuclear power station isn't an
    option.

    Of course it is
    More lies

    "The ability of a PWR to run at less than full power for much of the
    time depends on whether it is in the early part of its 18 to 24-month
    refuelling cycle or late in it, and whether it is designed with
    special control rods which diminish power levels throughout the core
    without shutting it down. Thus, though the ability on any individual
    PWR reactor to run on a sustained basis at low power decreases
    markedly as it progresses through the refuelling cycle, there is
    considerable scope for running a fleet of reactors in load-following
    mode. European Utility Requirements (EUR) since 2001 specify that new
    reactor designs must be capable of load-following between 50 and 100%
    of capacity with a rate of change of electric output of 3-5% per
    minute. The economic consequences are mainly due to diminished load
    factor of a capital-intensive plant."

    Old tech. You can design a reactor to load follow, but it doesn't make
    best use of capital when you have any hydro.

    So we are going to spend squillions to develop new tech which will still
    most of the flaws of what we've got now? Grow up.

    Natrium have a perfectly sound idea for this

    https://www.terrapower.com/natrium/

    It's a start-up, founded by Bill Gates, which is looking for venture
    capital.

    https://www.terrapower.com/terrapower-announces-830-million-secured-in-2022/

    I'd wait until somebody from the Linux community got interested.

    Gas turbine power generators are much more flexible, and pumped and
    battery storage is even more flexible.

    You can need quite a bit of it, but that gets figured into price of
    renewable energy, even if you aren't aware of it.

    Battery storage is to replace the spinning mass of conventional
    turbines.

    Ignorant nonsense. Battery-inverter combination are quite fast enough to
    do it very well, and the first big battery anywhere

    https://hornsdalepowerreserve.com.au/

    surprised everybody by making a lot more money out of providing short
    term - cycle to cycle - grid stabilisation services than it did out of
    buying power from the grid when it was cheap and selling it back to grid
    when it wasn't. The longer-term buffer service still made quite enough
    money that the Australian electricity distribution companies are
    investing a lot of capital in buying and installing more of it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowy_2.0_Pumped_Storage_Power_Station

    is the hydro-power version of that, and with 175 hours capacity it's
    huge. It's also coming on a lot more slowly than had been hoped.
    Buying loads of lithium ion batteries and wiring them up is much more predictable process than digging tunnels though rock.

    It has absolutely no ability to keep a solar grid up
    overnight, or wind grid operational in a flat calm.

    If it were big enough, it would. In practice, part of the industrial electricity market is flexible and you seem to be able to negotiate your
    way through the occasional period of flat calm.

    And NONE of this gets figured into the PUBLISHED CLAIMS about wind
    costs, since no wind farm meet the cost of any of it.

    Not that you can cite any such published claim.

    Consumers do instead,

    More unsubstantiated ignorant assertions. You seem to have adopted
    Donald Trump's debating style of inventing your "facts" as you go along.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jul 4 21:17:05 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 4/07/2024 6:17 pm, alan_m wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 04:46, Bill Sloman wrote:

    Inductively coupled charging stations could bury the copper cables
    where they were harder to dig out, and it's not hard to embed a sense
    wire loop in the cable assembly that can generate an alarm as soon as
    the cable is cut.

    This just a reflection of poor engineering design, but neither
    Cursitor Doom nor ZeroHedge have that kind of insight.

    And how big and heavy does the coil on the car have to be for fast
    charging?

    As far as I know it is only used for electric buses at moment, and
    doesn't seem to big or heavy enough to attract attention.

    Magnalev trains need to shift a lot more power through the inductive
    link, and it doesn't seem to make them impractical

    Since a car typically spends spends 95% of its time parked, charging
    doesn't necessarily have to be all that fast.

    Aluminium coils do tend to be bulkier than copper coils, but they are
    quite a bit lighter and cheaper.

    If you had any grasp of engineering design I wouldn't have needed to
    spell this out for you.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RJH@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Thu Jul 4 11:20:13 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 4 Jul 2024 at 11:38:35 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    Not for long. The UK Government relies on the large amounts of fuel tax
    from petrol and diesel. As EVs become more popular this tax revenue
    diminishes. The Government will soon claw it back in one way or another.
    Road fund tax or pay by the mile toll charges etc.

    Think about it - though you wouldn't be peddling this fatuous line if
    you could think. I'm already paying road tolls to use Sydney's freeways.


    Not, I think, to the tune of the >2% of total government revenue fuel tax raises. About £1000/year per household.

    Electricity isn't susceptible to separate taxation in the way that
    internal combustion engine fuel is, and the price advantage is in the
    better efficiency of the energy delivery to the car wheels.

    It's difficult to tell when the government will be kicked into action. At the moment EVs are less than 5%. When this starts to increase, and LGVs and HGVs become electric, something will have to give. The grid probably :-)

    --
    Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Thu Jul 4 12:22:26 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 04/07/2024 12:07, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 4/07/2024 7:55 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 09:25, Bill Sloman wrote:
    What a load of pretentious crap. Renewable energy sources are the
    cheapest power sources around,

    Bless!

    and EV let you travel more cheaply than you can in a car with an
    internal combustion engine.

    Not at today's renewable electricity prices. And disastrous [
    depreciation on EVs

    Evidence?

    https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/news/2024/01/26/used-ev-prices-fall-amid-demand-and-depreciation-concerns/

    Higher depreciation, more expensive to insure, and unselable if te
    battery fails later in life

     If you had any kind
    of clue about engineering design,

    I am a professional engineer with a Cambridge degree in Electrical
    sciences and a lifetime in engineering design
    That;s how I do know what I say is true.

    When I worked at Cambridge Instruments as an electronic engineer I had
    to put up with a lot of clowns like you.

    They had the delusion that their Cambridge degree was of a different
    nature to the kind education offered elsewhere in the world - it was
    heavier on math, but short on connections to reality. The good ones
    could become useful practical engineers, but it took a year or two of de-programming.

    I think iys you that has lost connection with reality
    Like all peole whi are a little bit smart, you try to make yourself
    smarter by jumping on technbical bandwagons and parroitig stuff you read somewhere instead of actually doing Real Sums
    I was an apprentice on the shop floor before I went to Cambridge

    EMI Central Research was less infested with the sub-species, and rather
    more efficient at the de-programming.

    Chip on the shoulder eh?

    you'd be aware of that, but you are a
    right-wing twit in the Cursitor Doom and John Larkin style and lap up
    all the right-wing propganda aimed at twits like you.

    Projection.  He's swallowed the eco koolaid.
    Facts no longer matter, Pure Faith will see him thorough.

    And how many papers have you published in peer-reviewed scientific
    journals? You post under a pseudonym, so can't make that claim at all.

    I am a working enguineer. We dont write 'peer reviewed papers' That's
    for those academics you so despise.

    We prioduce designs that work, at acceptable cost, reliability and safety



    Oh dear. I suspect I know far more about real science than you do.

    Of course you do. You have the delusion that your Cambridge degree was
    of a different and superior nature to the kind education offered
    elsewhere in the world, but the difference is largely confined to
    boosting your opinion of yourself and your fellow students, plus a bit
    of English snobbery about people who get their hands onto the equipment
    they work on, rather than relying on mathematical modelling.


    HUGE chip. Have youread e.g. Karl Popper?
    Did you understand it?


    --
    “Ideas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of
    other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance"

    - John K Galbraith

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to All on Thu Jul 4 06:09:56 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 09:17:42 +0100, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk>
    wrote:

    On 04/07/2024 04:46, Bill Sloman wrote:

    Inductively coupled charging stations could bury the copper cables where
    they were harder to dig out, and it's not hard to embed a sense wire
    loop in the cable assembly that can generate an alarm as soon as the
    cable is cut.

    This just a reflection of poor engineering design, but neither Cursitor
    Doom nor ZeroHedge have that kind of insight.


    And how big and heavy does the coil on the car have to be for fast charging?

    Good point. It will have a lot of copper. While guys are under your
    car stealing the catalytic converter, they may as well nab the
    charging coil too.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From charles@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Thu Jul 4 13:15:04 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    In article <v660bs$2nm1f$4@dont-email.me>,
    Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
    On 4/07/2024 6:17 pm, alan_m wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 04:46, Bill Sloman wrote:

    Inductively coupled charging stations could bury the copper cables
    where they were harder to dig out, and it's not hard to embed a sense
    wire loop in the cable assembly that can generate an alarm as soon as
    the cable is cut.

    This just a reflection of poor engineering design, but neither
    Cursitor Doom nor ZeroHedge have that kind of insight.

    And how big and heavy does the coil on the car have to be for fast charging?

    As far as I know it is only used for electric buses at moment, and
    doesn't seem to big or heavy enough to attract attention.

    Magnalev trains need to shift a lot more power through the inductive
    link, and it doesn't seem to make them impractical

    Since a car typically spends spends 95% of its time parked, charging
    doesn't necessarily have to be all that fast.

    Yes, but when my EV is away from home. I'm probably on a long journey and require fast charging then.

    Aluminium coils do tend to be bulkier than copper coils, but they are
    quite a bit lighter and cheaper.

    If you had any grasp of engineering design I wouldn't have needed to
    spell this out for you.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --
    from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4t
    "I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@21:1/5 to charles on Thu Jul 4 14:18:42 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 04/07/2024 14:15, charles wrote:
    'm also a Cambridge educated Engineer. I believe in "real world"
    engineering.

    Yebbut not the Universwity eh?

    You cant 'real; world' engineer things that have never been built before.
    Like all renewable grids
    You have to analyse them from first principles
    No one ever did bar me,and a couple of other private individuals which
    is why the whole thing is such a fucking mess.


    --
    No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to All on Thu Jul 4 06:16:22 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:10:41 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 4 Jul 2024 at 10:58:07 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

    On 04/07/2024 10:06, alan_m wrote:
    Another half truth by the industry. It's only cheaper when it works and
    if you ignore the backup required for when it doesn't and the extra
    infrastructure costs required to distribute it.

    It isn't even cheaper then.
    Some of us have run the numbers...


    Care to share ;-)

    Per gigawatt a wind turbine is cheaper than a nuclear power station but
    that ignores
    - the shorter lifetime of the windmill
    - the capacity factor of the windmill
    - the massive maintenance cost associated with a windmill.


    I find it hard to believe that the revenue costs (per unit of electricity) of >a wind turbine exceeds those of nuclear.

    What do you mean by "unit of electricity" ?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@21:1/5 to john larkin on Thu Jul 4 14:19:45 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 04/07/2024 14:16, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:10:41 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>

    I find it hard to believe that the revenue costs (per unit of electricity) of
    a wind turbine exceeds those of nuclear.

    What do you mean by "unit of electricity" ?

    one kWh is a 'unit of electricity'

    --
    No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to tnp@invalid.invalid on Thu Jul 4 06:21:43 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:22:26 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 04/07/2024 12:07, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 4/07/2024 7:55 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 09:25, Bill Sloman wrote:
    What a load of pretentious crap. Renewable energy sources are the
    cheapest power sources around,

    Bless!

    and EV let you travel more cheaply than you can in a car with an
    internal combustion engine.

    Not at today's renewable electricity prices. And disastrous [
    depreciation on EVs

    Evidence?
    https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/news/2024/01/26/used-ev-prices-fall-amid-demand-and-depreciation-concerns/

    Higher depreciation, more expensive to insure, and unselable if te
    battery fails later in life

    If you had any kind
    of clue about engineering design,

    I am a professional engineer with a Cambridge degree in Electrical
    sciences and a lifetime in engineering design
    That;s how I do know what I say is true.

    When I worked at Cambridge Instruments as an electronic engineer I had
    to put up with a lot of clowns like you.

    They had the delusion that their Cambridge degree was of a different
    nature to the kind education offered elsewhere in the world - it was
    heavier on math, but short on connections to reality. The good ones
    could become useful practical engineers, but it took a year or two of
    de-programming.

    I think iys you that has lost connection with reality
    Like all peole whi are a little bit smart, you try to make yourself
    smarter by jumping on technbical bandwagons and parroitig stuff you read >somewhere instead of actually doing Real Sums
    I was an apprentice on the shop floor before I went to Cambridge

    EMI Central Research was less infested with the sub-species, and rather
    more efficient at the de-programming.

    Chip on the shoulder eh?

    you'd be aware of that, but you are a
    right-wing twit in the Cursitor Doom and John Larkin style and lap up
    all the right-wing propganda aimed at twits like you.

    Projection. He's swallowed the eco koolaid.
    Facts no longer matter, Pure Faith will see him thorough.

    And how many papers have you published in peer-reviewed scientific
    journals? You post under a pseudonym, so can't make that claim at all.

    I am a working enguineer. We dont write 'peer reviewed papers' That's
    for those academics you so despise.

    We prioduce designs that work, at acceptable cost, reliability and safety

    We prefer purchase orders to citations.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Thu Jul 4 14:23:09 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 13:46:59 +1000
    Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:



    and it's not hard to embed a sense
    wire loop in the cable assembly that can generate an alarm as soon as
    the cable is cut.


    No engineer would do that, knowing that it would be wastage of time and materials. Nobody would pay any attention to an alarm, least of all the
    police. We're not living in the twentieth century now.

    --
    Joe

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Smolley@21:1/5 to john larkin on Thu Jul 4 13:58:44 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 06:28:51 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 14:19:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 04/07/2024 14:16, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:10:41 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>

    I find it hard to believe that the revenue costs (per unit of
    electricity) of a wind turbine exceeds those of nuclear.

    What do you mean by "unit of electricity" ?

    one kWh is a 'unit of electricity'

    Well, so is a watt or a volt or an amp or a coulomb. People,
    especially journalists, are often fuzzy about units.

    One of my favorites that I see in the press is kW/h.

    One kWh is nearly 3.6 million joules of energy.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to tnp@invalid.invalid on Thu Jul 4 06:28:51 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 14:19:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 04/07/2024 14:16, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:10:41 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>

    I find it hard to believe that the revenue costs (per unit of electricity) of
    a wind turbine exceeds those of nuclear.

    What do you mean by "unit of electricity" ?

    one kWh is a 'unit of electricity'

    Well, so is a watt or a volt or an amp or a coulomb. People,
    especially journalists, are often fuzzy about units.

    One of my favorites that I see in the press is kW/h.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From alan_m@21:1/5 to john larkin on Thu Jul 4 15:05:37 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 04/07/2024 14:09, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 09:17:42 +0100, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk>
    wrote:

    On 04/07/2024 04:46, Bill Sloman wrote:

    Inductively coupled charging stations could bury the copper cables where >>> they were harder to dig out, and it's not hard to embed a sense wire
    loop in the cable assembly that can generate an alarm as soon as the
    cable is cut.

    This just a reflection of poor engineering design, but neither Cursitor
    Doom nor ZeroHedge have that kind of insight.


    And how big and heavy does the coil on the car have to be for fast charging?

    Good point. It will have a lot of copper. While guys are under your
    car stealing the catalytic converter, they may as well nab the
    charging coil too.



    Do EVs have catalytic converters (when hybrids are also banned)

    --
    mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From alan_m@21:1/5 to Joe on Thu Jul 4 15:07:03 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 04/07/2024 14:23, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 13:46:59 +1000
    Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:



    and it's not hard to embed a sense
    wire loop in the cable assembly that can generate an alarm as soon as
    the cable is cut.


    No engineer would do that, knowing that it would be wastage of time and materials. Nobody would pay any attention to an alarm, least of all the police. We're not living in the twentieth century now.



    The car alarm in a public place is the most ignored warning :)


    --
    mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to Smolley on Thu Jul 4 07:11:15 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 13:58:44 -0000 (UTC), Smolley <me@rest.uk> wrote:

    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 06:28:51 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 14:19:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 04/07/2024 14:16, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:10:41 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>

    I find it hard to believe that the revenue costs (per unit of
    electricity) of a wind turbine exceeds those of nuclear.

    What do you mean by "unit of electricity" ?

    one kWh is a 'unit of electricity'

    Well, so is a watt or a volt or an amp or a coulomb. People,
    especially journalists, are often fuzzy about units.

    One of my favorites that I see in the press is kW/h.

    One kWh is nearly 3.6 million joules of energy.

    And a kW/h is the rate of change of power.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to All on Thu Jul 4 07:12:27 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 15:05:37 +0100, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk>
    wrote:

    On 04/07/2024 14:09, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 09:17:42 +0100, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk>
    wrote:

    On 04/07/2024 04:46, Bill Sloman wrote:

    Inductively coupled charging stations could bury the copper cables where >>>> they were harder to dig out, and it's not hard to embed a sense wire
    loop in the cable assembly that can generate an alarm as soon as the
    cable is cut.

    This just a reflection of poor engineering design, but neither Cursitor >>>> Doom nor ZeroHedge have that kind of insight.


    And how big and heavy does the coil on the car have to be for fast charging?

    Good point. It will have a lot of copper. While guys are under your
    car stealing the catalytic converter, they may as well nab the
    charging coil too.



    Do EVs have catalytic converters (when hybrids are also banned)

    Let's assume it's a hybrid.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Smolley@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Thu Jul 4 14:11:54 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 4/07/2024 9:15 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 11:49, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 4/07/2024 7:58 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 10:06, alan_m wrote:
    Another half truth by the industry. It's only cheaper when it works
    and if you ignore the backup required for when it doesn't and the
    extra infrastructure costs required to distribute it.

    It isn't even cheaper then.
    Some of us have run the numbers...

    Per gigawatt a wind turbine is cheaper than a nuclear power station
    but that ignores - the shorter lifetime of the windmill - the
    capacity factor of the windmill - the massive maintenance cost
    associated with a windmill.

    But you are happy to ignore the massive costs of providing secure
    storage for nuclear waste for the hundred's of thousands of years it
    take for the longer half-life isotopes to decay into stable isotopes.

    It is not massive.
    In fact its trivial.

    We've needed that kind of repository for some seventy years now, and the
    late Lou Vance, one of my friends from my time as an undergraduate,
    spent most of his post-Ph.D. in Australia's CSIRO Synroc project.

    https://www.ansto.gov.au/news/new-global-first-of-a-kind-ansto-synroc-facility

    We've got the technology. but we still haven't got any repository.

    How long will the concrete bases of wind turbines last?
    Will they ever be returned to Green Field Who will pay for it?

    Before you even get into the ancillary crap needed to attempt to make
    a silk purse out of a pigs ear...

    It's actually a sow's ear. And a nuclear power station is no silk
    purse.

    If you want a flexible power source, a nuclear power station isn't an
    option.

    Of course it is More lies

    "The ability of a PWR to run at less than full power for much of the
    time depends on whether it is in the early part of its 18 to 24-month
    refuelling cycle or late in it, and whether it is designed with
    special control rods which diminish power levels throughout the core
    without shutting it down. Thus, though the ability on any individual
    PWR reactor to run on a sustained basis at low power decreases
    markedly as it progresses through the refuelling cycle, there is
    considerable scope for running a fleet of reactors in load-following
    mode. European Utility Requirements (EUR) since 2001 specify that new
    reactor designs must be capable of load-following between 50 and 100%
    of capacity with a rate of change of electric output of 3-5% per
    minute. The economic consequences are mainly due to diminished load
    factor of a capital-intensive plant."

    Old tech. You can design a reactor to load follow, but it doesn't make
    best use of capital when you have any hydro.

    So we are going to spend squillions to develop new tech which will still
    most of the flaws of what we've got now? Grow up.

    Natrium have a perfectly sound idea for this

    https://www.terrapower.com/natrium/

    It's a start-up, founded by Bill Gates, which is looking for venture
    capital.

    https://www.terrapower.com/terrapower-announces-830-million-secured-in-2022/

    I'd wait until somebody from the Linux community got interested.

    Gas turbine power generators are much more flexible, and pumped and
    battery storage is even more flexible.

    You can need quite a bit of it, but that gets figured into price of
    renewable energy, even if you aren't aware of it.

    Battery storage is to replace the spinning mass of conventional
    turbines.

    Ignorant nonsense. Battery-inverter combination are quite fast enough to
    do it very well, and the first big battery anywhere

    https://hornsdalepowerreserve.com.au/

    surprised everybody by making a lot more money out of providing short
    term - cycle to cycle - grid stabilisation services than it did out of
    buying power from the grid when it was cheap and selling it back to grid
    when it wasn't. The longer-term buffer service still made quite enough
    money that the Australian electricity distribution companies are
    investing a lot of capital in buying and installing more of it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowy_2.0_Pumped_Storage_Power_Station

    is the hydro-power version of that, and with 175 hours capacity it's
    huge. It's also coming on a lot more slowly than had been hoped.
    Buying loads of lithium ion batteries and wiring them up is much more predictable process than digging tunnels though rock.

    It has absolutely no ability to keep a solar grid up overnight, or wind
    grid operational in a flat calm.

    If it were big enough, it would. In practice, part of the industrial electricity market is flexible and you seem to be able to negotiate your
    way through the occasional period of flat calm.

    And NONE of this gets figured into the PUBLISHED CLAIMS about wind
    costs, since no wind farm meet the cost of any of it.

    Not that you can cite any such published claim.

    Consumers do instead,

    More unsubstantiated ignorant assertions. You seem to have adopted
    Donald Trump's debating style of inventing your "facts" as you go along.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    Technology will arrive where the nuclear waste can be transported to the sun.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to The Natural Philosopher on Fri Jul 5 00:29:52 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 4/07/2024 9:52 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 12:10, RJH wrote:
    On 4 Jul 2024 at 10:58:07 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

    <snip>

    Some of us have run the numbers...

    Care to share ;-)

    He won't. He is lying twit.

    Per gigawatt a wind turbine is cheaper than a nuclear power station but
    that ignores
    - the shorter lifetime of the windmill
    - the capacity factor of the windmill
    - the massive maintenance cost associated with a windmill.

    None of which you have ever bothered to document.

    I find it hard to believe that the revenue costs (per unit of
    electricity) of a wind turbine exceeds those of nuclear.

    Its not open to belief. Its open to FACT

    None of which you have bothered to find or point us at. Inventing them
    takes a lot less effort.

    But you need to have some understanding of finance and accounting.

    Most people. do But the world is full of clowns who think that they get
    away with pretending that they do to justify all sorts of stupid delusions.

    If you can borrow money at 5% because there is a 'green' fund, and your income is GUARANTEED by government, you are at a considerable advantage
    over a nuclear company who has to borrow at market rates, and with a
    possible premium because the risk of nuclear being stopped by the next government is very real as happened in Germany where Vattenfall EON and
    RWE successfully sued the german government for billions for breach of contract...

    ..then naturally the costs will be far higher.

    But the period when wind turbines got subsidised is long past.

    But if you remove all the tax breaks, cheap debt, and subsidies  ROCS
    and carbon credits from renewables and compare them on a levelised
    lifetime basis,  then wind is 2-3 times more expensive than nuclear and solar about 5 times.

    Except that you haven't documented any of these imagined subsidies.

    Just on the basis of the wind and solar farms themselves, not including
    costs that they don't bear, like battery backup, grid extensions, long DC interconnectors  decommissioning and gas backup

    People were building long DC links long before renewables were a thing.

    When I was a kid the UK and France strung a long cable across the
    English channel to exploit the difference in the timing of the peak
    demand on either side.

    https://www.nationalgrid.com/national-grid-launches-viking-link-next-step-towards-north-sea-super-grid

    is still justified on the basis that it will be sending current both
    ways across the North Sea, though it also picks up power generated in
    off-shore wind farms along the route. They aren't "extra costs" but
    rather part of the system.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney






    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Fri Jul 5 00:33:02 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 4/07/2024 11:16 pm, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:10:41 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 4 Jul 2024 at 10:58:07 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

    On 04/07/2024 10:06, alan_m wrote:
    Another half truth by the industry. It's only cheaper when it works and >>>> if you ignore the backup required for when it doesn't and the extra
    infrastructure costs required to distribute it.

    It isn't even cheaper then.
    Some of us have run the numbers...


    Care to share ;-)

    Per gigawatt a wind turbine is cheaper than a nuclear power station but
    that ignores
    - the shorter lifetime of the windmill
    - the capacity factor of the windmill
    - the massive maintenance cost associated with a windmill.


    I find it hard to believe that the revenue costs (per unit of electricity) of
    a wind turbine exceeds those of nuclear.

    What do you mean by "unit of electricity" ?

    Kilowatt.hours and MegaWatt.hours seem to be popular. Alan m doesn't
    seem to be all that technical.

    --
    Bill Sloman,



    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jethro_uk@21:1/5 to Smolley on Thu Jul 4 14:40:27 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:11:54 +0000, Smolley wrote:

    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 4/07/2024 9:15 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 11:49, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 4/07/2024 7:58 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 10:06, alan_m wrote:
    Another half truth by the industry. It's only cheaper when it works >>>>>> and if you ignore the backup required for when it doesn't and the
    extra infrastructure costs required to distribute it.

    It isn't even cheaper then.
    Some of us have run the numbers...

    Per gigawatt a wind turbine is cheaper than a nuclear power station
    but that ignores - the shorter lifetime of the windmill - the
    capacity factor of the windmill - the massive maintenance cost
    associated with a windmill.

    But you are happy to ignore the massive costs of providing secure
    storage for nuclear waste for the hundred's of thousands of years it
    take for the longer half-life isotopes to decay into stable isotopes.

    It is not massive.
    In fact its trivial.

    We've needed that kind of repository for some seventy years now, and
    the late Lou Vance, one of my friends from my time as an undergraduate,
    spent most of his post-Ph.D. in Australia's CSIRO Synroc project.

    https://www.ansto.gov.au/news/new-global-first-of-a-kind-ansto-synroc- facility

    We've got the technology. but we still haven't got any repository.

    How long will the concrete bases of wind turbines last?
    Will they ever be returned to Green Field Who will pay for it?

    Before you even get into the ancillary crap needed to attempt to
    make a silk purse out of a pigs ear...

    It's actually a sow's ear. And a nuclear power station is no silk
    purse.

    If you want a flexible power source, a nuclear power station isn't an
    option.

    Of course it is More lies

    "The ability of a PWR to run at less than full power for much of the
    time depends on whether it is in the early part of its 18 to 24-month
    refuelling cycle or late in it, and whether it is designed with
    special control rods which diminish power levels throughout the core
    without shutting it down. Thus, though the ability on any individual
    PWR reactor to run on a sustained basis at low power decreases
    markedly as it progresses through the refuelling cycle, there is
    considerable scope for running a fleet of reactors in load-following
    mode. European Utility Requirements (EUR) since 2001 specify that new
    reactor designs must be capable of load-following between 50 and 100%
    of capacity with a rate of change of electric output of 3-5% per
    minute. The economic consequences are mainly due to diminished load
    factor of a capital-intensive plant."

    Old tech. You can design a reactor to load follow, but it doesn't make
    best use of capital when you have any hydro.

    So we are going to spend squillions to develop new tech which will
    still most of the flaws of what we've got now? Grow up.

    Natrium have a perfectly sound idea for this

    https://www.terrapower.com/natrium/

    It's a start-up, founded by Bill Gates, which is looking for venture
    capital.

    https://www.terrapower.com/terrapower-announces-830-million-secured- in-2022/

    I'd wait until somebody from the Linux community got interested.

    Gas turbine power generators are much more flexible, and pumped and
    battery storage is even more flexible.

    You can need quite a bit of it, but that gets figured into price of
    renewable energy, even if you aren't aware of it.

    Battery storage is to replace the spinning mass of conventional
    turbines.

    Ignorant nonsense. Battery-inverter combination are quite fast enough
    to do it very well, and the first big battery anywhere

    https://hornsdalepowerreserve.com.au/

    surprised everybody by making a lot more money out of providing short
    term - cycle to cycle - grid stabilisation services than it did out of
    buying power from the grid when it was cheap and selling it back to
    grid when it wasn't. The longer-term buffer service still made quite
    enough money that the Australian electricity distribution companies are
    investing a lot of capital in buying and installing more of it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowy_2.0_Pumped_Storage_Power_Station

    is the hydro-power version of that, and with 175 hours capacity it's
    huge. It's also coming on a lot more slowly than had been hoped.
    Buying loads of lithium ion batteries and wiring them up is much more
    predictable process than digging tunnels though rock.

    It has absolutely no ability to keep a solar grid up overnight, or
    wind grid operational in a flat calm.

    If it were big enough, it would. In practice, part of the industrial
    electricity market is flexible and you seem to be able to negotiate
    your way through the occasional period of flat calm.

    And NONE of this gets figured into the PUBLISHED CLAIMS about wind
    costs, since no wind farm meet the cost of any of it.

    Not that you can cite any such published claim.

    Consumers do instead,

    More unsubstantiated ignorant assertions. You seem to have adopted
    Donald Trump's debating style of inventing your "facts" as you go
    along.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    Technology will arrive where the nuclear waste can be transported to the
    sun.

    Are you aware of the mechanics involved ?

    I take it from the fact you suggested it you aren't.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to charles on Fri Jul 5 00:40:36 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 4/07/2024 11:15 pm, charles wrote:
    In article <v660bs$2nm1f$4@dont-email.me>,
    Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
    On 4/07/2024 6:17 pm, alan_m wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 04:46, Bill Sloman wrote:

    Inductively coupled charging stations could bury the copper cables
    where they were harder to dig out, and it's not hard to embed a sense
    wire loop in the cable assembly that can generate an alarm as soon as
    the cable is cut.

    This just a reflection of poor engineering design, but neither
    Cursitor Doom nor ZeroHedge have that kind of insight.

    And how big and heavy does the coil on the car have to be for fast
    charging?

    As far as I know it is only used for electric buses at moment, and
    doesn't seem to big or heavy enough to attract attention.

    Magnalev trains need to shift a lot more power through the inductive
    link, and it doesn't seem to make them impractical

    Since a car typically spends spends 95% of its time parked, charging
    doesn't necessarily have to be all that fast.

    Yes, but when my EV is away from home. I'm probably on a long journey and require fast charging then.

    Being able to charge an electric car by parking it over an inductive
    charger doesn't stop you fast charging it through a plug-in cable.

    Equipping the car for both may cost more money, but a socket for a
    plug-in cable won't be expensive, and enough customers are going to want
    to have the option available that there's always going to be an easily
    (and cheaply) fitted option.

    Aluminium coils do tend to be bulkier than copper coils, but they are
    quite a bit lighter and cheaper.

    If you had any grasp of engineering design I wouldn't have needed to
    spell this out for you.

    --

    Bill Sloman, Sydney



    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Fri Jul 5 00:46:39 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 4/07/2024 11:09 pm, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 09:17:42 +0100, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk>
    wrote:

    On 04/07/2024 04:46, Bill Sloman wrote:

    Inductively coupled charging stations could bury the copper cables where >>> they were harder to dig out, and it's not hard to embed a sense wire
    loop in the cable assembly that can generate an alarm as soon as the
    cable is cut.

    This just a reflection of poor engineering design, but neither Cursitor
    Doom nor ZeroHedge have that kind of insight.


    And how big and heavy does the coil on the car have to be for fast charging?

    Good point. It will have a lot of copper. While guys are under your
    car stealing the catalytic converter, they may as well nab the
    charging coil too.

    The charging coil is going wrapped around the periphery of the car - the
    more receiving area you have the better it works.

    The thieves that rip it off will have to make a lot more noise and move
    a lot more bulk than the ones that go after catalytic converters.

    Catalytic converter theft doesn't seem to be a thing in Sydney. I
    certainly don't see an alarmist reports in the local newspapers or on TV.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jul 5 00:47:47 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 5/07/2024 12:05 am, alan_m wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 14:09, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 09:17:42 +0100, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk>
    wrote:

    On 04/07/2024 04:46, Bill Sloman wrote:

    Inductively coupled charging stations could bury the copper cables
    where
    they were harder to dig out, and it's not hard to embed a sense wire
    loop in the cable assembly that can generate an alarm as soon as the
    cable is cut.

    This just a reflection of poor engineering design, but neither Cursitor >>>> Doom nor ZeroHedge have that kind of insight.


    And how big and heavy does the coil on the car have to be for fast
    charging?

    Good point. It will have a lot of copper. While guys are under your
    car stealing the catalytic converter, they may as well nab the
    charging coil too.



    Do EVs have catalytic converters (when hybrids are also banned).

    What a stupid question.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney



    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Joe on Fri Jul 5 00:51:24 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 4/07/2024 11:23 pm, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 13:46:59 +1000
    Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:



    and it's not hard to embed a sense
    wire loop in the cable assembly that can generate an alarm as soon as
    the cable is cut.


    No engineer would do that, knowing that it would be wastage of time and materials. Nobody would pay any attention to an alarm, least of all the police. We're not living in the twentieth century now.

    But you haven't made it to the 21st century yet. Put a 5G phone in the
    alarm system, and the police get notified automatically (with pictures
    of the crime scene while the crime is in progress).

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney



    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jul 5 00:53:44 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 5/07/2024 12:07 am, alan_m wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 14:23, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 13:46:59 +1000
    Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:



      and it's not hard to embed a sense
    wire loop in the cable assembly that can generate an alarm as soon as
    the cable is cut.


    No engineer would do that, knowing that it would be wastage of time and
    materials. Nobody would pay any attention to an alarm, least of all the
    police. We're not living in the twentieth century now.

    The car alarm in a public place is the most ignored warning :)

    But with 5G phone links and artificial intelligence, the alarm can be
    sent to places where it will get attention, not that you'd know anything
    about that.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney



    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to Smolley on Thu Jul 4 17:04:12 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 7/4/24 16:11, Smolley wrote:
    [...]

    Technology will arrive where the nuclear waste can be transported to the sun.

    I sure hope not.

    First, transporting anything to the sun is *very*
    expensive. You'd need a delta-v of about 30km/s.

    Second, putting radioactive waste on top of a vehicle
    with a track record of blowing up unpredictably and
    spectacularly is pure madness.

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Fri Jul 5 01:02:07 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 4/07/2024 11:21 pm, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:22:26 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 12:07, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 4/07/2024 7:55 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 09:25, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    We prefer purchase orders to citations.

    So does everybody. In your case it's just as well. You totally lack the
    skills required to put together a paper that might get published in a peer-reviewed journal.

    Cambridge Instruments did like to submit papers at conferences and
    publish them in more-or-less peer-reviewed journals, and I did a bit of
    that, but I did dislike what marketing did to the papers to get the
    publicity they wanted, and so did the editors and referees of quality
    journals.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney



    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mm0fmf@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Thu Jul 4 16:10:41 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 04/07/2024 15:47, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 12:05 am, alan_m wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 14:09, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 09:17:42 +0100, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk>
    wrote:

    On 04/07/2024 04:46, Bill Sloman wrote:

    Inductively coupled charging stations could bury the copper cables
    where
    they were harder to dig out, and it's not hard to embed a sense wire >>>>> loop in the cable assembly that can generate an alarm as soon as the >>>>> cable is cut.

    This just a reflection of poor engineering design, but neither
    Cursitor
    Doom nor ZeroHedge have that kind of insight.


    And how big and heavy does the coil on the car have to be for fast
    charging?

    Good point. It will have a lot of copper. While guys are under your
    car stealing the catalytic converter, they may as well nab the
    charging coil too.



    Do EVs have catalytic converters (when hybrids are also banned).

    What a stupid question.

    Dear Mr. Sloman, if you want to be taken seriously then you need drop
    the comment Norton is adding to your messages. Nobody with clue uses any
    Norton products in 2024.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From alan_m@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Thu Jul 4 15:47:44 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 04/07/2024 15:33, Bill Sloman wrote:

    Kilowatt.hours and MegaWatt.hours seem to be popular. Alan m doesn't
    seem to be all that technical.

    You would be wrong, but I haven't mentioned anything about kW, kWh etc.

    --
    mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe@21:1/5 to Smolley on Thu Jul 4 16:22:32 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 14:11:54 -0000 (UTC)
    Smolley <me@rest.uk> wrote:



    Technology will arrive where the nuclear waste can be transported to
    the sun.

    If it's dangerous, it must be emitting energy. Why are we burying free
    energy?

    --
    Joe

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@21:1/5 to john larkin on Thu Jul 4 16:37:50 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 04/07/2024 14:28, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 14:19:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 04/07/2024 14:16, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:10:41 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>

    I find it hard to believe that the revenue costs (per unit of electricity) of
    a wind turbine exceeds those of nuclear.

    What do you mean by "unit of electricity" ?

    one kWh is a 'unit of electricity'

    Well, so is a watt or a volt or an amp or a coulomb.
    No those are units of electricty. The kWh is THE unit of electricity
    People,
    especially journalists, are often fuzzy about units.

    As it seems are you

    One of my favorites that I see in the press is kW/h.


    --
    “The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that
    the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."

    - Bertrand Russell

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Thu Jul 4 16:20:34 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 00:53:44 +1000
    Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

    On 5/07/2024 12:07 am, alan_m wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 14:23, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 13:46:59 +1000
    Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:



      and it's not hard to embed a sense
    wire loop in the cable assembly that can generate an alarm as
    soon as the cable is cut.


    No engineer would do that, knowing that it would be wastage of
    time and materials. Nobody would pay any attention to an alarm,
    least of all the police. We're not living in the twentieth century
    now.

    The car alarm in a public place is the most ignored warning :)

    But with 5G phone links and artificial intelligence, the alarm can be
    sent to places where it will get attention, not that you'd know
    anything about that.


    Attention from.... who, exactly? The police in my country are all too
    busy watching screens for mean tweets. In the US, thieves are
    considered fine, upstanding and often oppressed people, who certainly
    shouldn't be bothered by nasty law-enforcers.

    --
    Joe

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Thu Jul 4 16:26:17 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 00:33:02 +1000
    Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

    On 4/07/2024 11:16 pm, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:10:41 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 4 Jul 2024 at 10:58:07 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

    On 04/07/2024 10:06, alan_m wrote:
    Another half truth by the industry. It's only cheaper when it
    works and if you ignore the backup required for when it doesn't
    and the extra infrastructure costs required to distribute it.

    It isn't even cheaper then.
    Some of us have run the numbers...


    Care to share ;-)

    Per gigawatt a wind turbine is cheaper than a nuclear power
    station but that ignores
    - the shorter lifetime of the windmill
    - the capacity factor of the windmill
    - the massive maintenance cost associated with a windmill.


    I find it hard to believe that the revenue costs (per unit of
    electricity) of a wind turbine exceeds those of nuclear.

    What do you mean by "unit of electricity" ?

    Kilowatt.hours and MegaWatt.hours seem to be popular. Alan m doesn't
    seem to be all that technical.


    The 'unit' of electricity has featured on UK electricity bills since
    before I was born, and has always been 1kWh. It should really be
    capitalised to distinguish it from other, generic, units.

    --
    Joe

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to The Natural Philosopher on Fri Jul 5 01:38:34 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 4/07/2024 9:22 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 12:07, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 4/07/2024 7:55 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 09:25, Bill Sloman wrote:
    What a load of pretentious crap. Renewable energy sources are the
    cheapest power sources around,

    Bless!

    and EV let you travel more cheaply than you can in a car with an
    internal combustion engine.
    ;
    Not at today's renewable electricity prices. And disastrous [
    depreciation on EVs

    Evidence?

    https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/news/2024/01/26/used-ev-prices-fall-amid-demand-and-depreciation-concerns/

    Higher depreciation, more expensive to insure, and unselable if te
    battery fails later in life.

    Investor's Chromicle? The internal combustion industry spreads that sort
    of propaganda when they see their sales falling. Sucker like you take it seriously.

     If you had any kind
    of clue about engineering design,
    ;
    I am a professional engineer with a Cambridge degree in Electrical
    sciences and a lifetime in engineering design
    That;s how I do know what I say is true.

    When I worked at Cambridge Instruments as an electronic engineer I had
    to put up with a lot of clowns like you.

    They had the delusion that their Cambridge degree was of a different
    nature to the kind education offered elsewhere in the world - it was
    heavier on math, but short on connections to reality. The good ones
    could become useful practical engineers, but it took a year or two of
    de-programming.

    I think is you that has lost connection with reality.

    You may like to think that.

    Like all peole whi are a little bit smart, you try to make yourself
    smarter by jumping on technical bandwagons and parroting stuff you read somewhere instead of actually doing Real Sums.

    That isn't a way of getting your name on a patent.

    https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?start=10&q=%22a+w+sloman%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2007

    will pick patents if you click on the "include patents"box in the left
    hand column. I've got my name on three.

    I was an apprentice on the shop floor before I went to Cambridge.

    Big deal.

    EMI Central Research was less infested with the sub-species, and
    rather more efficient at the de-programming.

    Chip on the shoulder eh?

    Not that anybody has complained about. I got on fine with my boss at EMI
    (who was six months younger than I was) and had a Ph.D. from Edinburgh
    and had some 25 patents to his name, and I still swap e-mails with him
    from time to time, and a couple of my other colleagues. The Scot who
    went to Oxford was just as practical and as easy to get on with.

    you'd be aware of that, but you are a
    right-wing twit in the Cursitor Doom and John Larkin style and lap
    up all the right-wing propganda aimed at twits like you.

    Projection.  He's swallowed the eco koolaid.
    Facts no longer matter, Pure Faith will see him thorough.

    And how many papers have you published in peer-reviewed scientific
    journals? You post under a pseudonym, so can't make that claim at all.

    I am a working engineer. We don't write 'peer reviewed papers' That's
    for those academics you so despise.

    I certainly don't despise academics. I married one, and she has done
    very well (but I've had to promise not to identify her here).

    We produce designs that work, at acceptable cost, reliability and safety.

    So does John Larkin. You don't stay in business if you don't.
    Some people can improve on that level of design.

    Phil Hobbs seems to be one of them.

    Oh dear. I suspect I know far more about real science than you do.

    Of course you do. You have the delusion that your Cambridge degree was
    of a different and superior nature to the kind education offered
    elsewhere in the world, but the difference is largely confined to
    boosting your opinion of yourself and your fellow students, plus a bit
    of English snobbery about people who get their hands onto the
    equipment they work on, rather than relying on mathematical modelling.


    HUGE chip. Have you read e.g. Karl Popper?
    Did you understand it?

    I preferred

    https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo19722848.html

    My father bought a copy when it was first published, and I first read it
    when I was too young to get a lot of the content. I met Michael
    Polanyi's son when I was a post-doc chemist, but didn't get to talk to
    him about the book.

    Popper and "falsification" are handy clubs to use to beat up pretentious
    twits, but the business of working out and testing useful hypothesis is
    rather more complicated than that.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney




    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From charles@21:1/5 to The Natural Philosopher on Thu Jul 4 15:45:03 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    In article <v667fi$2najh$10@dont-email.me>,
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 14:15, charles wrote:
    'm also a Cambridge educated Engineer. I believe in "real world" engineering.

    Yebbut not the Universwity eh?
    Yes, at the University - I have my MA certificate somewhere.


    You cant 'real; world' engineer things that have never been built before. Like all renewable grids

    Yes, of course you can. You have to consider all the possible problems as
    well as the benefits.

    You have to analyse them from first principles
    No one ever did bar me,and a couple of other private individuals which
    is why the whole thing is such a fucking mess.

    --
    from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4t
    "I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From alan_m@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Thu Jul 4 16:43:27 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 04/07/2024 15:53, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 12:07 am, alan_m wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 14:23, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 13:46:59 +1000
    Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:



      and it's not hard to embed a sense
    wire loop in the cable assembly that can generate an alarm as soon as
    the cable is cut.


    No engineer would do that, knowing that it would be wastage of time and
    materials. Nobody would pay any attention to an alarm, least of all the
    police. We're not living in the twentieth century now.

    The car alarm in a public place is the most ignored warning :)

    But with 5G phone links and artificial intelligence, the alarm can be
    sent to places where it will get attention, not that you'd know anything about that.


    And who do you think is going to come out to the millions of false
    alarms, and how fast?



    --
    mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Thu Jul 4 16:43:21 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 04/07/2024 15:29, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 4/07/2024 9:52 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 12:10, RJH wrote:
    On 4 Jul 2024 at 10:58:07 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

    <snip>

    Some of us have run the numbers...

    Care to share ;-)

    He won't. He is lying twit.

    Per gigawatt a wind turbine is cheaper than a nuclear power station but >>>> that ignores
    - the shorter lifetime of the windmill
    - the capacity factor of the windmill
    - the massive maintenance cost associated with a windmill.

    None of which you have ever bothered to document.

    http://vps/www.templar.co.uk/downloads/Renewable Energy Limitations.pdf

    Careful though. It contains Facts and Simple Sums. Your head might explode

    I find it hard to believe that the revenue costs (per unit of
    electricity) of a wind turbine exceeds those of nuclear.

    Its not open to belief. Its open to FACT

    None of which you have bothered to find or point us at. Inventing them
    takes a lot less effort.

    So ytou can get away with making bland erroneous and false assertions.
    but I have to suplly evidence for the truth?

    What a cunt you are, to be sure




    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Thu Jul 4 16:44:24 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 04/07/2024 15:33, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 4/07/2024 11:16 pm, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:10:41 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 4 Jul 2024 at 10:58:07 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

    On 04/07/2024 10:06, alan_m wrote:
    Another half truth by the industry. It's only cheaper when it works
    and
    if you ignore the backup required for when it doesn't and the extra
    infrastructure costs required to distribute it.

    It isn't even cheaper then.
    Some of us have run the numbers...


    Care to share ;-)

    Per gigawatt a wind turbine is cheaper than a nuclear power station but >>>> that ignores
    - the shorter lifetime of the windmill
    - the capacity factor of the windmill
    - the massive maintenance cost associated with a windmill.


    I find it hard to believe that the revenue costs (per unit of
    electricity) of
    a wind turbine exceeds those of nuclear.

    What do you mean by "unit of electricity" ?

    Kilowatt.hours and MegaWatt.hours seem to be popular. Alan m doesn't
    seem to be all that technical.


    THE Unit is defined as a KWh. but being an asshole, you wouldn't know that

    --
    "If you don’t read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
    news paper, you are mis-informed."

    Mark Twain

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@21:1/5 to Joe on Thu Jul 4 16:47:47 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 04/07/2024 16:26, Joe wrote:
    On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 00:33:02 +1000
    Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

    On 4/07/2024 11:16 pm, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:10:41 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 4 Jul 2024 at 10:58:07 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

    On 04/07/2024 10:06, alan_m wrote:
    Another half truth by the industry. It's only cheaper when it
    works and if you ignore the backup required for when it doesn't
    and the extra infrastructure costs required to distribute it.

    It isn't even cheaper then.
    Some of us have run the numbers...


    Care to share ;-)

    Per gigawatt a wind turbine is cheaper than a nuclear power
    station but that ignores
    - the shorter lifetime of the windmill
    - the capacity factor of the windmill
    - the massive maintenance cost associated with a windmill.


    I find it hard to believe that the revenue costs (per unit of
    electricity) of a wind turbine exceeds those of nuclear.

    What do you mean by "unit of electricity" ?

    Kilowatt.hours and MegaWatt.hours seem to be popular. Alan m doesn't
    seem to be all that technical.


    The 'unit' of electricity has featured on UK electricity bills since
    before I was born, and has always been 1kWh. It should really be
    capitalised to distinguish it from other, generic, units.

    Of course but Sloman is eponymous. He hasn't caught up with the 20th
    century yet.

    --
    Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to RJH on Fri Jul 5 02:11:21 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 4/07/2024 9:20 pm, RJH wrote:
    On 4 Jul 2024 at 11:38:35 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    Not for long. The UK Government relies on the large amounts of fuel tax
    from petrol and diesel. As EVs become more popular this tax revenue
    diminishes. The Government will soon claw it back in one way or another. >>> Road fund tax or pay by the mile toll charges etc.

    Think about it - though you wouldn't be peddling this fatuous line if
    you could think. I'm already paying road tolls to use Sydney's freeways.


    Not, I think, to the tune of the >2% of total government revenue fuel tax raises. About £1000/year per household.

    Electricity isn't susceptible to separate taxation in the way that
    internal combustion engine fuel is, and the price advantage is in the
    better efficiency of the energy delivery to the car wheels.

    It's difficult to tell when the government will be kicked into action. At the moment EVs are less than 5%. When this starts to increase, and LGVs and HGVs become electric, something will have to give. The grid probably :-)

    Don't be silly. Powering all road vehicles through the grid would add
    about 30% to the total load on the generating system, which would be a
    problem if it happened overnight.

    https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption

    shows the annual rate of growth of generating capacity has been up to 6%
    per year (though it been has closer to 2.5% per year recently), and if
    we spread that 30% rise over six year it is 4.5% per year, which is
    clearly practicable.
    Cars and trucks don't get replaced every year. We aren't all going to go
    over to electric vehicles fast enough to create any kind of insoluble
    problem.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tim+@21:1/5 to jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com on Thu Jul 4 16:35:07 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:11:54 +0000, Smolley wrote:

    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    Technology will arrive where the nuclear waste can be transported to the
    sun.

    Before that I would look into dropping it into a ****ing big active
    volcano. Although I suspect there are probably some good reasons I am
    unaware of why it's not done now.


    Any have it all spewed out again? A deep ocean subduction zone would be a
    lot more sensible.

    Tim


    --
    Please don't feed the trolls

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jethro_uk@21:1/5 to Smolley on Thu Jul 4 16:18:51 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:11:54 +0000, Smolley wrote:

    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 4/07/2024 9:15 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 11:49, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 4/07/2024 7:58 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 10:06, alan_m wrote:
    Another half truth by the industry. It's only cheaper when it works >>>>>> and if you ignore the backup required for when it doesn't and the
    extra infrastructure costs required to distribute it.

    It isn't even cheaper then.
    Some of us have run the numbers...

    Per gigawatt a wind turbine is cheaper than a nuclear power station
    but that ignores - the shorter lifetime of the windmill - the
    capacity factor of the windmill - the massive maintenance cost
    associated with a windmill.

    But you are happy to ignore the massive costs of providing secure
    storage for nuclear waste for the hundred's of thousands of years it
    take for the longer half-life isotopes to decay into stable isotopes.

    It is not massive.
    In fact its trivial.

    We've needed that kind of repository for some seventy years now, and
    the late Lou Vance, one of my friends from my time as an undergraduate,
    spent most of his post-Ph.D. in Australia's CSIRO Synroc project.

    https://www.ansto.gov.au/news/new-global-first-of-a-kind-ansto-synroc- facility

    We've got the technology. but we still haven't got any repository.

    How long will the concrete bases of wind turbines last?
    Will they ever be returned to Green Field Who will pay for it?

    Before you even get into the ancillary crap needed to attempt to
    make a silk purse out of a pigs ear...

    It's actually a sow's ear. And a nuclear power station is no silk
    purse.

    If you want a flexible power source, a nuclear power station isn't an
    option.

    Of course it is More lies

    "The ability of a PWR to run at less than full power for much of the
    time depends on whether it is in the early part of its 18 to 24-month
    refuelling cycle or late in it, and whether it is designed with
    special control rods which diminish power levels throughout the core
    without shutting it down. Thus, though the ability on any individual
    PWR reactor to run on a sustained basis at low power decreases
    markedly as it progresses through the refuelling cycle, there is
    considerable scope for running a fleet of reactors in load-following
    mode. European Utility Requirements (EUR) since 2001 specify that new
    reactor designs must be capable of load-following between 50 and 100%
    of capacity with a rate of change of electric output of 3-5% per
    minute. The economic consequences are mainly due to diminished load
    factor of a capital-intensive plant."

    Old tech. You can design a reactor to load follow, but it doesn't make
    best use of capital when you have any hydro.

    So we are going to spend squillions to develop new tech which will
    still most of the flaws of what we've got now? Grow up.

    Natrium have a perfectly sound idea for this

    https://www.terrapower.com/natrium/

    It's a start-up, founded by Bill Gates, which is looking for venture
    capital.

    https://www.terrapower.com/terrapower-announces-830-million-secured- in-2022/

    I'd wait until somebody from the Linux community got interested.

    Gas turbine power generators are much more flexible, and pumped and
    battery storage is even more flexible.

    You can need quite a bit of it, but that gets figured into price of
    renewable energy, even if you aren't aware of it.

    Battery storage is to replace the spinning mass of conventional
    turbines.

    Ignorant nonsense. Battery-inverter combination are quite fast enough
    to do it very well, and the first big battery anywhere

    https://hornsdalepowerreserve.com.au/

    surprised everybody by making a lot more money out of providing short
    term - cycle to cycle - grid stabilisation services than it did out of
    buying power from the grid when it was cheap and selling it back to
    grid when it wasn't. The longer-term buffer service still made quite
    enough money that the Australian electricity distribution companies are
    investing a lot of capital in buying and installing more of it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowy_2.0_Pumped_Storage_Power_Station

    is the hydro-power version of that, and with 175 hours capacity it's
    huge. It's also coming on a lot more slowly than had been hoped.
    Buying loads of lithium ion batteries and wiring them up is much more
    predictable process than digging tunnels though rock.

    It has absolutely no ability to keep a solar grid up overnight, or
    wind grid operational in a flat calm.

    If it were big enough, it would. In practice, part of the industrial
    electricity market is flexible and you seem to be able to negotiate
    your way through the occasional period of flat calm.

    And NONE of this gets figured into the PUBLISHED CLAIMS about wind
    costs, since no wind farm meet the cost of any of it.

    Not that you can cite any such published claim.

    Consumers do instead,

    More unsubstantiated ignorant assertions. You seem to have adopted
    Donald Trump's debating style of inventing your "facts" as you go
    along.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    Technology will arrive where the nuclear waste can be transported to the
    sun.

    Before that I would look into dropping it into a ****ing big active
    volcano. Although I suspect there are probably some good reasons I am
    unaware of why it's not done now.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to The Natural Philosopher on Fri Jul 5 02:22:17 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 5/07/2024 1:47 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 16:26, Joe wrote:
    On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 00:33:02 +1000
    Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

    On 4/07/2024 11:16 pm, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:10:41 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:
    On 4 Jul 2024 at 10:58:07 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 10:06, alan_m wrote:

    <snip>

    Of course but Sloman is eponymous. He hasn't caught up with the 20th
    century yet.

    "Slowman" might be eponymous. Sloman - as a west country English surname
    - is a contraction of "slough man", which meant somebody who farmed land
    close to a river or creek.

    The Natural Philosopher seems to be "natural" in the Shakespearean sense
    of not having had enough education. He claims to have been to Cambridge,
    so he may have had the opportunity to get educated, but the process
    doesn't seem to have gone to completion, if it happened at all.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney



    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jul 5 02:38:57 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 5/07/2024 1:10 am, mm0fmf wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 15:47, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 12:05 am, alan_m wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 14:09, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 09:17:42 +0100, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk>
    wrote:

    On 04/07/2024 04:46, Bill Sloman wrote:

    Inductively coupled charging stations could bury the copper cables >>>>>> where
    they were harder to dig out, and it's not hard to embed a sense wire >>>>>> loop in the cable assembly that can generate an alarm as soon as the >>>>>> cable is cut.

    This just a reflection of poor engineering design, but neither
    Cursitor
    Doom nor ZeroHedge have that kind of insight.


    And how big and heavy does the coil on the car have to be for fast
    charging?

    Good point. It will have a lot of copper. While guys are under your
    car stealing the catalytic converter, they may as well nab the
    charging coil too.



    Do EVs have catalytic converters (when hybrids are also banned).

    What a stupid question.

    Dear Mr. Sloman, if you want to be taken seriously then you need drop
    the comment Norton is adding to your messages. Nobody with clue uses any Norton products in 2024.

    It's Dr. Sloman, if you want to pretend to be formal.

    And the computer still runs Windows 7. It does have a Linux partition,
    but I haven't used in a decade. Norton Symantec has worked fine for me
    for more than twenty years now, and the computer magazines I subscribe
    to still seem to like it.

    If there's a problem, it's in Thunderbird, which is what I use to access Eternal September. Thunderbird is clunky with large files, and I have
    thought about switching to SeaMonkey

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SeaMonkey

    but I've not bothered to think hard.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney



    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay on Thu Jul 4 09:53:18 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 4 Jul 2024 16:35:07 GMT, Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> wrote:

    Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:11:54 +0000, Smolley wrote:

    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    Technology will arrive where the nuclear waste can be transported to the >>> sun.

    Before that I would look into dropping it into a ****ing big active
    volcano. Although I suspect there are probably some good reasons I am
    unaware of why it's not done now.


    Any have it all spewed out again? A deep ocean subduction zone would be a
    lot more sensible.

    Tim

    Or a deep hole in the ground, which we already have.

    Used fuel rods can profitably be refined into more reactor fuel, but
    politics get in the way.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jul 5 02:44:34 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 5/07/2024 1:43 am, alan_m wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 15:53, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 12:07 am, alan_m wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 14:23, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 13:46:59 +1000
    Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:



      and it's not hard to embed a sense
    wire loop in the cable assembly that can generate an alarm as soon as >>>>> the cable is cut.


    No engineer would do that, knowing that it would be wastage of time and >>>> materials. Nobody would pay any attention to an alarm, least of all the >>>> police. We're not living in the twentieth century now.

    The car alarm in a public place is the most ignored warning :)

    But with 5G phone links and artificial intelligence, the alarm can be
    sent to places where it will get attention, not that you'd know
    anything about that.

    And who do you think is going to come out to the millions of false
    alarms, and how fast?

    The point of detecting that the cable had been cut would mean that any
    alarm generated wouldn't be false. You seem to have missed that.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney






    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Thu Jul 4 17:55:44 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 02:38:57 +1000
    Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:


    If there's a problem, it's in Thunderbird, which is what I use to
    access Eternal September. Thunderbird is clunky with large files, and
    I have thought about switching to SeaMonkey


    Claws-Mail has a Windows port, and is very much faster than TB, not
    that that is a high bar.

    --
    Joe

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@21:1/5 to charles on Thu Jul 4 17:57:06 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 04/07/2024 16:45, charles wrote:
    In article <v667fi$2najh$10@dont-email.me>,
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 14:15, charles wrote:
    'm also a Cambridge educated Engineer. I believe in "real world"
    engineering.

    Yebbut not the Universwity eh?
    Yes, at the University - I have my MA certificate somewhere.


    You cant 'real; world' engineer things that have never been built before.
    Like all renewable grids

    Yes, of course you can. You have to consider all the possible problems as well as the benefits.
    No. you do.

    I *did*. And the conclusion was absolutely clear.
    Nuclear power beat renewables hands down on every metric - cost,
    reliability, carbon emissions, environmental impact - you name it,
    nuclear was better. to the point wher it was not wrong to say that
    'renewable grids will never work'


    --
    The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to
    rule.
    – H. L. Mencken, American journalist, 1880-1956

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Thu Jul 4 17:58:53 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 04/07/2024 17:22, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 1:47 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 16:26, Joe wrote:
    On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 00:33:02 +1000
    Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

    On 4/07/2024 11:16 pm, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:10:41 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:
    On 4 Jul 2024 at 10:58:07 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 10:06, alan_m wrote:

    <snip>

    Of course but Sloman is eponymous. He hasn't caught up with the 20th
    century yet.

    "Slowman" might be eponymous. Sloman - as a west country English surname
    - is a contraction of "slough man", which meant somebody who farmed land close to a river or creek.

    Bog trotter.

    The Natural Philosopher seems to be "natural" in the Shakespearean sense
    of not having had enough education. He claims to have been to Cambridge,
    so he may have had the opportunity to get educated, but the process
    doesn't seem to have gone to completion, if it happened at all.

    If any of your education had in fact stuck you *might* have learned that Natural Philosophy is what you probably call science.
    Once again you wear ignorance as a badge of pride
    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney




    --
    In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act.

    - George Orwell

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jul 5 02:59:29 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 5/07/2024 2:18 am, Jethro_uk wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:11:54 +0000, Smolley wrote:

    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 4/07/2024 9:15 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 11:49, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 4/07/2024 7:58 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 10:06, alan_m wrote:

    <snip>

    Technology will arrive where the nuclear waste can be transported to the
    sun.

    It's here already, but much too expensive for anybody to use.

    And the idea of a rocket-load of nuclear waste might even not make it
    into low earth orbit is something that should have registered with you.

    Before that I would look into dropping it into a ****ing big active
    volcano, although I suspect there are probably some good reasons I am > unaware of why it's not done now.

    You aren't aware of much. We notice volcanoes because they spit stuff
    out. Dumping something nasty like radioactive waste into an active
    volcano for it to spit out again later isn't a great idea.

    There are spots in middle of continental plates that seem to stay put
    for millions of years, but we'd need to know a lot more about the
    convection currents in the mantle before we could be all that confident
    about that.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to tnp@invalid.invalid on Thu Jul 4 10:01:32 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 16:37:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 04/07/2024 14:28, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 14:19:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 04/07/2024 14:16, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:10:41 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>

    I find it hard to believe that the revenue costs (per unit of electricity) of
    a wind turbine exceeds those of nuclear.

    What do you mean by "unit of electricity" ?

    one kWh is a 'unit of electricity'

    Well, so is a watt or a volt or an amp or a coulomb.
    No those are units of electricty. The kWh is THE unit of electricity
    People,
    especially journalists, are often fuzzy about units.

    As it seems are you


    A kWh is a unit of energy.

    And don't be a jerk. It's admittedly easy.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Joe on Fri Jul 5 03:03:23 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 5/07/2024 1:22 am, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 14:11:54 -0000 (UTC)
    Smolley <me@rest.uk> wrote:

    Technology will arrive where the nuclear waste can be transported to
    the sun.

    If it's dangerous, it must be emitting energy. Why are we burying free energy?

    It's not emitting energy all that fast.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney



    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@21:1/5 to john larkin on Thu Jul 4 18:10:22 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 04/07/2024 17:53, john larkin wrote:
    On 4 Jul 2024 16:35:07 GMT, Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> wrote:

    Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:11:54 +0000, Smolley wrote:

    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    Technology will arrive where the nuclear waste can be transported to the >>>> sun.

    Before that I would look into dropping it into a ****ing big active
    volcano. Although I suspect there are probably some good reasons I am
    unaware of why it's not done now.


    Any have it all spewed out again? A deep ocean subduction zone would be a
    lot more sensible.

    Tim

    Or a deep hole in the ground, which we already have.

    Used fuel rods can profitably be refined into more reactor fuel, but
    politics get in the way.

    It always amuse me when they say 'but it will be radioactive for
    thousands of years.
    Yes dear.
    - In the oceans are 4 billion tonnes of radioactive waste which have
    been there ever since the earth was formed. Its called Uranium
    - All 'renewable' energy is second or third hand nuclear power. What the
    fuck do they think the Sun is?
    - by several orders of magnitude the most dangerous radiation we are
    exposed to is sunlight.
    - The earth is formed out of nuclear waste from cataclysmic supernovae.
    Siome of it is still radioactive.
    - The atmosphere is bombarded with cosmic rays from space, which create radioactive isotopes.

    By any rational metric man made nuclear waste is tiny and irrelevant and
    if we simply chucked in a deep part of the ocean nothing untoward would
    happen.

    The problem isn't physics or engineering, it's mental.


    --
    Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that
    doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that
    don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to tnp@invalid.invalid on Thu Jul 4 10:10:49 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 16:44:24 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 04/07/2024 15:33, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 4/07/2024 11:16 pm, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:10:41 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 4 Jul 2024 at 10:58:07 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

    On 04/07/2024 10:06, alan_m wrote:
    Another half truth by the industry. It's only cheaper when it works >>>>>> and
    if you ignore the backup required for when it doesn't and the extra >>>>>> infrastructure costs required to distribute it.

    It isn't even cheaper then.
    Some of us have run the numbers...


    Care to share ;-)

    Per gigawatt a wind turbine is cheaper than a nuclear power station but >>>>> that ignores
    - the shorter lifetime of the windmill
    - the capacity factor of the windmill
    - the massive maintenance cost associated with a windmill.


    I find it hard to believe that the revenue costs (per unit of
    electricity) of
    a wind turbine exceeds those of nuclear.

    What do you mean by "unit of electricity" ?

    Kilowatt.hours and MegaWatt.hours seem to be popular. Alan m doesn't
    seem to be all that technical.


    THE Unit is defined as a KWh. but being an asshole, you wouldn't know that

    kWh is correct. Little k is kilo; big K is Kelvins.

    Units named after people are capitalized. Like Watt.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@21:1/5 to john larkin on Thu Jul 4 18:11:41 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 04/07/2024 18:01, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 16:37:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 04/07/2024 14:28, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 14:19:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 04/07/2024 14:16, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:10:41 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>

    I find it hard to believe that the revenue costs (per unit of electricity) of
    a wind turbine exceeds those of nuclear.

    What do you mean by "unit of electricity" ?

    one kWh is a 'unit of electricity'

    Well, so is a watt or a volt or an amp or a coulomb.
    No those are units of electricty. The kWh is THE unit of electricity
    People,
    especially journalists, are often fuzzy about units.

    As it seems are you


    A kWh is a unit of energy.

    And don't be a jerk. It's admittedly easy.

    Its defined as THE unit of electrical energy, Wots on your bill, or does
    daddy pay that?
    --
    To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to tnp@invalid.invalid on Thu Jul 4 10:30:21 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 18:11:41 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 04/07/2024 18:01, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 16:37:50 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 04/07/2024 14:28, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 14:19:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 04/07/2024 14:16, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:10:41 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>

    I find it hard to believe that the revenue costs (per unit of electricity) of
    a wind turbine exceeds those of nuclear.

    What do you mean by "unit of electricity" ?

    one kWh is a 'unit of electricity'

    Well, so is a watt or a volt or an amp or a coulomb.
    No those are units of electricty. The kWh is THE unit of electricity
    People,
    especially journalists, are often fuzzy about units.

    As it seems are you


    A kWh is a unit of energy.

    And don't be a jerk. It's admittedly easy.

    Its defined as THE unit of electrical energy, Wots on your bill, or does >daddy pay that?

    Actually, a Watt isn't necessarily an electrical measurement. It's
    defined as a unit of power or radiant flux.

    It's formally defined in units of length, mass, and time.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to The Natural Philosopher on Fri Jul 5 03:19:04 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 5/07/2024 1:43 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 15:29, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 4/07/2024 9:52 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 12:10, RJH wrote:
    On 4 Jul 2024 at 10:58:07 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

    <snip>

    None of which you have ever bothered to document.

    http://vps/www.templar.co.uk/downloads/Renewable Energy Limitations.pdf

    Actually

    http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/Renewable%20Energy%20Limitations.pdf

    Careful though. It contains Facts and Simple Sums. Your head might explode.
    It's pretentious twaddle. You don't seem to have noticed that.

    <snip>

    None of which you have bothered to find or point us at. Inventing them
    takes a lot less effort.

    So you can get away with making bland erroneous and false assertions.

    Cite one.

    but I have to supply evidence for the truth?

    Your idea of "truth" seems to be idiosyncratic.

    What a cunt you are, to be sure.

    John Larkin doesn't like it when I fail to deliver the flattery he feels
    he deserves, and gets quite shirty about it too.

    At least he isn't an anonymous pretentious twit.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney




    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to The Natural Philosopher on Fri Jul 5 05:01:36 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 5/07/2024 3:10 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 17:53, john larkin wrote:
    On 4 Jul 2024 16:35:07 GMT, Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> wrote:
    Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:11:54 +0000, Smolley wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    Or a deep hole in the ground, which we already have.

    Used fuel rods can profitably be refined into more reactor fuel, but
    politics get in the way.

    There's always some plutonium-239 in them, from neutron capture by
    uranium-238. The uraninium-235 which fissions to produce the energy
    splits into pairs of isotopes

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission_product

    "the majority of the fission products occur in two peaks. One peak
    occurs at about (expressed by atomic masses 85 through 105) strontium to ruthenium while the other peak is at about tellurium to neodymium
    (expressed by atomic masses 130 through 145)."

    Quite a few of them are radioactive and none of them are reactor fuel.

    It always amuse me when they say 'but it will be radioactive for
    thousands of years.

    The amusement should a reaction to the imprecision.

    Some of the isotopes are radioactive - some decay rapidly and are
    intensely radioactive for a relatively short time and others have longer
    life times and stay radioactive for longer - " actinides dominate
    roughly 10^3 to 10^5 years after fuel use".

    - In the oceans are 4 billion tonnes of radioactive waste which have
    been there ever since  the earth was formed. Its called Uranium.

    Uranium isn't any kind of "radioactive waste", it's just one more
    long-lived radioactive element that got synthesised in a supernova a
    couple of billions of years ago. Potassium-40 is another, but you don't
    need supernova to get it, though it does need a star heavier than the Sun.

    - All 'renewable' energy is second or third hand nuclear power. What the
    fuck do they think the Sun is?

    The sun runs on nuclear fusion, mostly of hydrogen at the moment.

    - by several orders of magnitude the most dangerous radiation we are
    exposed to is sunlight.

    But the UV that gives a melanomas doesn't get through the skin the way
    gamma radiation can.

    - The earth is formed out of nuclear waste from cataclysmic supernovae.
    Some of it is still radioactive.

    It takes a cataclysmic supernova to form anything heavier than iron.

    Nuclear fusion in stars quite a bit heavier than the sun can get you up
    iron (which is the nucleus with the biggest mass defect).

    - The atmosphere is bombarded with cosmic rays from space, which create radioactive isotopes.

    Actually, cosmic rays produce stray neutrons, and a neutron hitting an nitrogen-14 nucleus knocks out a proton leaving you with a carbon-14 nucleus."Carbon-14 is unstable and has a half-life of 5700±30 years".

    By any rational metric man-made nuclear waste is tiny and irrelevant and
    if we simply chucked in a deep part of the ocean nothing untoward would happen.

    Since the Natural Philosopher doesn't know enough about what he is
    talking about, his claims about "any rational metric" are more of his pretentious twaddle.

    The problem isn't physics or engineering, it's mental.

    And your brain is more problematic than you seem to realise.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mm0fmf@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Thu Jul 4 20:03:28 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 04/07/2024 17:44, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 1:43 am, alan_m wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 15:53, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 12:07 am, alan_m wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 14:23, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 13:46:59 +1000
    Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:



      and it's not hard to embed a sense
    wire loop in the cable assembly that can generate an alarm as soon as >>>>>> the cable is cut.


    No engineer would do that, knowing that it would be wastage of time
    and
    materials. Nobody would pay any attention to an alarm, least of all
    the
    police. We're not living in the twentieth century now.

    The car alarm in a public place is the most ignored warning :)

    But with 5G phone links and artificial intelligence, the alarm can be
    sent to places where it will get attention, not that you'd know
    anything about that.

    And who do you think is going to come out to the millions of false
    alarms, and how fast?

    The point of detecting that the cable had been cut would mean that any
    alarm generated wouldn't be false. You seem to have missed that.

    You seem to be living in cloud cuckoo land. Being upside down, all your
    blood has run to your head making your thought processes sub-optimal.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RJH@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Thu Jul 4 18:21:26 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 4 Jul 2024 at 17:11:21 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 4/07/2024 9:20 pm, RJH wrote:
    On 4 Jul 2024 at 11:38:35 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    Not for long. The UK Government relies on the large amounts of fuel tax >>>> from petrol and diesel. As EVs become more popular this tax revenue
    diminishes. The Government will soon claw it back in one way or another. >>>> Road fund tax or pay by the mile toll charges etc.

    Think about it - though you wouldn't be peddling this fatuous line if
    you could think. I'm already paying road tolls to use Sydney's freeways. >>>

    Not, I think, to the tune of the >2% of total government revenue fuel tax
    raises. About £1000/year per household.

    Electricity isn't susceptible to separate taxation in the way that
    internal combustion engine fuel is, and the price advantage is in the
    better efficiency of the energy delivery to the car wheels.

    It's difficult to tell when the government will be kicked into action. At the
    moment EVs are less than 5%. When this starts to increase, and LGVs and HGVs >> become electric, something will have to give. The grid probably :-)

    Don't be silly.

    Well, there was a smiley at the end.

    Powering all road vehicles through the grid would add
    about 30% to the total load on the generating system, which would be a problem if it happened overnight.

    https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption


    Interesting (to me) that the UK's consumption has gone *down* about 20% over the past 50 years. Note I'm talking about the UK - the figures from that link suggest that consumption and (not surprisingly) generation have been going
    down for quite a while. Meanwhile, China has trebled, and India has doubled,
    in the past 20 years.

    shows the annual rate of growth of generating capacity has been up to 6%
    per year (though it been has closer to 2.5% per year recently), and if
    we spread that 30% rise over six year it is 4.5% per year, which is
    clearly practicable.
    Cars and trucks don't get replaced every year. We aren't all going to go
    over to electric vehicles fast enough to create any kind of insoluble problem.

    It's not just vehicles, though. Half of the UK's energy consumption is used
    for heating, and most of that is gas. A lot of pressure (currently £7500 per household) to move over to heat pumps. More pressure on the grid.

    Anyway, my point is that something will have to replace the duty currently collected on petrol once EVs take hold. And it seems likely that'll be owners of electric vehicles.

    --
    Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to RJH on Fri Jul 5 05:39:34 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 5/07/2024 4:21 am, RJH wrote:
    On 4 Jul 2024 at 17:11:21 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 4/07/2024 9:20 pm, RJH wrote:
    On 4 Jul 2024 at 11:38:35 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    It's difficult to tell when the government will be kicked into action. At the
    moment EVs are less than 5%. When this starts to increase, and LGVs and HGVs
    become electric, something will have to give. The grid probably :-)

    Don't be silly.

    Well, there was a smiley at the end.

    Powering all road vehicles through the grid would add
    about 30% to the total load on the generating system, which would be a
    problem if it happened overnight.

    https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption

    Interesting (to me) that the UK's consumption has gone *down* about 20% over the past 50 years.

    I worked in the UK from 1971 to 1993. Over a lot of that time, Thatcher
    was doing her best to dismantle UK industrial production, and household
    heating went from electric radiators to gas-fired central heating.

    Note I'm talking about the UK - the figures from that link
    suggest that consumption and (not surprisingly) generation have been going down for quite a while. Meanwhile, China has trebled, and India has doubled, in the past 20 years.

    Starting from a much lower base. Lenin saw rural electrification as a
    necessary part of the socialist revolution. It certainly makes a lot of difference to the economy.

    shows the annual rate of growth of generating capacity has been up to 6%
    per year (though it been has closer to 2.5% per year recently), and if
    we spread that 30% rise over six year it is 4.5% per year, which is
    clearly practicable.
    Cars and trucks don't get replaced every year. We aren't all going to go
    over to electric vehicles fast enough to create any kind of insoluble
    problem.

    It's not just vehicles, though. Half of the UK's energy consumption is used for heating, and most of that is gas. A lot of pressure (currently £7500 per household) to move over to heat pumps. More pressure on the grid.

    Heat pumps deliver quite a bit more heat per unit of electrical energy
    fed in than an electric radiator, and the UK is starting to take home insulation seriously. Double glazing and the like.

    Anyway, my point is that something will have to replace the duty currently collected on petrol once EVs take hold. And it seems likely that'll be owners of electric vehicles.

    Or it might just be that a UK government could get around to
    constructing a taxation system on rational basis, rather than slapping
    taxes on stuff more or less at random. You are about to get a new one,
    likely with a big enough majority to get away with being rational for a
    few years.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney



    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to The Natural Philosopher on Fri Jul 5 05:20:44 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 5/07/2024 2:58 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 17:22, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 1:47 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 16:26, Joe wrote:
    On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 00:33:02 +1000
    Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

    On 4/07/2024 11:16 pm, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:10:41 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:
    On 4 Jul 2024 at 10:58:07 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 10:06, alan_m wrote:

    <snip>

    Of course but Sloman is eponymous. He hasn't caught up with the 20th
    century yet.

    "Slowman" might be eponymous. Sloman - as a west country English
    surname - is a contraction of "slough man", which meant somebody who
    farmed land close to a river or creek.

    Bog trotter.

    Wrong.

    The Natural Philosopher seems to be "natural" in the Shakespearean
    sense of not having had enough education. He claims to have been to
    Cambridge, so he may have had the opportunity to get educated, but the
    process doesn't seem to have gone to completion, if it happened at all.

    If any of your education had in fact stuck you *might* have learned that Natural Philosophy is what you probably call science.

    https://physics.unimelb.edu.au/about/history

    It would have been hard to miss it. I got my first year physics lectures
    in a building completed in 1889 with "Natural Philosophy" carved into
    the masonry above the main entrance.

    The cyclotron (such as it was) was down at the other end of the building.

    Once again you wear ignorance as a badge of pride.

    We all know it is part of your pretentious twit self-presentation. Why
    do you think that anybody would take you seriously?

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney




    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jul 4 22:00:11 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 7/4/24 18:18, Jethro_uk wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:11:54 +0000, Smolley wrote:

    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 4/07/2024 9:15 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 11:49, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 4/07/2024 7:58 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 10:06, alan_m wrote:
    Another half truth by the industry. It's only cheaper when it works >>>>>>> and if you ignore the backup required for when it doesn't and the >>>>>>> extra infrastructure costs required to distribute it.

    It isn't even cheaper then.
    Some of us have run the numbers...

    Per gigawatt a wind turbine is cheaper than a nuclear power station >>>>>> but that ignores - the shorter lifetime of the windmill - the
    capacity factor of the windmill - the massive maintenance cost
    associated with a windmill.

    But you are happy to ignore the massive costs of providing secure
    storage for nuclear waste for the hundred's of thousands of years it >>>>> take for the longer half-life isotopes to decay into stable isotopes. >>>>>
    It is not massive.
    In fact its trivial.

    We've needed that kind of repository for some seventy years now, and
    the late Lou Vance, one of my friends from my time as an undergraduate,
    spent most of his post-Ph.D. in Australia's CSIRO Synroc project.

    https://www.ansto.gov.au/news/new-global-first-of-a-kind-ansto-synroc-
    facility

    We've got the technology. but we still haven't got any repository.

    How long will the concrete bases of wind turbines last?
    Will they ever be returned to Green Field Who will pay for it?

    Before you even get into the ancillary crap needed to attempt to
    make a silk purse out of a pigs ear...

    It's actually a sow's ear. And a nuclear power station is no silk
    purse.

    If you want a flexible power source, a nuclear power station isn't an >>>>> option.

    Of course it is More lies

    "The ability of a PWR to run at less than full power for much of the >>>>> time depends on whether it is in the early part of its 18 to 24-month >>>>> refuelling cycle or late in it, and whether it is designed with
    special control rods which diminish power levels throughout the core >>>>> without shutting it down. Thus, though the ability on any individual >>>>> PWR reactor to run on a sustained basis at low power decreases
    markedly as it progresses through the refuelling cycle, there is
    considerable scope for running a fleet of reactors in load-following >>>>> mode. European Utility Requirements (EUR) since 2001 specify that new >>>>> reactor designs must be capable of load-following between 50 and 100% >>>>> of capacity with a rate of change of electric output of 3-5% per
    minute. The economic consequences are mainly due to diminished load
    factor of a capital-intensive plant."

    Old tech. You can design a reactor to load follow, but it doesn't make >>>> best use of capital when you have any hydro.

    So we are going to spend squillions to develop new tech which will
    still most of the flaws of what we've got now? Grow up.

    Natrium have a perfectly sound idea for this

    https://www.terrapower.com/natrium/

    It's a start-up, founded by Bill Gates, which is looking for venture
    capital.

    https://www.terrapower.com/terrapower-announces-830-million-secured-
    in-2022/

    I'd wait until somebody from the Linux community got interested.

    Gas turbine power generators are much more flexible, and pumped and
    battery storage is even more flexible.

    You can need quite a bit of it, but that gets figured into price of
    renewable energy, even if you aren't aware of it.

    Battery storage is to replace the spinning mass of conventional
    turbines.

    Ignorant nonsense. Battery-inverter combination are quite fast enough
    to do it very well, and the first big battery anywhere

    https://hornsdalepowerreserve.com.au/

    surprised everybody by making a lot more money out of providing short
    term - cycle to cycle - grid stabilisation services than it did out of
    buying power from the grid when it was cheap and selling it back to
    grid when it wasn't. The longer-term buffer service still made quite
    enough money that the Australian electricity distribution companies are
    investing a lot of capital in buying and installing more of it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowy_2.0_Pumped_Storage_Power_Station

    is the hydro-power version of that, and with 175 hours capacity it's
    huge. It's also coming on a lot more slowly than had been hoped.
    Buying loads of lithium ion batteries and wiring them up is much more
    predictable process than digging tunnels though rock.

    It has absolutely no ability to keep a solar grid up overnight, or
    wind grid operational in a flat calm.

    If it were big enough, it would. In practice, part of the industrial
    electricity market is flexible and you seem to be able to negotiate
    your way through the occasional period of flat calm.

    And NONE of this gets figured into the PUBLISHED CLAIMS about wind
    costs, since no wind farm meet the cost of any of it.

    Not that you can cite any such published claim.

    Consumers do instead,

    More unsubstantiated ignorant assertions. You seem to have adopted
    Donald Trump's debating style of inventing your "facts" as you go
    along.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    Technology will arrive where the nuclear waste can be transported to the
    sun.

    Before that I would look into dropping it into a ****ing big active
    volcano. Although I suspect there are probably some good reasons I am
    unaware of why it's not done now.

    Like it being splattered all over the place at the next eruption?

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to The Natural Philosopher on Fri Jul 5 05:58:31 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 5/07/2024 2:57 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 16:45, charles wrote:
    In article <v667fi$2najh$10@dont-email.me>,
        The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 14:15, charles wrote:
    'm also a Cambridge educated Engineer. I believe in "real world"
    engineering.

    Yebbut not the Universwity eh?
    Yes, at the University - I have my MA certificate somewhere.


    You cant 'real; world' engineer things that have never been built
    before.
    Like all-renewable grids.

    There are some small one's around in Australia's remote outback. They
    replace diesel generator sets that need a truckload of diesel every few
    weeks. They seems to work well.

    Yes, of course you can. You have to consider all the possible problems as
    well as the benefits.

    No. You do.

    I *did*. And the conclusion was absolutely clear.

    You thought that you did, and you think that the conclusion is
    absolutely clear. You do go in for a lot of self-delusion.

    Nuclear power beat renewables hands down on every metric - cost,
    reliability, carbon emissions, environmental impact - you name it,
    nuclear was better, to the point where it was not wrong to say that 'renewable grids will never work'.

    Except that when anybody tries to build a nuclear power plant it seems
    to take a lot longer, and cost a lot more, than the initial estimates.

    Renewable power is generated in much smaller modules, which can be mass produced. Big wind turbines are large, but they are still mass produced.

    Theories about costs and output get tested whenever a bunch of modules
    get stuck together on-site and wired into the grid.

    Building nuclear plants takes long enough that pretentious twits like
    you can spend quite a while posing as experts - and getting over-paid
    for their services - before their incompetence catches up with them.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney



    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Thu Jul 4 22:06:56 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 7/4/24 18:53, john larkin wrote:
    On 4 Jul 2024 16:35:07 GMT, Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> wrote:

    Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:11:54 +0000, Smolley wrote:

    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    Technology will arrive where the nuclear waste can be transported to the >>>> sun.

    Before that I would look into dropping it into a ****ing big active
    volcano. Although I suspect there are probably some good reasons I am
    unaware of why it's not done now.


    Any have it all spewed out again? A deep ocean subduction zone would be a
    lot more sensible.

    Tim

    Or a deep hole in the ground, which we already have.

    Used fuel rods can profitably be refined into more reactor fuel, but
    politics get in the way.


    As you say. Nuclear power is a dream come true, but of course,
    it was too good to be true. In its current form, it's far too
    easy to make bombs with it. In truth, that's what it was developed
    for! That we can also use it to make electricity is just a useful
    accessory circumstance.

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jul 5 06:15:48 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 5/07/2024 5:03 am, mm0fmf wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 17:44, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 1:43 am, alan_m wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 15:53, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 12:07 am, alan_m wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 14:23, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 13:46:59 +1000
    Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:



      and it's not hard to embed a sense
    wire loop in the cable assembly that can generate an alarm as
    soon as
    the cable is cut.


    No engineer would do that, knowing that it would be wastage of
    time and
    materials. Nobody would pay any attention to an alarm, least of
    all the
    police. We're not living in the twentieth century now.

    The car alarm in a public place is the most ignored warning :)

    But with 5G phone links and artificial intelligence, the alarm can
    be sent to places where it will get attention, not that you'd know
    anything about that.

    And who do you think is going to come out to the millions of false
    alarms, and how fast?

    The point of detecting that the cable had been cut would mean that any
    alarm generated wouldn't be false. You seem to have missed that.

    You seem to be living in cloud cuckoo land. Being upside down, all your
    blood has run to your head making your thought processes sub-optimal.

    The old jokes are the best. Cloud cuckoo land was invented by
    Aristophanes. "The Birds" was first performed in Athens in 414 BC.

    The "living upside down" joke about the southern hemisphere isn't as
    old, but it is a flat-earth conceit.

    Sydney is 33 degrees and 52 minutes south of the equator, so my
    oerientaion to closer to being at right-angles to yours - 90 degrees
    rather than 180.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy

    would have got it right sometime around 170AD.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney



    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to The Natural Philosopher on Thu Jul 4 22:19:25 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 7/4/24 19:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 17:53, john larkin wrote:
    On 4 Jul 2024 16:35:07 GMT, Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> wrote:

    Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:11:54 +0000, Smolley wrote:

    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    Technology will arrive where the nuclear waste can be transported
    to the
    sun.

    Before that I would look into dropping it into a ****ing big active
    volcano. Although I suspect there are probably some good reasons I am
    unaware of why it's not done now.


    Any have it all spewed out again? A deep ocean subduction zone would
    be a
    lot more sensible.

    Tim

    Or a deep hole in the ground, which we already have.

    Used fuel rods can profitably be refined into more reactor fuel, but
    politics get in the way.

    It always amuse me when they say 'but it will be radioactive for
    thousands of years.
    Yes dear.
    - In the oceans are 4 billion tonnes of radioactive waste which have
    been there ever since  the earth was formed. Its called Uranium
    - All 'renewable' energy is second or third hand nuclear power. What the
    fuck do they think the Sun is?
    - by several orders of magnitude the most dangerous radiation we are
    exposed to is sunlight.
    - The earth is formed out of nuclear waste from cataclysmic supernovae.
    Siome of it is still radioactive.
    - The atmosphere is bombarded with cosmic rays from space, which create radioactive isotopes.

    By any rational metric man made nuclear waste is tiny and irrelevant and
    if we simply chucked in a deep part of the ocean nothing untoward would happen.

    The problem isn't physics or engineering, it's mental.



    I've been a 'radiation worker' for most of my career. I *know*
    everyone gets between 3 and 10 uSv of radiation from natural
    sources every day. Most people have no idea. Yet, to work on
    radioactive stuff contributing just a few hundred nSv over the
    natural dose, we had to jump through all sorts of hoops. This
    isn't rational, it's politics.

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From alan_m@21:1/5 to RJH on Thu Jul 4 21:32:28 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 04/07/2024 19:21, RJH wrote:

    Interesting (to me) that the UK's consumption has gone *down* about 20% over the past 50 years. Note I'm talking about the UK - the figures from that link suggest that consumption and (not surprisingly) generation have been going down for quite a while. Meanwhile, China has trebled, and India has doubled, in the past 20 years.

    Possibly because of the UK having less heavy industry and importing our products that rely on heavy energy usage from China or the far east etc.

    Industries that were once heavy users of electricity probably had
    contractual agreements stating that it wouldn't be used in peak domestic
    times.

    shows the annual rate of growth of generating capacity has been up to 6%
    per year (though it been has closer to 2.5% per year recently), and if
    we spread that 30% rise over six year it is 4.5% per year, which is
    clearly practicable.
    Cars and trucks don't get replaced every year. We aren't all going to go
    over to electric vehicles fast enough to create any kind of insoluble
    problem.

    Is that 30% in the past 6 years mainly due to the installation of more
    wind turbines which produce little when the wind barely blows for
    periods of weeks? Possibly also solar which produces little during the
    winter and nothing at night. Has there been a corresponding 30% increase
    in the backup capacity to fill the shortfall when wind fails? If the two
    are not matched then it's rather silly to rely only on extra
    intermittent power generation, especially during a cold winter.

    Although unlikely to happen within the timescales the green lobby would
    like there is also the move away from gas and oil to electric for
    central heating that will increase demand for electricity.


    --
    mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jul 5 15:01:24 2024
    On 5/07/2024 6:32 am, alan_m wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 19:21, RJH wrote:

    Interesting (to me) that the UK's consumption has gone *down* about
    20% over
    the past 50 years. Note I'm talking about the UK - the figures from
    that link
    suggest that consumption and (not surprisingly) generation have been
    going
    down for quite a while. Meanwhile, China has trebled, and India has
    doubled,
    in the past 20 years.

    Possibly because of the UK having less heavy industry and importing our products that rely on heavy energy usage from China or the far east etc.

    Industries that were once heavy users of electricity probably had
    contractual agreements stating that it wouldn't be used in peak domestic times.

    shows the annual rate of growth of generating capacity has been up to 6% >>> per year (though it been has closer to 2.5% per year recently), and if
    we spread that 30% rise over six year it is 4.5% per year, which is
    clearly practicable.
    Cars and trucks don't get replaced every year. We aren't all going to go >>> over to electric vehicles fast enough to create any kind of insoluble
    problem.

    Is that 30% in the past 6 years mainly due to the installation of more
    wind turbines which produce little when the wind barely blows for
    periods of weeks? Possibly also solar which produces little during the
    winter and nothing at night. Has there been a corresponding 30% increase
    in the backup capacity to fill the shortfall when wind fails? If the two
    are not matched then it's rather silly to rely only on extra
    intermittent power generation, especially during a cold winter.

    The quote was that the UK's *consumption* has gone *down* about
    20% over the past 50 years.

    Where the power consumed has come from doesn't come into that.

    With intermittent power sources you do need to install enough capacity
    to generate the total output you need - which is a lot more generating
    capacity than you'd need if the sun shone and the wind blew all the time.

    That does get figured into the cost of the power actually generated, and
    they are still the cheapest sources around. Once you've got a lot of intermittent renewable sources in your generating capacity, pumped or
    battery storage is also necessary. Fast start gas-turbine powered
    generators have been around for quite a while now, but they don't
    generate power as cheaply as renewable sources, and they would bbeing
    phased out even if they weren't CO2 emitters.

    Although unlikely to happen within the timescales the green lobby would
    like there is also the move away from gas and oil to electric for
    central heating that will increase demand for electricity.

    Sure. But heat pumps push out a lot more heat energy than the electrical
    energy used to drive the compressor.

    --
    Bill sloman, Sydney



    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Jeroen Belleman on Fri Jul 5 15:15:26 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 5/07/2024 6:19 am, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    On 7/4/24 19:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 17:53, john larkin wrote:
    On 4 Jul 2024 16:35:07 GMT, Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> wrote:
    Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:11:54 +0000, Smolley wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    The problem isn't physics or engineering, it's mental.
    I've been a 'radiation worker' for most of my career. I *know*
    everyone gets between 3 and 10 uSv of radiation from natural
    sources every day. Most people have no idea. Yet, to work on
    radioactive stuff contributing just a few hundred nSv over the
    natural dose, we had to jump through all sorts of hoops. This
    isn't rational, it's politics.

    Not exactly. When I was a graduate student some of the graduate students working with radio-active sources weren't exactly meticulous. They
    didn't endanger me but it struck me that they were endangering
    themselves and their close colleagues.

    "Jumping through hoops" is mostly applying enough pressure to persuade
    people to be meticulous and properly careful.

    Extravagant gestures do get people's attention. It is politics, but
    politics is all about getting people to do the right thing. Sometimes
    what clowns like Donald Trump imagine to be the right thing, but we
    haven't perfected our society yet, and have to pick the level of
    imperfection that will get an adequate result.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney




    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@21:1/5 to Jeroen Belleman on Fri Jul 5 09:48:03 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 04/07/2024 21:06, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    As you say. Nuclear power is a dream come true, but of course,
    it was too good to be true.
    It was too good to be allowed to compete with Oil...

    >In its current form, it's far too
    easy to make bombs with it.

    No, it isn't.
    You may have PU239, but you still have to refine it, machine it and
    carefully assemble it.

    In truth, that's what it was developed
    for! That we can also use it to make electricity is just a useful
    accessory circumstance.

    Not since 1960 or thereabouts.Nuclear power is now entirely separate.

    --
    How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

    Adolf Hitler

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@21:1/5 to Martin Brown on Fri Jul 5 11:08:20 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 05/07/2024 10:38, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 17:18, Jethro_uk wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:11:54 +0000, Smolley wrote:

    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    More unsubstantiated ignorant assertions. You seem to have adopted
    Donald Trump's debating style of inventing your "facts" as you go
    along.

    Technology will arrive where the nuclear waste can be transported to the >>> sun.

    Using flying pigs might be an option but rockets are far too unreliable.

    Before that I would look into dropping it into a ****ing big active
    volcano. Although I suspect there are probably some good reasons I am
    unaware of why it's not done now.

    The main one being that volcanoes are spewing stuff *out* with a fair
    amount of it as fine dust particles. That is exactly what you *don't*
    want your nasty radioactive waste to be turned into.

    If you were crazy enough putting it into a subduction zone well away
    from any active volcanoes would be a better bet.

    Well volcanies are how most of the Uranium and thorium got to where it
    is today.
    `
    There are (expensive) glassification processes that can render it more
    or less inert for long term storage underground. Snag is the best places
    to put it geologically in the UK are not the same as the places where it
    will most likely be dumped (under Sellafield, formerly Winscale formerly Calder Hall - cunningly renamed after each mammoth cockup/MFU).

    They could build a pyramid and stuff it in that., It would be safe.

    We in the UK should give thanks to Cockcroft's follies. We were damn
    lucky that his somewhat wacky stack filter idea prevented massive
    fallout when the carbon moderator caught fire back in 1957. Radioactive discharge would have been ~20x worse without them.

    Not even as bad as chernobyl, which was the same without the filters and
    100 times bigger

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire

    You have to wait for quite a while (years) after spent fuel comes out of
    the reactor before it is safe enough to work with. The stuff has to sit
    in cooling ponds for a while so that the neutron rich fission product isotopes have time to decay to something less radioactive.


    Yup. And its perfectly safe there, as well.


    --
    Of what good are dead warriors? … Warriors are those who desire battle
    more than peace. Those who seek battle despite peace. Those who thump
    their spears on the ground and talk of honor. Those who leap high the
    battle dance and dream of glory … The good of dead warriors, Mother, is
    that they are dead.
    Sheri S Tepper: The Awakeners.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jul 5 10:38:31 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 04/07/2024 17:18, Jethro_uk wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:11:54 +0000, Smolley wrote:

    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    More unsubstantiated ignorant assertions. You seem to have adopted
    Donald Trump's debating style of inventing your "facts" as you go
    along.

    Technology will arrive where the nuclear waste can be transported to the
    sun.

    Using flying pigs might be an option but rockets are far too unreliable.

    Before that I would look into dropping it into a ****ing big active
    volcano. Although I suspect there are probably some good reasons I am
    unaware of why it's not done now.

    The main one being that volcanoes are spewing stuff *out* with a fair
    amount of it as fine dust particles. That is exactly what you *don't*
    want your nasty radioactive waste to be turned into.

    If you were crazy enough putting it into a subduction zone well away
    from any active volcanoes would be a better bet.

    There are (expensive) glassification processes that can render it more
    or less inert for long term storage underground. Snag is the best places
    to put it geologically in the UK are not the same as the places where it
    will most likely be dumped (under Sellafield, formerly Winscale formerly
    Calder Hall - cunningly renamed after each mammoth cockup/MFU).

    We in the UK should give thanks to Cockcroft's follies. We were damn
    lucky that his somewhat wacky stack filter idea prevented massive
    fallout when the carbon moderator caught fire back in 1957. Radioactive discharge would have been ~20x worse without them.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire

    You have to wait for quite a while (years) after spent fuel comes out of
    the reactor before it is safe enough to work with. The stuff has to sit
    in cooling ponds for a while so that the neutron rich fission product
    isotopes have time to decay to something less radioactive.

    --
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Vir Campestris@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Fri Jul 5 12:25:10 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 04/07/2024 12:17, Bill Sloman wrote:
    Magnalev trains need to shift a lot more power through the inductive
    link, and it doesn't seem to make them impractical

    Correct me if you have a better source, but the information I can find
    suggests that the power for a maglev train is supplied to electromagnets
    in the track.

    <https://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/engines-equipment/maglev-train.htm>

    Which means **** all power is supplied to the train.

    I have a memory of seeing one in the past where the train had a pair of contacts onto overhead wires, though I can't find it. But again, no
    power through induction.

    Andy

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to The Natural Philosopher on Fri Jul 5 21:36:57 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 5/07/2024 8:08 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 10:38, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 17:18, Jethro_uk wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:11:54 +0000, Smolley wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    More unsubstantiated ignorant assertions. You seem to have adopted
    Donald Trump's debating style of inventing your "facts" as you go
    along.

    Technology will arrive where the nuclear waste can be transported to
    the sun.

    Using flying pigs might be an option but rockets are far too unreliable.

    Before that I would look into dropping it into a ****ing big active
    volcano. Although I suspect there are probably some good reasons I am
    unaware of why it's not done now.

    The main one being that volcanoes are spewing stuff *out* with a fair
    amount of it as fine dust particles. That is exactly what you *don't*
    want your nasty radioactive waste to be turned into.

    If you were crazy enough putting it into a subduction zone well away
    from any active volcanoes would be a better bet.

    Well volcanoes are how most of the Uranium and thorium got to where it
    is today.

    Whatever makes you think that?
    `
    There are (expensive) glassification processes that can render it more
    or less inert for long term storage underground.

    The Australian CSIRO's Synroc process is one of them.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synroc

    "Synroc was chosen in April 2005 for a multimillion-dollar
    "demonstration" contract to eliminate 5 t (5.5 short tons) of plutonium-contaminated waste at British Nuclear Fuel's Sellafield plant,
    on the northwest coast of England. "

    Snag is the best
    places to put it geologically in the UK are not the same as the places
    where it will most likely be dumped (under Sellafield, formerly
    Winscale formerly Calder Hall - cunningly renamed after each mammoth
    cockup/MFU).

    They could build a pyramid and stuff it in that., It would be safe.

    In your ever-so-well-informed opinion.

    We in the UK should give thanks to Cockcroft's follies. We were damn
    lucky that his somewhat wacky stack filter idea prevented massive
    fallout when the carbon moderator caught fire back in 1957.
    Radioactive discharge would have been ~20x worse without them.

    Not even as bad as Chernobyl, which was the same without the filters and
    100 times bigger

    Not remotely similar, as you would have been able to work out of you had
    read the link below.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire

    The Windscale piles had the sole purpose of generating plutonium - they
    just dissipated the heat they generated without making any effort to
    exploit it to generate power. The Chernobyl reactors were primarily
    electricity generating plants.

    You have to wait for quite a while (years) after spent fuel comes out
    of the reactor before it is safe enough to work with. The stuff has to
    sit in cooling ponds for a while so that the neutron rich fission
    product isotopes have time to decay to something less radioactive.

    Yup. And its perfectly safe there, as well.

    As they were at Fukushima?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney



    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Andrew@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jul 5 12:56:56 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 04/07/2024 10:06, alan_m wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 09:25, Bill Sloman wrote:

    What a load of pretentious crap. Renewable energy sources are the
    cheapest power sources around,

    Another half truth by the industry. It's only cheaper when it works and
    if you ignore the backup required for when it doesn't and the extra infrastructure costs required to distribute it.  There is growing
    concern about the cost of distribution network (pylons and wires) that
    need to be installed to far flung parts of the country and there are
    already campaigns from the "not in my backyard" groups opposed to this extension to the national grid.

    Sir 412 seats has already said he intends to put noses out of joint and
    abolish the ability to use planning/objection delays to delay or
    prevent important infrastructure developments.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Liz Tuddenham@21:1/5 to Vir Campestris on Fri Jul 5 13:10:59 2024
    Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:


    I have a memory of seeing one in the past where the train had a pair of contacts onto overhead wires, though I can't find it.

    Some European electric railways had three-phase power to the
    locomotives, two phases on the overhead wires and one on the track. The
    motors used ingenious combinations of stator and rotor pole numbers to
    give several synchronous speed steps.

    (With synchronous traction motors, that might explain why they had a
    reputation for always being exactly on time.)


    --
    ~ Liz Tuddenham ~
    (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
    www.poppyrecords.co.uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@21:1/5 to Vir Campestris on Fri Jul 5 12:37:44 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 05/07/2024 12:25, Vir Campestris wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 12:17, Bill Sloman wrote:
    Magnalev trains need to shift a lot more power through the inductive
    link, and it doesn't seem to make them impractical

    Correct me if you have a better source, but the information I can find suggests that the power for a maglev train is supplied to electromagnets
    in the track.

    <https://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/engines-equipment/maglev-train.htm>

    Which means **** all power is supplied to the train.

    I have a memory of seeing one in the past where the train had a pair of contacts onto overhead wires, though I can't find it. But again, no
    power through induction.

    Andy
    Correct. a maglev train is a magnetic cushion married to a linear motor,
    all powered through the track.

    Very like a brushless motor, where the coils stay still and the
    (induced) magnets move


    --
    If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
    ..I'd spend it on drink.

    Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From charles@21:1/5 to Vir Campestris on Fri Jul 5 12:00:03 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    In article <v68l6m$38pa5$1@dont-email.me>,
    Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 12:17, Bill Sloman wrote:
    Magnalev trains need to shift a lot more power through the inductive
    link, and it doesn't seem to make them impractical

    Correct me if you have a better source, but the information I can find suggests that the power for a maglev train is supplied to electromagnets
    in the track.

    <https://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/engines-equipment/maglev-train.htm>

    Which means **** all power is supplied to the train.

    I have a memory of seeing one in the past where the train had a pair of contacts onto overhead wires, though I can't find it. But again, no
    power through induction.

    Trolley buses did.

    --
    from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4t
    "I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Vir Campestris@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Fri Jul 5 13:52:22 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 04/07/2024 15:46, Bill Sloman wrote:
    Catalytic converter theft doesn't seem to be a thing in Sydney. I
    certainly don't see an alarmist reports in the local newspapers or on TV.

    <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-16/catalytic-converter-thefts-australia-rare-metal-value/102224790>

    "Catalytic converter thefts on the rise in Australia as rare metal
    values climb"

    OK, that's the Gold Coast, not Sydney.

    Andy

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@21:1/5 to charles on Fri Jul 5 13:24:45 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 05/07/2024 13:00, charles wrote:
    In article <v68l6m$38pa5$1@dont-email.me>,
    Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 12:17, Bill Sloman wrote:
    Magnalev trains need to shift a lot more power through the inductive
    link, and it doesn't seem to make them impractical

    Correct me if you have a better source, but the information I can find
    suggests that the power for a maglev train is supplied to electromagnets
    in the track.

    <https://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/engines-equipment/maglev-train.htm>

    Which means **** all power is supplied to the train.

    I have a memory of seeing one in the past where the train had a pair of
    contacts onto overhead wires, though I can't find it. But again, no
    power through induction.

    Trolley buses did.

    And some trams, though some used rails as ground returns

    --
    Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

    "Saki"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@21:1/5 to Andrew on Fri Jul 5 13:23:33 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 05/07/2024 12:56, Andrew wrote:

    Sir 412 seats has already said he intends to put noses out of joint and abolish the ability to use planning/objection delays to delay or
    prevent important infrastructure developments.

    Except when they are nuclear power of course.
    A quick look at who is advising the labour party on energy is enough to
    make you weep.
    Greenpeace
    FoE
    Ember.
    Renewable UK

    No sign of a single nuclear advocate being allowed within a 50 mile
    exclusion zone around the Labour Party

    --
    “it should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
    (or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
    about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
    the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
    'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
    a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
    rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
    things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
    you live neither in Joseph Stalin’s Communist era, nor in the Orwellian utopia of 1984.”

    Vaclav Klaus

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Fri Jul 5 13:18:30 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 05/07/2024 12:36, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 8:08 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 10:38, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 17:18, Jethro_uk wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:11:54 +0000, Smolley wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    More unsubstantiated ignorant assertions. You seem to have adopted >>>>>> Donald Trump's debating style of inventing your "facts" as you go
    along.

    Technology will arrive where the nuclear waste can be transported
    to the sun.

    Using flying pigs might be an option but rockets are far too unreliable. >>>>
    Before that I would look into dropping it into a ****ing big active
    volcano. Although I suspect there are probably some good reasons I am
    unaware of why it's not done now.

    The main one being that volcanoes are spewing stuff *out* with a fair
    amount of it as fine dust particles. That is exactly what you *don't*
    want your nasty radioactive waste to be turned into.

    If you were crazy enough putting it into a subduction zone well away
    from any active volcanoes would be a better bet.

    Well volcanoes are how most of the Uranium and thorium got to where it
    is today.

    Whatever makes you think that?
     `
    There are (expensive) glassification processes that can render it
    more or less inert for long term storage underground.

    The Australian CSIRO's Synroc process is one of them.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synroc

    "Synroc was chosen in April 2005 for a multimillion-dollar
    "demonstration" contract to eliminate 5 t (5.5 short tons) of plutonium-contaminated waste at British Nuclear Fuel's Sellafield plant,
    on the northwest coast of England. "

    Snag is the best places to put it geologically in the UK are not the
    same as the places where it will most likely be dumped (under
    Sellafield, formerly Winscale formerly Calder Hall - cunningly
    renamed after each mammoth cockup/MFU).

    They could build a pyramid and stuff it in that., It would be safe.

    In your ever-so-well-informed opinion.
    Yes. In my ever so well informed opinion.
    The pyramids have been up and stable longer than ten half lives of any radioactive isotope crated in a reactor


    We in the UK should give thanks to Cockcroft's follies. We were damn
    lucky that his somewhat wacky stack filter idea prevented massive
    fallout when the carbon moderator caught fire back in 1957.
    Radioactive discharge would have been ~20x worse without them.

    Not even as bad as Chernobyl, which was the same without the filters
    and 100 times bigger

    Not remotely similar, as you would have been able to work out of you had
    read the link below.

    Almost identical, in that a carbon fire in an unenclosed reactor spread
    nuclear material around. I know ALL about BOTH accidents . I read ALL
    the literature

    And more importantly, I understood it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire

    The Windscale piles had the sole purpose of generating plutonium - they
    just dissipated the heat they generated without making any effort to
    exploit it to generate power. The Chernobyl reactors were primarily electricity generating plants.

    Oh dear. That is completely irrelevcant, It doesnt matter what a bomb
    was designed for, when it goes off accidentally te results are te same

    You have to wait for quite a while (years) after spent fuel comes out
    of the reactor before it is safe enough to work with. The stuff has
    to sit in cooling ponds for a while so that the neutron rich fission
    product isotopes have time to decay to something less radioactive.

    Yup. And its perfectly safe there, as well.

    As they were at Fukushima?

    Yup.
    Of course if the politicians had allowed the rods to be transported to a reprocessing facility there wouldn't have been so many onsite.

    Politicos and greens are dangerous people


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident


    Read that too, in great detail

    --
    Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Fri Jul 5 16:06:39 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 05/07/2024 15:34, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 10:18 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 12:36, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 8:08 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 10:38, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 17:18, Jethro_uk wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:11:54 +0000, Smolley wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    Well volcanoes are how most of the Uranium and thorium got to where
    it is today.

    Whatever makes you think that?
      `
    There are (expensive) glassification processes that can render it
    more or less inert for long term storage underground.

    The Australian CSIRO's Synroc process is one of them.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synroc

    "Synroc was chosen in April 2005 for a multimillion-dollar
    "demonstration" contract to eliminate 5 t (5.5 short tons) of
    plutonium-contaminated waste at British Nuclear Fuel's Sellafield
    plant, on the northwest coast of England. "

    Snag is the best places to put it geologically in the UK are not
    the same as the places where it will most likely be dumped (under
    Sellafield, formerly Winscale formerly Calder Hall - cunningly
    renamed after each mammoth cockup/MFU).

    They could build a pyramid and stuff it in that., It would be safe.

    In your ever-so-well-informed opinion.

    Yes. In my ever so well informed opinion.
    The pyramids have been up and stable longer than ten half lives of any
    radioactive isotope crated in a reactor'

    The oldest pyramid was completed around 2650 BC so it been up for about
    4,600 years.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Djoser

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-lived_fission_product

    The seven long lived fission products have half-lives ranging from
    211,000 years ( Technicium-99) to 15.7 million year (Iodine-199).



    Completely wrong The oldest fiisson products are uranium and thorium
    with half lives in billions of years

    Iodine 199 et al are so un radioactive you could bathe in them and be
    just fine

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-lived_fission_product

    So you've made yet another ludicrously false claim.
    No you habve. No one except you is in the slightest bit concerned about
    Inert materials like that. You are more at danger from lead poisoning,
    which lasts FOREVER

    We in the UK should give thanks to Cockcroft's follies. We were
    damn lucky that his somewhat wacky stack filter idea prevented
    massive fallout when the carbon moderator caught fire back in 1957.
    Radioactive discharge would have been ~20x worse without them.

    Not even as bad as Chernobyl, which was the same without the filters
    and 100 times bigger

    Not remotely similar, as you would have been able to work out of you
    had read the link below.

    Almost identical, in that a carbon fire in an unenclosed reactor
    spread nuclear material around. I know ALL about BOTH accidents . I
    read ALL the literature

    And more importantly, I understood it.

    Or think you did. The problem in the in the Chernobyl reactors wasn't
    just a carbon fire - while they did use some graphite moderator
    elements, and these did catch on fire - but a control failure which lead
    to a much higher fission rate than the cooling system could cope with, generating enough steam to blown the structure apart.


    Reay you must be a relative of Commander KInsey

    *plonk*

    --
    Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to The Natural Philosopher on Sat Jul 6 00:34:03 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 5/07/2024 10:18 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 12:36, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 8:08 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 10:38, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 17:18, Jethro_uk wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:11:54 +0000, Smolley wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    Well volcanoes are how most of the Uranium and thorium got to where
    it is today.

    Whatever makes you think that?
      `
    There are (expensive) glassification processes that can render it
    more or less inert for long term storage underground.

    The Australian CSIRO's Synroc process is one of them.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synroc

    "Synroc was chosen in April 2005 for a multimillion-dollar
    "demonstration" contract to eliminate 5 t (5.5 short tons) of
    plutonium-contaminated waste at British Nuclear Fuel's Sellafield
    plant, on the northwest coast of England. "

    Snag is the best places to put it geologically in the UK are not the
    same as the places where it will most likely be dumped (under
    Sellafield, formerly Winscale formerly Calder Hall - cunningly
    renamed after each mammoth cockup/MFU).

    They could build a pyramid and stuff it in that., It would be safe.

    In your ever-so-well-informed opinion.

    Yes. In my ever so well informed opinion.
    The pyramids have been up and stable longer than ten half lives of any radioactive isotope crated in a reactor'

    The oldest pyramid was completed around 2650 BC so it been up for about
    4,600 years.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Djoser

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-lived_fission_product

    The seven long lived fission products have half-lives ranging from
    211,000 years ( Technicium-99) to 15.7 million year (Iodine-199).


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-lived_fission_product

    So you've made yet another ludicrously false claim.
    We in the UK should give thanks to Cockcroft's follies. We were damn
    lucky that his somewhat wacky stack filter idea prevented massive
    fallout when the carbon moderator caught fire back in 1957.
    Radioactive discharge would have been ~20x worse without them.

    Not even as bad as Chernobyl, which was the same without the filters
    and 100 times bigger

    Not remotely similar, as you would have been able to work out of you
    had read the link below.

    Almost identical, in that a carbon fire in an unenclosed reactor spread nuclear material around. I know ALL about BOTH accidents . I read ALL
    the literature

    And more importantly, I understood it.

    Or think you did. The problem in the in the Chernobyl reactors wasn't
    just a carbon fire - while they did use some graphite moderator
    elements, and these did catch on fire - but a control failure which lead
    to a much higher fission rate than the cooling system could cope with, generating enough steam to blown the structure apart.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire

    The Windscale piles had the sole purpose of generating plutonium -
    they just dissipated the heat they generated without making any effort
    to exploit it to generate power. The Chernobyl reactors were primarily
    electricity generating plants.

    Oh dear. That is completely irrelevant, It doesnt matter what a bomb
    was designed for, when it goes off accidentally - the results are the same.

    But neither reactor was designed as a bomb, and only Chernobyl
    dismantled itself. The Windscale pile just burnt, though it did get very
    hot, before they finally blocked the air inlets.

    Not the same result at all.

    You have to wait for quite a while (years) after spent fuel comes
    out of the reactor before it is safe enough to work with. The stuff
    has to sit in cooling ponds for a while so that the neutron rich
    fission product isotopes have time to decay to something less
    radioactive.

    Yup. And its perfectly safe there, as well.

    As they were at Fukushima?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident

    Yup.
    Of course if the politicians had allowed the rods to be transported to a reprocessing facility there wouldn't have been so many onsite.

    Politicos and greens are dangerous people.

    But people who imagine themselves to be more expert than they are also
    pose significant risks, and do need to be outed as pretentious twits.>
    Read that too, in great detail

    And presumably with the same pathetically poor level of comprehension.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to tnp@invalid.invalid on Fri Jul 5 09:42:24 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 13:24:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 05/07/2024 13:00, charles wrote:
    In article <v68l6m$38pa5$1@dont-email.me>,
    Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 12:17, Bill Sloman wrote:
    Magnalev trains need to shift a lot more power through the inductive
    link, and it doesn't seem to make them impractical

    Correct me if you have a better source, but the information I can find
    suggests that the power for a maglev train is supplied to electromagnets >>> in the track.

    <https://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/engines-equipment/maglev-train.htm>

    Which means **** all power is supplied to the train.

    I have a memory of seeing one in the past where the train had a pair of
    contacts onto overhead wires, though I can't find it. But again, no
    power through induction.

    Trolley buses did.

    And some trams, though some used rails as ground returns

    "Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend."

    What does that mean?

    We were invited to a 4th Of July bbq across the street, and the whole
    yard (which is tiny, in San Franciso) was festooned in Canada flags.
    Downtight traitorous, in my opinion. Our neighborhood is being
    infested with Winnipegoos who all seem to work for Tesla.

    A giant maple leaf flag was taped to the hillside and was falling
    down, so I had to climb up and anchor it. All the guys there were
    programmers, and sometimes you need an engineer.

    The burgers were wagu-beef high end, from this place:

    https://bryansmarket.com/product/three-rib-prime-rib-roast/

    The host had a stainless truck prototype last year.

    https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/89zn4irbtkay56iberkqd/Tesla_Truck.jpg?rlkey=qm31onhl68sh1ai4vg4pve31b&raw=1

    I thought the sharp metal seams were a defect in the prototype, but
    apparently not. Elon had been both driver and passenger in this one.
    Funny story.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@21:1/5 to john larkin on Fri Jul 5 18:35:22 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 05/07/2024 17:42, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 13:24:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 05/07/2024 13:00, charles wrote:
    In article<v68l6m$38pa5$1@dont-email.me>,
    Vir Campestris<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 12:17, Bill Sloman wrote:
    Magnalev trains need to shift a lot more power through the inductive >>>>> link, and it doesn't seem to make them impractical
    Correct me if you have a better source, but the information I can find >>>> suggests that the power for a maglev train is supplied to electromagnets >>>> in the track.
    <https://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/engines-equipment/maglev-train.htm>
    Which means **** all power is supplied to the train.
    I have a memory of seeing one in the past where the train had a pair of >>>> contacts onto overhead wires, though I can't find it. But again, no
    power through induction.
    Trolley buses did.

    And some trams, though some used rails as ground returns
    "Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend."

    What does that mean?

    It means that to a humorous Edwardian writer of column inches, he had
    visited Canada and found it insufferably dull..


    --
    “Ideas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of
    other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance"

    - John K Galbraith

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to The Natural Philosopher on Fri Jul 5 19:57:22 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 7/5/24 14:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 12:56, Andrew wrote:

    Sir 412 seats has already said he intends to put noses out of joint and
    abolish the ability to use planning/objection delays to delay or
    prevent important infrastructure developments.

    Except when they are nuclear power of course.
    A quick look at who is advising the labour party on energy is enough to
    make you weep.
    Greenpeace
    FoE
    Ember.
    Renewable UK

    No sign of a single nuclear advocate being allowed within a 50 mile
    exclusion zone around the Labour Party


    Greenpeace spoiled its reputation with me when I questioned one
    of their acolytes about -what I believed was- an inaccuracy in
    one of their arguments. His reply was that they knew full well
    that their argument was inaccurate, but that lying was justified
    if it advanced their cause.

    Sorry, but no.

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to tnp@invalid.invalid on Fri Jul 5 12:56:34 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 18:35:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 05/07/2024 17:42, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 13:24:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 05/07/2024 13:00, charles wrote:
    In article<v68l6m$38pa5$1@dont-email.me>,
    Vir Campestris<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 12:17, Bill Sloman wrote:
    Magnalev trains need to shift a lot more power through the inductive >>>>>> link, and it doesn't seem to make them impractical
    Correct me if you have a better source, but the information I can find >>>>> suggests that the power for a maglev train is supplied to electromagnets >>>>> in the track.
    <https://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/engines-equipment/maglev-train.htm>
    Which means **** all power is supplied to the train.
    I have a memory of seeing one in the past where the train had a pair of >>>>> contacts onto overhead wires, though I can't find it. But again, no
    power through induction.
    Trolley buses did.

    And some trams, though some used rails as ground returns
    "Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend."

    What does that mean?

    It means that to a humorous Edwardian writer of column inches, he had
    visited Canada and found it insufferably dull..

    Canadians, and Canadian food, do seem kinda plain. But then, Canada
    doesn't start many wars.

    Places full of sane people don't seem to do much radical electronics
    either.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Custos Custodum@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jul 5 22:22:56 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 10:10:49 -0700, john larkin
    <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote:

    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 16:44:24 +0100, The Natural Philosopher ><tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 04/07/2024 15:33, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 4/07/2024 11:16 pm, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:10:41 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 4 Jul 2024 at 10:58:07 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

    On 04/07/2024 10:06, alan_m wrote:
    Another half truth by the industry. It's only cheaper when it works >>>>>>> and
    if you ignore the backup required for when it doesn't and the extra >>>>>>> infrastructure costs required to distribute it.

    It isn't even cheaper then.
    Some of us have run the numbers...


    Care to share ;-)

    Per gigawatt a wind turbine is cheaper than a nuclear power station but >>>>>> that ignores
    - the shorter lifetime of the windmill
    - the capacity factor of the windmill
    - the massive maintenance cost associated with a windmill.


    I find it hard to believe that the revenue costs (per unit of
    electricity) of
    a wind turbine exceeds those of nuclear.

    What do you mean by "unit of electricity" ?

    Kilowatt.hours and MegaWatt.hours seem to be popular. Alan m doesn't
    seem to be all that technical.


    THE Unit is defined as a KWh. but being an asshole, you wouldn't know that

    kWh is correct. Little k is kilo; big K is Kelvins.

    Units named after people are capitalized. Like Watt.

    No. Unit names are treated like ordinary nouns and are only
    capitalized where orthographically necessary. The symbols for units
    named after people are always capitalized.

    https://www.bipm.org/documents/20126/41483022/SI-Brochure-9-EN.pdf

    Section 5 explains all.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jul 6 00:22:47 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 10:06:01 +0100, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk>
    wrote:

    On 04/07/2024 09:25, Bill Sloman wrote:

    What a load of pretentious crap. Renewable energy sources are the
    cheapest power sources around,

    Another half truth by the industry. It's only cheaper when it works and
    if you ignore the backup required for when it doesn't and the extra >infrastructure costs required to distribute it. There is growing
    concern about the cost of distribution network (pylons and wires) that
    need to be installed to far flung parts of the country and there are
    already campaigns from the "not in my backyard" groups opposed to this >extension to the national grid. Even green environmentalists are
    complaining about the installation of wind turbines on the sky line in
    areas of natural beauty. Just wait until we are all forced to have
    electric central heating and EVs and we use 2x to 3x more electricity
    and the infrastructure in our urban roads has to be upgraded to meet
    demand. Decades of disruption and a high cost that has to passed on to
    the consumer.


    and EV let you travel more cheaply than
    you can in a car with an internal combustion engine.

    Not for long. The UK Government relies on the large amounts of fuel tax
    from petrol and diesel. As EVs become more popular this tax revenue >diminishes. The Government will soon claw it back in one way or another.
    Road fund tax or pay by the mile toll charges etc.

    Are you actually factoring in the extra cost of a EV and depreciation
    into your mileage costs?

    Are you actually factoring in the extra cost of a EV and
    *catastrophic* depreciation into your mileage costs?

    There we go: FIFY.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to The Natural Philosopher on Sat Jul 6 15:08:07 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 6/07/2024 1:06 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 15:34, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 10:18 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 12:36, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 8:08 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 10:38, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 17:18, Jethro_uk wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:11:54 +0000, Smolley wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    They could build a pyramid and stuff it in that., It would be safe.

    In your ever-so-well-informed opinion.

    Yes. In my ever so well informed opinion.
    The pyramids have been up and stable longer than ten half lives of
    any radioactive isotope crated in a reactor'

    The oldest pyramid was completed around 2650 BC so it been up for
    about 4,600 years.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Djoser

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-lived_fission_product

    The seven long lived fission products have half-lives ranging from
    211,000 years ( Technicium-99) to 15.7 million year (Iodine-129).

    Completely wrong The oldest fission products are uranium and thorium
    with half lives in billions of years.

    Uranium is what you put into reactor - it's not a fission product.
    There are neutron flying around inside a reactor, and a neutron hitting
    a uranium nucleus doesn't necessarily cause it to fission but can get
    capture, which is how some of the U-238 in a reactor gets turned into
    Pu-239. That isn't a fission product either.

    I've not heard that U-235 fission reactors produce thorium. People put Thorium-232 into U-235 nuclear reactors to "breed" thorium-233 which is fissile.

    Iodine 129 et al are so un-radioactive you could bathe in them and be
    just fine.

    Iodine-129 with it's 15.7 million year half-life, doesn't decay to
    Xenon-129 all that often, and it only emits a 194KeV electron (beta
    decay) in the process.

    But you don't want to bathe in it. Iodine concentrate in the thyroid,
    and any 194keV electron can mess up your DNA. Shorter-lived radioactive isotopes of iodine are used to shrink over-active thyroid glands.
    There's a cancer risk, but not a large one, and hyper-thyroidism is
    disorder that it pays to treat.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-lived_fission_product

    So you've made yet another ludicrously false claim.

    No you have. No one except you is in the slightest bit concerned about
    Inert materials like that. You are more at danger from lead poisoning,
    which lasts FOREVER.

    Wrong again.

    We in the UK should give thanks to Cockcroft's follies. We were
    damn lucky that his somewhat wacky stack filter idea prevented
    massive fallout when the carbon moderator caught fire back in
    1957. Radioactive discharge would have been ~20x worse without them. >>>>>>
    Not even as bad as Chernobyl, which was the same without the
    filters and 100 times bigger

    Not remotely similar, as you would have been able to work out of you
    had read the link below.

    Almost identical, in that a carbon fire in an unenclosed reactor
    spread nuclear material around. I know ALL about BOTH accidents . I
    read ALL the literature

    And more importantly, I understood it.

    Or think you did. The problem in the in the Chernobyl reactors wasn't
    just a carbon fire - while they did use some graphite moderator
    elements, and these did catch on fire - but a control failure which
    lead to a much higher fission rate than the cooling system could cope
    with, generating enough steam to blown the structure apart.

    Really you must be a relative of  Commander Kinsey.

    The Scottish Wanker? Your grasp of reality really is remarkably frail.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Syndey



    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Sat Jul 6 15:17:47 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 6/07/2024 9:22 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 10:06:01 +0100, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk>
    wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 09:25, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    Are you actually factoring in the extra cost of a EV and depreciation
    into your mileage costs?

    Electric vehicles haven't been around for long enough to let you work
    out reliable depreciation costs, and the "extra cost" of an electric
    vehicle is mainly due to the fact that they are so far being
    manufactured in smaller volumes that internal-combustion-engined vehicles.

    Are you actually factoring in the extra cost of a EV and
    *catastrophic* depreciation into your mileage costs?

    There we go: FIFY.

    Like most of Cursitor Doom's "corrections", he's presenting one of his ludicrous misapprehensions as if it were reliable information.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Vir Campestris on Sat Jul 6 15:29:17 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 5/07/2024 10:52 pm, Vir Campestris wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 15:46, Bill Sloman wrote:
    Catalytic converter theft doesn't seem to be a thing in Sydney. I
    certainly don't see an alarmist reports in the local newspapers or on TV.

    <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-16/catalytic-converter-thefts-australia-rare-metal-value/102224790>

    "Catalytic converter thefts on the rise in Australia as rare metal
    values climb"

    OK, that's the Gold Coast, not Sydney.

    It's 2023 report, and it does mention such thefts in Sydney as well.

    Presumably scrap metal dealers have now been visited by the police and
    reminded that they have to report being offered that kind of "scrap
    metal". If you can't sell the catalytic converter, there's not a lot of
    point in stealing it.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Sat Jul 6 14:39:15 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 21:07:57 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 4/07/2024 7:55 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 09:25, Bill Sloman wrote:
    What a load of pretentious crap. Renewable energy sources are the
    cheapest power sources around,

    Bless!

    and EV let you travel more cheaply than you can in a car with an
    internal combustion engine.

    Not at today's renewable electricity prices. And disastrous [
    depreciation on EVs

    Evidence?

    Just you try trading one in!

     If you had any kind
    of clue about engineering design,

    I am a professional engineer with a Cambridge degree in Electrical
    sciences and a lifetime in engineering design That;s how I do know what
    I say is true.

    When I worked at Cambridge Instruments as an electronic engineer I had
    to put up with a lot of clowns like you.

    They had the delusion that their Cambridge degree was of a different
    nature to the kind education offered elsewhere in the world - it was
    heavier on math, but short on connections to reality. The good ones
    could become useful practical engineers, but it took a year or two of de-programming.

    EMI Central Research was less infested with the sub-species, and rather
    more efficient at the de-programming.
    you'd be aware of that, but you are a right-wing twit in the Cursitor
    Doom and John Larkin style and lap up all the right-wing propganda
    aimed at twits like you.

    Projection.  He's swallowed the eco koolaid.
    Facts no longer matter, Pure Faith will see him thorough.

    And how many papers have you published in peer-reviewed scientific
    journals? You post under a pseudonym, so can't make that claim at all.

    https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?
    hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22a+w+sloman%22&oq=

    Its amazing how emotionally attached to greenCrap some people are...

    Not half as amazing as Cursitor Doom, attachment to ZeroHedge or John
    Larkin's faith in Anthony Watts

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger)

    If you don't know anything about science you won't realise quite how
    silly this is.

    Oh dear. I suspect I know far more about real science than you do.

    Of course you do. You have the delusion that your Cambridge degree was
    of a different and superior nature to the kind education offered
    elsewhere in the world, but the difference is largely confined to
    boosting your opinion of yourself and your fellow students, plus a bit
    of English snobbery about people who get their hands onto the equipment
    they work on, rather than relying on mathematical modelling.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    Excuse me, Bill? ISTR *you're* the one who loves to boast and bask in the
    glory of having worked for some Cambridge based outfit at some time in the
    dim and distant past! And you got your degree at Sydney University which
    is hardly an Ivy League joint! :-D

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Sat Jul 6 14:45:48 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 01:38:34 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 4/07/2024 9:22 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 12:07, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 4/07/2024 7:55 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 09:25, Bill Sloman wrote:
    What a load of pretentious crap. Renewable energy sources are the
    cheapest power sources around,

    Bless!

    and EV let you travel more cheaply than you can in a car with an
    internal combustion engine.
    ;
    Not at today's renewable electricity prices. And disastrous [
    depreciation on EVs

    Evidence?

    https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/news/2024/01/26/used-ev-prices- fall-amid-demand-and-depreciation-concerns/

    Higher depreciation, more expensive to insure, and unselable if te
    battery fails later in life.

    Investor's Chromicle? The internal combustion industry spreads that sort
    of propaganda when they see their sales falling. Sucker like you take it seriously.

     If you had any kind
    of clue about engineering design,
    ;
    I am a professional engineer with a Cambridge degree in Electrical
    sciences and a lifetime in engineering design That;s how I do know
    what I say is true.

    When I worked at Cambridge Instruments as an electronic engineer I had
    to put up with a lot of clowns like you.

    They had the delusion that their Cambridge degree was of a different
    nature to the kind education offered elsewhere in the world - it was
    heavier on math, but short on connections to reality. The good ones
    could become useful practical engineers, but it took a year or two of
    de-programming.

    I think is you that has lost connection with reality.

    You may like to think that.

    Like all peole whi are a little bit smart, you try to make yourself
    smarter by jumping on technical bandwagons and parroting stuff you read
    somewhere instead of actually doing Real Sums.

    That isn't a way of getting your name on a patent.

    https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?
    start=10&q=%22a+w+sloman%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2007

    will pick patents if you click on the "include patents"box in the left
    hand column. I've got my name on three.

    I was an apprentice on the shop floor before I went to Cambridge.

    Big deal.

    EMI Central Research was less infested with the sub-species, and
    rather more efficient at the de-programming.

    Chip on the shoulder eh?

    Not that anybody has complained about. I got on fine with my boss at EMI
    (who was six months younger than I was) and had a Ph.D. from Edinburgh
    and had some 25 patents to his name, and I still swap e-mails with him
    from time to time, and a couple of my other colleagues. The Scot who
    went to Oxford was just as practical and as easy to get on with.

    you'd be aware of that, but you are a right-wing twit in the
    Cursitor Doom and John Larkin style and lap up all the right-wing
    propganda aimed at twits like you.

    Projection.  He's swallowed the eco koolaid.
    Facts no longer matter, Pure Faith will see him thorough.

    And how many papers have you published in peer-reviewed scientific
    journals? You post under a pseudonym, so can't make that claim at all.

    I am a working engineer. We don't write 'peer reviewed papers' That's
    for those academics you so despise.

    I certainly don't despise academics. I married one, and she has done
    very well (but I've had to promise not to identify her here).

    Very wise of her. "I can't have everyone knowing I'm married to someone
    with such loony ideas, darling!" LOL!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to The Natural Philosopher on Sat Jul 6 15:23:53 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 05/07/2024 16:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 15:34, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 10:18 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 12:36, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 8:08 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 10:38, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 17:18, Jethro_uk wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:11:54 +0000, Smolley wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    Well volcanoes are how most of the Uranium and thorium got to where
    it is today.

    Whatever makes you think that?
      `
    There are (expensive) glassification processes that can render it
    more or less inert for long term storage underground.

    The Australian CSIRO's Synroc process is one of them.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synroc

    "Synroc was chosen in April 2005 for a multimillion-dollar
    "demonstration" contract to eliminate 5 t (5.5 short tons) of
    plutonium-contaminated waste at British Nuclear Fuel's Sellafield
    plant, on the northwest coast of England. "

    Snag is the best places to put it geologically in the UK are not
    the same as the places where it will most likely be dumped (under
    Sellafield, formerly Winscale formerly Calder Hall - cunningly
    renamed after each mammoth cockup/MFU).

    They could build a pyramid and stuff it in that., It would be safe.

    In your ever-so-well-informed opinion.
    ;
    Yes. In my ever so well informed opinion.
    The pyramids have been up and stable longer than ten half lives of
    any radioactive isotope crated in a reactor'

    The oldest pyramid was completed around 2650 BC so it been up for
    about 4,600 years.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Djoser

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-lived_fission_product

    The seven long lived fission products have half-lives ranging from
    211,000 years ( Technicium-99) to 15.7 million year (Iodine-199).



    Completely wrong The oldest fiisson products are uranium and thorium
    with half lives in billions of years

    He is right and you are wrong. They are primordeal radioactive materials
    left over from a supernova remnant ejecta when the Earth was formed and
    have been decaying away each according to their half life ever since.

    The oldest *fissionable* materials are uranium (and thorium) which way
    back was sufficiently U235 rich that groundwater water was able to
    moderate fission reactions in the Oklo region. Complete with the
    signature Ru99 isotopic enrichment characteristic of fission products
    like Tc99 decay.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor#Ruthenium

    Thorium isn't very naturally radioactive nor for that matter is depleted uranium mostly U238 (provided it hasn't been through a nuclear reactor).
    It is widely used as a super dense metal in engineering applications
    (and as an armour penetrator by the military). Pyrophoric on impact too.

    Clean DU is even used in some of the best radiation shielding
    (sandwiched with a layer of pre-nuclear age steel on either side).

    Iodine 199 et al are so un radioactive you could bathe in them and be
    just fine

    ITYM *I129* Apart from it having a nasty habit of concentrating in the
    thyroid gland. The really bad ones from a nuclear accident or detonation
    are I131 half life 8d and I132 (from Te132) half life 3d.

    Pb205 is about the longest loved decay chain product at 1.7e7y (it is a
    trace impurity that when concentrated by a calutron requires Pb206
    isotopic spikes to be marked as radioactive).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-lived_fission_product

    So you've made yet another ludicrously false claim.

    No you habve. No one except you is in the slightest bit concerned about
    Inert materials like that. You are more at danger from lead poisoning,
    which lasts FOREVER

    It is the ones with a short or moderate half life that are problematic
    for containment. Sr90 (30y) and Co60(5y) being notable examples.

    --
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Sun Jul 7 14:13:37 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 7/07/2024 12:39 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 21:07:57 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 4/07/2024 7:55 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 09:25, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    Not at today's renewable electricity prices. And disastrous [
    depreciation on EVs

    Evidence?

    Just you try trading one in!

    That's an assertion, not evidence. You should have realised by now that
    you aren't any kind of reliable witness, and can inf act be relied on to
    pick the most fatuous lying propaganda around.

    <snip>

    Excuse me, Bill? ISTR *you're* the one who loves to boast and bask in the glory of having worked for some Cambridge based outfit at some time in the dim and distant past!

    Boast? It was an eventful period, but there wasn't a lot of glory around.

    And you got your degree at Sydney University which is hardly an Ivy League joint! :-D

    Melbourne University. The "Ivy League" is a collection of eight American private universities

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_League

    So neither Sydney nor Melbourne is an Ivy League joint.

    https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/university-of-melbourne-501796

    puts Melbourne at 27th on the international pecking order, which doesn't
    say a thing about the education I got there from 1960 to 1969. The
    chemistry department where I got my Ph.D. didn't hire anybody who hadn't graduated from there for the next thirty years, which doesn't suggest
    that they were up to much. The first hire from outside that stayed was a
    guy I'd written a paper with, and the new professor of Inorganic
    Chemistry, hired a year or so later, was a guy who had been in my
    primary school class at Burnie, Tasmania, who used to swap "top of the
    boys" with me on a pretty regular basis all the way through.

    You do like to see the world in terms of pecking orders - anything more informative overloads your tiny brain.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Sun Jul 7 15:52:32 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 7/07/2024 12:45 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 01:38:34 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 4/07/2024 9:22 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 12:07, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 4/07/2024 7:55 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 09:25, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    I certainly don't despise academics. I married one, and she has done
    very well (but I've had to promise not to identify her here).

    Very wise of her. "I can't have everyone knowing I'm married to someone
    with such loony ideas, darling!" LOL!

    She put it more in terms of being worried about getting targetted by the
    likes of you.

    Though you may find this difficult to believe, you are the lunatic ideas merchant around here - not me - and my wife and I shared much the same political opinions. So do most of my and her professional colleagues.

    You are the MAGA-hat wearing freak around here, despite your delusions
    of level-headedness.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Sun Jul 7 07:56:39 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 14:13:37 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 7/07/2024 12:39 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 21:07:57 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 4/07/2024 7:55 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 09:25, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    Not at today's renewable electricity prices. And disastrous [
    depreciation on EVs

    Evidence?

    Just you try trading one in!

    That's an assertion, not evidence. You should have realised by now that
    you aren't any kind of reliable witness, and can inf act be relied on to
    pick the most fatuous lying propaganda around.

    <snip>

    Excuse me, Bill? ISTR *you're* the one who loves to boast and bask in
    the glory of having worked for some Cambridge based outfit at some time
    in the dim and distant past!

    Boast? It was an eventful period, but there wasn't a lot of glory
    around.

    And you got your degree at Sydney University which is hardly an Ivy
    League joint! :-D

    Melbourne University. The "Ivy League" is a collection of eight American private universities

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_League

    So neither Sydney nor Melbourne is an Ivy League joint.

    At least that's something we *do* agree on! :-D

    https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/university-of-
    melbourne-501796

    puts Melbourne at 27th on the international pecking order, which doesn't
    say a thing about the education I got there from 1960 to 1969. The
    chemistry department where I got my Ph.D. didn't hire anybody who hadn't graduated from there for the next thirty years, which doesn't suggest
    that they were up to much. The first hire from outside that stayed was a
    guy I'd written a paper with, and the new professor of Inorganic
    Chemistry, hired a year or so later, was a guy who had been in my
    primary school class at Burnie, Tasmania, who used to swap "top of the
    boys" with me on a pretty regular basis all the way through.

    You do like to see the world in terms of pecking orders - anything more informative overloads your tiny brain.

    I'm afraid much as you egalitarian types would prefer otherwise, the fauna
    of the world evolved and continues to evolve according to a pecking order
    and to suggest otherwise flies in the face of both nature and reason. The
    world is a very unequal place. You 'Communitarian' types constantly deny
    this and dogmatically insist that all are equal, but that's far more
    compelling evidence for having a tiny brain than anything I've ever said!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@21:1/5 to Martin Brown on Sun Jul 7 10:58:45 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 06/07/2024 15:23, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 16:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 15:34, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 10:18 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 12:36, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 8:08 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 10:38, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 17:18, Jethro_uk wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:11:54 +0000, Smolley wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    Well volcanoes are how most of the Uranium and thorium got to
    where it is today.

    Whatever makes you think that?
      `
    There are (expensive) glassification processes that can render it >>>>>>> more or less inert for long term storage underground.

    The Australian CSIRO's Synroc process is one of them.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synroc

    "Synroc was chosen in April 2005 for a multimillion-dollar
    "demonstration" contract to eliminate 5 t (5.5 short tons) of
    plutonium-contaminated waste at British Nuclear Fuel's Sellafield
    plant, on the northwest coast of England. "

    Snag is the best places to put it geologically in the UK are not >>>>>>> the same as the places where it will most likely be dumped (under >>>>>>> Sellafield, formerly Winscale formerly Calder Hall - cunningly
    renamed after each mammoth cockup/MFU).

    They could build a pyramid and stuff it in that., It would be safe. >>>>>
    In your ever-so-well-informed opinion.
    ;
    Yes. In my ever so well informed opinion.
    The pyramids have been up and stable longer than ten half lives of
    any radioactive isotope crated in a reactor'

    The oldest pyramid was completed around 2650 BC so it been up for
    about 4,600 years.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Djoser

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-lived_fission_product

    The seven long lived fission products have half-lives ranging from
    211,000 years ( Technicium-99) to 15.7 million year (Iodine-199).



    Completely wrong The oldest fiisson products are uranium and thorium
    with half lives in billions of years

    He is right and you are wrong. They are primordeal radioactive materials
    left over from a supernova remnant ejecta when the Earth was formed and
    have been decaying away each according to their half life ever since.

    Exactly. Nuclear waste.

    The oldest *fissionable* materials are uranium (and thorium) which way
    back was sufficiently U235 rich that groundwater water was able to
    moderate fission reactions in the Oklo region. Complete with the
    signature Ru99 isotopic enrichment characteristic of fission products
    like Tc99 decay.

    Exactly Natuaral fission reacxtins creatng even more nuclear waste.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor#Ruthenium

    Thorium isn't very naturally radioactive nor for that matter is depleted uranium mostly U238 (provided it hasn't been through a nuclear reactor).
    It is widely used as a super dense metal in engineering applications
    (and as an armour penetrator by the military). Pyrophoric on impact too.

    Any isotope with a half life of more than a few hundred years isn't very naturally radioactive.

    That's the point the greentards™ cant grasp. If its going to be around thousands of years, its not very radioactive AT ALL.


    Clean DU is even used in some of the best radiation shielding
    (sandwiched with a layer of pre-nuclear age steel on either side).

    Its used in te balance weighs on many airliners

    Iodine 199 et al are so un radioactive you could bathe in them and be
    just fine

    ITYM *I129* Apart from it having a nasty habit of concentrating in the thyroid gland. The really bad ones from a nuclear accident or detonation
    are I131 half life 8d and I132 (from Te132) half life 3d.

    Grandmother eggs suck

    Pb205 is about the longest loved decay chain product at 1.7e7y (it is a
    trace impurity that when concentrated by a calutron requires Pb206
    isotopic spikes to be marked as radioactive).

    Precisely,. The longer it lasts the less dangerous it is,

    The Greem Marxists love to conflate 'highly radioactive' 'lasts
    thousands of years' but its simply a propaganda lie.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-lived_fission_product

    So you've made yet another ludicrously false claim.

    No you habve. No one except you is in the slightest bit concerned about
    Inert materials like that. You are more at danger from lead poisoning,
    which lasts FOREVER

    It is the ones with a short or moderate half life that are problematic
    for containment. Sr90 (30y) and Co60(5y) being notable examples.


    That's what I have been saying. Stuff with a half life of a few hundred
    years is the problem, and a pyramid that works for 5000 years is plenty
    good enough


    --
    Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the
    gospel of envy.

    Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

    Winston Churchill

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to The Natural Philosopher on Sun Jul 7 20:34:45 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 7/07/2024 7:58 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 06/07/2024 15:23, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 16:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 15:34, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 10:18 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 12:36, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 8:08 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 10:38, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 17:18, Jethro_uk wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:11:54 +0000, Smolley wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    It is the ones with a short or moderate half life that are problematic
    for containment. Sr90 (30y) and Co60(5y) being notable examples.


    That's what I have been saying. Stuff with a half life of a few hundred
    years is the problem, and a pyramid that works for 5000 years is plenty
    good enough.

    And you happen to be completely wrong, as usual. Stuff with a short half
    life is a particularly horrible threat, but you don't want environment contaminated with any of the longer lived stuff either - right out to Iodine-129 with it's 15.7 million year half-life.

    Only an ignorant yokel like you could fail to see it as a threat.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Sun Jul 7 20:56:37 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 7/07/2024 5:56 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 14:13:37 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 7/07/2024 12:39 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 21:07:57 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 4/07/2024 7:55 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 09:25, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>


    And you got your degree at Sydney University which is hardly an Ivy
    League joint! :-D

    Melbourne University. The "Ivy League" is a collection of eight American
    private universities

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_League

    So neither Sydney nor Melbourne is an Ivy League joint.

    At least that's something we *do* agree on! :-D

    For rather different reasons.

    https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/university-of-melbourne-501796

    puts Melbourne at 27th on the international pecking order, which doesn't
    say a thing about the education I got there from 1960 to 1969. The
    chemistry department where I got my Ph.D. didn't hire anybody who hadn't
    graduated from there for the next thirty years, which doesn't suggest
    that they were up to much. The first hire from outside that stayed was a
    guy I'd written a paper with, and the new professor of Inorganic
    Chemistry, hired a year or so later, was a guy who had been in my
    primary school class at Burnie, Tasmania, who used to swap "top of the
    boys" with me on a pretty regular basis all the way through.

    You do like to see the world in terms of pecking orders - anything more
    informative overloads your tiny brain.

    I'm afraid much as you egalitarian types would prefer otherwise, the fauna
    of the world evolved and continues to evolve according to a pecking order
    and to suggest otherwise flies in the face of both nature and reason.

    Pecking order is one area of competition. Evolution depends on having off-spring that survive to reproduce, so the capacity to get enough to
    eat comes into it too, amongst a whole lot of other things.

    You clearly aren't up to that kind of reasoning, and like to simplify
    your life by leaving out the bits you have trouble comprehending.

    The world is a very unequal place. You 'Communitarian' types constantly deny this and dogmatically insist that all are equal, but that's far more compelling evidence for having a tiny brain than anything I've ever said!

    A strange assertion. I've never asserted that "all are equal" and in
    fact tend to point out that the only people who even start off with
    identical genomes are identical twins, and even their geneomes don't
    stay identical much beyond conception.

    You do seem to think that left-wingers insist that everybody is the
    same, but this isn't true.

    The US Constitution does say "that all men are created equal" but it
    clearly didn't mean identical.

    This does seem to be another of those complicated ideas that you can't
    actually comprehend.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney



    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to All on Sun Jul 7 06:06:28 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Thu, 04 Jul 24 13:15:03 UTC, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
    wrote:

    In article <v65vqn$2nm1f$3@dont-email.me>,
    Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
    On 4/07/2024 7:55 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 09:25, Bill Sloman wrote:
    What a load of pretentious crap. Renewable energy sources are the
    cheapest power sources around,

    Bless!

    and EV let you travel more cheaply than you can in a car with an
    internal combustion engine.

    Not at today's renewable electricity prices. And disastrous [
    depreciation on EVs

    Evidence?

    If you had any kind
    of clue about engineering design,

    I am a professional engineer with a Cambridge degree in Electrical
    sciences and a lifetime in engineering design
    That;s how I do know what I say is true.

    When I worked at Cambridge Instruments as an electronic engineer I had
    to put up with a lot of clowns like you.

    They had the delusion that their Cambridge degree was of a different
    nature to the kind education offered elsewhere in the world - it was
    heavier on math, but short on connections to reality. The good ones
    could become useful practical engineers, but it took a year or two of
    de-programming.

    I'm also a Cambridge educated Engineer. I believe in "real world" >engineering.

    That's good, even necessary, but it shouldn't supress the occasional
    excursion into absurdity, which is where ideas come from.

    I was just talking to a guy who runs the electronics group at one of
    our US National Labs. He asked me what sort of stuff we do, and I said
    "lunatic fringe electronics." He laughed and said that's what he does
    too.

    We agree that scientists present us with wonderful problems to
    instrument but are generally terrible at designing electronics
    themselves.

    I was just reading some similar thoughts about ideas in a book by
    Freeman Dyson.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ralph Mowery@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jul 7 10:11:49 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    In article <v6e5ar$bi73$1@dont-email.me>, tnp@invalid.invalid says...
    ook! No fucking noise'

    (It turned out that wunderbar German tuner head was a pile of crap.
    They had used a zener diode to stabilize the VCO without seeming to understand that a zener is an ideal noise source, and they had used
    ferrite slugs in the VCO which make marvellous detectors of magnetic
    fields. Germans are shit engineers. They make up for it by testing and fiddling till stuff works. A nation of technicians)




    Sounds like a German engineer that was in charge of a new instalation
    where I worked. We asked him for the settings on some instruments. He
    said 'we week it up and we tweak it down and when she runs , she runs.'

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sun Jul 7 14:31:07 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 07/07/2024 14:06, john larkin wrote:
    We agree that scientists present us with wonderful problems to
    instrument but are generally terrible at designing electronics
    themselves.

    This supposed dichotomy between academic and pragmatic knowledge is false.
    Both are necessary
    Example 1.
    =======
    We were developing a laser rangefinder for the Army, featuring fragile
    optics a ruby laser and a bloody expensive silicon photodiode.
    Try as we might we couldnt get more than just over a mile range from
    the lab roof to a white painted building about a mile away.
    One day a boffin with a tweed jacket and pipe came visiting, we
    explained our problem.
    "How much power is the laser?"
    "EWhat is te noise figure on the photodiode"?
    "I'll see whats what over lunch"


    He came back later and sid - "Oh, well its not good news I am afraid,
    with that much power and that much front end noise you will be lucky to
    get a mile put of that with a nice reflective target"
    So we gave up, drained all the money out that projects budget and
    cancelled it.

    Example 2
    ======

    I was tasked with designing amongst other things a FM Hifi receiver. To
    save time we imported a Japanese tuner head and I built the IF strip
    and detector.
    The customer was however German, and totally chauvinistic. No Japanese
    quality. We must have German or at least European, So we got a Philips
    head.
    At once we had massive hiss and hum. I didn't have time to track it
    diown so a consultant was briught on who spent a fortnight calculating
    the noise contribution of my IF strop and said 'well it doesn't seem to
    be that'
    'I could have saved to two weeks of calculation'
    'How so'
    'Just pull the tuner out, put in a 10.7MHz signal into theh IF strip and
    look! No fucking noise'

    (It turned out that wunderbar German tuner head was a pile of crap.
    They had used a zener diode to stabilize the VCO without seeming to
    understand that a zener is an ideal noise source, and they had used
    ferrite slugs in the VCO which make marvellous detectors of magnetic
    fields. Germans are shit engineers. They make up for it by testing and
    fiddling till stuff works. A nation of technicians)

    The point here is that academic knowledge can eliminate solutions that
    *cannot* work,. . like 'renewable energy' without having to spend a
    fortune trying to make it work...
    Conversely practical experience is way faster than a computer model...

    "Are you sure that beam will take the load of pulling an engine out of t forklift?"
    "we pulled a bigger one out with it last week"

    --
    All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
    all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
    fully understood.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to The Natural Philosopher on Sun Jul 7 16:58:54 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 14:31:07 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

    On 07/07/2024 14:06, john larkin wrote:
    We agree that scientists present us with wonderful problems to
    instrument but are generally terrible at designing electronics
    themselves.

    This supposed dichotomy between academic and pragmatic knowledge is
    false.
    Both are necessary Example 1.
    =======
    We were developing a laser rangefinder for the Army, featuring fragile
    optics a ruby laser and a bloody expensive silicon photodiode.
    Try as we might we couldnt get more than just over a mile range from
    the lab roof to a white painted building about a mile away.
    One day a boffin with a tweed jacket and pipe came visiting, we
    explained our problem.
    "How much power is the laser?"
    "EWhat is te noise figure on the photodiode"?
    "I'll see whats what over lunch"


    He came back later and sid - "Oh, well its not good news I am afraid,
    with that much power and that much front end noise you will be lucky to
    get a mile put of that with a nice reflective target"
    So we gave up, drained all the money out that projects budget and
    cancelled it.

    Example 2 ======

    I was tasked with designing amongst other things a FM Hifi receiver. To
    save time we imported a Japanese tuner head and I built the IF strip
    and detector.
    The customer was however German, and totally chauvinistic. No Japanese quality. We must have German or at least European, So we got a Philips
    head.
    At once we had massive hiss and hum. I didn't have time to track it
    diown so a consultant was briught on who spent a fortnight calculating
    the noise contribution of my IF strop and said 'well it doesn't seem to
    be that'
    'I could have saved to two weeks of calculation'
    'How so'
    'Just pull the tuner out, put in a 10.7MHz signal into theh IF strip and look! No fucking noise'

    (It turned out that wunderbar German tuner head was a pile of crap.
    They had used a zener diode to stabilize the VCO without seeming to understand that a zener is an ideal noise source, and they had used
    ferrite slugs in the VCO which make marvellous detectors of magnetic
    fields. Germans are shit engineers. They make up for it by testing and fiddling till stuff works. A nation of technicians)

    On a visit to the UK some years ago I went to the Science Museum in
    Kensington (or wherever it is). They had a Spitfire and a Messerschmit on
    one of the floors and each had cut-away engines. The Spitfire engine was
    of course a Rolls-Royce Merlin and the quality of the engineering was staggering. You didn't have to be an engineer to appreciate it.
    Beautifully polished components shining like mirrors. How the hell they produced workmanship like that in the middle of a major war is beyond me.
    It was superhuman. The German plane's engine was a pile of garbage in comparison; very crudely thrown together with poorly machined parts.
    Still, it did fair job I suppose, even though it couldn't match the
    performance of the Spitfire in the air.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to cd999666@notformail.com on Sun Jul 7 10:09:36 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 16:58:54 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 14:31:07 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

    On 07/07/2024 14:06, john larkin wrote:
    We agree that scientists present us with wonderful problems to
    instrument but are generally terrible at designing electronics
    themselves.

    This supposed dichotomy between academic and pragmatic knowledge is
    false.
    Both are necessary Example 1.
    =======
    We were developing a laser rangefinder for the Army, featuring fragile
    optics a ruby laser and a bloody expensive silicon photodiode.
    Try as we might we couldnt get more than just over a mile range from
    the lab roof to a white painted building about a mile away.
    One day a boffin with a tweed jacket and pipe came visiting, we
    explained our problem.
    "How much power is the laser?"
    "EWhat is te noise figure on the photodiode"?
    "I'll see whats what over lunch"


    He came back later and sid - "Oh, well its not good news I am afraid,
    with that much power and that much front end noise you will be lucky to
    get a mile put of that with a nice reflective target"
    So we gave up, drained all the money out that projects budget and
    cancelled it.

    Example 2 ======

    I was tasked with designing amongst other things a FM Hifi receiver. To
    save time we imported a Japanese tuner head and I built the IF strip
    and detector.
    The customer was however German, and totally chauvinistic. No Japanese
    quality. We must have German or at least European, So we got a Philips
    head.
    At once we had massive hiss and hum. I didn't have time to track it
    diown so a consultant was briught on who spent a fortnight calculating
    the noise contribution of my IF strop and said 'well it doesn't seem to
    be that'
    'I could have saved to two weeks of calculation'
    'How so'
    'Just pull the tuner out, put in a 10.7MHz signal into theh IF strip and
    look! No fucking noise'

    (It turned out that wunderbar German tuner head was a pile of crap.
    They had used a zener diode to stabilize the VCO without seeming to
    understand that a zener is an ideal noise source, and they had used
    ferrite slugs in the VCO which make marvellous detectors of magnetic
    fields. Germans are shit engineers. They make up for it by testing and
    fiddling till stuff works. A nation of technicians)

    On a visit to the UK some years ago I went to the Science Museum in >Kensington (or wherever it is). They had a Spitfire and a Messerschmit on
    one of the floors and each had cut-away engines. The Spitfire engine was
    of course a Rolls-Royce Merlin and the quality of the engineering was >staggering. You didn't have to be an engineer to appreciate it.
    Beautifully polished components shining like mirrors. How the hell they >produced workmanship like that in the middle of a major war is beyond me.
    It was superhuman. The German plane's engine was a pile of garbage in >comparison; very crudely thrown together with poorly machined parts.
    Still, it did fair job I suppose, even though it couldn't match the >performance of the Spitfire in the air.

    Some Nazi bigwig saw a Merlin engine and announced that they would
    lose the war.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Sun Jul 7 17:15:09 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 20:34:45 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 7/07/2024 7:58 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 06/07/2024 15:23, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 16:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 15:34, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 10:18 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 12:36, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 8:08 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 10:38, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 17:18, Jethro_uk wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:11:54 +0000, Smolley wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    It is the ones with a short or moderate half life that are problematic
    for containment. Sr90 (30y) and Co60(5y) being notable examples.


    That's what I have been saying. Stuff with a half life of a few hundred
    years is the problem, and a pyramid that works for 5000 years is plenty
    good enough.

    And you happen to be completely wrong, as usual. Stuff with a short half
    life is a particularly horrible threat, but you don't want environment contaminated with any of the longer lived stuff either - right out to Iodine-129 with it's 15.7 million year half-life.

    Only an ignorant yokel like you could fail to see it as a threat.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    I think you misunderstood what he said (as usual) Bill. The kind of
    exposure is also highly relevant. Most notably ingestion as opposed to
    simple proximity to the source. You are aware - I assume - that different
    modes of radiation (eg. alpha, beta, gamma etc.) have different
    penetrative qualities and whilst lead is required to screen out some
    types, others can't even make it through skin.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sun Jul 7 17:25:47 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Sun, 07 Jul 2024 10:09:36 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 16:58:54 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 14:31:07 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

    On 07/07/2024 14:06, john larkin wrote:
    We agree that scientists present us with wonderful problems to
    instrument but are generally terrible at designing electronics
    themselves.

    This supposed dichotomy between academic and pragmatic knowledge is
    false.
    Both are necessary Example 1.
    =======
    We were developing a laser rangefinder for the Army, featuring fragile
    optics a ruby laser and a bloody expensive silicon photodiode.
    Try as we might we couldnt get more than just over a mile range from
    the lab roof to a white painted building about a mile away.
    One day a boffin with a tweed jacket and pipe came visiting, we
    explained our problem.
    "How much power is the laser?"
    "EWhat is te noise figure on the photodiode"?
    "I'll see whats what over lunch"


    He came back later and sid - "Oh, well its not good news I am afraid,
    with that much power and that much front end noise you will be lucky
    to get a mile put of that with a nice reflective target"
    So we gave up, drained all the money out that projects budget and
    cancelled it.

    Example 2 ======

    I was tasked with designing amongst other things a FM Hifi receiver.
    To save time we imported a Japanese tuner head and I built the IF
    strip and detector.
    The customer was however German, and totally chauvinistic. No Japanese
    quality. We must have German or at least European, So we got a
    Philips head.
    At once we had massive hiss and hum. I didn't have time to track it
    diown so a consultant was briught on who spent a fortnight calculating
    the noise contribution of my IF strop and said 'well it doesn't seem
    to be that'
    'I could have saved to two weeks of calculation'
    'How so'
    'Just pull the tuner out, put in a 10.7MHz signal into theh IF strip
    and look! No fucking noise'

    (It turned out that wunderbar German tuner head was a pile of crap.
    They had used a zener diode to stabilize the VCO without seeming to
    understand that a zener is an ideal noise source, and they had used
    ferrite slugs in the VCO which make marvellous detectors of magnetic
    fields. Germans are shit engineers. They make up for it by testing and
    fiddling till stuff works. A nation of technicians)

    On a visit to the UK some years ago I went to the Science Museum in >>Kensington (or wherever it is). They had a Spitfire and a Messerschmit
    on one of the floors and each had cut-away engines. The Spitfire engine
    was of course a Rolls-Royce Merlin and the quality of the engineering
    was staggering. You didn't have to be an engineer to appreciate it. >>Beautifully polished components shining like mirrors. How the hell they >>produced workmanship like that in the middle of a major war is beyond
    me.
    It was superhuman. The German plane's engine was a pile of garbage in >>comparison; very crudely thrown together with poorly machined parts.
    Still, it did fair job I suppose, even though it couldn't match the >>performance of the Spitfire in the air.

    Some Nazi bigwig saw a Merlin engine and announced that they would lose
    the war.

    Goering - the head of the German airforce at the time - really upset
    Hitler when the latter asked what he needed to win the Battle of Britain.
    "Give me Spitfires" was the answer. Old Goering must have been a very
    brave man to say that to the Fuhrer!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Mon Jul 8 11:33:12 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 8/07/2024 3:15 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 20:34:45 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 7/07/2024 7:58 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 06/07/2024 15:23, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 16:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 15:34, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 10:18 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 12:36, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 8:08 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 10:38, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 17:18, Jethro_uk wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:11:54 +0000, Smolley wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    That's what I have been saying. Stuff with a half life of a few hundred
    years is the problem, and a pyramid that works for 5000 years is plenty
    good enough.

    And you happen to be completely wrong, as usual. Stuff with a short half
    life is a particularly horrible threat, but you don't want environment
    contaminated with any of the longer lived stuff either - right out to
    Iodine-129 with it's 15.7 million year half-life.

    Only an ignorant yokel like you could fail to see it as a threat.

    I think you misunderstood what he said (as usual) Bill.

    You usually do. You don't understand much, and imagine that your own
    defective understanding justifies quite a bit of off-target rudeness.

    The kind of exposure is also highly relevant.

    The problem with the longer-lived radio-nucleotide is that they will
    still be dangerous long after our current civilisation is dead and
    forgotten. We can't predict who or what will get exposed to our
    radioactive waste, or how they might get exposed.

    Burying it deep in some kind of geologically stable structure is the
    best we can do, and we still aren't actually doing it, some seventy
    years after we started generating high level radioative waste.

    Most notably ingestion as opposed to simple proximity to the source. You are aware - I assume - that different
    modes of radiation (eg. alpha, beta, gamma etc.) have different
    penetrative qualities and whilst lead is required to screen out some
    types, others can't even make it through skin.

    Obviously. I've had a technical education that does explicitly include
    that kind of information. I've even worked on electron microscopes which
    rely on beta-particles (electrons) as their illuminating mechanism.

    If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that, rather than
    having to "assume" it.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Mon Jul 8 19:47:02 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 11:33:12 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 8/07/2024 3:15 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 20:34:45 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 7/07/2024 7:58 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 06/07/2024 15:23, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 16:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 15:34, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 10:18 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 12:36, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 8:08 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 10:38, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 17:18, Jethro_uk wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:11:54 +0000, Smolley wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    That's what I have been saying. Stuff with a half life of a few
    hundred years is the problem, and a pyramid that works for 5000 years
    is plenty good enough.

    And you happen to be completely wrong, as usual. Stuff with a short
    half life is a particularly horrible threat, but you don't want
    environment contaminated with any of the longer lived stuff either -
    right out to Iodine-129 with it's 15.7 million year half-life.

    Only an ignorant yokel like you could fail to see it as a threat.

    I think you misunderstood what he said (as usual) Bill.

    You usually do. You don't understand much, and imagine that your own defective understanding justifies quite a bit of off-target rudeness.

    The kind of exposure is also highly relevant.

    The problem with the longer-lived radio-nucleotide is that they will
    still be dangerous long after our current civilisation is dead and
    forgotten. We can't predict who or what will get exposed to our
    radioactive waste, or how they might get exposed.

    Burying it deep in some kind of geologically stable structure is the
    best we can do, and we still aren't actually doing it, some seventy
    years after we started generating high level radioative waste.

    Most notably ingestion as opposed to simple proximity to the source.
    You are aware - I assume - that different modes of radiation (eg.
    alpha, beta, gamma etc.) have different penetrative qualities and
    whilst lead is required to screen out some types, others can't even
    make it through skin.

    Obviously. I've had a technical education that does explicitly include
    that kind of information. I've even worked on electron microscopes which
    rely on beta-particles (electrons) as their illuminating mechanism.

    If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that, rather than
    having to "assume" it.

    Jeez, Bill. I was only trying to be kind to you and you're attacking me
    for it! I don't think I'll ever understand you Communists.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to cd999666@notformail.com on Mon Jul 8 13:28:29 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 19:47:02 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 11:33:12 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 8/07/2024 3:15 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 20:34:45 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 7/07/2024 7:58 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 06/07/2024 15:23, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 16:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 15:34, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 10:18 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 12:36, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 8:08 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 10:38, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 17:18, Jethro_uk wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:11:54 +0000, Smolley wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    That's what I have been saying. Stuff with a half life of a few
    hundred years is the problem, and a pyramid that works for 5000 years >>>>> is plenty good enough.

    And you happen to be completely wrong, as usual. Stuff with a short
    half life is a particularly horrible threat, but you don't want
    environment contaminated with any of the longer lived stuff either -
    right out to Iodine-129 with it's 15.7 million year half-life.

    Only an ignorant yokel like you could fail to see it as a threat.

    I think you misunderstood what he said (as usual) Bill.

    You usually do. You don't understand much, and imagine that your own
    defective understanding justifies quite a bit of off-target rudeness.

    The kind of exposure is also highly relevant.

    The problem with the longer-lived radio-nucleotide is that they will
    still be dangerous long after our current civilisation is dead and
    forgotten. We can't predict who or what will get exposed to our
    radioactive waste, or how they might get exposed.

    Burying it deep in some kind of geologically stable structure is the
    best we can do, and we still aren't actually doing it, some seventy
    years after we started generating high level radioative waste.

    Most notably ingestion as opposed to simple proximity to the source.
    You are aware - I assume - that different modes of radiation (eg.
    alpha, beta, gamma etc.) have different penetrative qualities and
    whilst lead is required to screen out some types, others can't even
    make it through skin.

    Obviously. I've had a technical education that does explicitly include
    that kind of information. I've even worked on electron microscopes which
    rely on beta-particles (electrons) as their illuminating mechanism.

    If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that, rather than
    having to "assume" it.

    Jeez, Bill. I was only trying to be kind to you and you're attacking me
    for it! I don't think I'll ever understand you Communists.

    It's a waste being polite to Sloman. His only mode is contempt.

    So ignore him.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Tue Jul 9 14:04:24 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 9/07/2024 5:47 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 11:33:12 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 8/07/2024 3:15 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 20:34:45 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 7/07/2024 7:58 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 06/07/2024 15:23, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 16:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 15:34, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 10:18 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 12:36, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 8:08 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 10:38, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 17:18, Jethro_uk wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:11:54 +0000, Smolley wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    That's what I have been saying. Stuff with a half life of a few
    hundred years is the problem, and a pyramid that works for 5000 years >>>>> is plenty good enough.

    And you happen to be completely wrong, as usual. Stuff with a short
    half life is a particularly horrible threat, but you don't want
    environment contaminated with any of the longer lived stuff either -
    right out to Iodine-129 with it's 15.7 million year half-life.

    Only an ignorant yokel like you could fail to see it as a threat.

    I think you misunderstood what he said (as usual) Bill.

    You usually do. You don't understand much, and imagine that your own
    defective understanding justifies quite a bit of off-target rudeness.

    The kind of exposure is also highly relevant.

    The problem with the longer-lived radio-nucleotide is that they will
    still be dangerous long after our current civilisation is dead and
    forgotten. We can't predict who or what will get exposed to our
    radioactive waste, or how they might get exposed.

    Burying it deep in some kind of geologically stable structure is the
    best we can do, and we still aren't actually doing it, some seventy
    years after we started generating high level radioative waste.

    Most notably ingestion as opposed to simple proximity to the source.
    You are aware - I assume - that different modes of radiation (eg.
    alpha, beta, gamma etc.) have different penetrative qualities and
    whilst lead is required to screen out some types, others can't even
    make it through skin.

    Obviously. I've had a technical education that does explicitly include
    that kind of information. I've even worked on electron microscopes which
    rely on beta-particles (electrons) as their illuminating mechanism.

    If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that, rather than
    having to "assume" it.

    Jeez, Bill. I was only trying to be kind to you and you're attacking me
    for it!

    Pull the other leg. You were trying to be patronising about your own
    imagined technical expertise, and got what you deserved.

    I don't think I'll ever understand you Communists.

    Since you can't even identify them correctly, that isn't any surprise.
    If you are trying to label me as a communist, you are being remarkably
    stupid, even for you. From time to time I get to remind the qroup that
    I'm a democratic socialist - while Communists are autocratic socialists,
    and got slung out of the International Socialist movements in 1871, when
    Karl Marx's silly ideas about "the leading role" of the party were rejected.

    Mikhail Bakunin's famous quote dates from that period

    https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/801264-if-you-took-the-most-ardent-revolutionary-vested-him-in

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Tue Jul 9 14:10:06 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 9/07/2024 6:28 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 19:47:02 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 11:33:12 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 8/07/2024 3:15 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 20:34:45 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 7/07/2024 7:58 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 06/07/2024 15:23, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 16:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 15:34, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 10:18 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 12:36, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 8:08 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 10:38, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 17:18, Jethro_uk wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:11:54 +0000, Smolley wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    That's what I have been saying. Stuff with a half life of a few
    hundred years is the problem, and a pyramid that works for 5000 years >>>>>> is plenty good enough.

    And you happen to be completely wrong, as usual. Stuff with a short
    half life is a particularly horrible threat, but you don't want
    environment contaminated with any of the longer lived stuff either - >>>>> right out to Iodine-129 with it's 15.7 million year half-life.

    Only an ignorant yokel like you could fail to see it as a threat.

    I think you misunderstood what he said (as usual) Bill.

    You usually do. You don't understand much, and imagine that your own
    defective understanding justifies quite a bit of off-target rudeness.

    The kind of exposure is also highly relevant.

    The problem with the longer-lived radio-nucleotide is that they will
    still be dangerous long after our current civilisation is dead and
    forgotten. We can't predict who or what will get exposed to our
    radioactive waste, or how they might get exposed.

    Burying it deep in some kind of geologically stable structure is the
    best we can do, and we still aren't actually doing it, some seventy
    years after we started generating high level radioative waste.

    Most notably ingestion as opposed to simple proximity to the source.
    You are aware - I assume - that different modes of radiation (eg.
    alpha, beta, gamma etc.) have different penetrative qualities and
    whilst lead is required to screen out some types, others can't even
    make it through skin.

    Obviously. I've had a technical education that does explicitly include
    that kind of information. I've even worked on electron microscopes which >>> rely on beta-particles (electrons) as their illuminating mechanism.

    If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that, rather than
    having to "assume" it.

    Jeez, Bill. I was only trying to be kind to you and you're attacking me
    for it! I don't think I'll ever understand you Communists.

    It's a waste being polite to Sloman. His only mode is contempt.

    So ignore him.

    I do post contemptuous comments about contemptible people. They don't constitute the bulk of my output, but John Larkin only reads stuff about
    him, and regards anything less than fulsome flattery and awed admiration
    as contempt.

    I've had nice things to say about Phil Hobbs and Piglet, amongst others,
    but John won't have read them.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney



    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RJH@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Tue Jul 9 09:24:30 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    From time to time I get to remind the qroup that
    I'm a democratic socialist - while Communists are autocratic socialists,
    and got slung out of the International Socialist movements in 1871, when
    Karl Marx's silly ideas about "the leading role" of the party were rejected.


    Very kind of you! But a small point - the CP was, theoretically, a socialist bridge to communism. Nobody - especially Marx - know what communism would be
    in detail - simply that the process of revolutionary socialism would put an
    end to capitalism for the right reasons.

    Mikhail Bakunin's famous quote dates from that period

    https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/801264-if-you-took-the-most-ardent-revolutionary-vested-him-in

    So history might suggest :-)
    --
    Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to RJH on Tue Jul 9 23:20:10 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 9/07/2024 7:24 pm, RJH wrote:
    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    From time to time I get to remind the qroup that
    I'm a democratic socialist - while Communists are autocratic socialists,
    and got slung out of the International Socialist movements in 1871, when
    Karl Marx's silly ideas about "the leading role" of the party were rejected. >>

    Very kind of you! But a small point - the CP was, theoretically, a socialist bridge to communism. Nobody - especially Marx - know what communism would be in detail - simply that the process of revolutionary socialism would put an end to capitalism for the right reasons.

    Mikhail Bakunin's famous quote dates from that period

    https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/801264-if-you-took-the-most-ardent-revolutionary-vested-him-in

    So history might suggest :-)

    The problem is that the communist party was a authoritarian bridge to
    socialism - and authoritarian implies that was going to be a small group telling rest of the population how to be socialist. Any theory that
    imagines that that is every going to work is clearly based on false
    premises - as Bakunin clearly and prophetically pointed out.

    Marx had a lot of brilliant insights into economics, but he was less
    brilliant at practical politics.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney




    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to All on Tue Jul 9 06:52:49 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    From time to time I get to remind the qroup that
    I'm a democratic socialist - while Communists are autocratic socialists,
    and got slung out of the International Socialist movements in 1871, when
    Karl Marx's silly ideas about "the leading role" of the party were rejected. >>

    Very kind of you! But a small point - the CP was, theoretically, a socialist >bridge to communism. Nobody - especially Marx - know what communism would be >in detail - simply that the process of revolutionary socialism would put an >end to capitalism for the right reasons.

    Mikhail Bakunin's famous quote dates from that period

    https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/801264-if-you-took-the-most-ardent-revolutionary-vested-him-in

    So history might suggest :-)

    In other words, power corrupts.

    Which means that governments are dynamically unstable, and a long-term-democratic society is a remarkable thing.

    Why end "capitalism"? Economic and intellectual plualism works.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Wed Jul 10 01:09:58 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 9/07/2024 11:52 pm, john larkin wrote:
    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    From time to time I get to remind the qroup that
    I'm a democratic socialist - while Communists are autocratic socialists, >>> and got slung out of the International Socialist movements in 1871, when >>> Karl Marx's silly ideas about "the leading role" of the party were rejected.


    Very kind of you! But a small point - the CP was, theoretically, a socialist >> bridge to communism. Nobody - especially Marx - know what communism would be >> in detail - simply that the process of revolutionary socialism would put an >> end to capitalism for the right reasons.

    Mikhail Bakunin's famous quote dates from that period

    https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/801264-if-you-took-the-most-ardent-revolutionary-vested-him-in

    So history might suggest :-)

    In other words, power corrupts.

    Which means that governments are dynamically unstable, and a long-term-democratic society is a remarkable thing.

    Some governments are dynamically unstable. Proportional representation
    (in places like Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands) seems to lead to multi-party democracy, and coalition governments. This leads to
    incremental change and much more stable administration.

    Australia settled for a single transferable vote and single member constituencies in the lower house, and it doesn't work as well.

    Why end "capitalism"? Economic and intellectual pluralism works.

    Nobody wants to end capitalism - but everybody recognises the need to
    regulate it. America - with it's anti-trust legislation - was the first
    to recognise the necessity, but it failed to take it anything like far
    enough. Others have done better.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney



    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jasen Betts@21:1/5 to jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com on Wed Jul 10 10:25:13 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 2024-07-04, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:11:54 +0000, Smolley wrote:

    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 4/07/2024 9:15 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 11:49, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 4/07/2024 7:58 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 10:06, alan_m wrote:
    Another half truth by the industry. It's only cheaper when it works >>>>>>> and if you ignore the backup required for when it doesn't and the >>>>>>> extra infrastructure costs required to distribute it.

    It isn't even cheaper then.
    Some of us have run the numbers...

    Per gigawatt a wind turbine is cheaper than a nuclear power station >>>>>> but that ignores - the shorter lifetime of the windmill - the
    capacity factor of the windmill - the massive maintenance cost
    associated with a windmill.

    But you are happy to ignore the massive costs of providing secure
    storage for nuclear waste for the hundred's of thousands of years it >>>>> take for the longer half-life isotopes to decay into stable isotopes. >>>>>
    It is not massive.
    In fact its trivial.

    We've needed that kind of repository for some seventy years now, and
    the late Lou Vance, one of my friends from my time as an undergraduate,
    spent most of his post-Ph.D. in Australia's CSIRO Synroc project.

    https://www.ansto.gov.au/news/new-global-first-of-a-kind-ansto-synroc-
    facility

    We've got the technology. but we still haven't got any repository.

    How long will the concrete bases of wind turbines last?
    Will they ever be returned to Green Field Who will pay for it?

    Before you even get into the ancillary crap needed to attempt to
    make a silk purse out of a pigs ear...

    It's actually a sow's ear. And a nuclear power station is no silk
    purse.

    If you want a flexible power source, a nuclear power station isn't an >>>>> option.

    Of course it is More lies

    "The ability of a PWR to run at less than full power for much of the >>>>> time depends on whether it is in the early part of its 18 to 24-month >>>>> refuelling cycle or late in it, and whether it is designed with
    special control rods which diminish power levels throughout the core >>>>> without shutting it down. Thus, though the ability on any individual >>>>> PWR reactor to run on a sustained basis at low power decreases
    markedly as it progresses through the refuelling cycle, there is
    considerable scope for running a fleet of reactors in load-following >>>>> mode. European Utility Requirements (EUR) since 2001 specify that new >>>>> reactor designs must be capable of load-following between 50 and 100% >>>>> of capacity with a rate of change of electric output of 3-5% per
    minute. The economic consequences are mainly due to diminished load
    factor of a capital-intensive plant."

    Old tech. You can design a reactor to load follow, but it doesn't make >>>> best use of capital when you have any hydro.

    So we are going to spend squillions to develop new tech which will
    still most of the flaws of what we've got now? Grow up.

    Natrium have a perfectly sound idea for this

    https://www.terrapower.com/natrium/

    It's a start-up, founded by Bill Gates, which is looking for venture
    capital.

    https://www.terrapower.com/terrapower-announces-830-million-secured-
    in-2022/

    I'd wait until somebody from the Linux community got interested.

    Gas turbine power generators are much more flexible, and pumped and
    battery storage is even more flexible.

    You can need quite a bit of it, but that gets figured into price of
    renewable energy, even if you aren't aware of it.

    Battery storage is to replace the spinning mass of conventional
    turbines.

    Ignorant nonsense. Battery-inverter combination are quite fast enough
    to do it very well, and the first big battery anywhere

    https://hornsdalepowerreserve.com.au/

    surprised everybody by making a lot more money out of providing short
    term - cycle to cycle - grid stabilisation services than it did out of
    buying power from the grid when it was cheap and selling it back to
    grid when it wasn't. The longer-term buffer service still made quite
    enough money that the Australian electricity distribution companies are
    investing a lot of capital in buying and installing more of it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowy_2.0_Pumped_Storage_Power_Station

    is the hydro-power version of that, and with 175 hours capacity it's
    huge. It's also coming on a lot more slowly than had been hoped.
    Buying loads of lithium ion batteries and wiring them up is much more
    predictable process than digging tunnels though rock.

    It has absolutely no ability to keep a solar grid up overnight, or
    wind grid operational in a flat calm.

    If it were big enough, it would. In practice, part of the industrial
    electricity market is flexible and you seem to be able to negotiate
    your way through the occasional period of flat calm.

    And NONE of this gets figured into the PUBLISHED CLAIMS about wind
    costs, since no wind farm meet the cost of any of it.

    Not that you can cite any such published claim.

    Consumers do instead,

    More unsubstantiated ignorant assertions. You seem to have adopted
    Donald Trump's debating style of inventing your "facts" as you go
    along.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    Technology will arrive where the nuclear waste can be transported to the
    sun.

    Before that I would look into dropping it into a ****ing big active
    volcano. Although I suspect there are probably some good reasons I am
    unaware of why it's not done now.

    Possibly wiser to bury it in a lava flow (so that it becomes encased
    in rock) but only if the volcano can be relied upon to continue gentle
    euptions and not suddenly explode. and the rock seals well.


    --
    Jasen.
    🇺🇦 Слава Україні

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to john larkin on Wed Jul 10 17:01:13 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 13:28:29 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 19:47:02 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 11:33:12 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 8/07/2024 3:15 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 20:34:45 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 7/07/2024 7:58 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 06/07/2024 15:23, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 16:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 15:34, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 10:18 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 12:36, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 8:08 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 10:38, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 17:18, Jethro_uk wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:11:54 +0000, Smolley wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    That's what I have been saying. Stuff with a half life of a few
    hundred years is the problem, and a pyramid that works for 5000
    years is plenty good enough.

    And you happen to be completely wrong, as usual. Stuff with a short
    half life is a particularly horrible threat, but you don't want
    environment contaminated with any of the longer lived stuff either - >>>>> right out to Iodine-129 with it's 15.7 million year half-life.

    Only an ignorant yokel like you could fail to see it as a threat.

    I think you misunderstood what he said (as usual) Bill.

    You usually do. You don't understand much, and imagine that your own
    defective understanding justifies quite a bit of off-target rudeness.

    The kind of exposure is also highly relevant.

    The problem with the longer-lived radio-nucleotide is that they will
    still be dangerous long after our current civilisation is dead and
    forgotten. We can't predict who or what will get exposed to our
    radioactive waste, or how they might get exposed.

    Burying it deep in some kind of geologically stable structure is the
    best we can do, and we still aren't actually doing it, some seventy
    years after we started generating high level radioative waste.

    Most notably ingestion as opposed to simple proximity to the source.
    You are aware - I assume - that different modes of radiation (eg.
    alpha, beta, gamma etc.) have different penetrative qualities and
    whilst lead is required to screen out some types, others can't even
    make it through skin.

    Obviously. I've had a technical education that does explicitly include
    that kind of information. I've even worked on electron microscopes
    which rely on beta-particles (electrons) as their illuminating
    mechanism.

    If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that, rather than
    having to "assume" it.

    Jeez, Bill. I was only trying to be kind to you and you're attacking me
    for it! I don't think I'll ever understand you Communists.

    It's a waste being polite to Sloman. His only mode is contempt.

    So ignore him.

    It's a waste being polite to Sloman. His only mode is sneering contempt.

    There, FIFY.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Wed Jul 10 17:09:01 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 14:04:24 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 9/07/2024 5:47 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 11:33:12 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 8/07/2024 3:15 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 20:34:45 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 7/07/2024 7:58 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 06/07/2024 15:23, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 16:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 15:34, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 10:18 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 12:36, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 8:08 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 10:38, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 17:18, Jethro_uk wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:11:54 +0000, Smolley wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    That's what I have been saying. Stuff with a half life of a few
    hundred years is the problem, and a pyramid that works for 5000
    years is plenty good enough.

    And you happen to be completely wrong, as usual. Stuff with a short
    half life is a particularly horrible threat, but you don't want
    environment contaminated with any of the longer lived stuff either - >>>>> right out to Iodine-129 with it's 15.7 million year half-life.

    Only an ignorant yokel like you could fail to see it as a threat.

    I think you misunderstood what he said (as usual) Bill.

    You usually do. You don't understand much, and imagine that your own
    defective understanding justifies quite a bit of off-target rudeness.

    The kind of exposure is also highly relevant.

    The problem with the longer-lived radio-nucleotide is that they will
    still be dangerous long after our current civilisation is dead and
    forgotten. We can't predict who or what will get exposed to our
    radioactive waste, or how they might get exposed.

    Burying it deep in some kind of geologically stable structure is the
    best we can do, and we still aren't actually doing it, some seventy
    years after we started generating high level radioative waste.

    Most notably ingestion as opposed to simple proximity to the source.
    You are aware - I assume - that different modes of radiation (eg.
    alpha, beta, gamma etc.) have different penetrative qualities and
    whilst lead is required to screen out some types, others can't even
    make it through skin.

    Obviously. I've had a technical education that does explicitly include
    that kind of information. I've even worked on electron microscopes
    which rely on beta-particles (electrons) as their illuminating
    mechanism.

    If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that, rather than
    having to "assume" it.

    Jeez, Bill. I was only trying to be kind to you and you're attacking me
    for it!

    Pull the other leg. You were trying to be patronising about your own
    imagined technical expertise, and got what you deserved.

    I don't think I'll ever understand you Communists.

    Since you can't even identify them correctly, that isn't any surprise.
    If you are trying to label me as a communist, you are being remarkably stupid, even for you From time to time I get to remind the qroup that
    I'm a democratic socialist - while Communists are autocratic socialists,
    and got slung out of the International Socialist movements in 1871, when
    Karl Marx's silly ideas about "the leading role" of the party were
    rejected.

    Mikhail Bakunin's famous quote dates from that period

    https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/801264-if-you-took-the-most-ardent-
    revolutionary-vested-him-in

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    Sorry, Bill, but I'm not buying it. You're a bit too familiar with Karl
    Marx for my liking. Something of a giveaway IMV.
    I've often thought about blowing up his headstone which is in Highgate
    Cemetary IIRC. Drill a half inch hole in the top of his head one dark
    night, pour a load of amatol in there and attach a blasting cap. BAMMM!!!!
    LOL! :-D Sadly that'll never happen now I no longer live in London so
    it'll no doubt be one of my main regrets in life when I'm finally about to
    pop my cloggs.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to john larkin on Wed Jul 10 17:18:23 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:52:49 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    From time to time I get to remind the qroup that I'm a democratic
    socialist - while Communists are autocratic socialists,
    and got slung out of the International Socialist movements in 1871,
    when Karl Marx's silly ideas about "the leading role" of the party
    were rejected.


    Very kind of you! But a small point - the CP was, theoretically, a >>socialist bridge to communism. Nobody - especially Marx - know what >>communism would be in detail - simply that the process of revolutionary >>socialism would put an end to capitalism for the right reasons.

    Mikhail Bakunin's famous quote dates from that period

    https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/801264-if-you-took-the-most-ardent- revolutionary-vested-him-in

    So history might suggest :-)

    In other words, power corrupts.

    Which means that governments are dynamically unstable, and a long-term-democratic society is a remarkable thing.

    Why end "capitalism"? Economic and intellectual plualism works.

    So does a mixed economy of both private enterprise and publicly-owned
    bodies if the size of the state sector can be constrained. Unfortunately, states have a tendency to grow themselves if not kept in strict check and
    this is in large part responsible for the truly *vast* debt burden now
    carried on the back of so many Western countries.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Wed Jul 10 19:59:55 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 7/10/24 19:48, john larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:18:23 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:52:49 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    From time to time I get to remind the qroup that I'm a democratic
    socialist - while Communists are autocratic socialists,
    and got slung out of the International Socialist movements in 1871,
    when Karl Marx's silly ideas about "the leading role" of the party
    were rejected.


    Very kind of you! But a small point - the CP was, theoretically, a
    socialist bridge to communism. Nobody - especially Marx - know what
    communism would be in detail - simply that the process of revolutionary >>>> socialism would put an end to capitalism for the right reasons.

    Mikhail Bakunin's famous quote dates from that period

    https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/801264-if-you-took-the-most-ardent-
    revolutionary-vested-him-in

    So history might suggest :-)

    In other words, power corrupts.

    Which means that governments are dynamically unstable, and a
    long-term-democratic society is a remarkable thing.

    Why end "capitalism"? Economic and intellectual plualism works.

    So does a mixed economy of both private enterprise and publicly-owned
    bodies if the size of the state sector can be constrained. Unfortunately,
    states have a tendency to grow themselves if not kept in strict check and
    this is in large part responsible for the truly *vast* debt burden now
    carried on the back of so many Western countries.

    There's a race between government getting bigger and wasting ever more resources, and technology making us more productive to support all
    that waste.

    I was just talking to a fellow old fogey (who is literally a Fellow)
    and we agree that young people are getting stupider, so the
    productivity increase probably can't keep up.

    Yes, the debt will have consequences too. It keeps increasing and can
    never be paid back. Economists keep getting stupider too.

    Traditionally, the solution for that problem has always been
    devaluation or rampant inflation, or both. Either way, it's
    a form of gross theft.

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to cd999666@notformail.com on Wed Jul 10 10:48:09 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:18:23 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:52:49 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    From time to time I get to remind the qroup that I'm a democratic
    socialist - while Communists are autocratic socialists,
    and got slung out of the International Socialist movements in 1871,
    when Karl Marx's silly ideas about "the leading role" of the party
    were rejected.


    Very kind of you! But a small point - the CP was, theoretically, a >>>socialist bridge to communism. Nobody - especially Marx - know what >>>communism would be in detail - simply that the process of revolutionary >>>socialism would put an end to capitalism for the right reasons.

    Mikhail Bakunin's famous quote dates from that period

    https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/801264-if-you-took-the-most-ardent- >revolutionary-vested-him-in

    So history might suggest :-)

    In other words, power corrupts.

    Which means that governments are dynamically unstable, and a
    long-term-democratic society is a remarkable thing.

    Why end "capitalism"? Economic and intellectual plualism works.

    So does a mixed economy of both private enterprise and publicly-owned
    bodies if the size of the state sector can be constrained. Unfortunately, >states have a tendency to grow themselves if not kept in strict check and >this is in large part responsible for the truly *vast* debt burden now >carried on the back of so many Western countries.

    There's a race between government getting bigger and wasting ever more resources, and technology making us more productive to support all
    that waste.

    I was just talking to a fellow old fogey (who is literally a Fellow)
    and we agree that young people are getting stupider, so the
    productivity increase probably can't keep up.

    Yes, the debt will have consequences too. It keeps increasing and can
    never be paid back. Economists keep getting stupider too.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to All on Wed Jul 10 11:29:24 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 18:22:26 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 10 Jul 2024 at 18:48:09 BST, john larkin wrote:

    Why end "capitalism"? Economic and intellectual plualism works.

    Because it's inefficient, immoral, exploitative, and thrives on social >injustice and inequality.

    So does a mixed economy of both private enterprise and publicly-owned
    bodies if the size of the state sector can be constrained. Unfortunately, >>> states have a tendency to grow themselves if not kept in strict check and >>> this is in large part responsible for the truly *vast* debt burden now
    carried on the back of so many Western countries.

    There's a race between government getting bigger and wasting ever more
    resources, and technology making us more productive to support all
    that waste.

    Not sure that holds on a number of levels - technology was supposed to result >in a 3 day week and prosperity for all when I was growing up in the 60s.

    And I've just come across Jevons paradox while studying retrofit. The notion >that as technology increases efficiency and reduces cost, a sort of dumb >reaction happens, where people tend to consume more - 'leave the heating on - >it's an ASHP and hardly using any electricity' type of thing. Apparently it's >quite common in energy efficient homes.

    Maybe we're all just idiots and there's nothing to be done :-)

    Speek fur youre selfs!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to jeroen@nospam.please on Wed Jul 10 11:27:29 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 19:59:55 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 7/10/24 19:48, john larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:18:23 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:52:49 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    From time to time I get to remind the qroup that I'm a democratic >>>>>> socialist - while Communists are autocratic socialists,
    and got slung out of the International Socialist movements in 1871, >>>>>> when Karl Marx's silly ideas about "the leading role" of the party >>>>>> were rejected.


    Very kind of you! But a small point - the CP was, theoretically, a
    socialist bridge to communism. Nobody - especially Marx - know what
    communism would be in detail - simply that the process of revolutionary >>>>> socialism would put an end to capitalism for the right reasons.

    Mikhail Bakunin's famous quote dates from that period

    https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/801264-if-you-took-the-most-ardent-
    revolutionary-vested-him-in

    So history might suggest :-)

    In other words, power corrupts.

    Which means that governments are dynamically unstable, and a
    long-term-democratic society is a remarkable thing.

    Why end "capitalism"? Economic and intellectual plualism works.

    So does a mixed economy of both private enterprise and publicly-owned
    bodies if the size of the state sector can be constrained. Unfortunately, >>> states have a tendency to grow themselves if not kept in strict check and >>> this is in large part responsible for the truly *vast* debt burden now
    carried on the back of so many Western countries.

    There's a race between government getting bigger and wasting ever more
    resources, and technology making us more productive to support all
    that waste.

    I was just talking to a fellow old fogey (who is literally a Fellow)
    and we agree that young people are getting stupider, so the
    productivity increase probably can't keep up.

    Yes, the debt will have consequences too. It keeps increasing and can
    never be paid back. Economists keep getting stupider too.

    Traditionally, the solution for that problem has always been
    devaluation or rampant inflation, or both. Either way, it's
    a form of gross theft.

    Jeroen Belleman

    The reliable investment seems to be land and housing, which will
    probably survive inflation.

    Unless property taxes become ruinous.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RJH@21:1/5 to john larkin on Wed Jul 10 18:22:26 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 10 Jul 2024 at 18:48:09 BST, john larkin wrote:

    Why end "capitalism"? Economic and intellectual plualism works.

    Because it's inefficient, immoral, exploitative, and thrives on social injustice and inequality.

    So does a mixed economy of both private enterprise and publicly-owned
    bodies if the size of the state sector can be constrained. Unfortunately,
    states have a tendency to grow themselves if not kept in strict check and
    this is in large part responsible for the truly *vast* debt burden now
    carried on the back of so many Western countries.

    There's a race between government getting bigger and wasting ever more resources, and technology making us more productive to support all
    that waste.

    Not sure that holds on a number of levels - technology was supposed to result in a 3 day week and prosperity for all when I was growing up in the 60s.

    And I've just come across Jevons paradox while studying retrofit. The notion that as technology increases efficiency and reduces cost, a sort of dumb reaction happens, where people tend to consume more - 'leave the heating on - it's an ASHP and hardly using any electricity' type of thing. Apparently it's quite common in energy efficient homes.

    Maybe we're all just idiots and there's nothing to be done :-)
    --
    Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe@21:1/5 to RJH on Wed Jul 10 20:53:19 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 18:22:26 -0000 (UTC)
    RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:



    Not sure that holds on a number of levels - technology was supposed
    to result in a 3 day week and prosperity for all when I was growing
    up in the 60s.

    And I've just come across Jevons paradox while studying retrofit. The
    notion that as technology increases efficiency and reduces cost, a
    sort of dumb reaction happens, where people tend to consume more -
    'leave the heating on - it's an ASHP and hardly using any
    electricity' type of thing. Apparently it's quite common in energy
    efficient homes.


    That's one factor, another is the enormous increase in regulations
    since the Sixties. Not only is government much larger, but private
    businesses must employ or hire accountants, compliance officers and
    other lawyers to keep the directors out of jail. The work force has
    to a large degree shifted from productive work to non-productive work.

    And of course the birth rate has been greatly reduced, meaning that
    retiring productive workers are not being fully replaced. Add in the
    large increase in graduates, who feel they are too well educated to do
    anything involved with making stuff or maintaining their country's infrastructure, and it's a wonder anything useful gets done today. Also
    add a mature welfare state, which will eventually consume all
    production.

    --
    Joe

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to Joe on Wed Jul 10 14:00:57 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 20:53:19 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 18:22:26 -0000 (UTC)
    RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:



    Not sure that holds on a number of levels - technology was supposed
    to result in a 3 day week and prosperity for all when I was growing
    up in the 60s.

    And I've just come across Jevons paradox while studying retrofit. The
    notion that as technology increases efficiency and reduces cost, a
    sort of dumb reaction happens, where people tend to consume more -
    'leave the heating on - it's an ASHP and hardly using any
    electricity' type of thing. Apparently it's quite common in energy
    efficient homes.


    That's one factor, another is the enormous increase in regulations
    since the Sixties. Not only is government much larger, but private
    businesses must employ or hire accountants, compliance officers and
    other lawyers to keep the directors out of jail. The work force has
    to a large degree shifted from productive work to non-productive work.

    Starting a business is horrible. You need a zillion registrations and businesses licenses, local and state and federal. You need a lawyer
    (at $500/hour) and an accountant and a business manager, three
    overhead people for one working employee. And a Board of Directors
    and insurance for them.

    Not to mention product liability insurance, UL and FCC and CE
    compliance, ITAR and stuff.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to john larkin on Wed Jul 10 23:04:00 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:48:09 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:18:23 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:52:49 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    From time to time I get to remind the qroup that I'm a democratic
    socialist - while Communists are autocratic socialists,
    and got slung out of the International Socialist movements in 1871,
    when Karl Marx's silly ideas about "the leading role" of the party
    were rejected.


    Very kind of you! But a small point - the CP was, theoretically, a >>>>socialist bridge to communism. Nobody - especially Marx - know what >>>>communism would be in detail - simply that the process of
    revolutionary socialism would put an end to capitalism for the right >>>>reasons.

    Mikhail Bakunin's famous quote dates from that period

    https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/801264-if-you-took-the-most-ardent- >>revolutionary-vested-him-in

    So history might suggest :-)

    In other words, power corrupts.

    Which means that governments are dynamically unstable, and a
    long-term-democratic society is a remarkable thing.

    Why end "capitalism"? Economic and intellectual plualism works.

    So does a mixed economy of both private enterprise and publicly-owned >>bodies if the size of the state sector can be constrained.
    Unfortunately,
    states have a tendency to grow themselves if not kept in strict check
    and this is in large part responsible for the truly *vast* debt burden
    now carried on the back of so many Western countries.

    There's a race between government getting bigger and wasting ever more resources, and technology making us more productive to support all that waste.

    I was just talking to a fellow old fogey (who is literally a Fellow) and
    we agree that young people are getting stupider, so the productivity
    increase probably can't keep up.

    Well, to be fair, that phenomenon is confined to the West and is due to
    the dogmatic insistence of Leftists that all are equal and must be
    educated accordingly. So the classes grind away at the speed of the
    slowest ship in the convoy ("no child left behind" - George Bush Jr -
    RINO). The brighter children in the class are thus dumbed down at best (at worst, switch off altogether and start sniffing glue) and grade inflation
    is employed to fudge the facts and make it appear that everything's fine
    when it most assuredly isn't. This is definitely NOT happening in
    countries like China and that is why they're kicking our arses and have
    been for some time.

    Yes, the debt will have consequences too. It keeps increasing and can
    never be paid back. Economists keep getting stupider too.

    "Top economists" are no different from the "top climate scientists" -
    they're paid handsomely for parroting whatever the Globalists at the WEF
    tell them.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to john larkin on Wed Jul 10 23:06:25 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:27:29 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 19:59:55 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 7/10/24 19:48, john larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:18:23 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:52:49 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    From time to time I get to remind the qroup that I'm a democratic >>>>>>> socialist - while Communists are autocratic socialists,
    and got slung out of the International Socialist movements in
    1871, when Karl Marx's silly ideas about "the leading role" of the >>>>>>> party were rejected.


    Very kind of you! But a small point - the CP was, theoretically, a >>>>>> socialist bridge to communism. Nobody - especially Marx - know what >>>>>> communism would be in detail - simply that the process of
    revolutionary socialism would put an end to capitalism for the
    right reasons.

    Mikhail Bakunin's famous quote dates from that period

    https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/801264-if-you-took-the-most-
    ardent-
    revolutionary-vested-him-in

    So history might suggest :-)

    In other words, power corrupts.

    Which means that governments are dynamically unstable, and a
    long-term-democratic society is a remarkable thing.

    Why end "capitalism"? Economic and intellectual plualism works.

    So does a mixed economy of both private enterprise and publicly-owned
    bodies if the size of the state sector can be constrained.
    Unfortunately,
    states have a tendency to grow themselves if not kept in strict check
    and this is in large part responsible for the truly *vast* debt
    burden now carried on the back of so many Western countries.

    There's a race between government getting bigger and wasting ever more
    resources, and technology making us more productive to support all
    that waste.

    I was just talking to a fellow old fogey (who is literally a Fellow)
    and we agree that young people are getting stupider, so the
    productivity increase probably can't keep up.

    Yes, the debt will have consequences too. It keeps increasing and can
    never be paid back. Economists keep getting stupider too.

    Traditionally, the solution for that problem has always been devaluation
    or rampant inflation, or both. Either way, it's a form of gross theft.

    Jeroen Belleman

    The reliable investment seems to be land and housing, which will
    probably survive inflation.

    Unless property taxes become ruinous.

    I believe it was Tom Sawyer who said, "Get into land - they've stopped
    making it."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Wed Jul 10 23:23:52 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:06:25 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:27:29 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 19:59:55 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 7/10/24 19:48, john larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:18:23 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:52:49 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    From time to time I get to remind the qroup that I'm a
    democratic
    socialist - while Communists are autocratic socialists,
    and got slung out of the International Socialist movements in
    1871, when Karl Marx's silly ideas about "the leading role" of >>>>>>>> the party were rejected.


    Very kind of you! But a small point - the CP was, theoretically, a >>>>>>> socialist bridge to communism. Nobody - especially Marx - know
    what communism would be in detail - simply that the process of
    revolutionary socialism would put an end to capitalism for the
    right reasons.

    Mikhail Bakunin's famous quote dates from that period

    https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/801264-if-you-took-the-most-
    ardent-
    revolutionary-vested-him-in

    So history might suggest :-)

    In other words, power corrupts.

    Which means that governments are dynamically unstable, and a
    long-term-democratic society is a remarkable thing.

    Why end "capitalism"? Economic and intellectual plualism works.

    So does a mixed economy of both private enterprise and
    publicly-owned bodies if the size of the state sector can be
    constrained. Unfortunately,
    states have a tendency to grow themselves if not kept in strict
    check and this is in large part responsible for the truly *vast*
    debt burden now carried on the back of so many Western countries.

    There's a race between government getting bigger and wasting ever
    more resources, and technology making us more productive to support
    all that waste.

    I was just talking to a fellow old fogey (who is literally a Fellow)
    and we agree that young people are getting stupider, so the
    productivity increase probably can't keep up.

    Yes, the debt will have consequences too. It keeps increasing and can
    never be paid back. Economists keep getting stupider too.

    Traditionally, the solution for that problem has always been
    devaluation or rampant inflation, or both. Either way, it's a form of >>>gross theft.

    Jeroen Belleman

    The reliable investment seems to be land and housing, which will
    probably survive inflation.

    Unless property taxes become ruinous.

    I believe it was Tom Sawyer who said, "Get into land - they've stopped
    making it."

    Mark Twain I mean!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to john larkin on Wed Jul 10 23:20:28 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 14:00:57 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 20:53:19 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 18:22:26 -0000 (UTC)
    RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:



    Not sure that holds on a number of levels - technology was supposed to
    result in a 3 day week and prosperity for all when I was growing up in
    the 60s.

    And I've just come across Jevons paradox while studying retrofit. The
    notion that as technology increases efficiency and reduces cost, a
    sort of dumb reaction happens, where people tend to consume more -
    'leave the heating on - it's an ASHP and hardly using any electricity'
    type of thing. Apparently it's quite common in energy efficient homes.


    That's one factor, another is the enormous increase in regulations since >>the Sixties. Not only is government much larger, but private businesses >>must employ or hire accountants, compliance officers and other lawyers
    to keep the directors out of jail. The work force has to a large degree >>shifted from productive work to non-productive work.

    Starting a business is horrible. You need a zillion registrations and businesses licenses, local and state and federal. You need a lawyer (at $500/hour) and an accountant and a business manager, three overhead
    people for one working employee. And a Board of Directors and insurance
    for them.

    Not to mention product liability insurance, UL and FCC and CE
    compliance, ITAR and stuff.

    Aside from the unavoidable Federal stuff, I gather it's much less
    burdensome in Florida.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to cd999666@notformail.com on Wed Jul 10 17:22:44 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:20:28 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 14:00:57 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 20:53:19 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 18:22:26 -0000 (UTC)
    RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:



    Not sure that holds on a number of levels - technology was supposed to >>>> result in a 3 day week and prosperity for all when I was growing up in >>>> the 60s.

    And I've just come across Jevons paradox while studying retrofit. The
    notion that as technology increases efficiency and reduces cost, a
    sort of dumb reaction happens, where people tend to consume more -
    'leave the heating on - it's an ASHP and hardly using any electricity' >>>> type of thing. Apparently it's quite common in energy efficient homes. >>>>

    That's one factor, another is the enormous increase in regulations since >>>the Sixties. Not only is government much larger, but private businesses >>>must employ or hire accountants, compliance officers and other lawyers
    to keep the directors out of jail. The work force has to a large degree >>>shifted from productive work to non-productive work.

    Starting a business is horrible. You need a zillion registrations and
    businesses licenses, local and state and federal. You need a lawyer (at
    $500/hour) and an accountant and a business manager, three overhead
    people for one working employee. And a Board of Directors and insurance
    for them.

    Not to mention product liability insurance, UL and FCC and CE
    compliance, ITAR and stuff.

    Aside from the unavoidable Federal stuff, I gather it's much less
    burdensome in Florida.

    Some people start a company in California but incorporate in Delaware.
    That only helps a little.

    What shocked me is that California assesses a fee of $800 per year no
    matter where you incorporate. Then what really shocked me is that they
    waive the fee the first year.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to cd999666@notformail.com on Wed Jul 10 17:32:44 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:04:00 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:48:09 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:18:23 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:52:49 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    From time to time I get to remind the qroup that I'm a democratic
    socialist - while Communists are autocratic socialists,
    and got slung out of the International Socialist movements in 1871, >>>>>> when Karl Marx's silly ideas about "the leading role" of the party >>>>>> were rejected.


    Very kind of you! But a small point - the CP was, theoretically, a >>>>>socialist bridge to communism. Nobody - especially Marx - know what >>>>>communism would be in detail - simply that the process of >>>>>revolutionary socialism would put an end to capitalism for the right >>>>>reasons.

    Mikhail Bakunin's famous quote dates from that period

    https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/801264-if-you-took-the-most-ardent- >>>revolutionary-vested-him-in

    So history might suggest :-)

    In other words, power corrupts.

    Which means that governments are dynamically unstable, and a
    long-term-democratic society is a remarkable thing.

    Why end "capitalism"? Economic and intellectual plualism works.

    So does a mixed economy of both private enterprise and publicly-owned >>>bodies if the size of the state sector can be constrained.
    Unfortunately,
    states have a tendency to grow themselves if not kept in strict check
    and this is in large part responsible for the truly *vast* debt burden >>>now carried on the back of so many Western countries.

    There's a race between government getting bigger and wasting ever more
    resources, and technology making us more productive to support all that
    waste.

    I was just talking to a fellow old fogey (who is literally a Fellow) and
    we agree that young people are getting stupider, so the productivity
    increase probably can't keep up.

    Well, to be fair, that phenomenon is confined to the West and is due to
    the dogmatic insistence of Leftists that all are equal and must be
    educated accordingly. So the classes grind away at the speed of the
    slowest ship in the convoy ("no child left behind" - George Bush Jr -
    RINO). The brighter children in the class are thus dumbed down at best (at >worst, switch off altogether and start sniffing glue) and grade inflation
    is employed to fudge the facts and make it appear that everything's fine
    when it most assuredly isn't. This is definitely NOT happening in
    countries like China and that is why they're kicking our arses and have
    been for some time.


    A bigger problem is kids getting bogus degrees, like film-making and
    sociology and journalism and comparative literature and music theory.

    Even "computer science" can be useless.

    I think some people are realizing that they should not borrow a
    fortune to attend college but be apprentices in a trade, and actually
    get a job.

    Yes, the debt will have consequences too. It keeps increasing and can
    never be paid back. Economists keep getting stupider too.

    "Top economists" are no different from the "top climate scientists" -
    they're paid handsomely for parroting whatever the Globalists at the WEF
    tell them.

    Given a graph of usefulness vs expertise, some fields have a peak
    pretty soon and then drop off.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RJH@21:1/5 to john larkin on Thu Jul 11 03:15:42 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 11 Jul 2024 at 01:32:44 BST, john larkin wrote:

    I was just talking to a fellow old fogey (who is literally a Fellow) and >>> we agree that young people are getting stupider, so the productivity
    increase probably can't keep up.

    Well, to be fair, that phenomenon is confined to the West and is due to
    the dogmatic insistence of Leftists that all are equal and must be
    educated accordingly. So the classes grind away at the speed of the
    slowest ship in the convoy ("no child left behind" - George Bush Jr -
    RINO). The brighter children in the class are thus dumbed down at best (at >> worst, switch off altogether and start sniffing glue) and grade inflation
    is employed to fudge the facts and make it appear that everything's fine
    when it most assuredly isn't. This is definitely NOT happening in
    countries like China and that is why they're kicking our arses and have
    been for some time.


    A bigger problem is kids getting bogus degrees, like film-making and sociology and journalism and comparative literature and music theory.

    Seriously? Can you imagine a world where society doesn't educate people in
    such things?

    I say 'educate' rather than train or skill. To understand how to do something is one thing - to understand it and form an opinion is (often) something else.

    --
    Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Thu Jul 11 16:59:02 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 11/07/2024 3:18 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:52:49 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    Why end "capitalism"? Economic and intellectual plualism works.

    So does a mixed economy of both private enterprise and publicly-owned
    bodies if the size of the state sector can be constrained. Unfortunately, states have a tendency to grow themselves if not kept in strict check and this is in large part responsible for the truly *vast* debt burden now carried on the back of so many Western countries.

    Most western countries have a whole lot of state-owned infra-structure,
    and their "debt" burden is what paid for it.

    Big companies are owned by a lot of share-holders who hold their debt,
    and collect dividends from the company. What's the difference?

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Thu Jul 11 17:04:02 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 11/07/2024 3:48 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:18:23 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:52:49 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    From time to time I get to remind the qroup that I'm a democratic
    socialist - while Communists are autocratic socialists,
    and got slung out of the International Socialist movements in 1871,
    when Karl Marx's silly ideas about "the leading role" of the party
    were rejected.


    Very kind of you! But a small point - the CP was, theoretically, a
    socialist bridge to communism. Nobody - especially Marx - know what
    communism would be in detail - simply that the process of revolutionary >>>> socialism would put an end to capitalism for the right reasons.

    Mikhail Bakunin's famous quote dates from that period

    https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/801264-if-you-took-the-most-ardent-
    revolutionary-vested-him-in

    So history might suggest :-)

    In other words, power corrupts.

    Which means that governments are dynamically unstable, and a
    long-term-democratic society is a remarkable thing.

    Why end "capitalism"? Economic and intellectual plualism works.

    So does a mixed economy of both private enterprise and publicly-owned
    bodies if the size of the state sector can be constrained. Unfortunately,
    states have a tendency to grow themselves if not kept in strict check and
    this is in large part responsible for the truly *vast* debt burden now
    carried on the back of so many Western countries.

    There's a race between government getting bigger and wasting ever more resources, and technology making us more productive to support all
    that waste.

    The assumption that every investment a government makes is wasteful is
    one that the US business lobby spends a lot of money on propagating, and
    John Larkin is a gullible sucker for all their propaganda.

    I was just talking to a fellow old fogey (who is literally a Fellow)
    and we agree that young people are getting stupider, so the
    productivity increase probably can't keep up.

    Of course you imagine the young people are getting stupider - they don't
    admire you as much as you think you deserve.

    Yes, the debt will have consequences too. It keeps increasing and can
    never be paid back. Economists keep getting stupider too.

    In John Larkin's ever-so-well-informed opinion.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From alan_m@21:1/5 to RJH on Thu Jul 11 07:36:31 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 11/07/2024 04:15, RJH wrote:


    I say 'educate' rather than train or skill. To understand how to do something is one thing - to understand it and form an opinion is (often) something else.


    We just don't need a million of them :)

    "
    The Golgafrinchan Ark Fleet Ship B was a way of removing the basically
    useless citizens from the planet Golgafrincham. A variety of stories
    were formed about the doom of the planet, such as blowing up, crashing
    into the sun or being eaten by a mutant star goat. The ship was filled
    with all the middlemen of Golgafrincham, such as the telephone
    sanitisers, account executives, hairdressers, tired TV producers,
    insurance salesmen, personnel officers, security guards, public
    relations executives, and management consultants.

    Ark Fleet ships A and C were supposed to carry the people who ruled,
    thought, or actually did useful work.

    The ship was programmed to crash onto its designated planet, Earth. The
    captain remembers that he was told a good reason for this, but had
    forgotten it, although the reason was later revealed to be because the
    Ark Ship B Golgafrinchans were a 'bunch of useless idiots'.

    "

    I would add to that lists sports pundits where the sole job is to extend something like a 90 minute event to 3 hours by talking bollocks.


    --
    mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jul 11 17:40:33 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 11/07/2024 4:36 pm, alan_m wrote:
    On 11/07/2024 04:15, RJH wrote:


    I say 'educate' rather than train or skill. To understand how to do
    something
    is one thing - to understand it and form an opinion is (often)
    something else.


    We just don't need a million of them :)

    "
    The Golgafrinchan Ark Fleet Ship B was a way of removing the basically useless citizens from the planet Golgafrincham. A variety of stories
    were formed about the doom of the planet, such as blowing up, crashing
    into the sun or being eaten by a mutant star goat. The ship was filled
    with all the middlemen of Golgafrincham, such as the telephone
    sanitisers, account executives, hairdressers, tired TV producers,
    insurance salesmen, personnel officers, security guards, public
    relations executives, and management consultants.

    Ark Fleet ships A and C  were supposed to carry the people who ruled, thought, or actually did useful work.

    The ship was programmed to crash onto its designated planet, Earth. The captain remembers that he was told a good reason for this, but had
    forgotten it, although the reason was later revealed to be because the
    Ark Ship B Golgafrinchans were a 'bunch of useless idiots'.

    "

    Douglas Adams. You left out the bit where residual population of
    Golgafrinchia was all killed off by a plague that was transferred by
    telephone ear-pieces, which would have been prevent if the telephone
    sanitisers had stayed behind.

    I would add to that lists sports pundits where the sole job is to extend something like a 90 minute event to 3 hours by talking bollocks.

    Cursitor Doom and John Larkin aren't infallible judges of social
    utility. They don't know much, and a lot of what they think they know is flat-out wrong.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Thu Jul 11 17:45:56 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 11/07/2024 3:09 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 14:04:24 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 9/07/2024 5:47 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 11:33:12 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 8/07/2024 3:15 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 20:34:45 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 7/07/2024 7:58 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 06/07/2024 15:23, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 16:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 15:34, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 10:18 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 12:36, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 8:08 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 10:38, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 17:18, Jethro_uk wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:11:54 +0000, Smolley wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    That's what I have been saying. Stuff with a half life of a few
    hundred years is the problem, and a pyramid that works for 5000
    years is plenty good enough.

    And you happen to be completely wrong, as usual. Stuff with a short >>>>>> half life is a particularly horrible threat, but you don't want
    environment contaminated with any of the longer lived stuff either - >>>>>> right out to Iodine-129 with it's 15.7 million year half-life.

    Only an ignorant yokel like you could fail to see it as a threat.

    I think you misunderstood what he said (as usual) Bill.

    You usually do. You don't understand much, and imagine that your own
    defective understanding justifies quite a bit of off-target rudeness.

    The kind of exposure is also highly relevant.

    The problem with the longer-lived radio-nucleotide is that they will
    still be dangerous long after our current civilisation is dead and
    forgotten. We can't predict who or what will get exposed to our
    radioactive waste, or how they might get exposed.

    Burying it deep in some kind of geologically stable structure is the
    best we can do, and we still aren't actually doing it, some seventy
    years after we started generating high level radioative waste.

    Most notably ingestion as opposed to simple proximity to the source. >>>>> You are aware - I assume - that different modes of radiation (eg.
    alpha, beta, gamma etc.) have different penetrative qualities and
    whilst lead is required to screen out some types, others can't even
    make it through skin.

    Obviously. I've had a technical education that does explicitly include >>>> that kind of information. I've even worked on electron microscopes
    which rely on beta-particles (electrons) as their illuminating
    mechanism.

    If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that, rather than
    having to "assume" it.

    Jeez, Bill. I was only trying to be kind to you and you're attacking me
    for it!

    Pull the other leg. You were trying to be patronising about your own
    imagined technical expertise, and got what you deserved.

    I don't think I'll ever understand you Communists.

    Since you can't even identify them correctly, that isn't any surprise.
    If you are trying to label me as a communist, you are being remarkably
    stupid, even for you From time to time I get to remind the qroup that
    I'm a democratic socialist - while Communists are autocratic socialists,
    and got slung out of the International Socialist movements in 1871, when
    Karl Marx's silly ideas about "the leading role" of the party were
    rejected.

    Mikhail Bakunin's famous quote dates from that period

    https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/801264-if-you-took-the-most-ardent-
    revolutionary-vested-him-in

    Sorry, Bill, but I'm not buying it. You're a bit too familiar with Karl
    Marx for my liking. Something of a giveaway IMV.

    Not everybody is as ignorant as you are, and I probably know more about
    Baruch Spinoza than I know about Karl Marx.

    I've often thought about blowing up his headstone which is in Highgate Cemetary IIRC. Drill a half inch hole in the top of his head one dark
    night, pour a load of amatol in there and attach a blasting cap. BAMMM!!!!

    Do try. Granting the technical expertise you exhibit here, you are
    likely to blow your own head off in the process.

    LOL! :-D Sadly that'll never happen now I no longer live in London so
    it'll no doubt be one of my main regrets in life when I'm finally about to pop my cloggs.

    Probably true. You do seem to have lived a remarkably pointless life.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Thu Jul 11 17:32:47 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 11/07/2024 10:32 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:04:00 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:48:09 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:18:23 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:52:49 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>
    A bigger problem is kids getting bogus degrees, like film-making and sociology and journalism and comparative literature and music theory.

    John Larkin doesn't understand them, and doesn't see the point. He had
    much the same problem with the chemistry part of his science degree.

    Even "computer science" can be useless.

    John Larkin doesn't understand a lot of that either.

    I think some people are realizing that they should not borrow a
    fortune to attend college but be apprentices in a trade, and actually
    get a job.

    A trade education takes time, and tends to have some academic content.
    The UK and Australia re-named a lot of their trade schools as technical universities, which wasn't a good idea.

    Yes, the debt will have consequences too. It keeps increasing and can
    never be paid back. Economists keep getting stupider too.

    "Top economists" are no different from the "top climate scientists" -
    they're paid handsomely for parroting whatever the Globalists at the WEF
    tell them.

    Given a graph of usefulness vs expertise, some fields have a peak
    pretty soon and then drop off.

    John Larkin's grasp of what is actually useful is down there with
    Cursitor Doom's. He's certainly no more capable of understanding what
    climate scientists are telling us than Cursitor Doom is.

    John Larkin did get a science degree from Tulane, but he was pretty
    selective about the bits he paid attention to, and climate science
    wasn't an area where he paid any attention.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Thu Jul 11 17:23:28 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 11/07/2024 9:04 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:48:09 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:18:23 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:52:49 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    Well, to be fair, that phenomenon is confined to the West and is due to
    the dogmatic insistence of Leftists that all are equal and must be
    educated accordingly.

    Cursitor Doom keeps on making this claim. Leftist's don't insist that
    everybody is equal, and they certainly don't insist that everybody gets
    exactly the same education - they tend to want the education system to
    educate everybody to the limits of their potential while acknowledging
    that these limits can be very different, and spread along a wide variety
    of possible routes.

    So the classes grind away at the speed of the
    slowest ship in the convoy ("no child left behind" - George Bush Jr -
    RINO).

    That's not the way education works - academically bright kids get
    shifted into academic subjects, dextrous kids get moved into trade
    skills. and dim kids get into remedial education.

    The brighter children in the class are thus dumbed down at best (at
    worst, switch off altogether and start sniffing glue) and grade inflation
    is employed to fudge the facts and make it appear that everything's fine
    when it most assuredly isn't.

    I wonder where Cursitor Doom thinks that this actually happens?

    This is definitely NOT happening in countries like China and that is why they're kicking our arses and have been for some time.

    I wonder what makes Cursitor Doom think that?
    There are a lot of Chinese kids, and the bright ones do get picked out,
    taught English - and a phoneme based writing system which is a lot
    easier to use that the ideographic Chinese system - and those bright
    kids are doing well. Kicking our arses is an exaggerated claim.
    When I was working in the UK I personally knew one Chinese mechanical
    engineer who was very good indeed, but he got head-hunted by a firm in Calfornia.

    Yes, the debt will have consequences too. It keeps increasing and can
    never be paid back. Economists keep getting stupider too.

    "Top economists" are no different from the "top climate scientists" -
    they're paid handsomely for parroting whatever the Globalists at the WEF
    tell them.

    Or so Cursitor Doom likes to imagine. In reality he he hasn't got a
    clue, but is emotionally attached to his fatuous conspiracy theories.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney



    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@21:1/5 to RJH on Thu Jul 11 09:29:33 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 10/07/2024 19:22, RJH wrote:
    On 10 Jul 2024 at 18:48:09 BST, john larkin wrote:

    Why end "capitalism"? Economic and intellectual plualism works.

    Because it's inefficient, immoral, exploitative, and thrives on social injustice and inequality.

    No, it isnt. Its actually the most efficient form of creating wealth
    until it gets into contact with governments.


    So does a mixed economy of both private enterprise and publicly-owned
    bodies if the size of the state sector can be constrained. Unfortunately, >>> states have a tendency to grow themselves if not kept in strict check and >>> this is in large part responsible for the truly *vast* debt burden now
    carried on the back of so many Western countries.

    There's a race between government getting bigger and wasting ever more
    resources, and technology making us more productive to support all
    that waste.

    Not sure that holds on a number of levels - technology was supposed to result in a 3 day week and prosperity for all when I was growing up in the 60s.

    The problem is that Socialists mistake 'job creation' with 'wealth creation'

    And I've just come across Jevons paradox while studying retrofit. The notion that as technology increases efficiency and reduces cost, a sort of dumb reaction happens, where people tend to consume more - 'leave the heating on - it's an ASHP and hardly using any electricity' type of thing. Apparently it's quite common in energy efficient homes.

    Maybe we're all just idiots and there's nothing to be done :-)


    --
    There’s a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons
    that sound good.

    Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jasen Betts@21:1/5 to The Natural Philosopher on Thu Jul 11 08:41:43 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 2024-07-04, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 14:28, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 14:19:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 04/07/2024 14:16, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:10:41 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>

    I find it hard to believe that the revenue costs (per unit of electricity) of
    a wind turbine exceeds those of nuclear.

    What do you mean by "unit of electricity" ?

    one kWh is a 'unit of electricity'

    Well, so is a watt or a volt or an amp or a coulomb.
    No those are units of electricty. The kWh is THE unit of electricity
    People,

    No, it's a unit of energy, approximately 3400 BTU and exactly 3.6 million joules.

    --
    Jasen.
    🇺🇦 Слава Україні

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Hobbs@21:1/5 to junk@admac.myzen.co.uk on Thu Jul 11 11:07:49 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
    On 11/07/2024 04:15, RJH wrote:


    I say 'educate' rather than train or skill. To understand how to do something
    is one thing - to understand it and form an opinion is (often) something else.


    We just don't need a million of them :)

    "
    The Golgafrinchan Ark Fleet Ship B was a way of removing the basically useless citizens from the planet Golgafrincham. A variety of stories
    were formed about the doom of the planet, such as blowing up, crashing
    into the sun or being eaten by a mutant star goat. The ship was filled
    with all the middlemen of Golgafrincham, such as the telephone
    sanitisers, account executives, hairdressers, tired TV producers,
    insurance salesmen, personnel officers, security guards, public
    relations executives, and management consultants.

    Ark Fleet ships A and C were supposed to carry the people who ruled, thought, or actually did useful work.

    The ship was programmed to crash onto its designated planet, Earth. The captain remembers that he was told a good reason for this, but had
    forgotten it, although the reason was later revealed to be because the
    Ark Ship B Golgafrinchans were a 'bunch of useless idiots'.

    "

    I would add to that lists sports pundits where the sole job is to extend something like a 90 minute event to 3 hours by talking bollocks.



    But don’t forget that the whole remaining population of Golgofrincham was wiped out by a virulent plague contracted from a dirty telephone. Think of
    the children!

    Cheers

    Phil Hobbs

    --
    Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe@21:1/5 to The Natural Philosopher on Thu Jul 11 12:00:31 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:


    The problem is that Socialists mistake 'job creation' with 'wealth
    creation'


    It's worse than that. Socialists don't know what wealth creation is.

    And many problems are rooted in the fact that socialists measure the
    success of a policy in terms of how much (other peoples') money is spent
    on it, not in terms of what it achieves.

    So nobody in the US government is at all bothered by the spending of
    7.5 billion dollars on EV charging stations, with only seven stations functional after three years. It's the money spent which matters.

    --
    Joe

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Joe on Thu Jul 11 22:13:36 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 11/07/2024 9:00 pm, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:


    The problem is that Socialists mistake 'job creation' with 'wealth
    creation'


    It's worse than that. Socialists don't know what wealth creation is.

    What on earth makes you think that?

    And many problems are rooted in the fact that socialists measure the
    success of a policy in terms of how much (other peoples') money is spent
    on it, not in terms of what it achieves.

    You've been reading too much right-wing propaganda.

    So nobody in the US government is at all bothered by the spending of
    7.5 billion dollars on EV charging stations, with only seven stations functional after three years.

    Seems unlikely. Evidence?

    I see quite a few Tesla's driving around my bit of Sydney, which does
    suggest that we have rather more than seven functional EV charging
    stations. The 80-apartment block in which I live has a couple of Tesla's
    parked in the basement. There is a plan to add charging points to the
    parking area, but it hasn't happened yet, so there must be open access
    charging stations around to look after them.

    It's the money spent which matters.

    Only if you believe what you read in ZeroHedge.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney



    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to The Natural Philosopher on Thu Jul 11 22:05:44 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 11/07/2024 6:29 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 10/07/2024 19:22, RJH wrote:
    On 10 Jul 2024 at 18:48:09 BST, john larkin wrote:

    Why end "capitalism"? Economic and intellectual plualism works.

    Because it's inefficient, immoral, exploitative, and thrives on social
    injustice and inequality.

    No, it isnt. Its actually the most efficient form of creating wealth
    until it gets into contact with governments.

    Another one of the Natural Philosopher's dogmatic delusions.

    Governments preceded capitalism, so capitalism has never been out of
    contact with government. Without government, any accumulation of capital
    gets ripped off by the local warlord, so some level of government to
    enforce property rights is a necessary condition for any form of capitalism.

    <snipped all the stuff that the Natural Philosopher wasn't able to process.>

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Fri Jul 12 00:19:30 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 11/07/2024 3:01 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 13:28:29 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 19:47:02 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 11:33:12 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 8/07/2024 3:15 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 20:34:45 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 7/07/2024 7:58 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 06/07/2024 15:23, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 16:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 15:34, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 10:18 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 12:36, Bill Sloman wrote:
    On 5/07/2024 8:08 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 05/07/2024 10:38, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 04/07/2024 17:18, Jethro_uk wrote:
    On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:11:54 +0000, Smolley wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    Jeez, Bill. I was only trying to be kind to you and you're attacking me
    for it! I don't think I'll ever understand you Communists.

    It's a waste being polite to Sloman. His only mode is contempt.

    So ignore him.

    It's a waste being polite to Sloman. His only mode is sneering contempt.

    There, FIFY.

    It would certainly be a waste of time for Cursitor Doom to try to be
    polite to me - not that he seems to know how.

    Some of the people who post here don't seem to be able to post anything
    that doesn't deserve sneering contempt.

    Cursitor Doom does seem to a member of that group. John Larkin can do
    better, but feels hurt when the approbation he gets doesn't live up to
    his expectations. Most of his contributions barely make it to adequate,
    and he seems to think that he deserves fulsome flattery for every offering.

    --
    Bil Sloman, Sydney




    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to Joe on Thu Jul 11 07:55:58 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 12:00:31 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:


    The problem is that Socialists mistake 'job creation' with 'wealth
    creation'


    It's worse than that. Socialists don't know what wealth creation is.

    And many problems are rooted in the fact that socialists measure the
    success of a policy in terms of how much (other peoples') money is spent
    on it, not in terms of what it achieves.

    So nobody in the US government is at all bothered by the spending of
    7.5 billion dollars on EV charging stations, with only seven stations >functional after three years. It's the money spent which matters.

    Wealth is the thing that allows human resources to be invested
    long-term, and not all burned up right now.

    Marx was a moron. "Capital" is just a symptom of what really matters,
    which is ideas.

    Communist countries crush ideas, which is why they are so poor.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to All on Thu Jul 11 07:58:46 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 03:15:42 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 11 Jul 2024 at 01:32:44 BST, john larkin wrote:

    I was just talking to a fellow old fogey (who is literally a Fellow) and >>>> we agree that young people are getting stupider, so the productivity
    increase probably can't keep up.

    Well, to be fair, that phenomenon is confined to the West and is due to
    the dogmatic insistence of Leftists that all are equal and must be
    educated accordingly. So the classes grind away at the speed of the
    slowest ship in the convoy ("no child left behind" - George Bush Jr -
    RINO). The brighter children in the class are thus dumbed down at best (at >>> worst, switch off altogether and start sniffing glue) and grade inflation >>> is employed to fudge the facts and make it appear that everything's fine >>> when it most assuredly isn't. This is definitely NOT happening in
    countries like China and that is why they're kicking our arses and have
    been for some time.


    A bigger problem is kids getting bogus degrees, like film-making and
    sociology and journalism and comparative literature and music theory.

    Seriously? Can you imagine a world where society doesn't educate people in >such things?


    It would be tough, a world without house cleaners and barristas and
    supermarket shelf-stockers.

    I say 'educate' rather than train or skill. To understand how to do something >is one thing - to understand it and form an opinion is (often) something else.

    Read a sociology textbook some time. I did. Well, I got through most
    of it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Thu Jul 11 19:38:17 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 7/11/24 16:55, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 12:00:31 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:


    The problem is that Socialists mistake 'job creation' with 'wealth
    creation'


    It's worse than that. Socialists don't know what wealth creation is.

    And many problems are rooted in the fact that socialists measure the
    success of a policy in terms of how much (other peoples') money is spent
    on it, not in terms of what it achieves.

    So nobody in the US government is at all bothered by the spending of
    7.5 billion dollars on EV charging stations, with only seven stations
    functional after three years. It's the money spent which matters.

    Wealth is the thing that allows human resources to be invested
    long-term, and not all burned up right now.

    Marx was a moron. "Capital" is just a symptom of what really matters,
    which is ideas.

    Communist countries crush ideas, which is why they are so poor.



    Ideas are good, but not enough. Someone will have to do the
    work, too. Who said 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration? Edison?

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to Joe on Thu Jul 11 19:33:41 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 7/11/24 13:00, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:


    The problem is that Socialists mistake 'job creation' with 'wealth
    creation'


    It's worse than that. Socialists don't know what wealth creation is.

    And many problems are rooted in the fact that socialists measure the
    success of a policy in terms of how much (other peoples') money is spent
    on it, not in terms of what it achieves.

    So nobody in the US government is at all bothered by the spending of
    7.5 billion dollars on EV charging stations, with only seven stations functional after three years. It's the money spent which matters.


    The government will spend a billion dollars per functioning charging
    station? I see a business opportunity!

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From alan_m@21:1/5 to Phil Hobbs on Thu Jul 11 19:26:07 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 11/07/2024 12:07, Phil Hobbs wrote:
    alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
    On 11/07/2024 04:15, RJH wrote:


    I say 'educate' rather than train or skill. To understand how to do something
    is one thing - to understand it and form an opinion is (often) something else.


    We just don't need a million of them :)

    "
    The Golgafrinchan Ark Fleet Ship B was a way of removing the basically
    useless citizens from the planet Golgafrincham. A variety of stories
    were formed about the doom of the planet, such as blowing up, crashing
    into the sun or being eaten by a mutant star goat. The ship was filled
    with all the middlemen of Golgafrincham, such as the telephone
    sanitisers, account executives, hairdressers, tired TV producers,
    insurance salesmen, personnel officers, security guards, public
    relations executives, and management consultants.

    Ark Fleet ships A and C were supposed to carry the people who ruled,
    thought, or actually did useful work.

    The ship was programmed to crash onto its designated planet, Earth. The
    captain remembers that he was told a good reason for this, but had
    forgotten it, although the reason was later revealed to be because the
    Ark Ship B Golgafrinchans were a 'bunch of useless idiots'.

    "

    I would add to that lists sports pundits where the sole job is to extend
    something like a 90 minute event to 3 hours by talking bollocks.



    But don’t forget that the whole remaining population of Golgofrincham was wiped out by a virulent plague contracted from a dirty telephone. Think of the children!

    The company I once worked for had 40(ish) years ago a phone sanitising
    company come in. They went around every desk sprayed the mouthpiece and
    wiped it dry with a cloth. It was the same cloth used on all phones.
    Possibly much more of a risk of contamination than not having it done at
    all. It was a one off possibly as a lot of staff complaining it was a
    complete waste of money.

    --
    mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to jeroen@nospam.please on Thu Jul 11 14:28:25 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:38:17 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 7/11/24 16:55, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 12:00:31 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:


    The problem is that Socialists mistake 'job creation' with 'wealth
    creation'


    It's worse than that. Socialists don't know what wealth creation is.

    And many problems are rooted in the fact that socialists measure the
    success of a policy in terms of how much (other peoples') money is spent >>> on it, not in terms of what it achieves.

    So nobody in the US government is at all bothered by the spending of
    7.5 billion dollars on EV charging stations, with only seven stations
    functional after three years. It's the money spent which matters.

    Wealth is the thing that allows human resources to be invested
    long-term, and not all burned up right now.

    Marx was a moron. "Capital" is just a symptom of what really matters,
    which is ideas.

    Communist countries crush ideas, which is why they are so poor.



    Ideas are good, but not enough. Someone will have to do the
    work, too. Who said 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration? Edison?

    Jeroen Belleman

    Ideas generate money. Money doesn't generate ideas.

    A good idea often starts in a garage (or lately, a dorm room) with
    hardly any capital. It creates jobs and industries.

    HP, Microsoft, google, Facebook, and the first airplane started very
    small.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to jeroen@nospam.please on Thu Jul 11 14:30:41 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:33:41 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 7/11/24 13:00, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:


    The problem is that Socialists mistake 'job creation' with 'wealth
    creation'


    It's worse than that. Socialists don't know what wealth creation is.

    And many problems are rooted in the fact that socialists measure the
    success of a policy in terms of how much (other peoples') money is spent
    on it, not in terms of what it achieves.

    So nobody in the US government is at all bothered by the spending of
    7.5 billion dollars on EV charging stations, with only seven stations
    functional after three years. It's the money spent which matters.


    The government will spend a billion dollars per functioning charging
    station? I see a business opportunity!

    Jeroen Belleman

    Yes, governments create business opportunities. We have a
    billion-dollar homeless industry in San Francisco, and it keeps
    growing.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@21:1/5 to john larkin on Thu Jul 11 22:40:01 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 11/07/2024 15:55, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 12:00:31 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:


    The problem is that Socialists mistake 'job creation' with 'wealth
    creation'


    It's worse than that. Socialists don't know what wealth creation is.

    And many problems are rooted in the fact that socialists measure the
    success of a policy in terms of how much (other peoples') money is spent
    on it, not in terms of what it achieves.

    So nobody in the US government is at all bothered by the spending of
    7.5 billion dollars on EV charging stations, with only seven stations
    functional after three years. It's the money spent which matters.

    Wealth is the thing that allows human resources to be invested
    long-term, and not all burned up right now.

    Marx was a moron. "Capital" is just a symptom of what really matters,
    which is ideas.

    Capital is just a symbol of co-operation.
    Capital is a group of people putting their pennies together to pay
    another group of people to do something no one can afford to do on their
    won.

    Communism is a group of people taking all the money from another group
    of people to pay them do do something that benefits no one except the
    people who took the money..


    Communist countries crush ideas, which is why they are so poor.

    They crush individual initiative,



    --
    The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to
    rule.
    – H. L. Mencken, American journalist, 1880-1956

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to john larkin on Thu Jul 11 21:43:44 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:28:25 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:38:17 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 7/11/24 16:55, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 12:00:31 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100 The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:


    The problem is that Socialists mistake 'job creation' with 'wealth
    creation'


    It's worse than that. Socialists don't know what wealth creation is.

    And many problems are rooted in the fact that socialists measure the
    success of a policy in terms of how much (other peoples') money is
    spent on it, not in terms of what it achieves.

    So nobody in the US government is at all bothered by the spending of
    7.5 billion dollars on EV charging stations, with only seven stations
    functional after three years. It's the money spent which matters.

    Wealth is the thing that allows human resources to be invested
    long-term, and not all burned up right now.

    Marx was a moron. "Capital" is just a symptom of what really matters,
    which is ideas.

    Communist countries crush ideas, which is why they are so poor.



    Ideas are good, but not enough. Someone will have to do the work, too.
    Who said 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration? Edison?

    Jeroen Belleman

    Ideas generate money. Money doesn't generate ideas.

    A good idea often starts in a garage (or lately, a dorm room) with
    hardly any capital. It creates jobs and industries.

    HP, Microsoft, google, Facebook, and the first airplane started very
    small.

    Apple! Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak also started in a garage IIRC.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to Jeroen Belleman on Thu Jul 11 21:46:08 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:33:41 +0200, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

    On 7/11/24 13:00, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100 The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:


    The problem is that Socialists mistake 'job creation' with 'wealth
    creation'


    It's worse than that. Socialists don't know what wealth creation is.

    And many problems are rooted in the fact that socialists measure the
    success of a policy in terms of how much (other peoples') money is
    spent on it, not in terms of what it achieves.

    So nobody in the US government is at all bothered by the spending of
    7.5 billion dollars on EV charging stations, with only seven stations
    functional after three years. It's the money spent which matters.


    The government will spend a billion dollars per functioning charging
    station? I see a business opportunity!

    I'm right with you. I have the schematics for charger that can't fail and
    only want 100 million in exchange for my design.


    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to john larkin on Thu Jul 11 21:48:31 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:30:41 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:33:41 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 7/11/24 13:00, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100 The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:


    The problem is that Socialists mistake 'job creation' with 'wealth
    creation'


    It's worse than that. Socialists don't know what wealth creation is.

    And many problems are rooted in the fact that socialists measure the
    success of a policy in terms of how much (other peoples') money is
    spent on it, not in terms of what it achieves.

    So nobody in the US government is at all bothered by the spending of
    7.5 billion dollars on EV charging stations, with only seven stations
    functional after three years. It's the money spent which matters.


    The government will spend a billion dollars per functioning charging >>station? I see a business opportunity!

    Jeroen Belleman

    Yes, governments create business opportunities. We have a billion-dollar homeless industry in San Francisco, and it keeps growing.

    What do you think all those homeless people are going to do when the debt
    bomb finally explodes and there's no more money for cops, the army - or anything else?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to cd999666@notformail.com on Thu Jul 11 16:43:00 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 21:43:44 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:28:25 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:38:17 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 7/11/24 16:55, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 12:00:31 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100 The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:


    The problem is that Socialists mistake 'job creation' with 'wealth >>>>>> creation'


    It's worse than that. Socialists don't know what wealth creation is. >>>>>
    And many problems are rooted in the fact that socialists measure the >>>>> success of a policy in terms of how much (other peoples') money is
    spent on it, not in terms of what it achieves.

    So nobody in the US government is at all bothered by the spending of >>>>> 7.5 billion dollars on EV charging stations, with only seven stations >>>>> functional after three years. It's the money spent which matters.

    Wealth is the thing that allows human resources to be invested
    long-term, and not all burned up right now.

    Marx was a moron. "Capital" is just a symptom of what really matters, >>>> which is ideas.

    Communist countries crush ideas, which is why they are so poor.



    Ideas are good, but not enough. Someone will have to do the work, too. >>>Who said 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration? Edison?

    Jeroen Belleman

    Ideas generate money. Money doesn't generate ideas.

    A good idea often starts in a garage (or lately, a dorm room) with
    hardly any capital. It creates jobs and industries.

    HP, Microsoft, google, Facebook, and the first airplane started very
    small.

    Apple! Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak also started in a garage IIRC.

    And a lot of giant companies faded away because management had no
    ideas. DEC. Kodak. HP. Xerox. Intel.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Fri Jul 12 12:01:22 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 12/07/2024 7:28 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:38:17 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 7/11/24 16:55, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 12:00:31 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:


    The problem is that Socialists mistake 'job creation' with 'wealth
    creation'


    It's worse than that. Socialists don't know what wealth creation is.

    And many problems are rooted in the fact that socialists measure the
    success of a policy in terms of how much (other peoples') money is spent >>>> on it, not in terms of what it achieves.

    So nobody in the US government is at all bothered by the spending of
    7.5 billion dollars on EV charging stations, with only seven stations
    functional after three years. It's the money spent which matters.

    Wealth is the thing that allows human resources to be invested
    long-term, and not all burned up right now.

    Marx was a moron. "Capital" is just a symptom of what really matters,
    which is ideas.

    Communist countries crush ideas, which is why they are so poor.

    Ideas are good, but not enough. Someone will have to do the
    work, too. Who said 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration? Edison?

    Ideas generate money. Money doesn't generate ideas.

    Actually, money can seek out ideas. That's what venture capitalism is
    all about.

    A good idea often starts in a garage (or lately, a dorm room) with
    hardly any capital. It creates jobs and industries.

    But a lot more of them start out in universities and research labs,
    which are set up to find them. This kind of institution is good at
    publicising their better ideas and attracting capital to exploit them.

    HP, Microsoft, google, Facebook, and the first airplane started very
    small.

    Any sensible development program starts small, aiming at those
    applications - niche markets - where a limited capital investment can
    generate generous returns. Once you've plucked the low-hanging fruit you
    will probably have enough income to invest in going after mass markets.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to The Natural Philosopher on Fri Jul 12 12:13:30 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 12/07/2024 7:40 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 11/07/2024 15:55, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 12:00:31 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    <snip>

    Wealth is the thing that allows human resources to be invested
    long-term, and not all burned up right now.

    Marx was a moron.  "Capital" is just a symptom of what really matters,
    which is ideas.

    Capital is just a symbol of co-operation.

    It's a mechanism that allows co-operation to work.

    Capital is a group of people putting their pennies together to pay
    another group of people to do something no one can afford to do on their
    own.

    Capital can be under the control of a single individual - with inherited
    wealth it frequently is.

    Communism is a group of people taking all the money from another group
    of people to pay them do do something that benefits no one except the
    people who took the money..

    That's what right-wing lunatics like to think. Lenin's hobby-horse -
    when he finally got control of the Soviet Republic - was rural
    electrification, which benefited most of the population.

    Communist countries crush ideas, which is why they are so poor.

    They crush individual initiative.

    Any autocratic system crushes lots of individual initiatives, but not
    the initiatives of the autocrats.

    If you aren't well-connected in the US or the UK, your individual
    initiatives won't get far either.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Fri Jul 12 11:52:27 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 12/07/2024 12:55 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 12:00:31 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100
    The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    <snip>

    Wealth is the thing that allows human resources to be invested
    long-term, and not all burned up right now.

    Wealth is the capacity to buy things, including human labour. It can be
    spent in all sorts of ways, some of them constructive.

    Marx was a moron. "Capital" is just a symptom of what really matters,
    which is ideas.

    Karl Marx wasn't a moron. He corresponded with Abraham Lincoln.

    https://www.versobooks.com/en-gb/products/2193-an-unfinished-revolution

    Marx was much better on economics than he was on practical politics.

    Capital is what you need to turn ideas into profitable reality. If
    you've had good ideas in the past, and been able to realise them, you
    may accumulate enough capital to be able to invest in realising new
    ideas, but there are other ways of accumulating capital and it certainly
    isn't just a symptom of having had good ideas in the past.

    Communist countries crush ideas, which is why they are so poor.

    Communist countries are autocratic, which does mean that powerful people
    have are influence in areas they don't understand, and suppress good
    ideas they don't appreciate.

    The US is plutocratic, which means that rich people have influence in
    areas they don't understand and can suppress good idea that they don't appreciate. Your own attitude to anthropogenic globla warming is a
    classic example.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level_(book)

    points out that this has it's downsides too.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney



    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Fri Jul 12 12:18:39 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 12/07/2024 7:48 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:30:41 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:33:41 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 7/11/24 13:00, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100 The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    <sdnip>


    What do you think all those homeless people are going to do when the debt bomb finally explodes and there's no more money for cops, the army - or anything else?

    What's a "debt bomb" and how would it explode?
    As long as society keeps generating and exchanging goods and services
    it's not going to run out of money, which is just medium of exchange.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Fri Jul 12 12:24:39 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 12/07/2024 7:46 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:33:41 +0200, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

    On 7/11/24 13:00, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100 The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    <snip>

    The government will spend a billion dollars per functioning charging
    station? I see a business opportunity!

    I'm right with you. I have the schematics for charger that can't fail and only want 100 million in exchange for my design.

    Granting the level of design skill Cursitor Doom has exhibited here,
    he's asking a rather higher price than any rational negotiator would
    offer him. He's be better off looking for a vanity developer - like John
    Larkin - who would charge him what it cost to realise his design, and
    clean out the worst mistakes, so that it might work - after a fashion.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Fri Jul 12 12:28:04 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 12/07/2024 12:58 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 03:15:42 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 11 Jul 2024 at 01:32:44 BST, john larkin wrote:

    <snip>

    A bigger problem is kids getting bogus degrees, like film-making and
    sociology and journalism and comparative literature and music theory.

    Seriously? Can you imagine a world where society doesn't educate people in >> such things? >
    It would be tough, a world without house cleaners and barristas and supermarket shelf-stockers.

    I say 'educate' rather than train or skill. To understand how to do something
    is one thing - to understand it and form an opinion is (often) something else.

    Read a sociology textbook some time. I did. Well, I got through most
    of it.

    And understood none of it.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney



    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Fri Jul 12 09:25:51 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:18:39 +1000
    Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

    On 12/07/2024 7:48 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:30:41 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:33:41 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 7/11/24 13:00, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100 The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    <sdnip>


    What do you think all those homeless people are going to do when
    the debt bomb finally explodes and there's no more money for cops,
    the army - or anything else?

    What's a "debt bomb" and how would it explode?
    As long as society keeps generating and exchanging goods and services
    it's not going to run out of money, which is just medium of exchange.


    What use is the means of exchange if you can't exchange it for anything meaningful?

    We are already past the point where the alternatives for many countries
    are default or hyperinflation, which is just s more spectacular form of default, and an involuntary one. It happens slowly at first, then all
    at once.

    --
    Joe

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Joe on Fri Jul 12 23:16:42 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 12/07/2024 6:25 pm, Joe wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:18:39 +1000
    Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

    On 12/07/2024 7:48 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:30:41 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:33:41 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 7/11/24 13:00, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100 The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    <sdnip>


    What do you think all those homeless people are going to do when
    the debt bomb finally explodes and there's no more money for cops,
    the army - or anything else?

    What's a "debt bomb" and how would it explode?
    As long as society keeps generating and exchanging goods and services
    it's not going to run out of money, which is just medium of exchange.


    What use is the means of exchange if you can't exchange it for anything meaningful?

    None at all.

    We are already past the point where the alternatives for many countries
    are default or hyperinflation, which is just s more spectacular form of default, and an involuntary one. It happens slowly at first, then all
    at once.

    Such countries stop using their own currency, and use somebody else's,
    or invent a new one.

    Advanced industrial countries keep a close eye on inflation, and tinker
    with their economies to keep it under control.

    Lunatics like Cursitor Doom imagine a re-run of Weimar Republic Germany
    and it's hyper-inflation, but that's unlikely unless you get a demented
    clown like Donald Trump in the top job.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney



    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to Joe on Fri Jul 12 07:25:32 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:25:51 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:18:39 +1000
    Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

    On 12/07/2024 7:48 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:30:41 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:33:41 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 7/11/24 13:00, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100 The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    <sdnip>


    What do you think all those homeless people are going to do when
    the debt bomb finally explodes and there's no more money for cops,
    the army - or anything else?

    What's a "debt bomb" and how would it explode?
    As long as society keeps generating and exchanging goods and services
    it's not going to run out of money, which is just medium of exchange.


    What use is the means of exchange if you can't exchange it for anything >meaningful?

    We are already past the point where the alternatives for many countries
    are default or hyperinflation, which is just s more spectacular form of >default, and an involuntary one. It happens slowly at first, then all
    at once.

    Inflation is a government's way to spend (and usually waste) money
    that it doesn't have, by borrowing money that will never be paid back.
    It is essentially stealing from its citizens, especially from savings.

    It's dynamically unstable and often runs away. The thing about
    inflation is that there's never enough of it. The more you have, the
    more you need.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@21:1/5 to john larkin on Fri Jul 12 15:45:18 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 12/07/2024 15:25, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:25:51 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:18:39 +1000
    Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

    On 12/07/2024 7:48 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:30:41 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:33:41 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 7/11/24 13:00, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100 The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    <sdnip>


    What do you think all those homeless people are going to do when
    the debt bomb finally explodes and there's no more money for cops,
    the army - or anything else?

    What's a "debt bomb" and how would it explode?
    As long as society keeps generating and exchanging goods and services
    it's not going to run out of money, which is just medium of exchange.


    What use is the means of exchange if you can't exchange it for anything
    meaningful?

    We are already past the point where the alternatives for many countries
    are default or hyperinflation, which is just s more spectacular form of
    default, and an involuntary one. It happens slowly at first, then all
    at once.

    Inflation is a government's way to spend (and usually waste) money
    that it doesn't have, by borrowing money that will never be paid back.
    It is essentially stealing from its citizens, especially from savings.

    It's dynamically unstable and often runs away. The thing about
    inflation is that there's never enough of it. The more you have, the
    more you need.





    The price of a loaf of bread, in terms of gold, hasn't changed in 600 years.
    A friend bought £10,000 worth of gold in 2004, Its worth £80,000 now



    --
    "I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
    This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
    all women"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to The Natural Philosopher on Fri Jul 12 17:30:35 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 7/12/24 16:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 15:25, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:25:51 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:18:39 +1000
    Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

    On 12/07/2024 7:48 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:30:41 -0700, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:33:41 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
    On 7/11/24 13:00, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100 The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    <sdnip>


    What do you think all those homeless people are going to do when
    the debt bomb finally explodes and there's no more money for cops,
    the army - or anything else?

    What's a "debt bomb" and how would it explode?
    As long as society keeps generating and exchanging goods and services
    it's not going to run out of money, which is just medium of exchange.


    What use is the means of exchange if you can't exchange it for anything
    meaningful?

    We are already past the point where the alternatives for many countries
    are default or hyperinflation, which is just s more spectacular form of
    default, and an involuntary one. It happens slowly at first, then all
    at once.

    Inflation is a government's way to spend (and usually waste) money
    that it doesn't have, by borrowing money that will never be paid back.
    It is essentially stealing from its citizens, especially from savings.

    It's dynamically unstable and often runs away. The thing about
    inflation is that there's never enough of it. The more you have, the
    more you need.





    The price of a loaf of bread, in terms of gold, hasn't changed in 600
    years.
    A friend bought £10,000 worth of gold in 2004, Its worth £80,000 now

    That's a gross simplification, and not guaranteed to work in the
    short term. It's subject to random ups and downs like any other
    target of speculators. Moreover, when shit hits the fan, you'll
    be required to surrender it to your government in exchange for
    money that's being inflated. It has happened before.

    The US has huge stockpiles of gold. It's a bit of a pity to just
    hoard a metal that has so many *useful* applications.

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@21:1/5 to Jeroen Belleman on Fri Jul 12 16:57:37 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 12/07/2024 16:30, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    On 7/12/24 16:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 15:25, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:25:51 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:18:39 +1000
    Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

    On 12/07/2024 7:48 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:30:41 -0700, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:33:41 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
    On 7/11/24 13:00, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100 The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    <sdnip>


    What do you think all those homeless people are going to do when
    the debt bomb finally explodes and there's no more money for cops, >>>>>> the army - or anything else?

    What's a "debt bomb" and how would it explode?
    As long as society keeps generating and exchanging goods and services >>>>> it's not going to run out of money, which is just medium of exchange. >>>>>

    What use is the means of exchange if you can't exchange it for anything >>>> meaningful?

    We are already past the point where the alternatives for many countries >>>> are default or hyperinflation, which is just s more spectacular form of >>>> default, and an involuntary one. It happens slowly at first, then all
    at once.

    Inflation is a government's way to spend (and usually waste) money
    that it doesn't have, by borrowing money that will never be paid back.
    It is essentially stealing from its citizens, especially from savings.

    It's dynamically unstable and often runs away. The thing about
    inflation is that there's never enough of it. The more you have, the
    more you need.





    The price of a loaf of bread, in terms of gold, hasn't changed in 600
    years.
    A friend bought £10,000 worth of gold in 2004, Its worth £80,000 now

    That's a gross simplification, and not guaranteed to work in the
    short term. It's subject to random ups and downs like any other
    target of speculators. Moreover, when shit hits the fan, you'll
    be required to surrender it to your government in exchange for
    money that's being inflated. It has happened before.

    The US has huge stockpiles of gold. It's a bit of a pity to just
    hoard a metal that has so many *useful* applications.

    Jeroen Belleman

    I have a little gold. Its appreciated about 15% in the last year
    It is the only really safe long term inflation hedge

    The government cant take it off you if they dont know you have it.



    --
    "I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
    This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
    all women"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to john larkin on Fri Jul 12 17:05:53 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 12/07/2024 00:43, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 21:43:44 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:28:25 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:38:17 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:


    Ideas are good, but not enough. Someone will have to do the work, too. >>>> Who said 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration? Edison?

    Jeroen Belleman

    Edison was a great self publicist and plagiarist but arguably the
    filament light bulb was invented by Swan in the UK a decade before.

    https://www.cio.com/article/266493/consumer-technology-thomas-edison-joseph-swan-and-the-real-deal-behind-the-light-bulb.html

    Even USPTO eventually agreed.

    Ideas generate money. Money doesn't generate ideas.

    Ideas as such don't generate anything unless they can be exploited.

    A good idea often starts in a garage (or lately, a dorm room) with
    hardly any capital. It creates jobs and industries.

    HP, Microsoft, google, Facebook, and the first airplane started very
    small.

    Apple! Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak also started in a garage IIRC.

    And a lot of giant companies faded away because management had no
    ideas. DEC. Kodak. HP. Xerox. Intel.

    Kodak digital had plenty of ideas - Bayer worked for Kodak and for a
    while their digital cameras were the best in the world. I had a DC-120
    (looked like a StarTrek tricorder). They couldn't see that digicam mass production would annihilate the wet chemistry film market and paid the
    price. They also got lazy - Fuji film had way better film products.

    HP split into two when demergers were all the rage. They put a complete
    idiot in charge of one half for reasons that escape me completely.

    Xerox always was a bit of a one trick pony but their print engines were
    the best in the world very reliable. My last one survived for 20+ years
    with a moderately heavy workload. When it finally croaked I got a new
    model containing one of the last print engines of their old design.

    AFAIK Intel is still going at the moment and remains profitable. ARM now
    has the mass market consumer products volume and AMD/NVidia the
    AI/graphics. It is Zilog and Motorola CPUs that have sunk without trace.

    --
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to tnp@invalid.invalid on Fri Jul 12 09:18:26 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 16:57:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 12/07/2024 16:30, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    On 7/12/24 16:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 15:25, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:25:51 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:18:39 +1000
    Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

    On 12/07/2024 7:48 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:30:41 -0700, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:33:41 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
    On 7/11/24 13:00, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100 The Natural Philosopher >>>>>>>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    <sdnip>


    What do you think all those homeless people are going to do when >>>>>>> the debt bomb finally explodes and there's no more money for cops, >>>>>>> the army - or anything else?

    What's a "debt bomb" and how would it explode?
    As long as society keeps generating and exchanging goods and services >>>>>> it's not going to run out of money, which is just medium of exchange. >>>>>>

    What use is the means of exchange if you can't exchange it for anything >>>>> meaningful?

    We are already past the point where the alternatives for many countries >>>>> are default or hyperinflation, which is just s more spectacular form of >>>>> default, and an involuntary one. It happens slowly at first, then all >>>>> at once.

    Inflation is a government's way to spend (and usually waste) money
    that it doesn't have, by borrowing money that will never be paid back. >>>> It is essentially stealing from its citizens, especially from savings. >>>>
    It's dynamically unstable and often runs away. The thing about
    inflation is that there's never enough of it. The more you have, the
    more you need.





    The price of a loaf of bread, in terms of gold, hasn't changed in 600
    years.
    A friend bought 10,000 worth of gold in 2004, Its worth 80,000 now

    That's a gross simplification, and not guaranteed to work in the
    short term. It's subject to random ups and downs like any other
    target of speculators. Moreover, when shit hits the fan, you'll
    be required to surrender it to your government in exchange for
    money that's being inflated. It has happened before.

    The US has huge stockpiles of gold. It's a bit of a pity to just
    hoard a metal that has so many *useful* applications.

    Jeroen Belleman

    I have a little gold. Its appreciated about 15% in the last year
    It is the only really safe long term inflation hedge

    Land is good.


    The government cant take it off you if they dont know you have it.

    Eventually it needs to be sold.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to '''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk on Fri Jul 12 09:27:31 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 17:05:53 +0100, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    On 12/07/2024 00:43, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 21:43:44 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:28:25 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:38:17 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:


    Ideas are good, but not enough. Someone will have to do the work, too. >>>>> Who said 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration? Edison?

    Jeroen Belleman

    Edison was a great self publicist and plagiarist but arguably the
    filament light bulb was invented by Swan in the UK a decade before.

    https://www.cio.com/article/266493/consumer-technology-thomas-edison-joseph-swan-and-the-real-deal-behind-the-light-bulb.html

    Even USPTO eventually agreed.

    Ideas generate money. Money doesn't generate ideas.

    Ideas as such don't generate anything unless they can be exploited.

    A good idea often starts in a garage (or lately, a dorm room) with
    hardly any capital. It creates jobs and industries.

    HP, Microsoft, google, Facebook, and the first airplane started very
    small.

    Apple! Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak also started in a garage IIRC.

    And a lot of giant companies faded away because management had no
    ideas. DEC. Kodak. HP. Xerox. Intel.

    Kodak digital had plenty of ideas - Bayer worked for Kodak and for a
    while their digital cameras were the best in the world. I had a DC-120 >(looked like a StarTrek tricorder). They couldn't see that digicam mass >production would annihilate the wet chemistry film market and paid the
    price. They also got lazy - Fuji film had way better film products.

    HP split into two when demergers were all the rage. They put a complete
    idiot in charge of one half for reasons that escape me completely.

    Xerox always was a bit of a one trick pony but their print engines were
    the best in the world very reliable. My last one survived for 20+ years
    with a moderately heavy workload. When it finally croaked I got a new
    model containing one of the last print engines of their old design.

    AFAIK Intel is still going at the moment and remains profitable. ARM now
    has the mass market consumer products volume and AMD/NVidia the
    AI/graphics. It is Zilog and Motorola CPUs that have sunk without trace.

    What's remarkable is that you can still buy MC68332 CPUs from Digikey.

    Intel dropped the ball on small-feature fab, ironically after
    investing billions in ASML and then not buying EUV machines. And X86
    is a dinosaur, the only one they know. ARM and RiscV will eventually
    kill the expensive bloated buggy X86.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to tnp@invalid.invalid on Fri Jul 12 09:16:53 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 15:45:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 12/07/2024 15:25, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:25:51 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:18:39 +1000
    Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

    On 12/07/2024 7:48 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:30:41 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:33:41 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 7/11/24 13:00, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100 The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    <sdnip>


    What do you think all those homeless people are going to do when
    the debt bomb finally explodes and there's no more money for cops,
    the army - or anything else?

    What's a "debt bomb" and how would it explode?
    As long as society keeps generating and exchanging goods and services
    it's not going to run out of money, which is just medium of exchange.


    What use is the means of exchange if you can't exchange it for anything
    meaningful?

    We are already past the point where the alternatives for many countries
    are default or hyperinflation, which is just s more spectacular form of
    default, and an involuntary one. It happens slowly at first, then all
    at once.

    Inflation is a government's way to spend (and usually waste) money
    that it doesn't have, by borrowing money that will never be paid back.
    It is essentially stealing from its citizens, especially from savings.

    It's dynamically unstable and often runs away. The thing about
    inflation is that there's never enough of it. The more you have, the
    more you need.





    The price of a loaf of bread, in terms of gold, hasn't changed in 600 years. >A friend bought 10,000 worth of gold in 2004, Its worth 80,000 now

    Gold is fascinating. As a chemical, it wouldn't be worth anything like
    what is has always been. You can't eat it or build much out of it.

    Given a starving village or country or world, gold won't feed people
    by itself.

    People talk about finding a solid-gold comet that's worth a trillion
    trillion dollars. That's silly. It would grossly devalue the price of
    gold.

    Diamonds similarly have an undeserved dollar equivalent.

    Money pinned to gold is fairly stable. It coud be pinned to a weighted
    average of a number of things, steel and corn and oil maybe.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Fri Jul 12 17:02:30 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:32:47 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 11/07/2024 10:32 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:04:00 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:48:09 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:18:23 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:52:49 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>
    A bigger problem is kids getting bogus degrees, like film-making and
    sociology and journalism and comparative literature and music theory.

    John Larkin doesn't understand them, and doesn't see the point. He had
    much the same problem with the chemistry part of his science degree.

    Even "computer science" can be useless.

    John Larkin doesn't understand a lot of that either.

    I think some people are realizing that they should not borrow a fortune
    to attend college but be apprentices in a trade, and actually get a
    job.

    A trade education takes time, and tends to have some academic content.
    The UK and Australia re-named a lot of their trade schools as technical universities, which wasn't a good idea.

    Yes, the debt will have consequences too. It keeps increasing and can
    never be paid back. Economists keep getting stupider too.

    "Top economists" are no different from the "top climate scientists" -
    they're paid handsomely for parroting whatever the Globalists at the
    WEF tell them.

    Given a graph of usefulness vs expertise, some fields have a peak
    pretty soon and then drop off.

    John Larkin's grasp of what is actually useful is down there with
    Cursitor Doom's. He's certainly no more capable of understanding what
    climate scientists are telling us than Cursitor Doom is.

    John Larkin did get a science degree from Tulane, but he was pre
    selective about the bits he paid attention to, and climate science
    wasn't an area where he paid any attention.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    The 'climate scientists' are being paid to lay on the doom as thickly as possible. Their 'research' is heavily compromised. That's why I prefer
    data from *before* this area became politicized, but I wouldn't expect you
    to understand that, Bill.
    There's no cause for alarm and CO2 at ~400ppm is harmless. Its levels are
    the same now as when Lincoln was president, despite all the pollution
    pumped out during the 20th century.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to Martin Brown on Fri Jul 12 19:33:29 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 7/12/24 18:05, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 00:43, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 21:43:44 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:28:25 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:38:17 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:


    Ideas are good, but not enough. Someone will have to do the work, too. >>>>> Who said 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration? Edison?

    Jeroen Belleman

    Edison was a great self publicist and plagiarist but arguably the
    filament light bulb was invented by Swan in the UK a decade before.

    https://www.cio.com/article/266493/consumer-technology-thomas-edison-joseph-swan-and-the-real-deal-behind-the-light-bulb.html

    Even USPTO eventually agreed.

    Ideas generate money. Money doesn't generate ideas.

    Ideas as such don't generate anything unless they can be exploited.

    A good idea often starts in a garage (or lately, a dorm room) with
    hardly any capital. It creates jobs and industries.

    HP, Microsoft, google, Facebook, and the first airplane started very
    small.

    Apple! Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak also started in a garage IIRC.

    And a lot of giant companies faded away because management had no
    ideas. DEC. Kodak. HP. Xerox. Intel.

    Kodak digital had plenty of ideas - Bayer worked for Kodak and for a
    while their digital cameras were the best in the world. I had a DC-120 (looked like a StarTrek tricorder). They couldn't see that digicam mass production would annihilate the wet chemistry film market and paid the
    price. They also got lazy - Fuji film had way better film products.

    HP split into two when demergers were all the rage. They put a complete
    idiot in charge of one half for reasons that escape me completely.

    Xerox always was a bit of a one trick pony but their print engines were
    the best in the world very reliable. My last one survived for 20+ years
    with a moderately heavy workload. When it finally croaked I got a new
    model containing one of the last print engines of their old design.

    AFAIK Intel is still going at the moment and remains profitable. ARM now
    has the mass market consumer products volume and AMD/NVidia the
    AI/graphics. It is Zilog and Motorola CPUs that have sunk without trace.


    It's an eternal shame that the Motorola 68k had to give way to Intel's
    80xx(x). It was a work of beauty.

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to cd999666@notformail.com on Fri Jul 12 10:21:20 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 17:02:30 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:32:47 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 11/07/2024 10:32 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:04:00 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:48:09 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:18:23 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:52:49 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> >>>>>>> wrote:

    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>
    A bigger problem is kids getting bogus degrees, like film-making and
    sociology and journalism and comparative literature and music theory.

    John Larkin doesn't understand them, and doesn't see the point. He had
    much the same problem with the chemistry part of his science degree.

    Even "computer science" can be useless.

    John Larkin doesn't understand a lot of that either.

    I think some people are realizing that they should not borrow a fortune
    to attend college but be apprentices in a trade, and actually get a
    job.

    A trade education takes time, and tends to have some academic content.
    The UK and Australia re-named a lot of their trade schools as technical
    universities, which wasn't a good idea.

    Yes, the debt will have consequences too. It keeps increasing and can >>>>> never be paid back. Economists keep getting stupider too.

    "Top economists" are no different from the "top climate scientists" -
    they're paid handsomely for parroting whatever the Globalists at the
    WEF tell them.

    Given a graph of usefulness vs expertise, some fields have a peak
    pretty soon and then drop off.

    John Larkin's grasp of what is actually useful is down there with
    Cursitor Doom's. He's certainly no more capable of understanding what
    climate scientists are telling us than Cursitor Doom is.

    John Larkin did get a science degree from Tulane, but he was pre
    selective about the bits he paid attention to, and climate science
    wasn't an area where he paid any attention.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    The 'climate scientists' are being paid to lay on the doom as thickly as >possible. Their 'research' is heavily compromised. That's why I prefer
    data from *before* this area became politicized, but I wouldn't expect you
    to understand that, Bill.
    There's no cause for alarm and CO2 at ~400ppm is harmless. Its levels are
    the same now as when Lincoln was president, despite all the pollution
    pumped out during the 20th century.

    CO2 is not pollution. It is plant food that keeps us alive. More would
    be great.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to jeroen@nospam.please on Fri Jul 12 11:01:15 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 19:33:29 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 7/12/24 18:05, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 00:43, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 21:43:44 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:28:25 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:38:17 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:


    Ideas are good, but not enough. Someone will have to do the work, too. >>>>>> Who said 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration? Edison?

    Jeroen Belleman

    Edison was a great self publicist and plagiarist but arguably the
    filament light bulb was invented by Swan in the UK a decade before.

    https://www.cio.com/article/266493/consumer-technology-thomas-edison-joseph-swan-and-the-real-deal-behind-the-light-bulb.html

    Even USPTO eventually agreed.

    Ideas generate money. Money doesn't generate ideas.

    Ideas as such don't generate anything unless they can be exploited.

    A good idea often starts in a garage (or lately, a dorm room) with
    hardly any capital. It creates jobs and industries.

    HP, Microsoft, google, Facebook, and the first airplane started very >>>>> small.

    Apple! Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak also started in a garage IIRC.

    And a lot of giant companies faded away because management had no
    ideas. DEC. Kodak. HP. Xerox. Intel.

    Kodak digital had plenty of ideas - Bayer worked for Kodak and for a
    while their digital cameras were the best in the world. I had a DC-120
    (looked like a StarTrek tricorder). They couldn't see that digicam mass
    production would annihilate the wet chemistry film market and paid the
    price. They also got lazy - Fuji film had way better film products.

    HP split into two when demergers were all the rage. They put a complete
    idiot in charge of one half for reasons that escape me completely.

    Xerox always was a bit of a one trick pony but their print engines were
    the best in the world very reliable. My last one survived for 20+ years
    with a moderately heavy workload. When it finally croaked I got a new
    model containing one of the last print engines of their old design.

    AFAIK Intel is still going at the moment and remains profitable. ARM now
    has the mass market consumer products volume and AMD/NVidia the
    AI/graphics. It is Zilog and Motorola CPUs that have sunk without trace.


    It's an eternal shame that the Motorola 68k had to give way to Intel's >80xx(x). It was a work of beauty.

    Jeroen Belleman

    Absolutely. It was a joy to program in assembly.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Fri Jul 12 19:53:22 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 7/12/24 18:16, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 15:45:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 12/07/2024 15:25, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:25:51 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:18:39 +1000
    Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

    On 12/07/2024 7:48 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:30:41 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:33:41 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 7/11/24 13:00, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100 The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    <sdnip>


    What do you think all those homeless people are going to do when
    the debt bomb finally explodes and there's no more money for cops, >>>>>> the army - or anything else?

    What's a "debt bomb" and how would it explode?
    As long as society keeps generating and exchanging goods and services >>>>> it's not going to run out of money, which is just medium of exchange. >>>>>

    What use is the means of exchange if you can't exchange it for anything >>>> meaningful?

    We are already past the point where the alternatives for many countries >>>> are default or hyperinflation, which is just s more spectacular form of >>>> default, and an involuntary one. It happens slowly at first, then all
    at once.

    Inflation is a government's way to spend (and usually waste) money
    that it doesn't have, by borrowing money that will never be paid back.
    It is essentially stealing from its citizens, especially from savings.

    It's dynamically unstable and often runs away. The thing about
    inflation is that there's never enough of it. The more you have, the
    more you need.





    The price of a loaf of bread, in terms of gold, hasn't changed in 600 years. >> A friend bought £10,000 worth of gold in 2004, Its worth £80,000 now

    Gold is fascinating. As a chemical, it wouldn't be worth anything like
    what is has always been. You can't eat it or build much out of it.

    Given a starving village or country or world, gold won't feed people
    by itself.

    People talk about finding a solid-gold comet that's worth a trillion
    trillion dollars. That's silly. It would grossly devalue the price of
    gold.

    Cheap gold would be great! Lots of things would be made of gold or
    its alloys if it hadn't been so expensive! Yes, the economy would
    be severely upset if gold were to suddenly become a commodity like
    steel and copper.


    Diamonds similarly have an undeserved dollar equivalent.


    Diamonds are useful too, hard, inert, abrasion resistant and the
    best solid heat conductor. Wouldn't you love to have diamond heat
    sinks?

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to jeroen@nospam.please on Fri Jul 12 11:05:36 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 19:53:22 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 7/12/24 18:16, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 15:45:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 12/07/2024 15:25, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:25:51 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:18:39 +1000
    Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

    On 12/07/2024 7:48 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:30:41 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:33:41 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 7/11/24 13:00, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100 The Natural Philosopher >>>>>>>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    <sdnip>


    What do you think all those homeless people are going to do when >>>>>>> the debt bomb finally explodes and there's no more money for cops, >>>>>>> the army - or anything else?

    What's a "debt bomb" and how would it explode?
    As long as society keeps generating and exchanging goods and services >>>>>> it's not going to run out of money, which is just medium of exchange. >>>>>>

    What use is the means of exchange if you can't exchange it for anything >>>>> meaningful?

    We are already past the point where the alternatives for many countries >>>>> are default or hyperinflation, which is just s more spectacular form of >>>>> default, and an involuntary one. It happens slowly at first, then all >>>>> at once.

    Inflation is a government's way to spend (and usually waste) money
    that it doesn't have, by borrowing money that will never be paid back. >>>> It is essentially stealing from its citizens, especially from savings. >>>>
    It's dynamically unstable and often runs away. The thing about
    inflation is that there's never enough of it. The more you have, the
    more you need.





    The price of a loaf of bread, in terms of gold, hasn't changed in 600 years.
    A friend bought 10,000 worth of gold in 2004, Its worth 80,000 now

    Gold is fascinating. As a chemical, it wouldn't be worth anything like
    what is has always been. You can't eat it or build much out of it.

    Given a starving village or country or world, gold won't feed people
    by itself.

    People talk about finding a solid-gold comet that's worth a trillion
    trillion dollars. That's silly. It would grossly devalue the price of
    gold.

    Cheap gold would be great! Lots of things would be made of gold or
    its alloys if it hadn't been so expensive! Yes, the economy would
    be severely upset if gold were to suddenly become a commodity like
    steel and copper.


    Diamonds similarly have an undeserved dollar equivalent.


    Diamonds are useful too, hard, inert, abrasion resistant and the
    best solid heat conductor. Wouldn't you love to have diamond heat
    sinks?

    Jeroen Belleman

    Isotopically pure diamond heat sinks.

    Seems like gaseous diffusion or centrifuges would work better for
    light elements than it does for uranium.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@21:1/5 to john larkin on Fri Jul 12 19:50:30 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 12/07/2024 17:18, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 16:57:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 12/07/2024 16:30, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    On 7/12/24 16:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 15:25, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:25:51 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:18:39 +1000
    Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

    On 12/07/2024 7:48 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:30:41 -0700, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:33:41 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
    On 7/11/24 13:00, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100 The Natural Philosopher >>>>>>>>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    <sdnip>


    What do you think all those homeless people are going to do when >>>>>>>> the debt bomb finally explodes and there's no more money for cops, >>>>>>>> the army - or anything else?

    What's a "debt bomb" and how would it explode?
    As long as society keeps generating and exchanging goods and services >>>>>>> it's not going to run out of money, which is just medium of exchange. >>>>>>>

    What use is the means of exchange if you can't exchange it for anything >>>>>> meaningful?

    We are already past the point where the alternatives for many countries >>>>>> are default or hyperinflation, which is just s more spectacular form of >>>>>> default, and an involuntary one. It happens slowly at first, then all >>>>>> at once.

    Inflation is a government's way to spend (and usually waste) money
    that it doesn't have, by borrowing money that will never be paid back. >>>>> It is essentially stealing from its citizens, especially from savings. >>>>>
    It's dynamically unstable and often runs away. The thing about
    inflation is that there's never enough of it. The more you have, the >>>>> more you need.





    The price of a loaf of bread, in terms of gold, hasn't changed in 600
    years.
    A friend bought £10,000 worth of gold in 2004, Its worth £80,000 now

    That's a gross simplification, and not guaranteed to work in the
    short term. It's subject to random ups and downs like any other
    target of speculators. Moreover, when shit hits the fan, you'll
    be required to surrender it to your government in exchange for
    money that's being inflated. It has happened before.

    The US has huge stockpiles of gold. It's a bit of a pity to just
    hoard a metal that has so many *useful* applications.

    Jeroen Belleman

    I have a little gold. Its appreciated about 15% in the last year
    It is the only really safe long term inflation hedge

    Land is good.


    The government cant take it off you if they dont know you have it.

    Eventually it needs to be sold.

    Many subcontinentals will take it off your hands no name no pack drill wise.
    --
    In todays liberal progressive conflict-free education system, everyone
    gets full Marx.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@21:1/5 to john larkin on Fri Jul 12 19:53:45 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 12/07/2024 17:27, john larkin wrote:

    Intel dropped the ball on small-feature fab, ironically after
    investing billions in ASML and then not buying EUV machines. And X86
    is a dinosaur, the only one they know. ARM and RiscV will eventually
    kill the expensive bloated buggy X86.


    That is probably true. The ARM has arrived as about equvaleiunt to a low
    power X86, and RiscV is presumably better
    The android/IOS scene means that more and more people are uses to pother
    than Apple OS/X and Windows.
    And windows sort of runs on ARM....
    --
    For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the
    very definition of slavery.

    Jonathan Swift

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe Gwinn@21:1/5 to '''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk on Fri Jul 12 15:01:46 2024
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 17:05:53 +0100, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    On 12/07/2024 00:43, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 21:43:44 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:28:25 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:38:17 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:


    Ideas are good, but not enough. Someone will have to do the work, too. >>>>> Who said 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration? Edison?

    Jeroen Belleman

    Edison was a great self publicist and plagiarist but arguably the
    filament light bulb was invented by Swan in the UK a decade before.

    <https://www.cio.com/article/266493/consumer-technology-thomas-edison-joseph-swan-and-the-real-deal-behind-the-light-bulb.html>

    An IT site may not be the optimal source.


    Even USPTO eventually agreed.

    That's not the whole story. We discussed this on SED in May 2013,
    title "Edison Did Not Invent Light Bulb!".

    Joe Gwinn

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to Jeroen Belleman on Fri Jul 12 21:48:33 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 17:30:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

    On 7/12/24 16:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 15:25, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:25:51 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:18:39 +1000 Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    wrote:

    On 12/07/2024 7:48 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:30:41 -0700, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:33:41 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
    On 7/11/24 13:00, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100 The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    <sdnip>


    What do you think all those homeless people are going to do when
    the debt bomb finally explodes and there's no more money for cops, >>>>>> the army - or anything else?

    What's a "debt bomb" and how would it explode?
    As long as society keeps generating and exchanging goods and
    services it's not going to run out of money, which is just medium of >>>>> exchange.


    What use is the means of exchange if you can't exchange it for
    anything meaningful?

    We are already past the point where the alternatives for many
    countries are default or hyperinflation, which is just s more
    spectacular form of default, and an involuntary one. It happens
    slowly at first, then all at once.

    Inflation is a government's way to spend (and usually waste) money
    that it doesn't have, by borrowing money that will never be paid back.
    It is essentially stealing from its citizens, especially from savings.

    It's dynamically unstable and often runs away. The thing about
    inflation is that there's never enough of it. The more you have, the
    more you need.





    The price of a loaf of bread, in terms of gold, hasn't changed in 600
    years.
    A friend bought £10,000 worth of gold in 2004, Its worth £80,000 now

    That's a gross simplification, and not guaranteed to work in the short
    term. It's subject to random ups and downs like any other target of speculators. Moreover, when shit hits the fan, you'll be required to surrender it to your government in exchange for money that's being
    inflated. It has happened before.

    The US has huge stockpiles of gold. It's a bit of a pity to just hoard a metal that has so many *useful* applications.

    Jeroen Belleman

    No one knows how much gold the US has as they've repeatedly refused to
    have an independent audit carried out. That should tell you something.
    Also, when Germany requested the US to return its gold - which had been
    stored in America for safe keeping - it took several years for them to get
    it all back. That too should tell you something.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to john larkin on Fri Jul 12 22:03:16 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:16:53 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 15:45:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 12/07/2024 15:25, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:25:51 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:18:39 +1000 Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    wrote:

    On 12/07/2024 7:48 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:30:41 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:33:41 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 7/11/24 13:00, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100 The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    <sdnip>


    What do you think all those homeless people are going to do when
    the debt bomb finally explodes and there's no more money for cops, >>>>>> the army - or anything else?

    What's a "debt bomb" and how would it explode?
    As long as society keeps generating and exchanging goods and
    services it's not going to run out of money, which is just medium of >>>>> exchange.


    What use is the means of exchange if you can't exchange it for
    anything meaningful?

    We are already past the point where the alternatives for many
    countries are default or hyperinflation, which is just s more
    spectacular form of default, and an involuntary one. It happens
    slowly at first, then all at once.

    Inflation is a government's way to spend (and usually waste) money
    that it doesn't have, by borrowing money that will never be paid back.
    It is essentially stealing from its citizens, especially from savings.

    It's dynamically unstable and often runs away. The thing about
    inflation is that there's never enough of it. The more you have, the
    more you need.





    The price of a loaf of bread, in terms of gold, hasn't changed in 600 >>years.
    A friend bought £10,000 worth of gold in 2004, Its worth £80,000 now

    Gold is fascinating. As a chemical, it wouldn't be worth anything like
    what is has always been. You can't eat it or build much out of it.

    True.


    Given a starving village or country or world, gold won't feed people by itself.

    True.


    People talk about finding a solid-gold comet that's worth a trillion
    trillion dollars. That's silly. It would grossly devalue the price of
    gold.

    True.

    Diamonds similarly have an undeserved dollar equivalent.

    True.

    Money pinned to gold is fairly stable. It coud be pinned to a weighted average of a number of things, steel and corn and oil maybe.

    This is what the BRICS members are in the process of finalising. The core constituent will be gold, but will be augmented by various other valuable commodities in various proportions. The whole lot will underpin the value
    of the new currency expected to be announced in October. If they get it
    right, it could pose an extremely serious threat to the US dollar just for starters and may well provoke a *major* war.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to The Natural Philosopher on Fri Jul 12 23:14:04 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 15:45:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

    On 12/07/2024 15:25, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:25:51 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:18:39 +1000 Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    wrote:

    On 12/07/2024 7:48 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:30:41 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:33:41 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 7/11/24 13:00, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100 The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    <sdnip>


    What do you think all those homeless people are going to do when the >>>>> debt bomb finally explodes and there's no more money for cops,
    the army - or anything else?

    What's a "debt bomb" and how would it explode?
    As long as society keeps generating and exchanging goods and services
    it's not going to run out of money, which is just medium of exchange.


    What use is the means of exchange if you can't exchange it for
    anything meaningful?

    We are already past the point where the alternatives for many
    countries are default or hyperinflation, which is just s more
    spectacular form of default, and an involuntary one. It happens slowly
    at first, then all at once.

    Inflation is a government's way to spend (and usually waste) money that
    it doesn't have, by borrowing money that will never be paid back.
    It is essentially stealing from its citizens, especially from savings.

    It's dynamically unstable and often runs away. The thing about
    inflation is that there's never enough of it. The more you have, the
    more you need.
    e




    The price of a loaf of bread, in terms of gold, hasn't changed in 600
    years.
    A friend bought £10,000 worth of gold in 2004, Its worth £80,000 now.

    Can't fault your friend's timing. He bought around the time of the 'Brown Bottom' of the gold price. It came down to a very low figure following
    Gordon Brown's incredibly moronic announcement that he would sell off the
    Bank of England's gold reserves. He should -of course - have said
    *nothing* at all, except in total confidence to the BoE - to dispose of
    the gold discretely over a few years and only selling off chunks here and
    there when the price was firm. But what did the useless steaming great
    pile of shit do? He not only announced it - but announced it in advance!
    Such a worthy steward of the country's fortunes, Gordon Brown.
    With the quality of politicians the UK's had over the years, it's amazing
    it didn't go bust decades ago.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to The Natural Philosopher on Sat Jul 13 13:48:29 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 13/07/2024 1:57 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 16:30, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    On 7/12/24 16:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 15:25, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:25:51 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:18:39 +1000
    Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

    On 12/07/2024 7:48 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:30:41 -0700, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:33:41 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
    On 7/11/24 13:00, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100 The Natural Philosopher >>>>>>>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    <sdnip>


    What do you think all those homeless people are going to do when >>>>>>> the debt bomb finally explodes and there's no more money for cops, >>>>>>> the army - or anything else?

    What's a "debt bomb" and how would it explode?
    As long as society keeps generating and exchanging goods and services >>>>>> it's not going to run out of money, which is just medium of exchange. >>>>>>

    What use is the means of exchange if you can't exchange it for
    anything
    meaningful?

    We are already past the point where the alternatives for many
    countries
    are default or hyperinflation, which is just s more spectacular
    form of
    default, and an involuntary one. It happens slowly at first, then all >>>>> at once.

    Inflation is a government's way to spend (and usually waste) money
    that it doesn't have, by borrowing money that will never be paid back. >>>> It is essentially stealing from its citizens, especially from savings. >>>>
    It's dynamically unstable and often runs away. The thing about
    inflation is that there's never enough of it. The more you have, the
    more you need.





    The price of a loaf of bread, in terms of gold, hasn't changed in 600
    years.
    A friend bought £10,000 worth of gold in 2004, Its worth £80,000 now

    That's a gross simplification, and not guaranteed to work in the
    short term. It's subject to random ups and downs like any other
    target of speculators. Moreover, when shit hits the fan, you'll
    be required to surrender it to your government in exchange for
    money that's being inflated. It has happened before.

    The US has huge stockpiles of gold. It's a bit of a pity to just
    hoard a metal that has so many *useful* applications.

    I have a little gold. Its appreciated about 15% in the last year
    It is the only really safe long term inflation hedge.

    There's nothing safe about it. The price goes up when people are worried
    about inflation, and goes down again when they aren't, and they aren't
    all that rational.

    The government can't take it off you if they don't know you have it.

    But they have lots of ways of finding out.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Jeroen Belleman on Sat Jul 13 13:55:23 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 13/07/2024 3:53 am, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    On 7/12/24 18:16, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 15:45:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 15:25, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:25:51 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:18:39 +1000
    Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 7:48 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:30:41 -0700, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:33:41 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
    On 7/11/24 13:00, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100 The Natural Philosopher >>>>>>>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    <snip>

    People talk about finding a solid-gold comet that's worth a trillion
    trillion dollars. That's silly. It would grossly devalue the price of
    gold.

    Cheap gold would be great! Lots of things would be made of gold or
    its alloys if it hadn't been so expensive! Yes, the economy would
    be severely upset if gold were to suddenly become a commodity like
    steel and copper.

    Diamonds similarly have an undeserved dollar equivalent.

    Diamonds are useful too, hard, inert, abrasion resistant and the
    best solid heat conductor. Wouldn't you love to have diamond heat
    sinks?

    People make them, by vapour deposition. They aren't all that thick and
    they are quite expensive.

    https://www.coherent.com/news/blog/diamond-heat-spreaders

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Sat Jul 13 14:11:36 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 13/07/2024 3:02 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:32:47 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 11/07/2024 10:32 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:04:00 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:48:09 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:18:23 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:52:49 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> >>>>>>> wrote:

    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    Given a graph of usefulness vs expertise, some fields have a peak
    pretty soon and then drop off.

    John Larkin's grasp of what is actually useful is down there with
    Cursitor Doom's. He's certainly no more capable of understanding what
    climate scientists are telling us than Cursitor Doom is.

    John Larkin did get a science degree from Tulane, but he was pre
    selective about the bits he paid attention to, and climate science
    wasn't an area where he paid any attention.

    The 'climate scientists' are being paid to lay on the doom as thickly as possible. Their 'research' is heavily compromised. That's why I prefer
    data from *before* this area became politicized, but I wouldn't expect you
    to understand that, Bill.

    This is just one more of your demented conspiracy theories. If you knew
    a bit more you'd be aware that the area didn't get "politicised" until
    the late 1990's when there had been enough anthropogenic global warming
    for it show up over the natural variation form effects like the El
    Nino/La Nina alternation and the slower Atlantic Multidecal Oscillation.

    Because you don't understand this, you ignore all climate science
    observations since the very crude work from the 1890's.

    Climate scientists have always been academics, and they publish
    primarily for other academics. In the last twenty years, the media has
    has publicised their work, adding in their own preference for finding sensational implications in the published data (not always correctly).

    There's no cause for alarm and CO2 at ~400ppm is harmless. Its levels are
    the same now as when Lincoln was president, despite all the pollution
    pumped out during the 20th century.

    Wrong.

    https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/

    https://capegrim.csiro.au/

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sat Jul 13 13:44:37 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 13/07/2024 12:25 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:25:51 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:18:39 +1000
    Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

    On 12/07/2024 7:48 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:30:41 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:33:41 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 7/11/24 13:00, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100 The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    <sdnip>


    What do you think all those homeless people are going to do when
    the debt bomb finally explodes and there's no more money for cops,
    the army - or anything else?

    What's a "debt bomb" and how would it explode?
    As long as society keeps generating and exchanging goods and services
    it's not going to run out of money, which is just medium of exchange.


    What use is the means of exchange if you can't exchange it for anything
    meaningful?

    We are already past the point where the alternatives for many countries
    are default or hyperinflation, which is just s more spectacular form of
    default, and an involuntary one. It happens slowly at first, then all
    at once.

    Inflation is a government's way to spend (and usually waste) money
    that it doesn't have, by borrowing money that will never be paid back.

    Inflation is a defect built into the very idea of money - because the
    currency tokens don't have any intrinsic value, they can be
    counterfeited without limit. Governments are by no means the only people
    who exploit the defect, and government control is what - in practice -
    mostly stops it form happening.

    It is essentially stealing from its citizens, especially from savings.

    Counterfeiters are the thieves, and they don't have to be members of a government.

    It's dynamically unstable and often runs away. The thing about
    inflation is that there's never enough of it. The more you have, the
    more you need.

    Economists seem to agree that you need about 2% inflation a year to keep
    the economy ticking over smoothly, but anything more is counter-productive.

    The main virtue in inflation is that it motivates people to use their
    wealth to invest in productive investments, rather than leaving it under
    the bed.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sat Jul 13 14:18:40 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 13/07/2024 3:21 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 17:02:30 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:32:47 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 11/07/2024 10:32 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:04:00 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:48:09 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:18:23 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:52:49 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:

    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    A bigger problem is kids getting bogus degrees, like film-making and
    sociology and journalism and comparative literature and music theory.

    John Larkin doesn't understand them, and doesn't see the point. He had
    much the same problem with the chemistry part of his science degree.

    Even "computer science" can be useless.

    John Larkin doesn't understand a lot of that either.

    I think some people are realizing that they should not borrow a fortune >>>> to attend college but be apprentices in a trade, and actually get a
    job.

    A trade education takes time, and tends to have some academic content.
    The UK and Australia re-named a lot of their trade schools as technical
    universities, which wasn't a good idea.

    Yes, the debt will have consequences too. It keeps increasing and can >>>>>> never be paid back. Economists keep getting stupider too.

    "Top economists" are no different from the "top climate scientists" - >>>>> they're paid handsomely for parroting whatever the Globalists at the >>>>> WEF tell them.

    Given a graph of usefulness vs expertise, some fields have a peak
    pretty soon and then drop off.

    John Larkin's grasp of what is actually useful is down there with
    Cursitor Doom's. He's certainly no more capable of understanding what
    climate scientists are telling us than Cursitor Doom is.

    John Larkin did get a science degree from Tulane, but he was pre
    selective about the bits he paid attention to, and climate science
    wasn't an area where he paid any attention.

    The 'climate scientists' are being paid to lay on the doom as thickly as
    possible. Their 'research' is heavily compromised. That's why I prefer
    data from *before* this area became politicized, but I wouldn't expect you >> to understand that, Bill.

    Cursitor Doom is wedded to his fatuous conspiracy theories. I'm not
    gullible enough to fall for that kind of rubbish.

    There's no cause for alarm and CO2 at ~400ppm is harmless. Its levels are
    the same now as when Lincoln was president, despite all the pollution
    pumped out during the 20th century.

    A false assertion.

    CO2 is not pollution. It is plant food that keeps us alive. More would
    be great.

    CO2 does serve as plant food, along with water, sun light and a bunch of minerals. Give plants more CO2 and they have fewer stomata in their
    leaves, so that they can get the same amount of CO2 while losing less water.

    It's also a greenhouse gas, and more of it generates global warming,
    which isn't great. Calling it pollution is odd, but more of it does
    cause problems.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney



    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to Jeroen Belleman on Sat Jul 13 14:05:33 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 12/07/2024 18:33, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    On 7/12/24 18:05, Martin Brown wrote:

    AFAIK Intel is still going at the moment and remains profitable. ARM
    now has the mass market consumer products volume and AMD/NVidia the
    AI/graphics. It is Zilog and Motorola CPUs that have sunk without trace.

    It's an eternal shame that the Motorola 68k had to give way to Intel's 80xx(x). It was a work of beauty.

    Although I tend to agree that in its day the 68k had a nice clean 16
    register structure not unlike the IBM 360 mainframes I still have a soft
    spot for the TI9900 and TI99k for realtime embedded code.

    Having all your registers in ram may not be fast but it is versatile
    (until the day come when you find that your program counter is in ROM!).
    It makes multi process context switching a doddle.

    I didn't truly appreciate how quite good the TI offerings were until we
    tried to do the same job on a more powerful (on paper) 68k series CPU.

    --
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to The Natural Philosopher on Sat Jul 13 23:21:22 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 13/07/2024 4:50 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 17:18, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 16:57:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 12/07/2024 16:30, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    On 7/12/24 16:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 15:25, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:25:51 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote: >>>>>>
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:18:39 +1000
    Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

    On 12/07/2024 7:48 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:30:41 -0700, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:33:41 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
    On 7/11/24 13:00, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100 The Natural Philosopher >>>>>>>>>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    <sdnip>


    What do you think all those homeless people are going to do when >>>>>>>>> the debt bomb finally explodes and there's no more money for cops, >>>>>>>>> the army - or anything else?

    What's a "debt bomb" and how would it explode?
    As long as society keeps generating and exchanging goods and
    services
    it's not going to run out of money, which is just medium of
    exchange.


    What use is the means of exchange if you can't exchange it for
    anything
    meaningful?

    We are already past the point where the alternatives for many
    countries
    are default or hyperinflation, which is just s more spectacular
    form of
    default, and an involuntary one. It happens slowly at first, then >>>>>>> all
    at once.

    Inflation is a government's way to spend (and usually waste) money >>>>>> that it doesn't have, by borrowing money that will never be paid
    back.
    It is essentially stealing from its citizens, especially from
    savings.

    It's dynamically unstable and often runs away. The thing about
    inflation is that there's never enough of it. The more you have, the >>>>>> more you need.





    The price of a loaf of bread, in terms of gold, hasn't changed in 600 >>>>> years.
    A friend bought £10,000 worth of gold in 2004, Its worth £80,000 now >>>>
    That's a gross simplification, and not guaranteed to work in the
    short term. It's subject to random ups and downs like any other
    target of speculators. Moreover, when shit hits the fan, you'll
    be required to surrender it to your government in exchange for
    money that's being inflated. It has happened before.

    The US has huge stockpiles of gold. It's a bit of a pity to just
    hoard a metal that has so many *useful* applications.

    Jeroen Belleman

    I have a little gold. Its appreciated about 15% in the last year
    It is the only really safe long term inflation hedge

    Land is good.


    The government cant take it off you if they dont know you have it.

    Eventually it needs to be sold.

    Many subcontinentals will take it off your hands no name no pack drill
    wise.

    And not bother paying you for it either. If the government doesn't know
    you've got it, it's hard to report the theft.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Sat Jul 13 16:26:59 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 14:18:40 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 13/07/2024 3:21 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 17:02:30 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:32:47 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 11/07/2024 10:32 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:04:00 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:48:09 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:18:23 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:52:49 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH
    <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    A bigger problem is kids getting bogus degrees, like film-making and >>>>> sociology and journalism and comparative literature and music
    theory.

    John Larkin doesn't understand them, and doesn't see the point. He
    had much the same problem with the chemistry part of his science
    degree.

    Even "computer science" can be useless.

    John Larkin doesn't understand a lot of that either.

    I think some people are realizing that they should not borrow a
    fortune to attend college but be apprentices in a trade, and
    actually get a job.

    A trade education takes time, and tends to have some academic
    content. The UK and Australia re-named a lot of their trade schools
    as technical universities, which wasn't a good idea.

    Yes, the debt will have consequences too. It keeps increasing and >>>>>>> can never be paid back. Economists keep getting stupider too.

    "Top economists" are no different from the "top climate scientists" >>>>>> -
    they're paid handsomely for parroting whatever the Globalists at
    the WEF tell them.

    Given a graph of usefulness vs expertise, some fields have a peak
    pretty soon and then drop off.

    John Larkin's grasp of what is actually useful is down there with
    Cursitor Doom's. He's certainly no more capable of understanding what
    climate scientists are telling us than Cursitor Doom is.

    John Larkin did get a science degree from Tulane, but he was pre
    selective about the bits he paid attention to, and climate science
    wasn't an area where he paid any attention.

    The 'climate scientists' are being paid to lay on the doom as thickly
    as possible. Their 'research' is heavily compromised. That's why I
    prefer data from *before* this area became politicized, but I wouldn't
    expect you to understand that, Bill.

    Cursitor Doom is wedded to his fatuous conspiracy theories. I'm not
    gullible enough to fall for that kind of rubbish.

    There's no cause for alarm and CO2 at ~400ppm is harmless. Its levels
    are the same now as when Lincoln was president, despite all the
    pollution pumped out during the 20th century.

    A false assertion.

    CO2 is not pollution. It is plant food that keeps us alive. More would
    be great.

    CO2 does serve as plant food, along with water, sun light and a bunch of minerals. Give plants more CO2 and they have fewer stomata in their
    leaves, so that they can get the same amount of CO2 while losing less
    water.

    It's also a greenhouse gas, and more of it generates global warming,
    which isn't great. Calling it pollution is odd, but more of it does
    cause problems.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    There are *no* "greenhouse gases" in our atmosphere, you damn fool.
    Granted there are on other planets in our solar system, but not Earth. So, which planet are *you* on with your greenhouse gases, Bill? It clearly
    isn't this one.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Sat Jul 13 16:31:00 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 14:11:36 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 13/07/2024 3:02 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:32:47 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 11/07/2024 10:32 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:04:00 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:48:09 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:18:23 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:52:49 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:

    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    Given a graph of usefulness vs expertise, some fields have a peak
    pretty soon and then drop off.

    John Larkin's grasp of what is actually useful is down there with
    Cursitor Doom's. He's certainly no more capable of understanding what
    climate scientists are telling us than Cursitor Doom is.

    John Larkin did get a science degree from Tulane, but he was pre
    selective about the bits he paid attention to, and climate science
    wasn't an area where he paid any attention.

    The 'climate scientists' are being paid to lay on the doom as thickly
    as possible. Their 'research' is heavily compromised. That's why I
    prefer data from *before* this area became politicized, but I wouldn't
    expect you to understand that, Bill.

    This is just one more of your demented conspiracy theories. If you knew
    a bit more you'd be aware that the area didn't get "politicised" until
    the late 1990's when there had been enough anthropogenic global warming
    for it show up over the natural variation form effects like the El
    Nino/La Nina alternation and the slower Atlantic Multidecal Oscillation.

    Because you don't understand this, you ignore all climate science observations since the very crude work from the 1890's.

    Climate scientists have always been academics, and they publish
    primarily for other academics. In the last twenty years, the media has
    has publicised their work, adding in their own preference for finding sensational implications in the published data (not always correctly).

    There's no cause for alarm and CO2 at ~400ppm is harmless. Its levels
    are the same now as when Lincoln was president, despite all the
    pollution pumped out during the 20th century.

    Wrong.

    https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/

    https://capegrim.csiro.au/

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    Yeah, yeah. I've seen all that CRAP. The NASA site's the same; all
    spouting the same complete nonsense as directed by your pal, Klaus Schwab
    (who fancies himself as some sort of Bond villain) and his cronies.
    Do some proper, reference book-based research for a change and you'll see
    a completely different picture emerge.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to cd999666@notformail.com on Sat Jul 13 10:01:49 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 16:31:00 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 14:11:36 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 13/07/2024 3:02 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:32:47 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 11/07/2024 10:32 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:04:00 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:48:09 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:18:23 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:52:49 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:

    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    Given a graph of usefulness vs expertise, some fields have a peak
    pretty soon and then drop off.

    John Larkin's grasp of what is actually useful is down there with
    Cursitor Doom's. He's certainly no more capable of understanding what
    climate scientists are telling us than Cursitor Doom is.

    John Larkin did get a science degree from Tulane, but he was pre
    selective about the bits he paid attention to, and climate science
    wasn't an area where he paid any attention.

    The 'climate scientists' are being paid to lay on the doom as thickly
    as possible. Their 'research' is heavily compromised. That's why I
    prefer data from *before* this area became politicized, but I wouldn't
    expect you to understand that, Bill.

    This is just one more of your demented conspiracy theories. If you knew
    a bit more you'd be aware that the area didn't get "politicised" until
    the late 1990's when there had been enough anthropogenic global warming
    for it show up over the natural variation form effects like the El
    Nino/La Nina alternation and the slower Atlantic Multidecal Oscillation.

    Because you don't understand this, you ignore all climate science
    observations since the very crude work from the 1890's.

    Climate scientists have always been academics, and they publish
    primarily for other academics. In the last twenty years, the media has
    has publicised their work, adding in their own preference for finding
    sensational implications in the published data (not always correctly).

    There's no cause for alarm and CO2 at ~400ppm is harmless. Its levels
    are the same now as when Lincoln was president, despite all the
    pollution pumped out during the 20th century.

    Wrong.

    https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/

    https://capegrim.csiro.au/

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    Yeah, yeah. I've seen all that CRAP. The NASA site's the same; all
    spouting the same complete nonsense as directed by your pal, Klaus Schwab >(who fancies himself as some sort of Bond villain) and his cronies.
    Do some proper, reference book-based research for a change and you'll see
    a completely different picture emerge.

    So many people are afraid.

    https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yqnzw03oxlhqsecta7idt/Afraid.jpg?rlkey=rwrf5e1felkvjbqy8wrv2ah5t&raw=1

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Sat Jul 13 16:33:17 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 23:21:22 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 13/07/2024 4:50 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 17:18, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 16:57:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 12/07/2024 16:30, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    On 7/12/24 16:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 15:25, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:25:51 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com>
    wrote:

    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:18:39 +1000 Bill Sloman
    <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

    On 12/07/2024 7:48 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:30:41 -0700, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:33:41 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
    On 7/11/24 13:00, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100 The Natural Philosopher >>>>>>>>>>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    <sdnip>


    What do you think all those homeless people are going to do >>>>>>>>>> when the debt bomb finally explodes and there's no more money >>>>>>>>>> for cops,
    the army - or anything else?

    What's a "debt bomb" and how would it explode?
    As long as society keeps generating and exchanging goods and >>>>>>>>> services it's not going to run out of money, which is just
    medium of exchange.


    What use is the means of exchange if you can't exchange it for >>>>>>>> anything meaningful?

    We are already past the point where the alternatives for many
    countries are default or hyperinflation, which is just s more
    spectacular form of default, and an involuntary one. It happens >>>>>>>> slowly at first, then all at once.

    Inflation is a government's way to spend (and usually waste) money >>>>>>> that it doesn't have, by borrowing money that will never be paid >>>>>>> back.
    It is essentially stealing from its citizens, especially from
    savings.

    It's dynamically unstable and often runs away. The thing about
    inflation is that there's never enough of it. The more you have, >>>>>>> the more you need.





    The price of a loaf of bread, in terms of gold, hasn't changed in
    600 years.
    A friend bought £10,000 worth of gold in 2004, Its worth £80,000 >>>>>> now

    That's a gross simplification, and not guaranteed to work in the
    short term. It's subject to random ups and downs like any other
    target of speculators. Moreover, when shit hits the fan, you'll be
    required to surrender it to your government in exchange for money
    that's being inflated. It has happened before.

    The US has huge stockpiles of gold. It's a bit of a pity to just
    hoard a metal that has so many *useful* applications.

    Jeroen Belleman

    I have a little gold. Its appreciated about 15% in the last year It
    is the only really safe long term inflation hedge

    Land is good.


    The government cant take it off you if they dont know you have it.

    Eventually it needs to be sold.

    Many subcontinentals will take it off your hands no name no pack drill
    wise.

    And not bother paying you for it either. If the government doesn't know you've got it, it's hard to report the theft.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    So you don't understand how black markets work either then, Bill.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sat Jul 13 20:47:17 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 10:01:49 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 16:31:00 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 14:11:36 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 13/07/2024 3:02 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:32:47 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 11/07/2024 10:32 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:04:00 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:48:09 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:18:23 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:52:49 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH
    <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    Given a graph of usefulness vs expertise, some fields have a peak
    pretty soon and then drop off.

    John Larkin's grasp of what is actually useful is down there with
    Cursitor Doom's. He's certainly no more capable of understanding
    what climate scientists are telling us than Cursitor Doom is.

    John Larkin did get a science degree from Tulane, but he was pre
    selective about the bits he paid attention to, and climate science
    wasn't an area where he paid any attention.

    The 'climate scientists' are being paid to lay on the doom as thickly
    as possible. Their 'research' is heavily compromised. That's why I
    prefer data from *before* this area became politicized, but I
    wouldn't expect you to understand that, Bill.

    This is just one more of your demented conspiracy theories. If you
    knew a bit more you'd be aware that the area didn't get "politicised"
    until the late 1990's when there had been enough anthropogenic global
    warming for it show up over the natural variation form effects like
    the El Nino/La Nina alternation and the slower Atlantic Multidecal
    Oscillation.

    Because you don't understand this, you ignore all climate science
    observations since the very crude work from the 1890's.

    Climate scientists have always been academics, and they publish
    primarily for other academics. In the last twenty years, the media has
    has publicised their work, adding in their own preference for finding
    sensational implications in the published data (not always correctly).

    There's no cause for alarm and CO2 at ~400ppm is harmless. Its levels
    are the same now as when Lincoln was president, despite all the
    pollution pumped out during the 20th century.

    Wrong.

    https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/

    https://capegrim.csiro.au/

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    Yeah, yeah. I've seen all that CRAP. The NASA site's the same; all
    spouting the same complete nonsense as directed by your pal, Klaus
    Schwab (who fancies himself as some sort of Bond villain) and his
    cronies.
    Do some proper, reference book-based research for a change and you'll
    see a completely different picture emerge.

    So many people are afraid.

    https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yqnzw03oxlhqsecta7idt/Afraid.jpg?
    rlkey=rwrf5e1felkvjbqy8wrv2ah5t&raw=1

    You are so right - and so is Ms. Sandberg.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Sun Jul 14 13:34:53 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 14/07/2024 2:33 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 23:21:22 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 13/07/2024 4:50 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 17:18, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 16:57:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 16:30, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    On 7/12/24 16:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 15:25, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:25:51 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com>
    wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:18:39 +1000 Bill Sloman
    <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 7:48 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:30:41 -0700, john larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:33:41 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
    On 7/11/24 13:00, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100 The Natural Philosopher >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    <snip>

    Eventually it needs to be sold.

    Many subcontinentals will take it off your hands no name no pack drill
    wise.

    And not bother paying you for it either. If the government doesn't know
    you've got it, it's hard to report the theft.

    So you don't understand how black markets work either then, Bill.

    Oh. I do. And, unlike you and the Natural Philosopher, I do understand
    the risks involved in transacting business there.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Sun Jul 14 13:56:40 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 14/07/2024 2:26 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 14:18:40 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 13/07/2024 3:21 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 17:02:30 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:32:47 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 11/07/2024 10:32 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:04:00 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:48:09 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:18:23 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:52:49 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH
    <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    CO2 is not pollution. It is plant food that keeps us alive. More would
    be great.

    CO2 does serve as plant food, along with water, sun light and a bunch of
    minerals. Give plants more CO2 and they have fewer stomata in their
    leaves, so that they can get the same amount of CO2 while losing less
    water.

    It's also a greenhouse gas, and more of it generates global warming,
    which isn't great. Calling it pollution is odd, but more of it does
    cause problems.

    There are *no* "greenhouse gases" in our atmosphere, you damn fool.

    Not a widely shared delusion.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

    list five major greenhouse gases, with water vapour responsible for half
    the warming. Joseph Fourier first worked out that the earth's surface
    was warmer than it should be back in 1824, and the greenhouse gases
    turned out to be the explanation.

    You choose to deny this, mainly because you are a gullible sucker for
    climate change denial propaganda, but it's the sort of wilful ignorance
    that flat-earthers go in for, and not to be taken seriously.

    Granted there are on other planets in our solar system, but not Earth. So, which planet are *you* on with your greenhouse gases, Bill? It clearly
    isn't this one.

    It may be clear to you, but your idea of "clarity" looks like terminal confusion to anybody with working brain.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Sun Jul 14 14:22:42 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 14/07/2024 6:47 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 10:01:49 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 16:31:00 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 14:11:36 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 13/07/2024 3:02 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:32:47 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 11/07/2024 10:32 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:04:00 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:48:09 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:18:23 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:52:49 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH
    <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    Given a graph of usefulness vs expertise, some fields have a peak >>>>>>> pretty soon and then drop off.

    John Larkin's grasp of what is actually useful is down there with
    Cursitor Doom's. He's certainly no more capable of understanding
    what climate scientists are telling us than Cursitor Doom is.

    John Larkin did get a science degree from Tulane, but he was pre
    selective about the bits he paid attention to, and climate science >>>>>> wasn't an area where he paid any attention.

    The 'climate scientists' are being paid to lay on the doom as thickly >>>>> as possible. Their 'research' is heavily compromised. That's why I
    prefer data from *before* this area became politicized, but I
    wouldn't expect you to understand that, Bill.

    This is just one more of your demented conspiracy theories. If you
    knew a bit more you'd be aware that the area didn't get "politicised"
    until the late 1990's when there had been enough anthropogenic global
    warming for it show up over the natural variation form effects like
    the El Nino/La Nina alternation and the slower Atlantic Multidecal
    Oscillation.

    Because you don't understand this, you ignore all climate science
    observations since the very crude work from the 1890's.

    Climate scientists have always been academics, and they publish
    primarily for other academics. In the last twenty years, the media has >>>> has publicised their work, adding in their own preference for finding
    sensational implications in the published data (not always correctly). >>>>
    There's no cause for alarm and CO2 at ~400ppm is harmless. Its levels >>>>> are the same now as when Lincoln was president, despite all the
    pollution pumped out during the 20th century.

    Wrong.

    https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/

    https://capegrim.csiro.au/

    Yeah, yeah. I've seen all that CRAP. The NASA site's the same; all
    spouting the same complete nonsense as directed by your pal, Klaus
    Schwab (who fancies himself as some sort of Bond villain) and his
    cronies.
    Do some proper, reference book-based research for a change and you'll
    see a completely different picture emerge.

    So many people are afraid.

    https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yqnzw03oxlhqsecta7idt/Afraid.jpg?
    rlkey=rwrf5e1felkvjbqy8wrv2ah5t&raw=1

    John Larkin claims not to feel fear, which would be a personal defect,
    if it were true. He tries to pretend that is a virtue.

    You are so right - and so is Ms. Sandberg.

    John Larkin is only "right" in the sense that he supports Donald Trump.
    His enthusiasm for being "brave" is based on thorough-going ignorance.

    --
    Bill Sloman, sydney


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Sun Jul 14 14:15:37 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 14/07/2024 2:31 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 14:11:36 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 13/07/2024 3:02 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:32:47 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 11/07/2024 10:32 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:04:00 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:48:09 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:18:23 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:52:49 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:

    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    Given a graph of usefulness vs expertise, some fields have a peak
    pretty soon and then drop off.

    John Larkin's grasp of what is actually useful is down there with
    Cursitor Doom's. He's certainly no more capable of understanding what
    climate scientists are telling us than Cursitor Doom is.

    John Larkin did get a science degree from Tulane, but he was pre
    selective about the bits he paid attention to, and climate science
    wasn't an area where he paid any attention.

    The 'climate scientists' are being paid to lay on the doom as thickly
    as possible. Their 'research' is heavily compromised. That's why I
    prefer data from *before* this area became politicized, but I wouldn't
    expect you to understand that, Bill.

    This is just one more of your demented conspiracy theories. If you knew
    a bit more you'd be aware that the area didn't get "politicised" until
    the late 1990's when there had been enough anthropogenic global warming
    for it show up over the natural variation form effects like the El
    Nino/La Nina alternation and the slower Atlantic Multidecal Oscillation.

    Because you don't understand this, you ignore all climate science
    observations since the very crude work from the 1890's.

    Climate scientists have always been academics, and they publish
    primarily for other academics. In the last twenty years, the media has
    has publicised their work, adding in their own preference for finding
    sensational implications in the published data (not always correctly).

    There's no cause for alarm and CO2 at ~400ppm is harmless. Its levels
    are the same now as when Lincoln was president, despite all the
    pollution pumped out during the 20th century.

    Wrong.

    https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/

    https://capegrim.csiro.au/

    Yeah, yeah. I've seen all that CRAP.

    You do like to claim that it is CRAP. If you had any grasp of reality,
    you'd concentrate your attention on areas where you weren't an ignorant
    nitwit.

    The NASA site's the same; all spouting the same complete nonsense as directed by your pal, Klaus Schwab
    (who fancies himself as some sort of Bond villain) and his cronies.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Schwab

    I've never heard of him. The Manua Loa observations were started by
    Charles Keeling in 1958 (when Schwab was 20, and not in a position to
    influence anything much in the USA). The Cape Grim data starts from
    1980, and mainly serves to show that the Southern Hemisphere has rather
    less seasonal variation in CO2 level than the North. Schwab wouldn't
    have had much influence in Australia at the time.

    Do some proper, reference book-based research for a change and you'll see
    a completely different picture emerge.

    I've been doing proper book-based research since I started my
    undergraduate education in 1960. You clearly haven't got a clue what
    this involves. The "picture" that has emerged for you is the one that
    fossil carbon industry wants you to see (for fairly obvious commercial reasons). If you'd ever had any training in critical thinking, you
    wouldn't be quite such a gullible sucker.

    The Manua Loa and Cape Grim results were first published in printed
    scientific journals, which you don't seem to have bothered to read.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Sun Jul 14 08:57:51 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 13:56:40 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 14/07/2024 2:26 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 14:18:40 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 13/07/2024 3:21 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 17:02:30 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:32:47 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 11/07/2024 10:32 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:04:00 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:48:09 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:18:23 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:52:49 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH
    <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    CO2 is not pollution. It is plant food that keeps us alive. More
    would be great.

    CO2 does serve as plant food, along with water, sun light and a bunch
    of minerals. Give plants more CO2 and they have fewer stomata in their
    leaves, so that they can get the same amount of CO2 while losing less
    water.

    It's also a greenhouse gas, and more of it generates global warming,
    which isn't great. Calling it pollution is odd, but more of it does
    cause problems.

    There are *no* "greenhouse gases" in our atmosphere, you damn fool.

    Not a widely shared delusion.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

    list five major greenhouse gases, with water vapour responsible for half
    the warming. Joseph Fourier first worked out that the earth's surface
    was warmer than it should be back in 1824, and the greenhouse gases
    turned out to be the explanation.

    ??? That's glibness in the extreme even by your standards, Bill!

    You choose to deny this, mainly because you are a gullible sucker for
    climate change denial propaganda, but it's the sort of wilful ignorance
    that flat-earthers go in for, and not to be taken seriously.

    Granted there are on other planets in our solar system, but not Earth.
    So,
    which planet are *you* on with your greenhouse gases, Bill? It clearly
    isn't this one.

    It may be clear to you, but your idea of "clarity" looks like terminal confusion to anybody with working brain.

    Anyone with a working brain only needs to spend an hour - at most - in any decent reference library to discover for themselves that the whole AGW
    agenda is a SCAM.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Sun Jul 14 08:52:16 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 14:15:37 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 14/07/2024 2:31 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 14:11:36 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 13/07/2024 3:02 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:32:47 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 11/07/2024 10:32 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:04:00 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:48:09 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:18:23 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:52:49 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH
    <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    Given a graph of usefulness vs expertise, some fields have a peak
    pretty soon and then drop off.

    John Larkin's grasp of what is actually useful is down there with
    Cursitor Doom's. He's certainly no more capable of understanding
    what climate scientists are telling us than Cursitor Doom is.

    John Larkin did get a science degree from Tulane, but he was pre
    selective about the bits he paid attention to, and climate science
    wasn't an area where he paid any attention.

    The 'climate scientists' are being paid to lay on the doom as thickly
    as possible. Their 'research' is heavily compromised. That's why I
    prefer data from *before* this area became politicized, but I
    wouldn't expect you to understand that, Bill.

    This is just one more of your demented conspiracy theories. If you
    knew a bit more you'd be aware that the area didn't get "politicised"
    until the late 1990's when there had been enough anthropogenic global
    warming for it show up over the natural variation form effects like
    the El Nino/La Nina alternation and the slower Atlantic Multidecal
    Oscillation.

    Because you don't understand this, you ignore all climate science
    observations since the very crude work from the 1890's.

    Climate scientists have always been academics, and they publish
    primarily for other academics. In the last twenty years, the media has
    has publicised their work, adding in their own preference for finding
    sensational implications in the published data (not always correctly).

    There's no cause for alarm and CO2 at ~400ppm is harmless. Its levels
    are the same now as when Lincoln was president, despite all the
    pollution pumped out during the 20th century.

    Wrong.

    https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/

    https://capegrim.csiro.au/

    Yeah, yeah. I've seen all that CRAP.

    You do like to claim that it is CRAP. If you had any grasp of reality,
    you'd concentrate your attention on areas where you weren't an ignorant nitwit.

    The NASA site's the same; all spouting the same complete nonsense as
    directed by your pal, Klaus Schwab (who fancies himself as some sort of
    Bond villain) and his cronies.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Schwab

    I've never heard of him. The Manua Loa observations were started by
    Charles Keeling in 1958 (when Schwab was 20, and not in a position to influence anything much in the USA). The Cape Grim data starts from
    1980, and mainly serves to show that the Southern Hemisphere has rather
    less seasonal variation in CO2 level than the North. Schwab wouldn't
    have had much influence in Australia at the time.

    Do some proper, reference book-based research for a change and you'll
    see a completely different picture emerge.

    I've been doing proper book-based research since I started my
    undergraduate education in 1960. You clearly haven't got a clue what
    this involves. The "picture" that has emerged for you is the one that
    fossil carbon industry wants you to see (for fairly obvious commercial reasons). If you'd ever had any training in critical thinking, you
    wouldn't be quite such a gullible sucker.

    The Manua Loa and Cape Grim results were first published in printed scientific journals, which you don't seem to have bothered to read.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    Were they "peer reviewed"? If so, I've saved myself an awful lot of wasted time!
    The fact is that no one need waste their time reading any of those so-
    called 'studies' - they simply have to compare the CO2 levels of 1900 from reference books to those of 2020 - again, from reference books. CO2 levels
    are ~385ppm in both cases. Now, it should be clear to even the most obtuse individual that since those levels didn't change over the course of the
    most polluting century of human development ever, that atmospheric CO2
    cannot possibly be responsible for any warming and that the whole AGW
    agenda is an outrageous scam.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Sun Jul 14 08:59:19 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 13:34:53 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 14/07/2024 2:33 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 23:21:22 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 13/07/2024 4:50 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 17:18, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 16:57:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 16:30, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    On 7/12/24 16:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 15:25, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:25:51 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:18:39 +1000 Bill Sloman
    <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 7:48 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:30:41 -0700, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:33:41 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
    On 7/11/24 13:00, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100 The Natural Philosopher >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    <snip>

    Eventually it needs to be sold.

    Many subcontinentals will take it off your hands no name no pack
    drill wise.

    And not bother paying you for it either. If the government doesn't
    know you've got it, it's hard to report the theft.

    So you don't understand how black markets work either then, Bill.

    Oh. I do. And, unlike you and the Natural Philosopher, I do understand
    the risks involved in transacting business there.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    And you appear to be blissfully unaware of the concept of barter!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Sun Jul 14 20:31:27 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 14/07/2024 6:57 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 13:56:40 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 14/07/2024 2:26 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 14:18:40 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 13/07/2024 3:21 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 17:02:30 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:32:47 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 11/07/2024 10:32 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:04:00 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:48:09 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:18:23 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:52:49 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH
    <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    CO2 is not pollution. It is plant food that keeps us alive. More
    would be great.

    CO2 does serve as plant food, along with water, sun light and a bunch
    of minerals. Give plants more CO2 and they have fewer stomata in their >>>> leaves, so that they can get the same amount of CO2 while losing less
    water.

    It's also a greenhouse gas, and more of it generates global warming,
    which isn't great. Calling it pollution is odd, but more of it does
    cause problems.

    There are *no* "greenhouse gases" in our atmosphere, you damn fool.

    Not a widely shared delusion.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

    list five major greenhouse gases, with water vapour responsible for half
    the warming. Joseph Fourier first worked out that the earth's surface
    was warmer than it should be back in 1824, and the greenhouse gases
    turned out to be the explanation.

    ??? That's glibness in the extreme even by your standards, Bill!

    Meaning of glibness in English "the quality of being confident, but too
    simple and lacking in careful thought : The author's writing has a
    glibness that sometimes passes as wit".

    It's difficult to avoid being glib when faced with such a brain-dead
    assertion. It would certainly have been a waste of time to ofer a more
    elborate explanation to a dim clown like you.

    You choose to deny this, mainly because you are a gullible sucker for
    climate change denial propaganda, but it's the sort of wilful ignorance
    that flat-earthers go in for, and not to be taken seriously.

    Granted there are on other planets in our solar system, but not Earth.
    So,
    which planet are *you* on with your greenhouse gases, Bill? It clearly
    isn't this one.

    It may be clear to you, but your idea of "clarity" looks like terminal
    confusion to anybody with working brain.

    Anyone with a working brain only needs to spend an hour - at most - in any decent reference library to discover for themselves that the whole AGW
    agenda is a SCAM.

    A rather curious definition of a "working brain". Mastering the science
    behind the anthropogenic global warming question would take even a scientifically sophisticated reader (and you aren't that) rather more
    than an hour. Realising that you didn't have a clue about what was being
    said might be managed in a hour, and you could throw in the ill-informed conclusion that it was a scam in even less time, but you'd be wrong - as
    you happen to be , which is evidence that you have a non-working brain,
    fit only for posturing and pontificating.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Sun Jul 14 20:20:02 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 14/07/2024 6:59 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 13:34:53 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 14/07/2024 2:33 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 23:21:22 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 13/07/2024 4:50 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 17:18, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 16:57:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 16:30, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    On 7/12/24 16:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 15:25, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:25:51 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:18:39 +1000 Bill Sloman
    <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 7:48 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:30:41 -0700, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:33:41 +0200, Jeroen Belleman >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
    On 7/11/24 13:00, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100 The Natural Philosopher >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    <snip>

    Eventually it needs to be sold.

    Many subcontinentals will take it off your hands no name no pack
    drill wise.

    And not bother paying you for it either. If the government doesn't
    know you've got it, it's hard to report the theft.

    So you don't understand how black markets work either then, Bill.

    Oh. I do. And, unlike you and the Natural Philosopher, I do understand
    the risks involved in transacting business there.

    And you appear to be blissfully unaware of the concept of barter!

    And where does that come into this discussion?

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Sun Jul 14 20:53:12 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 14/07/2024 6:52 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 14:15:37 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 14/07/2024 2:31 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 14:11:36 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 13/07/2024 3:02 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:32:47 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 11/07/2024 10:32 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:04:00 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:48:09 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:18:23 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:52:49 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH
    <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    Given a graph of usefulness vs expertise, some fields have a peak >>>>>>> pretty soon and then drop off.

    John Larkin's grasp of what is actually useful is down there with
    Cursitor Doom's. He's certainly no more capable of understanding
    what climate scientists are telling us than Cursitor Doom is.

    John Larkin did get a science degree from Tulane, but he was pre
    selective about the bits he paid attention to, and climate science >>>>>> wasn't an area where he paid any attention.

    The 'climate scientists' are being paid to lay on the doom as thickly >>>>> as possible. Their 'research' is heavily compromised. That's why I
    prefer data from *before* this area became politicized, but I
    wouldn't expect you to understand that, Bill.

    This is just one more of your demented conspiracy theories. If you
    knew a bit more you'd be aware that the area didn't get "politicised"
    until the late 1990's when there had been enough anthropogenic global
    warming for it show up over the natural variation form effects like
    the El Nino/La Nina alternation and the slower Atlantic Multidecal
    Oscillation.

    Because you don't understand this, you ignore all climate science
    observations since the very crude work from the 1890's.

    Climate scientists have always been academics, and they publish
    primarily for other academics. In the last twenty years, the media has >>>> has publicised their work, adding in their own preference for finding
    sensational implications in the published data (not always correctly). >>>>
    There's no cause for alarm and CO2 at ~400ppm is harmless. Its levels >>>>> are the same now as when Lincoln was president, despite all the
    pollution pumped out during the 20th century.

    Wrong.

    https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/

    https://capegrim.csiro.au/

    Yeah, yeah. I've seen all that CRAP.

    You do like to claim that it is CRAP. If you had any grasp of reality,
    you'd concentrate your attention on areas where you weren't an ignorant
    nitwit.

    The NASA site's the same; all spouting the same complete nonsense as
    directed by your pal, Klaus Schwab (who fancies himself as some sort of
    Bond villain) and his cronies.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Schwab

    I've never heard of him. The Manua Loa observations were started by
    Charles Keeling in 1958 (when Schwab was 20, and not in a position to
    influence anything much in the USA). The Cape Grim data starts from
    1980, and mainly serves to show that the Southern Hemisphere has rather
    less seasonal variation in CO2 level than the North. Schwab wouldn't
    have had much influence in Australia at the time.

    Do some proper, reference book-based research for a change and you'll
    see a completely different picture emerge.

    I've been doing proper book-based research since I started my
    undergraduate education in 1960. You clearly haven't got a clue what
    this involves. The "picture" that has emerged for you is the one that
    fossil carbon industry wants you to see (for fairly obvious commercial
    reasons). If you'd ever had any training in critical thinking, you
    wouldn't be quite such a gullible sucker.

    The Manua Loa and Cape Grim results were first published in printed
    scientific journals, which you don't seem to have bothered to read.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    Were they "peer reviewed"? If so, I've saved myself an awful lot of wasted time!

    They would have been peer-reviewed - printed scientific journals always are.

    The fact is that no one need waste their time reading any of those so-
    called 'studies' - they simply have to compare the CO2 levels of 1900 from reference books to those of 2020 - again, from reference books > CO2 levels are ~385ppm in both cases.

    Reference books are only as good as the data around when they were
    written, and the gas analysis techniques available in 1900 weren't all
    that good.

    If you've found ~385ppm in your 1900 reference book, it was wrong.

    https://sealevel.info/co2.html

    uses ice core data to establish a figure of 296 ppm for 1900

    Charles Keeling bought commercially available CO2 monitors (which worked
    on infra-red absorbtion) when he started his work in 1958, and rapidly
    found that his results in urban environments were all over the place,
    which is why he set up his observatory at the top of Manua Loa in
    Hawaii. There, he was looking at air that had spent a long time blow
    across the Pacific and had had time to get more or less homogeneous.

    Now, it should be clear to even the most obtuse
    individual that since those levels didn't change over the course of the
    most polluting century of human development ever, that atmospheric CO2
    cannot possibly be responsible for any warming and that the whole AGW
    agenda is an outrageous scam.

    Except that the levels measured back from about 1880 to 1900 were all
    over the shop, and mostly measured in cities heated by coal fires, next
    to factories powered by burning coal.

    They simply don't mean what you'd like them to mean. The obtuse
    individual here is you - you know what you want to believe and aren't
    going to let mere facts get in your way.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to cd999666@notformail.com on Sun Jul 14 07:52:15 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 08:59:19 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 13:34:53 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 14/07/2024 2:33 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 23:21:22 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 13/07/2024 4:50 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 17:18, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 16:57:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 16:30, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    On 7/12/24 16:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 15:25, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:25:51 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:18:39 +1000 Bill Sloman
    <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 7:48 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:30:41 -0700, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:33:41 +0200, Jeroen Belleman >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
    On 7/11/24 13:00, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100 The Natural Philosopher >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    <snip>

    Eventually it needs to be sold.

    Many subcontinentals will take it off your hands no name no pack
    drill wise.

    And not bother paying you for it either. If the government doesn't
    know you've got it, it's hard to report the theft.

    So you don't understand how black markets work either then, Bill.

    Oh. I do. And, unlike you and the Natural Philosopher, I do understand
    the risks involved in transacting business there.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    And you appear to be blissfully unaware of the concept of barter!

    Children! Behave yourselves!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Sun Jul 14 16:59:38 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 20:53:12 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 14/07/2024 6:52 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 14:15:37 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 14/07/2024 2:31 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 14:11:36 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 13/07/2024 3:02 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:32:47 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 11/07/2024 10:32 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:04:00 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:48:09 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:18:23 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:52:49 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH
    <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    Given a graph of usefulness vs expertise, some fields have a peak >>>>>>>> pretty soon and then drop off.

    John Larkin's grasp of what is actually useful is down there with >>>>>>> Cursitor Doom's. He's certainly no more capable of understanding >>>>>>> what climate scientists are telling us than Cursitor Doom is.

    John Larkin did get a science degree from Tulane, but he was pre >>>>>>> selective about the bits he paid attention to, and climate science >>>>>>> wasn't an area where he paid any attention.

    The 'climate scientists' are being paid to lay on the doom as
    thickly as possible. Their 'research' is heavily compromised.
    That's why I prefer data from *before* this area became
    politicized, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that, Bill.

    This is just one more of your demented conspiracy theories. If you
    knew a bit more you'd be aware that the area didn't get
    "politicised" until the late 1990's when there had been enough
    anthropogenic global warming for it show up over the natural
    variation form effects like the El Nino/La Nina alternation and the
    slower Atlantic Multidecal Oscillation.

    Because you don't understand this, you ignore all climate science
    observations since the very crude work from the 1890's.

    Climate scientists have always been academics, and they publish
    primarily for other academics. In the last twenty years, the media
    has has publicised their work, adding in their own preference for
    finding sensational implications in the published data (not always
    correctly).

    There's no cause for alarm and CO2 at ~400ppm is harmless. Its
    levels are the same now as when Lincoln was president, despite all >>>>>> the pollution pumped out during the 20th century.

    Wrong.

    https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/

    https://capegrim.csiro.au/

    Yeah, yeah. I've seen all that CRAP.

    You do like to claim that it is CRAP. If you had any grasp of reality,
    you'd concentrate your attention on areas where you weren't an
    ignorant nitwit.

    The NASA site's the same; all spouting the same complete nonsense as
    directed by your pal, Klaus Schwab (who fancies himself as some sort
    of Bond villain) and his cronies.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Schwab

    I've never heard of him. The Manua Loa observations were started by
    Charles Keeling in 1958 (when Schwab was 20, and not in a position to
    influence anything much in the USA). The Cape Grim data starts from
    1980, and mainly serves to show that the Southern Hemisphere has
    rather less seasonal variation in CO2 level than the North. Schwab
    wouldn't have had much influence in Australia at the time.

    Do some proper, reference book-based research for a change and you'll
    see a completely different picture emerge.

    I've been doing proper book-based research since I started my
    undergraduate education in 1960. You clearly haven't got a clue what
    this involves. The "picture" that has emerged for you is the one that
    fossil carbon industry wants you to see (for fairly obvious commercial
    reasons). If you'd ever had any training in critical thinking, you
    wouldn't be quite such a gullible sucker.

    The Manua Loa and Cape Grim results were first published in printed
    scientific journals, which you don't seem to have bothered to read.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    Were they "peer reviewed"? If so, I've saved myself an awful lot of
    wasted time!

    They would have been peer-reviewed - printed scientific journals always
    are.

    Great, with people like you reviewing them, I've saved myself an awful lot
    of wasted time.

    The fact is that no one need waste their time reading any of those so-
    called 'studies' - they simply have to compare the CO2 levels of 1900
    from reference books to those of 2020 - again, from reference books >
    CO2 levels are ~385ppm in both cases.

    Reference books are only as good as the data around when they were
    written, and the gas analysis techniques available in 1900 weren't all
    that good.

    Absolute rubbish. Antoine Lavoisier was able to carry out ppm-level
    equivalency analysis of the composition of the atmosphere way back in the 1700s. There's no need to dig up ice cores or go to the top of mountains.

    If you've found ~385ppm in your 1900 reference book, it was wrong.

    Not one reference book. I bought over 400 hundred of them covering the
    period 1860 to 2009 and spent two years of my life looking into this. You
    and your mate Klaus Schwab are talking rubbish and just relying on the
    fact that the general public are too a) gullible and b) time-starved to actually look into this matter for themselves. The most they can do is
    click on a link and that's when they get hoodwinked. Clicking on a link to
    find out more on a subject such as this is the equivalent of ordering a
    pizza, having it delivered and spoon-fed to you mouthful by mouthful while
    you vegetate on your couch because you're too bone idle to actually get
    off your arse and get it for yourself. And the info you get by this lazy approach is about as beneficial for your mind as a pizza is to your body.

    https://sealevel.info/co2.html

    uses ice core data to establish a figure of 296 ppm for 1900

    So what? It's an online source (see above) and therefore junk food for the mind.

    Charles Keeling bought commercially available CO2 monitors (which worked
    on infra-red absorbtion) when he started his work in 1958, and rapidly
    found that his results in urban environments were all over the place,
    which is why he set up his observatory at the top of Manua Loa in
    Hawaii. There, he was looking at air that had spent a long time blow
    across the Pacific and had had time to get more or less homogeneous.

    Now, it should be clear to even the most obtuse individual that since
    those levels didn't change over the course of the most polluting
    century of human development ever, that atmospheric CO2 cannot possibly
    be responsible for any warming and that the whole AGW agenda is an
    outrageous scam.

    Except that the levels measured back from about 1880 to 1900 were all
    over the shop, and mostly measured in cities heated by coal fires, next
    to factories powered by burning coal.

    The exact same sites you and your pal Schwab position your thermometers so
    as to get exaggerated readings to confirm your phoney figures. Areas with
    high concentrations of concrete structures and close to airport runways
    are being utilised for the same purpose.

    They simply don't mean what you'd like them to mean. The obtuse
    individual here is you - you know what you want to believe and aren't
    going to let mere facts get in your way.

    We all know it's a waste of time trying to reason with you, Bill. I just
    hope there may be even one person reading this who will do their own,
    proper, book-based research and find out the truth for themselves: AGW is
    a myth, a scam, a steaming great pile of shit and I suspect you know that
    damn well.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Sun Jul 14 17:08:20 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 20:31:27 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 14/07/2024 6:57 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 13:56:40 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 14/07/2024 2:26 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 14:18:40 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 13/07/2024 3:21 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 17:02:30 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:32:47 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 11/07/2024 10:32 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:04:00 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:48:09 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:18:23 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:52:49 -0700, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>
    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH
    <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    CO2 is not pollution. It is plant food that keeps us alive. More
    would be great.

    CO2 does serve as plant food, along with water, sun light and a
    bunch of minerals. Give plants more CO2 and they have fewer stomata
    in their leaves, so that they can get the same amount of CO2 while
    losing less water.

    It's also a greenhouse gas, and more of it generates global warming, >>>>> which isn't great. Calling it pollution is odd, but more of it does
    cause problems.

    There are *no* "greenhouse gases" in our atmosphere, you damn fool.

    Not a widely shared delusion.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

    list five major greenhouse gases, with water vapour responsible for
    half the warming. Joseph Fourier first worked out that the earth's
    surface was warmer than it should be back in 1824, and the greenhouse
    gases turned out to be the explanation.

    ??? That's glibness in the extreme even by your standards, Bill!

    Meaning of glibness in English "the quality of being confident, but too simple and lacking in careful thought : The author's writing has a
    glibness that sometimes passes as wit".

    It's difficult to avoid being glib when faced with such a brain-dead assertion. It would certainly have been a waste of time to ofer a more elborate explanation to a dim clown like you.

    You choose to deny this, mainly because you are a gullible sucker for
    climate change denial propaganda, but it's the sort of wilful
    ignorance that flat-earthers go in for, and not to be taken seriously.

    Granted there are on other planets in our solar system, but not
    Earth.
    So,
    which planet are *you* on with your greenhouse gases, Bill? It
    clearly isn't this one.

    It may be clear to you, but your idea of "clarity" looks like terminal
    confusion to anybody with working brain.

    Anyone with a working brain only needs to spend an hour - at most - in
    any decent reference library to discover for themselves that the whole
    AGW agenda is a SCAM.

    A rather curious definition of a "working brain". Mastering the science behind the anthropogenic global warming question would take even a scientifically sophisticated reader (and you aren't that) rather more
    than an hour. Realising that you didn't have a clue about what was being
    said might be managed in a hour, and you could throw in the ill-informed conclusion that it was a scam in even less time, but you'd be wrong - as
    you happen to be , which is evidence that you have a non-working brain,
    fit only for posturing and pontificating.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    I've noticed you love to make this subject appear more complicated than it
    is and throw in all sorts of diversions and links to this and that to
    distract the reader away from the simple truth that they can ascertain for themselves very easily should they so choose: compare the CO2 levels of
    today with those of the Victorian era *USING REFERENCE BOOKS* in any
    decent library. That's all anyone need do.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Sun Jul 14 17:14:18 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 20:20:02 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 14/07/2024 6:59 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 13:34:53 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 14/07/2024 2:33 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 23:21:22 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 13/07/2024 4:50 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 17:18, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 16:57:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 16:30, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    On 7/12/24 16:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 15:25, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:25:51 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:18:39 +1000 Bill Sloman
    <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 7:48 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:30:41 -0700, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:33:41 +0200, Jeroen Belleman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
    On 7/11/24 13:00, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100 The Natural >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    <snip>

    Eventually it needs to be sold.

    Many subcontinentals will take it off your hands no name no pack
    drill wise.

    And not bother paying you for it either. If the government doesn't
    know you've got it, it's hard to report the theft.

    So you don't understand how black markets work either then, Bill.

    Oh. I do. And, unlike you and the Natural Philosopher, I do understand
    the risks involved in transacting business there.

    And you appear to be blissfully unaware of the concept of barter!

    And where does that come into this discussion?

    Because even if your mate Klaus Schwab gets his way and abolishes cash transactions, it will still be possible to *exchange* gold for whatever
    you need. Gold ain't going away and if they try to make it illegal it'll
    just become more valuable - like everything else they've tried that stupid
    and counterproductive idea on.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to cd999666@notformail.com on Sun Jul 14 10:20:35 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 17:08:20 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 20:31:27 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 14/07/2024 6:57 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 13:56:40 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 14/07/2024 2:26 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 14:18:40 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 13/07/2024 3:21 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 17:02:30 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:32:47 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 11/07/2024 10:32 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:04:00 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:48:09 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:18:23 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom >>>>>>>>>>>> <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:52:49 -0700, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH
    <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    CO2 is not pollution. It is plant food that keeps us alive. More >>>>>>> would be great.

    CO2 does serve as plant food, along with water, sun light and a
    bunch of minerals. Give plants more CO2 and they have fewer stomata >>>>>> in their leaves, so that they can get the same amount of CO2 while >>>>>> losing less water.

    It's also a greenhouse gas, and more of it generates global warming, >>>>>> which isn't great. Calling it pollution is odd, but more of it does >>>>>> cause problems.

    There are *no* "greenhouse gases" in our atmosphere, you damn fool.

    Not a widely shared delusion.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

    list five major greenhouse gases, with water vapour responsible for
    half the warming. Joseph Fourier first worked out that the earth's
    surface was warmer than it should be back in 1824, and the greenhouse
    gases turned out to be the explanation.

    ??? That's glibness in the extreme even by your standards, Bill!

    Meaning of glibness in English "the quality of being confident, but too
    simple and lacking in careful thought : The author's writing has a
    glibness that sometimes passes as wit".

    It's difficult to avoid being glib when faced with such a brain-dead
    assertion. It would certainly have been a waste of time to ofer a more
    elborate explanation to a dim clown like you.

    You choose to deny this, mainly because you are a gullible sucker for
    climate change denial propaganda, but it's the sort of wilful
    ignorance that flat-earthers go in for, and not to be taken seriously. >>>>
    Granted there are on other planets in our solar system, but not
    Earth.
    So,
    which planet are *you* on with your greenhouse gases, Bill? It
    clearly isn't this one.

    It may be clear to you, but your idea of "clarity" looks like terminal >>>> confusion to anybody with working brain.

    Anyone with a working brain only needs to spend an hour - at most - in
    any decent reference library to discover for themselves that the whole
    AGW agenda is a SCAM.

    A rather curious definition of a "working brain". Mastering the science
    behind the anthropogenic global warming question would take even a
    scientifically sophisticated reader (and you aren't that) rather more
    than an hour. Realising that you didn't have a clue about what was being
    said might be managed in a hour, and you could throw in the ill-informed
    conclusion that it was a scam in even less time, but you'd be wrong - as
    you happen to be , which is evidence that you have a non-working brain,
    fit only for posturing and pontificating.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    I've noticed you love to make this subject appear more complicated than it
    is and throw in all sorts of diversions and links to this and that to >distract the reader away from the simple truth that they can ascertain for >themselves very easily should they so choose: compare the CO2 levels of
    today with those of the Victorian era *USING REFERENCE BOOKS* in any
    decent library. That's all anyone need do.

    How do we know what CO2 levels were, 150 years ago?

    For that matter, how do we know what worldwide temperatures were?
    RTD-based data loggers weren't common in Vic's time.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sun Jul 14 17:16:52 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 07:52:15 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 08:59:19 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 13:34:53 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 14/07/2024 2:33 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 23:21:22 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 13/07/2024 4:50 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 17:18, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 16:57:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 16:30, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    On 7/12/24 16:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 15:25, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:25:51 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:18:39 +1000 Bill Sloman
    <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 7:48 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:30:41 -0700, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:33:41 +0200, Jeroen Belleman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
    On 7/11/24 13:00, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100 The Natural >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    <snip>

    Eventually it needs to be sold.

    Many subcontinentals will take it off your hands no name no pack
    drill wise.

    And not bother paying you for it either. If the government doesn't
    know you've got it, it's hard to report the theft.

    So you don't understand how black markets work either then, Bill.

    Oh. I do. And, unlike you and the Natural Philosopher, I do understand
    the risks involved in transacting business there.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    And you appear to be blissfully unaware of the concept of barter!

    Children! Behave yourselves!

    Don't panic, John. I'm determined not to get into another long-winded and pointless pissing contest with this notorious and indefatigable troll.
    Unlike him, I've better things to do.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin @21:1/5 to cd999666@notformail.com on Sun Jul 14 12:07:43 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 17:16:52 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 07:52:15 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 08:59:19 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 13:34:53 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 14/07/2024 2:33 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 23:21:22 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 13/07/2024 4:50 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 17:18, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 16:57:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 16:30, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    On 7/12/24 16:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 15:25, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:25:51 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:18:39 +1000 Bill Sloman
    <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 7:48 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:30:41 -0700, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:33:41 +0200, Jeroen Belleman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
    On 7/11/24 13:00, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100 The Natural >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    <snip>

    Eventually it needs to be sold.

    Many subcontinentals will take it off your hands no name no pack >>>>>>> drill wise.

    And not bother paying you for it either. If the government doesn't >>>>>> know you've got it, it's hard to report the theft.

    So you don't understand how black markets work either then, Bill.

    Oh. I do. And, unlike you and the Natural Philosopher, I do understand >>>> the risks involved in transacting business there.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    And you appear to be blissfully unaware of the concept of barter!

    Children! Behave yourselves!

    Don't panic, John. I'm determined not to get into another long-winded and >pointless pissing contest with this notorious and indefatigable troll.
    Unlike him, I've better things to do.

    Then do them. If it involves electronics, post something interesting
    here.

    Sloman needs suckers to play his hate games. Don't be one.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe Gwinn@21:1/5 to cd999666@notformail.com on Sun Jul 14 14:45:41 2024
    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 16:59:38 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 20:53:12 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 14/07/2024 6:52 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 14:15:37 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 14/07/2024 2:31 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 14:11:36 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 13/07/2024 3:02 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:32:47 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 11/07/2024 10:32 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:04:00 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:48:09 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:18:23 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:52:49 -0700, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>
    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH
    <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    Given a graph of usefulness vs expertise, some fields have a peak >>>>>>>>> pretty soon and then drop off.

    John Larkin's grasp of what is actually useful is down there with >>>>>>>> Cursitor Doom's. He's certainly no more capable of understanding >>>>>>>> what climate scientists are telling us than Cursitor Doom is.

    John Larkin did get a science degree from Tulane, but he was pre >>>>>>>> selective about the bits he paid attention to, and climate science >>>>>>>> wasn't an area where he paid any attention.

    The 'climate scientists' are being paid to lay on the doom as
    thickly as possible. Their 'research' is heavily compromised.
    That's why I prefer data from *before* this area became
    politicized, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that, Bill.

    This is just one more of your demented conspiracy theories. If you >>>>>> knew a bit more you'd be aware that the area didn't get
    "politicised" until the late 1990's when there had been enough
    anthropogenic global warming for it show up over the natural
    variation form effects like the El Nino/La Nina alternation and the >>>>>> slower Atlantic Multidecal Oscillation.

    Because you don't understand this, you ignore all climate science
    observations since the very crude work from the 1890's.

    Climate scientists have always been academics, and they publish
    primarily for other academics. In the last twenty years, the media >>>>>> has has publicised their work, adding in their own preference for
    finding sensational implications in the published data (not always >>>>>> correctly).

    There's no cause for alarm and CO2 at ~400ppm is harmless. Its
    levels are the same now as when Lincoln was president, despite all >>>>>>> the pollution pumped out during the 20th century.

    Wrong.

    https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/

    https://capegrim.csiro.au/

    Yeah, yeah. I've seen all that CRAP.

    You do like to claim that it is CRAP. If you had any grasp of reality, >>>> you'd concentrate your attention on areas where you weren't an
    ignorant nitwit.

    The NASA site's the same; all spouting the same complete nonsense as >>>>> directed by your pal, Klaus Schwab (who fancies himself as some sort >>>>> of Bond villain) and his cronies.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Schwab

    I've never heard of him. The Manua Loa observations were started by
    Charles Keeling in 1958 (when Schwab was 20, and not in a position to
    influence anything much in the USA). The Cape Grim data starts from
    1980, and mainly serves to show that the Southern Hemisphere has
    rather less seasonal variation in CO2 level than the North. Schwab
    wouldn't have had much influence in Australia at the time.

    Do some proper, reference book-based research for a change and you'll >>>>> see a completely different picture emerge.

    I've been doing proper book-based research since I started my
    undergraduate education in 1960. You clearly haven't got a clue what
    this involves. The "picture" that has emerged for you is the one that
    fossil carbon industry wants you to see (for fairly obvious commercial >>>> reasons). If you'd ever had any training in critical thinking, you
    wouldn't be quite such a gullible sucker.

    The Manua Loa and Cape Grim results were first published in printed
    scientific journals, which you don't seem to have bothered to read.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    Were they "peer reviewed"? If so, I've saved myself an awful lot of
    wasted time!

    They would have been peer-reviewed - printed scientific journals always
    are.

    Great, with people like you reviewing them, I've saved myself an awful lot
    of wasted time.

    The fact is that no one need waste their time reading any of those so-
    called 'studies' - they simply have to compare the CO2 levels of 1900
    from reference books to those of 2020 - again, from reference books >
    CO2 levels are ~385ppm in both cases.

    Reference books are only as good as the data around when they were
    written, and the gas analysis techniques available in 1900 weren't all
    that good.

    Absolute rubbish. Antoine Lavoisier was able to carry out ppm-level >equivalency analysis of the composition of the atmosphere way back in the >1700s. There's no need to dig up ice cores or go to the top of mountains.

    If you've found ~385ppm in your 1900 reference book, it was wrong.

    Not one reference book. I bought over 400 hundred of them covering the
    period 1860 to 2009 and spent two years of my life looking into this. You
    and your mate Klaus Schwab are talking rubbish and just relying on the
    fact that the general public are too a) gullible and b) time-starved to >actually look into this matter for themselves. The most they can do is
    click on a link and that's when they get hoodwinked. Clicking on a link to >find out more on a subject such as this is the equivalent of ordering a >pizza, having it delivered and spoon-fed to you mouthful by mouthful while >you vegetate on your couch because you're too bone idle to actually get
    off your arse and get it for yourself. And the info you get by this lazy >approach is about as beneficial for your mind as a pizza is to your body.

    https://sealevel.info/co2.html

    uses ice core data to establish a figure of 296 ppm for 1900

    So what? It's an online source (see above) and therefore junk food for the >mind.

    Charles Keeling bought commercially available CO2 monitors (which worked
    on infra-red absorbtion) when he started his work in 1958, and rapidly
    found that his results in urban environments were all over the place,
    which is why he set up his observatory at the top of Manua Loa in
    Hawaii. There, he was looking at air that had spent a long time blow
    across the Pacific and had had time to get more or less homogeneous.

    Now, it should be clear to even the most obtuse individual that since
    those levels didn't change over the course of the most polluting
    century of human development ever, that atmospheric CO2 cannot possibly
    be responsible for any warming and that the whole AGW agenda is an
    outrageous scam.

    Except that the levels measured back from about 1880 to 1900 were all
    over the shop, and mostly measured in cities heated by coal fires, next
    to factories powered by burning coal.

    The exact same sites you and your pal Schwab position your thermometers so
    as to get exaggerated readings to confirm your phoney figures. Areas with >high concentrations of concrete structures and close to airport runways
    are being utilised for the same purpose.

    They simply don't mean what you'd like them to mean. The obtuse
    individual here is you - you know what you want to believe and aren't
    going to let mere facts get in your way.

    We all know it's a waste of time trying to reason with you, Bill. I just
    hope there may be even one person reading this who will do their own,
    proper, book-based research and find out the truth for themselves: AGW is
    a myth, a scam, a steaming great pile of shit and I suspect you know that >damn well.

    Plowing through a thousand old publications for a few years exceeds
    the energy of most.

    We on SEWD discussed this in December 2021, in thread "Unsettled: What
    Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters".

    Probably the best single source is Savante Arrhenius:

    .<https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf>

    Joe Gwinn

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sun Jul 14 23:01:13 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 12:07:43 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 17:16:52 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 07:52:15 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 08:59:19 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 13:34:53 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 14/07/2024 2:33 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 23:21:22 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 13/07/2024 4:50 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 17:18, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 16:57:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 16:30, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    On 7/12/24 16:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 15:25, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:25:51 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:18:39 +1000 Bill Sloman
    <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 7:48 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:30:41 -0700, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:33:41 +0200, Jeroen Belleman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
    On 7/11/24 13:00, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100 The Natural >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    <snip>

    Eventually it needs to be sold.

    Many subcontinentals will take it off your hands no name no pack >>>>>>>> drill wise.

    And not bother paying you for it either. If the government doesn't >>>>>>> know you've got it, it's hard to report the theft.

    So you don't understand how black markets work either then, Bill.

    Oh. I do. And, unlike you and the Natural Philosopher, I do
    understand the risks involved in transacting business there.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    And you appear to be blissfully unaware of the concept of barter!

    Children! Behave yourselves!

    Don't panic, John. I'm determined not to get into another long-winded
    and pointless pissing contest with this notorious and indefatigable
    troll. Unlike him, I've better things to do.

    Then do them. If it involves electronics, post something interesting
    here.

    Sloman needs suckers to play his hate games. Don't be one.

    Thanks for the timely reminder and of course you're dead right. I'll not respond to any more of his rude and ill-informed messages.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to Joe Gwinn on Sun Jul 14 22:50:25 2024
    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 14:45:41 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote:

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 16:59:38 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 20:53:12 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 14/07/2024 6:52 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 14:15:37 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 14/07/2024 2:31 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 14:11:36 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 13/07/2024 3:02 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:32:47 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 11/07/2024 10:32 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:04:00 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:48:09 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:18:23 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom >>>>>>>>>>>> <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:52:49 -0700, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH
    <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    Given a graph of usefulness vs expertise, some fields have a >>>>>>>>>> peak pretty soon and then drop off.

    John Larkin's grasp of what is actually useful is down there >>>>>>>>> with Cursitor Doom's. He's certainly no more capable of
    understanding what climate scientists are telling us than
    Cursitor Doom is.

    John Larkin did get a science degree from Tulane, but he was pre >>>>>>>>> selective about the bits he paid attention to, and climate
    science wasn't an area where he paid any attention.

    The 'climate scientists' are being paid to lay on the doom as
    thickly as possible. Their 'research' is heavily compromised.
    That's why I prefer data from *before* this area became
    politicized, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that, Bill. >>>>>>>
    This is just one more of your demented conspiracy theories. If you >>>>>>> knew a bit more you'd be aware that the area didn't get
    "politicised" until the late 1990's when there had been enough
    anthropogenic global warming for it show up over the natural
    variation form effects like the El Nino/La Nina alternation and
    the slower Atlantic Multidecal Oscillation.

    Because you don't understand this, you ignore all climate science >>>>>>> observations since the very crude work from the 1890's.

    Climate scientists have always been academics, and they publish
    primarily for other academics. In the last twenty years, the media >>>>>>> has has publicised their work, adding in their own preference for >>>>>>> finding sensational implications in the published data (not always >>>>>>> correctly).

    There's no cause for alarm and CO2 at ~400ppm is harmless. Its >>>>>>>> levels are the same now as when Lincoln was president, despite >>>>>>>> all the pollution pumped out during the 20th century.

    Wrong.

    https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/

    https://capegrim.csiro.au/

    Yeah, yeah. I've seen all that CRAP.

    You do like to claim that it is CRAP. If you had any grasp of
    reality,
    you'd concentrate your attention on areas where you weren't an
    ignorant nitwit.

    The NASA site's the same; all spouting the same complete nonsense
    as directed by your pal, Klaus Schwab (who fancies himself as some >>>>>> sort of Bond villain) and his cronies.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Schwab

    I've never heard of him. The Manua Loa observations were started by
    Charles Keeling in 1958 (when Schwab was 20, and not in a position
    to influence anything much in the USA). The Cape Grim data starts
    from 1980, and mainly serves to show that the Southern Hemisphere
    has rather less seasonal variation in CO2 level than the North.
    Schwab wouldn't have had much influence in Australia at the time.

    Do some proper, reference book-based research for a change and
    you'll see a completely different picture emerge.

    I've been doing proper book-based research since I started my
    undergraduate education in 1960. You clearly haven't got a clue what >>>>> this involves. The "picture" that has emerged for you is the one
    that fossil carbon industry wants you to see (for fairly obvious
    commercial reasons). If you'd ever had any training in critical
    thinking, you wouldn't be quite such a gullible sucker.

    The Manua Loa and Cape Grim results were first published in printed
    scientific journals, which you don't seem to have bothered to read.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    Were they "peer reviewed"? If so, I've saved myself an awful lot of
    wasted time!

    They would have been peer-reviewed - printed scientific journals
    always are.

    Great, with people like you reviewing them, I've saved myself an awful
    lot of wasted time.

    The fact is that no one need waste their time reading any of those
    so- called 'studies' - they simply have to compare the CO2 levels of
    1900 from reference books to those of 2020 - again, from reference
    books > CO2 levels are ~385ppm in both cases.

    Reference books are only as good as the data around when they were
    written, and the gas analysis techniques available in 1900 weren't all
    that good.

    Absolute rubbish. Antoine Lavoisier was able to carry out ppm-level >>equivalency analysis of the composition of the atmosphere way back in
    the 1700s. There's no need to dig up ice cores or go to the top of >>mountains.

    If you've found ~385ppm in your 1900 reference book, it was wrong.

    Not one reference book. I bought over 400 hundred of them covering the >>period 1860 to 2009 and spent two years of my life looking into this.
    You and your mate Klaus Schwab are talking rubbish and just relying on
    the fact that the general public are too a) gullible and b) time-starved
    to actually look into this matter for themselves. The most they can do
    is click on a link and that's when they get hoodwinked. Clicking on a
    link to find out more on a subject such as this is the equivalent of >>ordering a pizza, having it delivered and spoon-fed to you mouthful by >>mouthful while you vegetate on your couch because you're too bone idle
    to actually get off your arse and get it for yourself. And the info you
    get by this lazy approach is about as beneficial for your mind as a
    pizza is to your body.

    https://sealevel.info/co2.html

    uses ice core data to establish a figure of 296 ppm for 1900

    So what? It's an online source (see above) and therefore junk food for
    the mind.

    Charles Keeling bought commercially available CO2 monitors (which
    worked on infra-red absorbtion) when he started his work in 1958, and
    rapidly found that his results in urban environments were all over the
    place, which is why he set up his observatory at the top of Manua Loa
    in Hawaii. There, he was looking at air that had spent a long time
    blow across the Pacific and had had time to get more or less
    homogeneous.

    Now, it should be clear to even the most obtuse individual that since
    those levels didn't change over the course of the most polluting
    century of human development ever, that atmospheric CO2 cannot
    possibly be responsible for any warming and that the whole AGW agenda
    is an outrageous scam.

    Except that the levels measured back from about 1880 to 1900 were all
    over the shop, and mostly measured in cities heated by coal fires,
    next to factories powered by burning coal.

    The exact same sites you and your pal Schwab position your thermometers
    so as to get exaggerated readings to confirm your phoney figures. Areas >>with high concentrations of concrete structures and close to airport >>runways are being utilised for the same purpose.

    They simply don't mean what you'd like them to mean. The obtuse
    individual here is you - you know what you want to believe and aren't
    going to let mere facts get in your way.

    We all know it's a waste of time trying to reason with you, Bill. I just >>hope there may be even one person reading this who will do their own, >>proper, book-based research and find out the truth for themselves: AGW
    is a myth, a scam, a steaming great pile of shit and I suspect you know >>that damn well.

    Plowing through a thousand old publications for a few years exceeds the energy of most.

    We on SEWD discussed this in December 2021, in tead "Unsettled: What
    Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters".

    Probably the best single source is Savante Arrhenius:

    .<https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf>

    Joe Gwinn

    What we are being directed to here is just another link to an online
    source. The fact that it purports to be some sort of discourse on the
    subject written in Victorian times counts for nothing. These things are
    trivial to fake with AI. There are no shortcuts, I'm afraid. Anything
    that's served up to the viewer for nothing is worth about pretty much the
    same. You need to get elbow deep in physical text books and if you don't
    have the time to do that, forget about easier and quicker alternatives and
    just don't bother at all.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe Gwinn@21:1/5 to cd999666@notformail.com on Sun Jul 14 19:38:26 2024
    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 22:50:25 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 14:45:41 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote:

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 16:59:38 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 20:53:12 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 14/07/2024 6:52 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 14:15:37 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 14/07/2024 2:31 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 14:11:36 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 13/07/2024 3:02 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:32:47 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 11/07/2024 10:32 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:04:00 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:48:09 -0700, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>
    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:18:23 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom >>>>>>>>>>>>> <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:52:49 -0700, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH
    <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    Given a graph of usefulness vs expertise, some fields have a >>>>>>>>>>> peak pretty soon and then drop off.

    John Larkin's grasp of what is actually useful is down there >>>>>>>>>> with Cursitor Doom's. He's certainly no more capable of
    understanding what climate scientists are telling us than
    Cursitor Doom is.

    John Larkin did get a science degree from Tulane, but he was pre >>>>>>>>>> selective about the bits he paid attention to, and climate >>>>>>>>>> science wasn't an area where he paid any attention.

    The 'climate scientists' are being paid to lay on the doom as >>>>>>>>> thickly as possible. Their 'research' is heavily compromised. >>>>>>>>> That's why I prefer data from *before* this area became
    politicized, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that, Bill. >>>>>>>>
    This is just one more of your demented conspiracy theories. If you >>>>>>>> knew a bit more you'd be aware that the area didn't get
    "politicised" until the late 1990's when there had been enough >>>>>>>> anthropogenic global warming for it show up over the natural
    variation form effects like the El Nino/La Nina alternation and >>>>>>>> the slower Atlantic Multidecal Oscillation.

    Because you don't understand this, you ignore all climate science >>>>>>>> observations since the very crude work from the 1890's.

    Climate scientists have always been academics, and they publish >>>>>>>> primarily for other academics. In the last twenty years, the media >>>>>>>> has has publicised their work, adding in their own preference for >>>>>>>> finding sensational implications in the published data (not always >>>>>>>> correctly).

    There's no cause for alarm and CO2 at ~400ppm is harmless. Its >>>>>>>>> levels are the same now as when Lincoln was president, despite >>>>>>>>> all the pollution pumped out during the 20th century.

    Wrong.

    https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/

    https://capegrim.csiro.au/

    Yeah, yeah. I've seen all that CRAP.

    You do like to claim that it is CRAP. If you had any grasp of
    reality,
    you'd concentrate your attention on areas where you weren't an
    ignorant nitwit.

    The NASA site's the same; all spouting the same complete nonsense >>>>>>> as directed by your pal, Klaus Schwab (who fancies himself as some >>>>>>> sort of Bond villain) and his cronies.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Schwab

    I've never heard of him. The Manua Loa observations were started by >>>>>> Charles Keeling in 1958 (when Schwab was 20, and not in a position >>>>>> to influence anything much in the USA). The Cape Grim data starts
    from 1980, and mainly serves to show that the Southern Hemisphere
    has rather less seasonal variation in CO2 level than the North.
    Schwab wouldn't have had much influence in Australia at the time.

    Do some proper, reference book-based research for a change and
    you'll see a completely different picture emerge.

    I've been doing proper book-based research since I started my
    undergraduate education in 1960. You clearly haven't got a clue what >>>>>> this involves. The "picture" that has emerged for you is the one
    that fossil carbon industry wants you to see (for fairly obvious
    commercial reasons). If you'd ever had any training in critical
    thinking, you wouldn't be quite such a gullible sucker.

    The Manua Loa and Cape Grim results were first published in printed >>>>>> scientific journals, which you don't seem to have bothered to read. >>>>>>
    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    Were they "peer reviewed"? If so, I've saved myself an awful lot of
    wasted time!

    They would have been peer-reviewed - printed scientific journals
    always are.

    Great, with people like you reviewing them, I've saved myself an awful >>>lot of wasted time.

    The fact is that no one need waste their time reading any of those
    so- called 'studies' - they simply have to compare the CO2 levels of >>>>> 1900 from reference books to those of 2020 - again, from reference
    books > CO2 levels are ~385ppm in both cases.

    Reference books are only as good as the data around when they were
    written, and the gas analysis techniques available in 1900 weren't all >>>> that good.

    Absolute rubbish. Antoine Lavoisier was able to carry out ppm-level >>>equivalency analysis of the composition of the atmosphere way back in
    the 1700s. There's no need to dig up ice cores or go to the top of >>>mountains.

    If you've found ~385ppm in your 1900 reference book, it was wrong.

    Not one reference book. I bought over 400 hundred of them covering the >>>period 1860 to 2009 and spent two years of my life looking into this.
    You and your mate Klaus Schwab are talking rubbish and just relying on >>>the fact that the general public are too a) gullible and b) time-starved >>>to actually look into this matter for themselves. The most they can do
    is click on a link and that's when they get hoodwinked. Clicking on a >>>link to find out more on a subject such as this is the equivalent of >>>ordering a pizza, having it delivered and spoon-fed to you mouthful by >>>mouthful while you vegetate on your couch because you're too bone idle
    to actually get off your arse and get it for yourself. And the info you >>>get by this lazy approach is about as beneficial for your mind as a
    pizza is to your body.

    https://sealevel.info/co2.html

    uses ice core data to establish a figure of 296 ppm for 1900

    So what? It's an online source (see above) and therefore junk food for >>>the mind.

    Charles Keeling bought commercially available CO2 monitors (which
    worked on infra-red absorbtion) when he started his work in 1958, and
    rapidly found that his results in urban environments were all over the >>>> place, which is why he set up his observatory at the top of Manua Loa
    in Hawaii. There, he was looking at air that had spent a long time
    blow across the Pacific and had had time to get more or less
    homogeneous.

    Now, it should be clear to even the most obtuse individual that since >>>>> those levels didn't change over the course of the most polluting
    century of human development ever, that atmospheric CO2 cannot
    possibly be responsible for any warming and that the whole AGW agenda >>>>> is an outrageous scam.

    Except that the levels measured back from about 1880 to 1900 were all
    over the shop, and mostly measured in cities heated by coal fires,
    next to factories powered by burning coal.

    The exact same sites you and your pal Schwab position your thermometers >>>so as to get exaggerated readings to confirm your phoney figures. Areas >>>with high concentrations of concrete structures and close to airport >>>runways are being utilised for the same purpose.

    They simply don't mean what you'd like them to mean. The obtuse
    individual here is you - you know what you want to believe and aren't
    going to let mere facts get in your way.

    We all know it's a waste of time trying to reason with you, Bill. I just >>>hope there may be even one person reading this who will do their own, >>>proper, book-based research and find out the truth for themselves: AGW
    is a myth, a scam, a steaming great pile of shit and I suspect you know >>>that damn well.

    Plowing through a thousand old publications for a few years exceeds the
    energy of most.

    We on SEWD discussed this in December 2021, in tead "Unsettled: What
    Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters".

    Probably the best single source is Savante Arrhenius:

    .<https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf>

    Joe Gwinn

    What we are being directed to here is just another link to an online
    source. The fact that it purports to be some sort of discourse on the
    subject written in Victorian times counts for nothing. These things are >trivial to fake with AI. There are no shortcuts, I'm afraid. Anything
    that's served up to the viewer for nothing is worth about pretty much the >same. You need to get elbow deep in physical text books and if you don't
    have the time to do that, forget about easier and quicker alternatives and >just don't bother at all.

    Not exactly. It's a summary of the data known as of 1900 or so about
    the atmosphere. The original article was in German, but the Royal
    Society published the same article in English.

    I'd venture that you have no idea who Savante Arrhenius is.

    Joe Gwinn

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to Joe Gwinn on Sun Jul 14 23:44:39 2024
    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 19:38:26 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote:

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 22:50:25 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 14:45:41 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote:

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 16:59:38 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 20:53:12 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 14/07/2024 6:52 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 14:15:37 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 14/07/2024 2:31 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 14:11:36 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 13/07/2024 3:02 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:32:47 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 11/07/2024 10:32 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:04:00 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom >>>>>>>>>>>> <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:48:09 -0700, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:18:23 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:52:49 -0700, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH
    <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    Given a graph of usefulness vs expertise, some fields have a >>>>>>>>>>>> peak pretty soon and then drop off.

    John Larkin's grasp of what is actually useful is down there >>>>>>>>>>> with Cursitor Doom's. He's certainly no more capable of
    understanding what climate scientists are telling us than >>>>>>>>>>> Cursitor Doom is.

    John Larkin did get a science degree from Tulane, but he was >>>>>>>>>>> pre selective about the bits he paid attention to, and climate >>>>>>>>>>> science wasn't an area where he paid any attention.

    The 'climate scientists' are being paid to lay on the doom as >>>>>>>>>> thickly as possible. Their 'research' is heavily compromised. >>>>>>>>>> That's why I prefer data from *before* this area became
    politicized, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that, >>>>>>>>>> Bill.

    This is just one more of your demented conspiracy theories. If >>>>>>>>> you knew a bit more you'd be aware that the area didn't get
    "politicised" until the late 1990's when there had been enough >>>>>>>>> anthropogenic global warming for it show up over the natural >>>>>>>>> variation form effects like the El Nino/La Nina alternation and >>>>>>>>> the slower Atlantic Multidecal Oscillation.

    Because you don't understand this, you ignore all climate
    science observations since the very crude work from the 1890's. >>>>>>>>>
    Climate scientists have always been academics, and they publish >>>>>>>>> primarily for other academics. In the last twenty years, the >>>>>>>>> media has has publicised their work, adding in their own
    preference for finding sensational implications in the published >>>>>>>>> data (not always correctly).

    There's no cause for alarm and CO2 at ~400ppm is harmless. Its >>>>>>>>>> levels are the same now as when Lincoln was president, despite >>>>>>>>>> all the pollution pumped out during the 20th century.

    Wrong.

    https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/

    https://capegrim.csiro.au/

    Yeah, yeah. I've seen all that CRAP.

    You do like to claim that it is CRAP. If you had any grasp of
    reality,
    you'd concentrate your attention on areas where you weren't an
    ignorant nitwit.

    The NASA site's the same; all spouting the same complete nonsense >>>>>>>> as directed by your pal, Klaus Schwab (who fancies himself as
    some sort of Bond villain) and his cronies.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Schwab

    I've never heard of him. The Manua Loa observations were started >>>>>>> by Charles Keeling in 1958 (when Schwab was 20, and not in a
    position to influence anything much in the USA). The Cape Grim
    data starts from 1980, and mainly serves to show that the Southern >>>>>>> Hemisphere has rather less seasonal variation in CO2 level than
    the North. Schwab wouldn't have had much influence in Australia at >>>>>>> the time.

    Do some proper, reference book-based research for a change and >>>>>>>> you'll see a completely different picture emerge.

    I've been doing proper book-based research since I started my
    undergraduate education in 1960. You clearly haven't got a clue
    what this involves. The "picture" that has emerged for you is the >>>>>>> one that fossil carbon industry wants you to see (for fairly
    obvious commercial reasons). If you'd ever had any training in
    critical thinking, you wouldn't be quite such a gullible sucker. >>>>>>>
    The Manua Loa and Cape Grim results were first published in
    printed scientific journals, which you don't seem to have bothered >>>>>>> to read.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    Were they "peer reviewed"? If so, I've saved myself an awful lot of >>>>>> wasted time!

    They would have been peer-reviewed - printed scientific journals
    always are.

    Great, with people like you reviewing them, I've saved myself an awful >>>>lot of wasted time.

    The fact is that no one need waste their time reading any of those >>>>>> so- called 'studies' - they simply have to compare the CO2 levels
    of 1900 from reference books to those of 2020 - again, from
    reference books > CO2 levels are ~385ppm in both cases.

    Reference books are only as good as the data around when they were
    written, and the gas analysis techniques available in 1900 weren't
    all that good.

    Absolute rubbish. Antoine Lavoisier was able to carry out ppm-level >>>>equivalency analysis of the composition of the atmosphere way back in >>>>the 1700s. There's no need to dig up ice cores or go to the top of >>>>mountains.

    If you've found ~385ppm in your 1900 reference book, it was wrong.

    Not one reference book. I bought over 400 hundred of them covering the >>>>period 1860 to 2009 and spent two years of my life looking into this. >>>>You and your mate Klaus Schwab are talking rubbish and just relying on >>>>the fact that the general public are too a) gullible and b) >>>>time-starved to actually look into this matter for themselves. The
    most they can do is click on a link and that's when they get >>>>hoodwinked. Clicking on a link to find out more on a subject such as >>>>this is the equivalent of ordering a pizza, having it delivered and >>>>spoon-fed to you mouthful by mouthful while you vegetate on your couch >>>>because you're too bone idle to actually get off your arse and get it >>>>for yourself. And the info you get by this lazy approach is about as >>>>beneficial for your mind as a pizza is to your body.

    https://sealevel.info/co2.html

    uses ice core data to establish a figure of 296 ppm for 1900

    So what? It's an online source (see above) and therefore junk food for >>>>the mind.

    Charles Keeling bought commercially available CO2 monitors (which
    worked on infra-red absorbtion) when he started his work in 1958,
    and rapidly found that his results in urban environments were all
    over the place, which is why he set up his observatory at the top of >>>>> Manua Loa in Hawaii. There, he was looking at air that had spent a
    long time blow across the Pacific and had had time to get more or
    less homogeneous.

    Now, it should be clear to even the most obtuse individual that
    since those levels didn't change over the course of the most
    polluting century of human development ever, that atmospheric CO2
    cannot possibly be responsible for any warming and that the whole
    AGW agenda is an outrageous scam.

    Except that the levels measured back from about 1880 to 1900 were
    all over the shop, and mostly measured in cities heated by coal
    fires, next to factories powered by burning coal.

    The exact same sites you and your pal Schwab position your
    thermometers so as to get exaggerated readings to confirm your phoney >>>>figures. Areas with high concentrations of concrete structures and >>>>close to airport runways are being utilised for the same purpose.

    They simply don't mean what you'd like them to mean. The obtuse
    individual here is you - you know what you want to believe and
    aren't going to let mere facts get in your way.

    We all know it's a waste of time trying to reason with you, Bill. I >>>>just hope there may be even one person reading this who will do their >>>>own, proper, book-based research and find out the truth for
    themselves: AGW is a myth, a scam, a steaming great pile of shit and I >>>>suspect you know that damn well.

    Plowing through a thousand old publications for a few years exceeds
    the energy of most.

    We on SEWD discussed this in December 2021, in tead "Unsettled: What
    Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters".

    Probably the best single source is Savante Arrhenius:

    .<https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf>

    Joe Gwinn

    What we are being directed to here is just another link to an online >>source. The fact that it purports to be some sort of discourse on the >>subject written in Victorian times counts for nothing. These things are >>trivial to fake with AI. There are no shortcuts, I'm afraid. Anything >>that's served up to the viewer for nothing is worth about pretty much
    the same. You need to get elbow deep in physical text books and if you >>don't have the time to do that, forget about easier and quicker >>alternatives and just don't bother at all.

    Not exactly. It's a summary of the data known as of 1900 or so about
    the atmosphere. The original article was in German, but the Royal
    Society published the same article in English.

    I'd venture that you have no idea who Savante Arrhenius is.

    Joe Gwinn

    His name does crop up in an awful lot of chemistry textbooks so he clearly
    knew his stuff. But as I say, there's no way of verifying his authorship
    of this article without sight of the original.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe Gwinn@21:1/5 to cd999666@notformail.com on Sun Jul 14 20:20:57 2024
    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 23:44:39 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 19:38:26 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote:

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 22:50:25 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 14:45:41 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote:

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 16:59:38 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 20:53:12 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 14/07/2024 6:52 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 14:15:37 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 14/07/2024 2:31 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 14:11:36 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 13/07/2024 3:02 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:32:47 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 11/07/2024 10:32 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:04:00 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom >>>>>>>>>>>>> <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:48:09 -0700, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:18:23 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:52:49 -0700, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:24:30 -0000 (UTC), RJH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <patchmoney@gmx.com>
    wrote:

    On 9 Jul 2024 at 05:04:24 BST, Bill Sloman wrote:

    <snip>

    Given a graph of usefulness vs expertise, some fields have a >>>>>>>>>>>>> peak pretty soon and then drop off.

    John Larkin's grasp of what is actually useful is down there >>>>>>>>>>>> with Cursitor Doom's. He's certainly no more capable of >>>>>>>>>>>> understanding what climate scientists are telling us than >>>>>>>>>>>> Cursitor Doom is.

    John Larkin did get a science degree from Tulane, but he was >>>>>>>>>>>> pre selective about the bits he paid attention to, and climate >>>>>>>>>>>> science wasn't an area where he paid any attention.

    The 'climate scientists' are being paid to lay on the doom as >>>>>>>>>>> thickly as possible. Their 'research' is heavily compromised. >>>>>>>>>>> That's why I prefer data from *before* this area became
    politicized, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that, >>>>>>>>>>> Bill.

    This is just one more of your demented conspiracy theories. If >>>>>>>>>> you knew a bit more you'd be aware that the area didn't get >>>>>>>>>> "politicised" until the late 1990's when there had been enough >>>>>>>>>> anthropogenic global warming for it show up over the natural >>>>>>>>>> variation form effects like the El Nino/La Nina alternation and >>>>>>>>>> the slower Atlantic Multidecal Oscillation.

    Because you don't understand this, you ignore all climate
    science observations since the very crude work from the 1890's. >>>>>>>>>>
    Climate scientists have always been academics, and they publish >>>>>>>>>> primarily for other academics. In the last twenty years, the >>>>>>>>>> media has has publicised their work, adding in their own
    preference for finding sensational implications in the published >>>>>>>>>> data (not always correctly).

    There's no cause for alarm and CO2 at ~400ppm is harmless. Its >>>>>>>>>>> levels are the same now as when Lincoln was president, despite >>>>>>>>>>> all the pollution pumped out during the 20th century.

    Wrong.

    https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/

    https://capegrim.csiro.au/

    Yeah, yeah. I've seen all that CRAP.

    You do like to claim that it is CRAP. If you had any grasp of
    reality,
    you'd concentrate your attention on areas where you weren't an >>>>>>>> ignorant nitwit.

    The NASA site's the same; all spouting the same complete nonsense >>>>>>>>> as directed by your pal, Klaus Schwab (who fancies himself as >>>>>>>>> some sort of Bond villain) and his cronies.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Schwab

    I've never heard of him. The Manua Loa observations were started >>>>>>>> by Charles Keeling in 1958 (when Schwab was 20, and not in a
    position to influence anything much in the USA). The Cape Grim >>>>>>>> data starts from 1980, and mainly serves to show that the Southern >>>>>>>> Hemisphere has rather less seasonal variation in CO2 level than >>>>>>>> the North. Schwab wouldn't have had much influence in Australia at >>>>>>>> the time.

    Do some proper, reference book-based research for a change and >>>>>>>>> you'll see a completely different picture emerge.

    I've been doing proper book-based research since I started my
    undergraduate education in 1960. You clearly haven't got a clue >>>>>>>> what this involves. The "picture" that has emerged for you is the >>>>>>>> one that fossil carbon industry wants you to see (for fairly
    obvious commercial reasons). If you'd ever had any training in >>>>>>>> critical thinking, you wouldn't be quite such a gullible sucker. >>>>>>>>
    The Manua Loa and Cape Grim results were first published in
    printed scientific journals, which you don't seem to have bothered >>>>>>>> to read.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    Were they "peer reviewed"? If so, I've saved myself an awful lot of >>>>>>> wasted time!

    They would have been peer-reviewed - printed scientific journals
    always are.

    Great, with people like you reviewing them, I've saved myself an awful >>>>>lot of wasted time.

    The fact is that no one need waste their time reading any of those >>>>>>> so- called 'studies' - they simply have to compare the CO2 levels >>>>>>> of 1900 from reference books to those of 2020 - again, from
    reference books > CO2 levels are ~385ppm in both cases.

    Reference books are only as good as the data around when they were >>>>>> written, and the gas analysis techniques available in 1900 weren't >>>>>> all that good.

    Absolute rubbish. Antoine Lavoisier was able to carry out ppm-level >>>>>equivalency analysis of the composition of the atmosphere way back in >>>>>the 1700s. There's no need to dig up ice cores or go to the top of >>>>>mountains.

    If you've found ~385ppm in your 1900 reference book, it was wrong.

    Not one reference book. I bought over 400 hundred of them covering the >>>>>period 1860 to 2009 and spent two years of my life looking into this. >>>>>You and your mate Klaus Schwab are talking rubbish and just relying on >>>>>the fact that the general public are too a) gullible and b) >>>>>time-starved to actually look into this matter for themselves. The >>>>>most they can do is click on a link and that's when they get >>>>>hoodwinked. Clicking on a link to find out more on a subject such as >>>>>this is the equivalent of ordering a pizza, having it delivered and >>>>>spoon-fed to you mouthful by mouthful while you vegetate on your couch >>>>>because you're too bone idle to actually get off your arse and get it >>>>>for yourself. And the info you get by this lazy approach is about as >>>>>beneficial for your mind as a pizza is to your body.

    https://sealevel.info/co2.html

    uses ice core data to establish a figure of 296 ppm for 1900

    So what? It's an online source (see above) and therefore junk food for >>>>>the mind.

    Charles Keeling bought commercially available CO2 monitors (which
    worked on infra-red absorbtion) when he started his work in 1958,
    and rapidly found that his results in urban environments were all
    over the place, which is why he set up his observatory at the top of >>>>>> Manua Loa in Hawaii. There, he was looking at air that had spent a >>>>>> long time blow across the Pacific and had had time to get more or
    less homogeneous.

    Now, it should be clear to even the most obtuse individual that
    since those levels didn't change over the course of the most
    polluting century of human development ever, that atmospheric CO2 >>>>>>> cannot possibly be responsible for any warming and that the whole >>>>>>> AGW agenda is an outrageous scam.

    Except that the levels measured back from about 1880 to 1900 were
    all over the shop, and mostly measured in cities heated by coal
    fires, next to factories powered by burning coal.

    The exact same sites you and your pal Schwab position your >>>>>thermometers so as to get exaggerated readings to confirm your phoney >>>>>figures. Areas with high concentrations of concrete structures and >>>>>close to airport runways are being utilised for the same purpose.

    They simply don't mean what you'd like them to mean. The obtuse
    individual here is you - you know what you want to believe and
    aren't going to let mere facts get in your way.

    We all know it's a waste of time trying to reason with you, Bill. I >>>>>just hope there may be even one person reading this who will do their >>>>>own, proper, book-based research and find out the truth for >>>>>themselves: AGW is a myth, a scam, a steaming great pile of shit and I >>>>>suspect you know that damn well.

    Plowing through a thousand old publications for a few years exceeds
    the energy of most.

    We on SEWD discussed this in December 2021, in tead "Unsettled: What
    Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters".

    Probably the best single source is Savante Arrhenius:

    .<https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf>

    Joe Gwinn

    What we are being directed to here is just another link to an online >>>source. The fact that it purports to be some sort of discourse on the >>>subject written in Victorian times counts for nothing. These things are >>>trivial to fake with AI. There are no shortcuts, I'm afraid. Anything >>>that's served up to the viewer for nothing is worth about pretty much
    the same. You need to get elbow deep in physical text books and if you >>>don't have the time to do that, forget about easier and quicker >>>alternatives and just don't bother at all.

    Not exactly. It's a summary of the data known as of 1900 or so about
    the atmosphere. The original article was in German, but the Royal
    Society published the same article in English.

    I'd venture that you have no idea who Savante Arrhenius is.

    Joe Gwinn

    His name does crop up in an awful lot of chemistry textbooks so he clearly >knew his stuff. But as I say, there's no way of verifying his authorship
    of this article without sight of the original.

    Well, he does seem to know his stuff:

    .<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius>


    Copies in old journals are available, but only in very large
    libraries, and it's unlikely that anyone will let you touch those old
    and fragile copies.

    But images are definitely available.


    Your position is that only people who have spent two years reading
    2,000 old but original papers are entitled to an opinion.

    How does this position differ from the Climate Change folk who point
    to the 20,000 CC articles published per year and say that one must
    read them all to have an informed opinion?

    Joe Gwinn

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Mon Jul 15 13:23:25 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 15/07/2024 3:16 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 07:52:15 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 08:59:19 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
    <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 13:34:53 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 14/07/2024 2:33 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 23:21:22 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 13/07/2024 4:50 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 17:18, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 16:57:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
    <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 16:30, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    On 7/12/24 16:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 15:25, john larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:25:51 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
    On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:18:39 +1000 Bill Sloman
    <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
    On 12/07/2024 7:48 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 14:30:41 -0700, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:33:41 +0200, Jeroen Belleman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
    On 7/11/24 13:00, Joe wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100 The Natural >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    <snip>

    Eventually it needs to be sold.

    Many subcontinentals will take it off your hands no name no pack >>>>>>> drill wise.

    And not bother paying you for it either. If the government doesn't >>>>>> know you've got it, it's hard to report the theft.

    So you don't understand how black markets work either then, Bill.

    Oh. I do. And, unlike you and the Natural Philosopher, I do understand >>>> the risks involved in transacting business there.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    And you appear to be blissfully unaware of the concept of barter!

    Children! Behave yourselves!

    Don't panic, John. I'm determined not to get into another long-winded and pointless pissing contest with this notorious and indefatigable troll.
    Unlike him, I've better things to do.

    Name one. Lying about the science under-pinning anthropogeic global
    warming isn't any kind of better thing - it's pure trolling.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Mon Jul 15 13:21:01 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 15/07/2024 3:14 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 20:20:02 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:

    On 14/07/2024 6:59 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 13:34:53 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote: