It had to happen sooner or later.....
https://tinyurl.com/yhy74y7v
Coming soon to a charging station near you.....
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.
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.
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.
On 04/07/2024 04:46, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 4/07/2024 8:56 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:Dear boy, the whole renewable/ heat pump/EV thing is just a reflection
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.
of poor engineering design, but apparently you don't have that kind of insight.
Its amazing how emotionally attached to greenCrap some people are...
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.
What a load of pretentious crap. Renewable energy sources are the
cheapest power sources around,
and EV let you travel more cheaply thanNot at today's renewable electricity prices. And disastrous [
you can in a car with an internal combustion engine.
of clue about engineering design,I am a professional engineer with a Cambridge degree in Electrical
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.
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...
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...
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?
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.
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.
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.
On 04/07/2024 11:49, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 4/07/2024 7:58 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:It is not massive.
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.
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?
Of course it isBefore 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.
More lies
"The ability of a PWR to run at less than full power for much of theOld tech. You can design a reactor to load follow, but it doesn't make
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."
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
turbines.
It has absolutely no ability to keep a solar grid up
overnight, or 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,
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
'm also a Cambridge educated Engineer. I believe in "real world"
engineering.
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.
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" ?
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
I think iys you that has lost connection with realityIf 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.
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?
I am a working enguineer. We dont write 'peer reviewed papers' That'syou'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.
for those academics you so despise.
We prioduce designs that work, at acceptable cost, reliability and safety
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.
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>one kWh is a 'unit of electricity'
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" ?
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.
On 04/07/2024 14:16, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:10:41 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>
one kWh is a 'unit of electricity'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" ?
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.
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.
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>one kWh is a 'unit of electricity'
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" ?
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.
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)
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:It is not massive.
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.
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?
Of course it is More liesBefore 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 theOld tech. You can design a reactor to load follow, but it doesn't make
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."
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
On 04/07/2024 12:10, RJH wrote:
On 4 Jul 2024 at 10:58:07 BST, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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
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" ?
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:It is not massive.
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.
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?
Of course it is More liesBefore 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 theOld tech. You can design a reactor to load follow, but it doesn't make
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."
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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 :)
Technology will arrive where the nuclear waste can be transported to the sun.
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:
We prefer purchase orders to citations.
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.
Kilowatt.hours and MegaWatt.hours seem to be popular. Alan m doesn't
seem to be all that technical.
Technology will arrive where the nuclear waste can be transported to
the sun.
On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 14:19:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:No those are units of electricty. The kWh is THE unit of electricity
On 04/07/2024 14:16, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:10:41 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com>one kWh is a 'unit of electricity'
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" ?
Well, so is a watt or a volt or an amp or a coulomb.
especially journalists, are often fuzzy about units.
One of my favorites that I see in the press is kW/h.
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.
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.
On 04/07/2024 12:07, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 4/07/2024 7:55 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/news/2024/01/26/used-ev-prices-fall-amid-demand-and-depreciation-concerns/
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?
Higher depreciation, more expensive to insure, and unselable if te
battery fails later in life.
I think is you that has lost connection with reality.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.
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.
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?
I am a working engineer. We don't write 'peer reviewed papers' That'syou'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.
for those academics you so despise.
We produce 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 you read e.g. Karl Popper?
Did you understand it?
On 04/07/2024 14:15, charles wrote:Yes, at the University - I have my MA certificate somewhere.
'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 :-)
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.
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:It is not massive.
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.
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?
Of course it is More liesBefore 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 theOld tech. You can design a reactor to load follow, but it doesn't make
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."
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.
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:
Of course but Sloman is eponymous. He hasn't caught up with the 20th
century yet.
On 04/07/2024 15:47, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 5/07/2024 12:05 am, alan_m wrote:Dear Mr. Sloman, if you want to be taken seriously then you need drop
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.
the comment Norton is adding to your messages. Nobody with clue uses any Norton products in 2024.
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
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?
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
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.
No. you do.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.
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
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:
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.
On 04/07/2024 14:28, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 14:19:45 +0100, The Natural PhilosopherNo those are units of electricty. The kWh is THE unit of electricity
<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>one kWh is a 'unit of electricity'
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" ?
Well, so is a watt or a volt or an amp or a coulomb.
People,
especially journalists, are often fuzzy about units.As it seems are you
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 tothe sun.
If it's dangerous, it must be emitting energy. Why are we burying free energy?
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.
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
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 PhilosopherNo those are units of electricty. The kWh is THE unit of electricity
<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>one kWh is a 'unit of electricity'
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" ?
Well, so is a watt or a volt or an amp or a coulomb.
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.
On 04/07/2024 18:01, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 16:37:50 +0100, The Natural PhilosopherIts defined as THE unit of electrical energy, Wots on your bill, or does >daddy pay that?
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 04/07/2024 14:28, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 14:19:45 +0100, The Natural PhilosopherNo those are units of electricty. The kWh is THE unit of electricity
<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>one kWh is a 'unit of electricity'
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" ?
Well, so is a watt or a volt or an amp or a coulomb.
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.
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:
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.It's pretentious twaddle. You don't seem to have noticed that.
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.
but I have to supply evidence for the truth?
What a cunt you are, to be sure.
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:
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.
- 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.
Some 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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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 ShakespeareanIf any of your education had in fact stuck you *might* have learned that Natural Philosophy is what you probably call science.
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.
Once again you wear ignorance as a badge of pride.
On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:11:54 +0000, Smolley wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:facility
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:It is not massive.
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. >>>>>
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-
in-2022/
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?
Of course it is More liesBefore 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 withOld tech. You can design a reactor to load follow, but it doesn't make >>>> best use of capital when you have any hydro.
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."
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-
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.
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:Yes, at the University - I have my MA certificate somewhere.
'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.
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 where it was not wrong to say that 'renewable grids will never work'.
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.
On 04/07/2024 17:44, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 5/07/2024 1:43 am, alan_m wrote:You seem to be living in cloud cuckoo land. Being upside down, all your
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.
blood has run to your head making your thought processes sub-optimal.
On 04/07/2024 17:53, john larkin wrote:
On 4 Jul 2024 16:35:07 GMT, Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> wrote:It always amuse me when they say 'but it will be radioactive for
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As you say. Nuclear power is a dream come true, but of course,It was too good to be allowed to compete with Oil...
it was too good to be true.
easy to make bombs with it.
for! That we can also use it to make electricity is just a useful
accessory circumstance.
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.
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.
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.
Magnalev trains need to shift a lot more power through the inductive
link, and it doesn't seem to make them impractical
On 05/07/2024 10:38, Martin Brown wrote:
On 04/07/2024 17:18, Jethro_uk wrote:Well volcanoes are how most of the Uranium and thorium got to where it
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.
is today.
There are (expensive) glassification processes that can render it more
or less inert for long term storage underground.
Snag is the bestThey could build a pyramid and stuff it in that., It would be safe.
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 damnNot even as bad as Chernobyl, which was the same without the filters and
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.
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.
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.
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.
On 04/07/2024 12:17, Bill Sloman wrote:Correct. a maglev train is a magnetic cushion married to a linear motor,
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
On 5/07/2024 8:08 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:Yes. In my ever so well informed opinion.
On 05/07/2024 10:38, Martin Brown wrote:
On 04/07/2024 17:18, Jethro_uk wrote:Well volcanoes are how most of the Uranium and thorium got to where it
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.
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 theThey could build a pyramid and stuff it in that., It would be safe.
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).
In your ever-so-well-informed opinion.
We in the UK should give thanks to Cockcroft's follies. We were damnNot even as bad as Chernobyl, which was the same without the filters
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.
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
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 notThey could build a pyramid and stuff it in that., It would be safe.
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).
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_productNo you habve. No one except you is in the slightest bit concerned about
So you've made yet another ludicrously false claim.
Almost identical, in that a carbon fire in an unenclosed reactorWe in the UK should give thanks to Cockcroft's follies. We wereNot even as bad as Chernobyl, which was the same without the filters
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.
and 100 times bigger
Not remotely similar, as you would have been able to work out of you
had read the link below.
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.
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:
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 theThey could build a pyramid and stuff it in that., It would be safe.
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).
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'
Almost identical, in that a carbon fire in an unenclosed reactor spread nuclear material around. I know ALL about BOTH accidents . I read ALLWe in the UK should give thanks to Cockcroft's follies. We were damnNot even as bad as Chernobyl, which was the same without the filters
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.
and 100 times bigger
Not remotely similar, as you would have been able to work out of you
had read the link below.
the literature
And more importantly, I understood it.
Oh dear. That is completely irrelevant, It doesnt matter what a bombhttps://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.
was designed for, when it goes off accidentally - the results are the 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?
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.
Read that too, in great detail
On 05/07/2024 13:00, charles wrote:
In article <v68l6m$38pa5$1@dont-email.me>,And some trams, though some used rails as ground returns
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.
On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 13:24:45 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 05/07/2024 13:00, charles wrote:"Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend."
In article<v68l6m$38pa5$1@dont-email.me>,And some trams, though some used rails as ground returns
Vir Campestris<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 04/07/2024 12:17, Bill Sloman wrote:Trolley buses did.
Magnalev trains need to shift a lot more power through the inductive >>>>> link, and it doesn't seem to make them impracticalCorrect 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.
What does that mean?
On 05/07/2024 12:56, Andrew wrote:
Sir 412 seats has already said he intends to put noses out of joint andExcept when they are nuclear power of course.
abolish the ability to use planning/objection delays to delay or
prevent important infrastructure developments.
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
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:"Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend."
In article<v68l6m$38pa5$1@dont-email.me>,And some trams, though some used rails as ground returns
Vir Campestris<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 04/07/2024 12:17, Bill Sloman wrote:Trolley buses did.
Magnalev trains need to shift a lot more power through the inductive >>>>>> link, and it doesn't seem to make them impracticalCorrect 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.
What does that mean?
It means that to a humorous Edwardian writer of column inches, he had
visited Canada and found it insufferably dull..
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.
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?
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:
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.
Iodine 129 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 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.
Almost identical, in that a carbon fire in an unenclosed reactorWe in the UK should give thanks to Cockcroft's follies. We wereNot even as bad as Chernobyl, which was the same without the
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. >>>>>>
filters and 100 times bigger
Not remotely similar, as you would have been able to work out of you
had read the link below.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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?
hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22a+w+sloman%22&oq=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?
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
On 4/07/2024 9:22 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:start=10&q=%22a+w+sloman%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2007
On 04/07/2024 12:07, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 4/07/2024 7:55 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/news/2024/01/26/used-ev-prices- fall-amid-demand-and-depreciation-concerns/
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?
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.
I think is you that has lost connection with reality.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.
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?
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.
I am a working engineer. We don't write 'peer reviewed papers' That'syou'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.
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).
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 notThey could build a pyramid and stuff it in that., It would be safe.
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).
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
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:
Not at today's renewable electricity prices. And disastrous [
depreciation on EVs
Evidence?
Just you try trading one in!
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
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:
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!
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.
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. "
In your ever-so-well-informed opinion.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 - cunninglyThey could build a pyramid and stuff it in that., It would be safe. >>>>>
renamed after each mammoth cockup/MFU).
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.
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:
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.
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:
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!
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.
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)
We agree that scientists present us with wonderful problems to
instrument but are generally terrible at designing electronics
themselves.
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 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.
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 problematicThat's what I have been saying. Stuff with a half life of a few hundred
for containment. Sr90 (30y) and Co60(5y) being notable examples.
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
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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 :-)
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 :-)
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 pluralism works.
On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:11:54 +0000, Smolley wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:facility
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:It is not massive.
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. >>>>>
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-
in-2022/
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?
Of course it is More liesBefore 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 withOld tech. You can design a reactor to load follow, but it doesn't make >>>> best use of capital when you have any hydro.
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."
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-
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.
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.
On 9/07/2024 5:47 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:revolutionary-vested-him-in
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-
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
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 democraticVery 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.
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
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.
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>revolutionary-vested-him-in
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 democraticVery kind of you! But a small point - the CP was, theoretically, a
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.
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-
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.
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 democraticVery 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.
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
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.
On 10 Jul 2024 at 18:48:09 BST, john larkin wrote:
Because it's inefficient, immoral, exploitative, and thrives on social >injustice and inequality.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.
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 :-)
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>revolutionary-vested-him-in
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,Very kind of you! But a small point - the CP was, theoretically, a
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.
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-
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
Because it's inefficient, immoral, exploitative, and thrives on social injustice and inequality.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.
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.
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.
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 democraticVery 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
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.
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.
On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 19:59:55 +0200, Jeroen Bellemanardent-
<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,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
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.
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-
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.
On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:27:29 -0700, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 19:59:55 +0200, Jeroen Bellemanardent-
<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 aVery kind of you! But a small point - the CP was, theoretically, a >>>>>>> socialist bridge to communism. Nobody - especially Marx - know
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.
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-
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."
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 toThat'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
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.
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.
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.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
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. >>>>
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.
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 democraticVery 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.
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
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.
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.
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:
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.
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>revolutionary-vested-him-in
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 democraticVery kind of you! But a small point - the CP was, theoretically, a
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.
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-
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.
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.
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.
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 14:04:24 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 9/07/2024 5:47 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:revolutionary-vested-him-in
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-
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
On 10 Jul 2024 at 18:48:09 BST, john larkin wrote:
Because it's inefficient, immoral, exploitative, and thrives on social injustice and inequality.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.
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 :-)
On 04/07/2024 14:28, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 14:19:45 +0100, The Natural PhilosopherNo those are units of electricty. The kWh is THE unit of electricity
<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>one kWh is a 'unit of electricity'
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" ?
Well, so is a watt or a volt or an amp or a coulomb.
People,
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.
The problem is that Socialists mistake 'job creation' with 'wealth
creation'
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.
On 10/07/2024 19:22, RJH wrote:
On 10 Jul 2024 at 18:48:09 BST, john larkin wrote:No, it isnt. Its actually the most efficient form of creating wealth
Because it's inefficient, immoral, exploitative, and thrives on socialWhy end "capitalism"? Economic and intellectual plualism works.
injustice and inequality.
until it gets into contact with governments.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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
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.
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:Ideas are good, but not enough. Someone will have to do the work, too.
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 'wealthIt's worse than that. Socialists don't know what wealth creation is.
creation'
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.
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.
On 7/11/24 13:00, Joe wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:29:33 +0100 The Natural PhilosopherThe government will spend a billion dollars per functioning charging
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
The problem is that Socialists mistake 'job creation' with 'wealthIt's worse than that. Socialists don't know what wealth creation is.
creation'
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.
station? I see a business opportunity!
Jeroen Belleman
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 PhilosopherThe government will spend a billion dollars per functioning charging >>station? I see a business opportunity!
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
The problem is that Socialists mistake 'job creation' with 'wealthIt's worse than that. Socialists don't know what wealth creation is.
creation'
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.
Jeroen Belleman
Yes, governments create business opportunities. We have a billion-dollar homeless industry in San Francisco, and it keeps growing.
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:Ideas are good, but not enough. Someone will have to do the work, too. >>>Who said 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration? Edison?
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.
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.
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:Ideas are good, but not enough. Someone will have to do the
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.
work, too. Who said 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration? Edison?
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.
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:
Wealth is the thing that allows human resources to be investedCapital is just a symbol of co-operation.
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 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.
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.
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:
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.
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:
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?
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 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.
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:
It would be tough, a world without house cleaners and barristas and supermarket shelf-stockers.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.
Read a sociology textbook some time. I did. Well, I got through most
of it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On 12/07/2024 15:25, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:25:51 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:The price of a loaf of bread, in terms of gold, hasn't changed in 600
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.
years.
A friend bought £10,000 worth of gold in 2004, Its worth £80,000 now
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:The price of a loaf of bread, in terms of gold, hasn't changed in 600
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.
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
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
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.
On 12/07/2024 16:30, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 7/12/24 16:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:I have a little gold. Its appreciated about 15% in the last year
On 12/07/2024 15:25, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:25:51 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:The price of a loaf of bread, in terms of gold, hasn't changed in 600
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.
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
It is the only really safe long term inflation hedge
The government cant take it off you if they dont know you have it.
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.
On 12/07/2024 15:25, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:25:51 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote: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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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: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
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.
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.
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:The price of a loaf of bread, in terms of gold, hasn't changed in 600 years.
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.
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
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:I have a little gold. Its appreciated about 15% in the last year
On 12/07/2024 15:25, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:25:51 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:The price of a loaf of bread, in terms of gold, hasn't changed in 600
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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:The price of a loaf of bread, in terms of gold, hasn't changed in 600
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:What use is the means of exchange if you can't exchange it for
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.
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.
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
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:The price of a loaf of bread, in terms of gold, hasn't changed in 600 >>years.
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:What use is the means of exchange if you can't exchange it for
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.
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.
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.
On 12/07/2024 15:25, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:25:51 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:The price of a loaf of bread, in terms of gold, hasn't changed in 600
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:What use is the means of exchange if you can't exchange it for
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.
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
years.
A friend bought £10,000 worth of gold in 2004, Its worth £80,000 now.
On 12/07/2024 16:30, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 7/12/24 16:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:I have a little gold. Its appreciated about 15% in the last year
On 12/07/2024 15:25, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:25:51 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:The price of a loaf of bread, in terms of gold, hasn't changed in 600
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.
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.
It is the only really safe long term inflation hedge.
The government can't take it off you if they don't know you have it.
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:
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?
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:
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
On 12/07/2024 17:18, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 16:57:37 +0100, The Natural PhilosopherMany subcontinentals will take it off your hands no name no pack drill
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 12/07/2024 16:30, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 7/12/24 16:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:I have a little gold. Its appreciated about 15% in the last year
On 12/07/2024 15:25, john larkin wrote:That's a gross simplification, and not guaranteed to work in the
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:25:51 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote: >>>>>>The price of a loaf of bread, in terms of gold, hasn't changed in 600 >>>>> years.
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.
A friend bought £10,000 worth of gold in 2004, Its worth £80,000 now >>>>
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
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.
wise.
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
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
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.
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 PhilosopherMany subcontinentals will take it off your hands no name no pack drill
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 12/07/2024 16:30, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 7/12/24 16:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:I have a little gold. Its appreciated about 15% in the last year It
On 12/07/2024 15:25, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:25:51 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com>The price of a loaf of bread, in terms of gold, hasn't changed in
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:What use is the means of exchange if you can't exchange it for >>>>>>>> anything meaningful?
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.
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.
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
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.
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
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 16:31:00 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:rlkey=rwrf5e1felkvjbqy8wrv2ah5t&raw=1
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?
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 10:01:49 -0700, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 16:31:00 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doomrlkey=rwrf5e1felkvjbqy8wrv2ah5t&raw=1
<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?
You are so right - and so is Ms. Sandberg.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
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
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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>
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 getGiven 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. >>>>>>>
"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
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>
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 getGiven 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. >>>>>>>>
"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.
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
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.
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.
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: