Ah right. So you were employed at the time travelling around the country doing a survey were you ? But because of its commercial sensitiviy it was never made public, eiether at the time or at any time since.
Funny though how you forgot all about your survey, in *not^ posting
" The heavy weight of steam tractors was a real problem, it compacted the ground.* which is why they sometimes used winches*"
michael adams
...
I see you're not familiar with the equipment of the time, or basic reasoning. I am sufficiently to say as I did, that's why I said it. Sorry if that confused you.
NT
Equipment of the time
" A ploughing engine can be recognised as a very large traction engine with a winch drum under the boiler."
So that according to you - the basic reasoning at the time was *in your own words" that
Because "the heavy weight of steam tractors was a real problem, it compacted the ground" "."mostly they did not use winching* - which would have solved that problem.
In other words, according to you, they were all too stupid to use winches.
michael adams
...
... googles gyrotillers... Quite therapeutic to watch it massaging the earth:
Now then gents!
Steam traction here was superseded by the Marshall single cylinder diesel. The one bringing the threshing drum had a winch for dragging heavy, steel wheeled loads across soft ground. (stacks were built in field corners). As a child, I vaguely remember the starting procedure involved a wick of smouldering corrugated paper and later versions a cartridge.
I thought that was one of the main problems with oil, it was not renewing at all , seems I was wrong. Do tell the group how oil supplies are renewing.
Foolish boy. Ask TNP. We?ll be synthesising it with all that ?too cheap to meter? nuclear power or wasting time ruining the efficiency of renewable power production. ;-)
Tim
Looking back from 2020, it seems hard to understand how anyone could have believed that nuclear power or hydroelectric power (*) would ever be "too cheap to meter". After all, the various "men in the middle" between the generator and the consumer have to be able to make a rip-off profit somehow, irrespective of how cheap the generation costs may be.
(*) Assuming that it's "real" hydroelectric, and not water that is pumped uphill during quiet times and released to generate electricity at peak times - that's using the water as an electricity-storage mechanism.
You mean you actually believed it would be too cheap to meter? They saw you coming, didn't they.
The expression was used by a US general, who was talking about fusion, not fission which is what we have today. But twerps like Tim+ were, it would appear, unable to make the distinction and have believed it to this day. Like the fools they are, they trot it out from time to time and nod to each other as though they've scored a telling point.
Now tell us what percentage of the retail price of electricity comprises the fuel for a fission nuclear power station?
If something is 'too cheap to meter' it must mean there are no other operating costs, regardless of how much needed. And the same would apply to wind power - that fuel is 'free' too.
Well not in realistic timescales. I believe this stuff (we're using) is bits of dead dinosaur, they died out 60 million years ago.
Coal has been found with dinosaur footprints in it. Footprints were probably made when at the peat stage then the coal has been formed.
So millions of years for oil or coal to form, hence them being thought of as unrenewable.
Really, huh? You seriously think that anyone believes it? Do you understand the significance of a smiley to indicate a ?tongue in cheek? comment or or *you* the twerp?
Tim
Of course not. Can?t remember who it was who coined the phrase now though. Whoever, history has not been kind to that prediction. ;-)
Tim
How did you buy your water back then (or even now for about half of us).
Actually they don't make "rip-off" profits, if you bother to look into it. Unless you believe that electricity at the power station gets to your house by magic. Or the water at the reservoir arrives at your tap by the same route.
Thought fossil fuel was basically vegetation? Long gone forests, etc?
It was repeated by quite a few politicians round the world. Who presumably agreed with it?
Quite. Lots of services are paid for without taking direct account of how much they are used.
A politician doesn?t have to agree with someone to repeat it. They only need to believe that it will keep them (or get them) in power. ;-)
Tim
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required