Windmill nonsense.. Tilting at Wind mills

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 12:09:00 +0100, David Hansen wrote (in article ):

Really? You are doing a very good job of pretending otherwise.

So why would you expect that yours would impress anybody else?

So you are swayed by lobbies. This doesn't surprise me all that much

I prefer to approach things on my own basis, independently and individually, and to make up my own mind based on information from a wide range of sources.Lobby groups don't score highly in that scheme of things.

I wonder if there was an Andy Hall in Holland in the 14th century saying the same thing ...

Really ... how?

I would not have thought it made sense to synthesize hydrocarbon fuels, in any case, however cheap electricity was. Surely there are better ways of using electricity to turn wheels?

That seems rather an odd remark. Are you saying you don't think electrons really exist? Does this disbelief extend to all elementary particles, or just electrons?

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:22:12 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-

Nice try.

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:07:21 +0100 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-

Nice try. I suppose some may be taken in by your claims, others will see through them.

Mildly amusing, but it doesn't advance your "arguments" much.

I surmise that somebody has read 'Scroggie' .... ? and/or lot's of 'Wirelss World' mags.

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:47:06 +0100 someone who may be Timothy Murphy wrote this:-

Does it?

Physicists have been trying to work that one out for a long time. Many decades ago, perhaps a century, the wave/particle duality was causing people to scratch their heads. Even in school in the 1970s they were talking about replacing ball and spring models with something more realistic to avoid giving pupils the wrong impression.

The last time I checked theory had resolved some of these and other nuclear puzzles, via all sorts of interesting things in about eight dimensions. I believe British scientists (and mathematicians) are doing a fair amount of this work. Of course the new wonder theory may just be like the other wonder theories of the past, simply peeling another layer off the onion. That is certainly all the earlier concepts did and it would be arrogant to assume that we are going to do any better than just push knowledge on a bit.

How many quarks have now been discovered? This sort of thing will become very boring if researchers ever reach the end of history on the subject.

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:46:05 GMT someone who may be "Brian Sharrock" wrote this:-

Never even heard of it.

I have heard of that. I may even have seen some on the shelves of magazine shops. I don't think I have ever even opened one, let alone red it.

Him, actually! A contributor/popularist to 'Wireless World' and author of (several?) books on 'wireless theory', which were influential in the fifties/sixties/seventies (of the last century ... ;( )

see

During the sixties 'Wireless World' was _the_ magazine for people interested in electronics - which at that period was for folks interested in boiling off electrons from red-hot cathodes and influencing their passage through tiny envelopes of vacuum. Oh! the hours pent marvelling at Ia/Vg curves .... ;( It was a standing 'understanding' that 'we' could control electrons - whatever they were!

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:33:13 GMT someone who may be "Brian Sharrock" wrote this:-

Thanks for the information.

I do recall the end of the 1960s, but only just:-)

The distance is surprisingly small, though I can't be bothered to look it up. What that does demonstrate is that electric wiring should be considered more as a sort of waveguide for radio waves, rather then a hose pipe along which electrons are stuffed.

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:24:42 +0100, David Hansen wrote (in article ):

Not really. Just an observation....

Take aircraft. Although the highest energy density of any (oxidisng chemical) fuel is hydrogen, kerosene is about the best energy per unit volume.

Batteries do not exist of adequate capacity, and nor does the grid, for extended operation in many places.

Even rows of light bulbs in Siberia growing Rape seed for oil, may be simpler to organise..:-)

I can't remember the basic synthesis for hydrocarbons, but they are presumably makable from CO2 and water..somehow..Probably a lot of heat and pressure..

Well the remark is valid enough. Electrons are hypothetical entities that we presuppose are behind the waggling of our dials and the pictures on the screen you are looking at.

Somewhat less direct in evidence than e.g. John Prescott.

It was the fact that his remark was in apparent contradiction of something I never said that pissed me off.

of course. Not that it makes that much difference in the case of nuke plants afaik.

but again this has no real bearing on the question of what Britains choices should be. Advertising and other promotion does not change logic and fact. So when deciding whats best we need to determine the facts rather than what political nonsense all the camps are trying to pull..

NT

This really is the whole point. All options are non-ideal, the question is just which is the best mix of options, and nuke is a particularly strong contender.

NT

It is indeed a false point, and one obviously so to most of us. I did attempt to address it sensibly earlier, but deleted the reply as it could only really consist of stating the obvious.

NT

These sort of appearance objections are like little children saying they dont want to go to school cos its cold outside. While I can sympathise ya still got to get real.

NT

On 11 Jul 2006 16:42:05 -0700 someone who may be snipped-for-privacy@care2.com wrote this:-

Politics isn't nonsense, though one might argue that party politics is.

Of course, given that there are no uranium mines in the UK and much coal for generating electricity comes from outwith the UK, there will always be some discussion of overseas.