"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
MM wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:38:35 -0800 (PST), wrote:

MM wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:29:50 +0000, dave wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:54:03 +0000, MM wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:03:44 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:
"MM" wrote in message
Yes, I realise that this must be the case, but a brick building
just
seems so solid when one is standing right next to it.
Even more solid when it falls on you :-(
Yes, I can believe that. But having experienced that tremor as the
first in my life, I just marvel at the way mother nature can gather
enough energy to wobble an entire country a few inches this way and
that. It is to me as fascinating as trying to explain television to
Charles Dickens would have been. There is nothing comparable that is
man-made. Explosives would merely result in devastation. Imagine
trying to mount, say, a whole village (just a village, not an entire
country!) on some kind of manufactured plate, then inventing some
device that could extert the energy needed to shift it like an
earthquake can. I don't think human beings could ever devise such a
device. Totally mind-boggling to me, that tremor last night.

MM
I agree entirely with your sentiments on this. The amount of energy
needed to do such a thing is incredible! I thought about a simple
man-made task say of shoveling some soil for a few feet - then to
think of most of the whole country wobbling for a few seconds - gives
some practical idea of the scale/energy involved. Amazing.

Almost inspired me to start building one of these...
http://users.viawest.net/~aloomis/seismom.htm

but I guess would need a PC running all the time as a data-logger.
It could be quite fun (in an anorak kind of way). Maybe we could setup
a UK amateur network of sites :-)
I can tell that you think a bit off-the-wall, like I do all the time!
Imagine being able to harness earthquake power to drive a generator!
Or lightning, for that matter.

MM
Lightning power has been done. But the strikes last an extremely
short time, yet the equipment has to handle the full strike energy,
and theres a lot of time between strikes. Those make for marginal
economics at best. The nearest thing I can think of to practicality
with lightning strikes is to use them to heat a pool. This minimises
equipment cost, and the large thermal capacity of the pool can
work with such an intermittent energy source. There is some place,
I forget where, where strikes are frequent, several per day, and thats
where these techs have been played with. But nothing is economically
competitive yet.

Well, unleaded went up another 2p today where I live (near Spalding).
Now 106.9p in some places. Sooner or later, a 1000 litre oil tank
refill (domestic heating oil) will cost £1000, and people will be
becoming desperate for ANY alternative. Anyone who can design an
alternative power system now could be quids in later, even if SOME
leccy/mains gas still has to be burned to even out the cold/warm
periods.

They already are quids in. I am up 30% on my British Energy (coal/Nuclear)
shares..

At these prices Nuclear is already cheaper by about 25-30%..

At about 1 quid a liter, nuclear electric heating will be cheaper than
oil.

Just think. No more burners, fans, flues, pilot lights, CO2 checks, CO
checks..Just a nice fat immersion heater.

I can't wait.


Nor can the landlords who have to pay CORGI each year for a certificate.

Adam