On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 13:03:55 -0000, Toy Ota wrote:

On 12/13/18 3:24 PM, Fred Johnson wrote:
Why do half of cars still use a rubber band for the timing chain?

So their crooked service departments can charge $800+ to change it every 75K miles.

Wow, it's only £380 here in the UK at even the most expensive garage.

Rubber-band timing on an interference engine is a criminal act.

Agreed. In fact why even have interference engines? Half of engines are not interference and don't die when a the belt snaps.

And you'd think they shouldn't even have a belt or chain for something like that? What's wrong with cogs?

On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 01:33:02 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"Fred Johnson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 23:52:47 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Fred Johnson" wrote in message
news On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 18:21:28 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Fred Johnson" wrote in message
news On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 04:02:00 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 22:38:42 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 03:11:20 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 20:15:38 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:

And that's not what caused TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima anyway.

I thought TMI and Chernobyl were both human error/stupidity?

Only Chernobyl.

TMI and Fukushima were certainly due to human error/stupidity at
the
design stage.

There you go then, human error can occur anywhere.

But with something as important as a nuke, the checks
should ensure that they don't get thru to the final product.

Should. But if there are enough morons, faults get overlooked.

Its isnt enough morons, it's the lack of checks. That's how
Fukushima ended up with its backup generators where they
could be taken out by a tsunami that was known to happen there.

And with TMI, no one bothered to check that the user interface
on the indications of loss of coolant water did make it easy to
see what was actually happening with the coolant level. In fact
it was so misleading they they thought it had too much coolant
when it fact it was much too little, so they pumped out even more
and eventually the consequences of that saw the venting of
radioactive material. Which was nothing like that a coal fired
power station of the same size would do routinely.

We're saying the same thing. Humans just aren't bright enough to
design
things properly.

Must be why we are still 'living' caves and
running around stark naked everywhere.

Can we cure the common cold?

That remains to be seen. Currently we have a problem with
vaccination with infectious disease that mutates too fast.
It remains to be seen if we can invent some way of doing
vaccination that works on the bits that don't change as fast.

Should have been done by now.

Easy to claim given how long it took to invent vaccination.

Look at how much we've done with mobile phones and computers. But we don't even know how our own bodies work yet.

Cancer?

That remains to been too.

Also should have been done by now.

Remains to be seen if its even possible.

Half of them can now be cured.

My high blood pressure?

Yes, bullet in the back of the neck cures that trivially.
And contraceptives avoid you showing up in the first place.

Your means are questionable.

Nope, it's a guaranteed cure.

I would argue that you are not using the word cure correctly.

Also works for the common cold and cancer as well.

Can we send people to other planets?

Corse we can. Only problem is that they arrive there dead currently.

That wasn't what I was asking

You have always been, and always will be, completely
and utterly irrelevant. What you may or may not claim
to have asked in spades.

Not my fault Aussies can't understand the Queen's English.

Just count how many stupid things on your car could have been made
better at no extra cost.

None of those in my car. A few things are missing like
cruise control, but that would obviously cost more.

Why are hazard light switches not in a common place on all cars?

Because hardly anyone wants to change the way they currently do theirs.

But I see it in different places within the models of one manufacturer.

On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 23:08:36 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"Fred Johnson" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 09 Dec 2018 18:29:19 -0000, Max Demian
wrote:

On 09/12/2018 16:40, Bruce Farquhar wrote:
A thermocouple produces enough to power a spacecraft?!? Or just for
some small electronics?

They can generate up to a few hundred watts, enough for the electronics,
instruments and transmitter:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioi...tric_generator

A few of those could power a house.

Don't even need a few with the ones that powered remote lighthouses.
That's why a few did get stolen to power remote fishing/hunting shacks etc.

Naughty fishermen? Never.

On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 22:57:14 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"Fred Johnson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 17:20:40 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Fred Johnson" wrote in message
news On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 15:24:18 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 13/12/2018 15:19, Fred Johnson wrote:

I heard nobody wanted to do it anymore because of the dangers
(possibly in
transportation).

You heard wrong.

Then I guess all news channels are lying.

That is a very reasonable default assumption.

Agreed. So is "99% of people are liars", "99% of people are stupid". I
sometimes wonder how the human race survives.

Lies and stupidity are trivially survivable.

Only with left wing governments.

That's completely silly. Lies and stupidity were trivially
survivable under the most rabid fascist government too.

If you're stupid, you need assistance from the government to survive. Only left wing gives handouts.

On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 22:55:34 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"Fred Johnson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 17:33:13 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Fred Johnson" wrote in message
news On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 16:13:29 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 13/12/2018 15:30, Fred Johnson wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 15:24:18 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 13/12/2018 15:19, Fred Johnson wrote:

I heard nobody wanted to do it anymore because of the dangers
(possibly in
transportation).

You heard wrong.

Then I guess all news channels are lying.

That is a very reasonable default assumption.

Agreed. So is "99% of people are liars", "99% of people are stupid".
I
sometimes wonder how the human race survives.

I am not sure it has.

Change has to will and I'll believe you. Although I'd say the 1% would
survive, which would be fun, we'd have more room without all the morons.

Its normally the morons that survive, too stupid to kill themselves.

If something happened on earth that required intelligence to survive, the
stupid would die off.

Yes, but that isnt possible, requiring intelligence to survive.
Even very stupid animals like chooks and sheep survived
and they aint exactly rocket science material.

Why do you think humans rule the earth and loads of other species went extinct?

On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 22:45:57 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"Fred Johnson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 17:34:41 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Fred Johnson" wrote in message
news On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 02:46:21 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 23:57:34 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 22:33:38 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 20:04:33 -0000, jew pedo
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 19:57:22 -0000, "Bruce Farquhar"
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 19:48:45 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 18:46:24 -0000, jew pedo

wrote:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 17:31:28 -0000, "Bruce Farquhar"
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 17:29:18 -0000, Colonel Edmund J. Burke
wrote:

On 12/11/2018 9:26 AM, Bruce Farquhar wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 17:04:22 -0000, Colonel Edmund J.
Burke
wrote:

On 12/8/2018 8:41 AM, Bruce Farquhar wrote:
On older boilers (furnaces if you're American), when the
heating
isn't actually running (eg. the thermostat says the
house
is
warm
enough), there's no power to the boiler, so how does the
pilot
light
valve stay open with the tiny voltage (40mV?) and
current
from
the
thermocouple?


The basic problem with english engineering is that it
hasn't
advanced
much beyond the 1500s. We superior Americans, however,
employ
the
use of electronic ignitors.

As do we with new boilers. But our stuff must last longer
because
a
lot of folk still have one with a pilot light, the only
ones
that
don't are the morons that thought they should spend £1000
to
get
a
boiler that will save them £50 a year on gas. So you make
a
profit in
20 years time, why bother? My boiler is at least 25 years
old
and
I've only ever replaced the thermocouple for £7. It could
be
newer
fancier boilers have more to go wrong, I've heard of a
modern
boiler
lasting only 7 years!!

If you don't know what that is, see one of my recent
poasts
concerning the pigtailing of neutral and ground circuits.

What has pigtailing to do with electronic igniters?

You'd need an electrician's license to even comprehend what
I
would
tell you about that.

Licenses are for pussies. I just prefer to get on with the
job.

IF I ever hire anyone (and usually I do all my own work), I
purposefully
avoid anyone with any certifications, it just means they
charge
more
and
are more fussy and won't do the work the way I want it.

Colon Burke is the idiot who said the top pin of a 3-pin plug
was
for
neutral.

Technically it is.

Nope.

Earth = neutral = 0 volts.

Nope. There are 3 pins for a reason, stupid.

Funny how the devices all work with the top one disconnected.

Until there's a problem.

Depends on the problem. If I touch something live, I'd rather not
have
another part of me resting against an earthed appliance.

Yes, you actually are that stupid.

No, I know I need to complete a circuit. Chances are in my kitchen
that
an earth will come form my knee against a washing machine etc.

Only if you are actually stupid enough to be stark naked in the
middle
of
winter.

Are you trying to tell me 240V won't go through jeans?

I am succeeding in telling you that.

I shall rephrase, you silly pedant:
"Are you trying to persuade me 240V won't go through jeans?"

I'm not trying to persuade anyone, I am stating a fact.

I don't believe you.

When your leg is pressed against the washing machine, the electricity
doesn't have to go far to get through the threads

Even more true of insulating tape which works fine anyway.

That's not got holes in it like fabric.

- after all, it gets through the paint on the machine.

And also the denim could be wet in a kitchen.

Unlikely to be wet enough to matter.

You only need a splash on your knee.

On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 17:14:15 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"Fred Johnson" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 02:49:47 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 23:47:54 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 22:16:44 -0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 21:37:04 -0000, Tim Streater

wrote:

In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 18:18:12 -0000, Tim Streater

wrote:

In article , Bruce
Farquhar
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:51:16 -0000, Tim Streater


It doesn't cause any harm: it's in sealed containers.

Which never break over 100s of years when the company is
bankrupt
and the
government has changed and a war broke out and there was an
earthquake,
yeah
right.

Under those circs the status of the underground repository is the
least
of your worries.

Rubbish. The war might not directly affect me, but the nuclear
fallout
would.

Why d'ye think I suggest the Marianna Trench? Cos down there
37,000
feet below sea level, it ain't gonna matter.

Yeah, bugger the sea life. Bugger all those who eat the
radioactive
fish.

What fish would those be then, at 37,000 feet below sea level?

Is nuclear waste heavier than water then? And immune to currents?

Once it's been glassified and encased in steel/concrete it is. Which
is
the SOP for it when it's put in an underground repository. Did ye
think
they'd just send out a tanker and pump it over the side?

Even if it all escaped, it could just join the 4 billion tons of
uranium in the Earth's oceans. And that's just the uranium.

You may well be correct. Too much Greenpeace bull**** about.

But we do hear a lot about the trade of spent fuel and the problems of
no
country wanting it....

Some do in fact reprocess it and return everything to the source
country.

I heard nobody wanted to do it anymore because of the dangers (possibly
in
transportation).

You heard wrong.

Then I guess all news channels are lying.

One of ours reported ours being moved to europe for reprocessing
and the return of all the result of the reprocessing to here, recently.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-...emoved/9643428

There you go, you don't want to deal with it yourself.

Also that governments don't like it getting shipped internationally
because terrorists that's pronounced tourist in America) can nick it to
make dirty weapons.

No they can not. And its trivial to ensure that they can't knick it
anyway.

Even banks get nicked from.

But no one has ever nicked any used fuel rods
being moved for reprocessing in the west.

I don't believe you.

On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 01:34:18 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 20:31:57 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 19:44:25 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 17:39:17 -0000, Max Demian

wrote:

On 11/12/2018 17:23, Bruce Farquhar wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 16:56:12 -0000, Bill Wright

wrote:
On 09/12/2018 16:40, Bruce Farquhar wrote:

A thermocouple produces enough to power a spacecraft?!? Or just
for
some small electronics?

On Sat, 08 Dec 2018 21:04:59 -0000, Brian Gaff
wrote:

I'm sure you know this but the Voyager spacecraft are using
thermocouples
using the heat from decaying plutonium for power all the way out
in
the
cosmos. it may be reducing now but its been one heck of a long
time.
Brian

He didn't say to power the spacecraft he said 'for power'.

So it moves by magic then?

Very few spacecraft are electrically powered.

Whatever they're powered by should be able to give off some
electricity,

Problem is that they are powered by the ****ing great rocket
that is now quite some distance away from the satellite now.

like a petrol car does.

Nothing like a petrol car does.

So they don't have any manoeuvring thrusters?

Yes, but those don't generate electricity.

Could also just have solar panels.

The ones that operate close to the sun do.
Those that travel much further away from
the sun have small nukes instead, for a reason.

[slaps self on face]

"Kristy Ogilvie" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 22:57:14 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Fred Johnson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 17:20:40 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Fred Johnson" wrote in message
news On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 15:24:18 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 13/12/2018 15:19, Fred Johnson wrote:

I heard nobody wanted to do it anymore because of the dangers
(possibly in
transportation).

You heard wrong.

Then I guess all news channels are lying.

That is a very reasonable default assumption.

Agreed. So is "99% of people are liars", "99% of people are stupid".
I
sometimes wonder how the human race survives.

Lies and stupidity are trivially survivable.

Only with left wing governments.

That's completely silly. Lies and stupidity were trivially
survivable under the most rabid fascist government too.

If you're stupid, you need assistance from the government to survive.

Nope, even the most stupid can do burglary and be a drug dealer.

Only left wing gives handouts.

That's wrong too. The others call it charity.

"Kristy Ogilvie" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 22:55:34 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Fred Johnson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 17:33:13 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Fred Johnson" wrote in message
news On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 16:13:29 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 13/12/2018 15:30, Fred Johnson wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 15:24:18 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 13/12/2018 15:19, Fred Johnson wrote:

I heard nobody wanted to do it anymore because of the dangers
(possibly in
transportation).

You heard wrong.

Then I guess all news channels are lying.

That is a very reasonable default assumption.

Agreed. So is "99% of people are liars", "99% of people are
stupid".
I
sometimes wonder how the human race survives.

I am not sure it has.

Change has to will and I'll believe you. Although I'd say the 1%
would
survive, which would be fun, we'd have more room without all the
morons.

Its normally the morons that survive, too stupid to kill themselves.

If something happened on earth that required intelligence to survive,
the
stupid would die off.

Yes, but that isnt possible, requiring intelligence to survive.
Even very stupid animals like chooks and sheep survived
and they aint exactly rocket science material.

Why do you think humans rule the earth

Because we are much smarter than all the other species.

Tho those damned cockroaches dispute that.

and loads of other species went extinct?

Mostly they ended up in evolutionary dead end.
Sometimes because they were good eating or
because we chose to kill them for their fur etc.

"Kristy Ogilvie" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 22:45:57 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Fred Johnson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 17:34:41 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Fred Johnson" wrote in message
news On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 02:46:21 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 23:57:34 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 22:33:38 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 20:04:33 -0000, jew pedo
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 19:57:22 -0000, "Bruce Farquhar"
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 19:48:45 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 18:46:24 -0000, jew pedo

wrote:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 17:31:28 -0000, "Bruce Farquhar"
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 17:29:18 -0000, Colonel Edmund J.
Burke
wrote:

On 12/11/2018 9:26 AM, Bruce Farquhar wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 17:04:22 -0000, Colonel Edmund J.
Burke
wrote:

On 12/8/2018 8:41 AM, Bruce Farquhar wrote:
On older boilers (furnaces if you're American), when
the
heating
isn't actually running (eg. the thermostat says the
house
is
warm
enough), there's no power to the boiler, so how does
the
pilot
light
valve stay open with the tiny voltage (40mV?) and
current
from
the
thermocouple?


The basic problem with english engineering is that it
hasn't
advanced
much beyond the 1500s. We superior Americans, however,
employ
the
use of electronic ignitors.

As do we with new boilers. But our stuff must last
longer
because
a
lot of folk still have one with a pilot light, the only
ones
that
don't are the morons that thought they should spend
£1000
to
get
a
boiler that will save them £50 a year on gas. So you
make
a
profit in
20 years time, why bother? My boiler is at least 25
years
old
and
I've only ever replaced the thermocouple for £7. It
could
be
newer
fancier boilers have more to go wrong, I've heard of a
modern
boiler
lasting only 7 years!!

If you don't know what that is, see one of my recent
poasts
concerning the pigtailing of neutral and ground
circuits.

What has pigtailing to do with electronic igniters?

You'd need an electrician's license to even comprehend
what
I
would
tell you about that.

Licenses are for pussies. I just prefer to get on with
the
job.

IF I ever hire anyone (and usually I do all my own work),
I
purposefully
avoid anyone with any certifications, it just means they
charge
more
and
are more fussy and won't do the work the way I want it.

Colon Burke is the idiot who said the top pin of a 3-pin
plug
was
for
neutral.

Technically it is.

Nope.

Earth = neutral = 0 volts.

Nope. There are 3 pins for a reason, stupid.

Funny how the devices all work with the top one disconnected.

Until there's a problem.

Depends on the problem. If I touch something live, I'd rather
not
have
another part of me resting against an earthed appliance.

Yes, you actually are that stupid.

No, I know I need to complete a circuit. Chances are in my
kitchen
that
an earth will come form my knee against a washing machine etc.

Only if you are actually stupid enough to be stark naked in the
middle
of
winter.

Are you trying to tell me 240V won't go through jeans?

I am succeeding in telling you that.

I shall rephrase, you silly pedant:
"Are you trying to persuade me 240V won't go through jeans?"

I'm not trying to persuade anyone, I am stating a fact.

I don't believe you.

When your leg is pressed against the washing machine, the electricity
doesn't have to go far to get through the threads

Even more true of insulating tape which works fine anyway.

That's not got holes in it like fabric.

The holes don't allow the skin to touch the metal normally.

- after all, it gets through the paint on the machine.

And also the denim could be wet in a kitchen.

Unlikely to be wet enough to matter.

You only need a splash on your knee.

Wrong, as always.

"Kristy Ogilvie" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 17:14:15 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Fred Johnson" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 02:49:47 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 23:47:54 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 22:16:44 -0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Bruce Farquhar
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 21:37:04 -0000, Tim Streater

wrote:

In article , Bruce
Farquhar
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 18:18:12 -0000, Tim Streater

wrote:

In article , Bruce
Farquhar
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:51:16 -0000, Tim Streater


It doesn't cause any harm: it's in sealed containers.

Which never break over 100s of years when the company is
bankrupt
and the
government has changed and a war broke out and there was an
earthquake,
yeah
right.

Under those circs the status of the underground repository is
the
least
of your worries.

Rubbish. The war might not directly affect me, but the nuclear
fallout
would.

Why d'ye think I suggest the Marianna Trench? Cos down there
37,000
feet below sea level, it ain't gonna matter.

Yeah, bugger the sea life. Bugger all those who eat the
radioactive
fish.

What fish would those be then, at 37,000 feet below sea level?

Is nuclear waste heavier than water then? And immune to currents?

Once it's been glassified and encased in steel/concrete it is.
Which
is
the SOP for it when it's put in an underground repository. Did ye
think
they'd just send out a tanker and pump it over the side?

Even if it all escaped, it could just join the 4 billion tons of
uranium in the Earth's oceans. And that's just the uranium.

You may well be correct. Too much Greenpeace bull**** about.

But we do hear a lot about the trade of spent fuel and the problems
of
no
country wanting it....

Some do in fact reprocess it and return everything to the source
country.

I heard nobody wanted to do it anymore because of the dangers
(possibly
in
transportation).

You heard wrong.

Then I guess all news channels are lying.

One of ours reported ours being moved to europe for reprocessing
and the return of all the result of the reprocessing to here, recently.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-...emoved/9643428

There you go, you don't want to deal with it yourself.

Corse we do but we have so little of it that it makes
no sense to do it ourselves, it only makes sense to get
the frogs who have much more of it to do it for us.

Also that governments don't like it getting shipped internationally
because terrorists that's pronounced tourist in America) can nick it
to
make dirty weapons.

No they can not. And its trivial to ensure that they can't knick it
anyway.

Even banks get nicked from.

But no one has ever nicked any used fuel rods
being moved for reprocessing in the west.

I don't believe you.

You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly
irrelevant. What you may or may not claim to not believe in spades.

"Kristy Ogilvie" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 01:34:18 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 20:31:57 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 19:44:25 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 17:39:17 -0000, Max Demian

wrote:

On 11/12/2018 17:23, Bruce Farquhar wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 16:56:12 -0000, Bill Wright

wrote:
On 09/12/2018 16:40, Bruce Farquhar wrote:

A thermocouple produces enough to power a spacecraft?!? Or just
for
some small electronics?

On Sat, 08 Dec 2018 21:04:59 -0000, Brian Gaff
wrote:

I'm sure you know this but the Voyager spacecraft are using
thermocouples
using the heat from decaying plutonium for power all the way
out
in
the
cosmos. it may be reducing now but its been one heck of a long
time.
Brian

He didn't say to power the spacecraft he said 'for power'.

So it moves by magic then?

Very few spacecraft are electrically powered.

Whatever they're powered by should be able to give off some
electricity,

Problem is that they are powered by the ****ing great rocket
that is now quite some distance away from the satellite now.

like a petrol car does.

Nothing like a petrol car does.

So they don't have any manoeuvring thrusters?

Yes, but those don't generate electricity.

Could also just have solar panels.

The ones that operate close to the sun do.
Those that travel much further away from
the sun have small nukes instead, for a reason.

[slaps self on face]

You're sposed to disembowel yourself.

"Fred Johnson" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 13:03:55 -0000, Toy Ota wrote:

On 12/13/18 3:24 PM, Fred Johnson wrote:
Why do half of cars still use a rubber band for the timing chain?

So their crooked service departments can charge $800+ to change it every
75K miles.

Wow, it's only £380 here in the UK at even the most expensive garage.

Rubber-band timing on an interference engine is a criminal act.

Agreed. In fact why even have interference engines?

Because that gets you a higher performance engine, stupid.

Half of engines are not interference

That's a lie now. And you are free to buy one if you want.

and don't die when a the belt snaps.

And you'd think they shouldn't even have a belt or chain for something
like that? What's wrong with cogs?

Wastes more of the engine power and mechanically
much harder to do with overhead cam engines.

"Kristy Ogilvie" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 01:33:02 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Fred Johnson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 23:52:47 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Fred Johnson" wrote in message
news On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 18:21:28 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Fred Johnson" wrote in message
news On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 04:02:00 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 22:38:42 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 03:11:20 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 20:15:38 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:

And that's not what caused TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima
anyway.

I thought TMI and Chernobyl were both human error/stupidity?

Only Chernobyl.

TMI and Fukushima were certainly due to human error/stupidity
at
the
design stage.

There you go then, human error can occur anywhere.

But with something as important as a nuke, the checks
should ensure that they don't get thru to the final product.

Should. But if there are enough morons, faults get overlooked.

Its isnt enough morons, it's the lack of checks. That's how
Fukushima ended up with its backup generators where they
could be taken out by a tsunami that was known to happen there.

And with TMI, no one bothered to check that the user interface
on the indications of loss of coolant water did make it easy to
see what was actually happening with the coolant level. In fact
it was so misleading they they thought it had too much coolant
when it fact it was much too little, so they pumped out even more
and eventually the consequences of that saw the venting of
radioactive material. Which was nothing like that a coal fired
power station of the same size would do routinely.

We're saying the same thing. Humans just aren't bright enough to
design
things properly.

Must be why we are still 'living' caves and
running around stark naked everywhere.

Can we cure the common cold?

That remains to be seen. Currently we have a problem with
vaccination with infectious disease that mutates too fast.
It remains to be seen if we can invent some way of doing
vaccination that works on the bits that don't change as fast.

Should have been done by now.

Easy to claim given how long it took to invent vaccination.

Look at how much we've done with mobile phones and computers.

Completely difference. They don't involved
a biological evolving every few months.

We have eliminated smallpox from the wild and
are getting there with polio, but the common
cold is much harder and isnt as important as either.

But we don't even know how our own bodies work yet.

But its vastly more complicated than any mobile
phone or computer.

Cancer?

That remains to been too.

Also should have been done by now.

Remains to be seen if its even possible.

Half of them can now be cured.

Its not as black and white as that.

My high blood pressure?

Yes, bullet in the back of the neck cures that trivially.
And contraceptives avoid you showing up in the first place.

Your means are questionable.

Nope, it's a guaranteed cure.

I would argue that you are not using the word cure correctly.

You'd be wrong. It's a complete cure.

Also works for the common cold and cancer as well.

Can we send people to other planets?

Corse we can. Only problem is that they arrive there dead currently.

That wasn't what I was asking

You have always been, and always will be, completely
and utterly irrelevant. What you may or may not claim
to have asked in spades.

Not my fault Aussies can't understand the Queen's English.

That silly little kraut woman doesn't own the language.

Just count how many stupid things on your car could have been made
better at no extra cost.

None of those in my car. A few things are missing like
cruise control, but that would obviously cost more.

Why are hazard light switches not in a common place on all cars?

Because hardly anyone wants to change the way they currently do theirs.

But I see it in different places within the models of one manufacturer.

Only with stupid frog cars.

Nope, all of them.

No point in having them all in the same place,
just make it obvious what that switch does.

For example I had a Vauxhall (GM/Opel/Holden) with the headlight switch
not even on the ****ing stalk.

That's what you get with stupid yank cars.

I've even had a Renault van with it on the ceiling!

See above.

I had to. Did you make that joke on purpose?

It wasn't a joke, Joyce.

Since it's to be used in an emergency, you'd think there would be a
legal requirement to have it easy to find.

Mine is, ****ing great orange colored switch
right in the middle of the top of the dash.

One of mine was like that, on top of the steering column. But most are
just one of the many buttons around the stereo.

Then get a decent car that does it properly.

Why do some wiper switches operate up and some down?

Because while ever there is more than one way of doing
something, someone will decide to do it both ways.

If I designed a car, I'd make my switches go the same way as the
majority,
so as not to confuse most drivers.

But with plenty of stuff there is no clear majority.

There is with wipers.

Bull****.

In spades now that so many cars only have the basics
done with switches on the steering wheel hub and
even stuff like climate control stuff done with a single
decent sized touch screen panel in the center of the dash.

Not sure what you mean. I've seldom seen a car without wipers and lights
on the stalks.

I wasn't talking about the lights and wipers there.

Why is there no standard for headlight brightness?

Same reason there is no standard for room light brightness.

But we used to have one, 55W dipped, 65W full.

No we did not.

Yes we did.

No we did not.

Why do you think that before all these ultra bright bloody things
appeared, all headlight bulbs were 55/65W?

They werent.

Then LEDs came out and there was no new standard made.

There was never a previous standard.

Some legal **** took it as 55W of power usage, not brightness,

The 55/65 was power usage, not brightness.

My point exactly.

You never had a point except the on on your pointy little head.

It doesn't account for more efficient light emitters than filaments. When
those were invented, the law should have used common sense and made it
"55W equivalent".

Nope, made more sense to do much better when we
could with the same load on the electrical system.

And we didn't go from incandescents to LEDs either.

I don't recall CFLs in cars.

There aint just 3 technologys, stupid.

And before you say halogen, those are just fancy incandescents.

Wrong with the lumens per watt and there aint just 4 technologys either.

so we have BMWs that prevent people coming the other way from being able
to see.

I can see fine.

Then you have unusual eyes.

Nope. You have. Because you wanked yourself completely blind.

Does it annoy you if someone drives towards you with full beam on?

Only at night.

It annoys most folk. Yet we seem to accept DRLs of the same or even
higher brightness.

That's another pig ignorant lie.

Why do some cars have **** all legroom?

Because that's cheaper than having lots of legroom.

No it isn't.

Corse it is.

MY friend's Ford Mondeo is large inside, except for the centre console
being ****ing massive, so your legs and the passenger's legs haver to be
perfectly straight.

Bull****.

https://cdn1.carbuyer.co.uk/sites/ca...-dashboard.jpg

Says nothing about legroom.

What the hell is all that **** in the middle of the car?

What makes it more convenient to use.

And even your morbidly obese porker legs
will still fit fine under the steering wheel.

Gear levers used to just come out of the floor,

And then the world moved on and when you only move it
when stopped now, makes more sense to do it differently.

the driver's left knee could move over to the left.

Mine still can and so can the driver of that mondeo.

With the car in the image above, you're crammed in like you're in some
kind of tiny jet fighter plane.

Even sillier than you usually manage and
a mate of mine has just bought one.

There's nothing in the centre console which requires this lump, just the
usual gearstick, stereo, heater controls, etc.

Yep, ****ed by design, like your frog car.

Trouble is a lot of modern cars are like that.

If you don't like it, don't buy one like that, stupid.

If you look at an older car, they're far more roomy inside.

And have **** all in the way of conveniently accessible
controls like the 8" touch screen for controlling all the
fancy stuff and showing you all the useful stuff like what
was on the street signs that you passed a while ago etc.

I know they make the doors thicker for side impact protection, but you
really don't need a big centre console, you can't have someone crashing
into the middle of your car.

It isnt there for crash protection, stupid.

Same with aircraft seats.

Why do half of cars still use a rubber band for the timing chain?

Because that's much cheaper than a metal chain.

Compared to the price of the car it's negligible.

Still saves a lot over millions of those engines.

As a percentage, that's a ****ing stupid thing to say.

The percentage is irrelevant.

Saving £5

It saves much more than that.

on a £2000 device

The car costs a lot more than that.

is always miniscule, no matter how many you make.

Wrong, as always.

And people would be more likely to buy a car that doesn't destroy the
engine because a piece of rubber snaps.

They clearly don't.

There's no accounting for stupidity.

Yep, you're actually stupid enough to buy a frog car.

Anyone who buys a new car is an idiot in the first place.

We arent all completely unemployable povs/chavs.

Simon Mason's Alfa Romeo just stretched the chain if I remember
correctly,

You don't, the chain tensioner is what failed.

no damage to the engine.

Yes, those do fail gracefully.

But the others don't fail often enough to matter
and are normally covered by the warranty now
anyway with the new much longer warrantys.

I've never seen over a 7 year warranty.

Then you need to get out more. The Honda Civic does.
And it aint alone.

I had a timing chain break at 70K miles. It was scheduled for it's 1st
change on the service at 72K!

Yes you actually are stupid enough to get stuck with
such a steaming turd with wheels.

On 15/12/2018 22:50, Kristy Ogilvie wrote:
Why do you think humans rule the earth?

As in "what leads you to that conclusion".

PLANTS rule te earth and invented humans to deal with their waste
problem, namely oil and coal which we are supposed to burn and turn back
in to plant food , or Carbon Dioxide as we call it.

Afterr plants, cats rule the world. Eny Fule kno that.

and loads of other species went
extinct?
Loads of other species have beeing going extinct long before Man appeared.


--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
...I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

On 15/12/2018 22:52, Kristy Ogilvie wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 17:14:15 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:

But no one has ever nicked any used fuel rods
being moved for reprocessing in the west.

I don't believe you.

Occasionally by some fresakl of nature Rod speed is vctaully correct.

Used fuel rods are virtually useless and somewhat dangerous. And covered
by so muuch tracking paperwork it is inconcievable that any went missing
unnoticed.

Behind the iron curtain all bets are of course off.


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

FLUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSSSSHHHHHHHHHHH

....and much better air in here again!

F'up to alt.idiots!

--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 17:08:19 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the two prize idiots' endless drivel

....and f'up to alt.idiots!

--
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp addressing Rot Speed:
"You really are a clueless pillock."
MID:

On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 13:38:49 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:



You're sposed to disembowel yourself.

You're supposed to **** off from normally evolved humans' ngs, senile
cretin!

--
FredXX to Rot Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shippe the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID:

On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 13:34:47 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH 219 lines of stinking troll ****

F'up to alt.idiots

On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 09:04:06 +0000, The Natural Idiot, the notorious
troll-feeding senile idiot, blathered again:

On 15/12/2018 22:50, Kristy Ogilvie wrote:
Why do you think humans rule the earth?

As in "what leads you to that conclusion".

PLANTS rule te earth and invented humans to deal with their waste
problem, namely oil and coal which we are supposed to burn and turn back
in to plant food , or Carbon Dioxide as we call it.

Yep, you troll-feeding seniles ALWAYS start sounding as idiotic after a
while as the trolls you keep feeding! "Think" about it, if your senile brain
still allows you to do so, Natural Idiot! tsk

On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 09:06:12 +0000, The Natural Idiot, the notorious
troll-feeding senile idiot, blathered again:

I don't believe you.

Occasionally by some fresakl of nature Rod speed is vctaully correct.

You always quickly detect the Scottish ****** to suck him quickly off again,
regardless behind which new nym he might currently be hiding, eh, The
Natural Idiot? I suppose you detect him by the taste of his cock! BG

On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 13:30:45 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

Nope, even the most stupid can do burglary and be a drug dealer.

Well, could you, stupid?

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 13:33:14 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

Why do you think humans rule the earth

Because we are much smarter than all the other species.

Nope, that's because most humans are smarter than the sociopath drags of
humanity, like you and the Scottish ******, senile Rot!

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 13:37:47 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


FLUSH all the idiotic troll **** unread

You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly
irrelevant. What you may or may not claim to not believe in spades.

So were, are and will be you! Especially in a few months/years time when you
will be pushing up daisies, you 85-year-old senile cretin!

--
Cursitor Doom about Rot Speed:
"I'm not the least surprised. The man is a conspicuous and unashamed
ignoramus."
MID:

On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 09:06:12 -0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 15/12/2018 22:52, Kristy Ogilvie wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 17:14:15 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:

But no one has ever nicked any used fuel rods
being moved for reprocessing in the west.

I don't believe you.

Occasionally by some fresakl of nature Rod speed is vctaully correct.

Used fuel rods are virtually useless and somewhat dangerous. And covered
by so muuch tracking paperwork it is inconcievable that any went missing
unnoticed.

Behind the iron curtain all bets are of course off.

But I thought spent fuel was used for making weapons.

On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 09:04:06 -0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 15/12/2018 22:50, Kristy Ogilvie wrote:
Why do you think humans rule the earth?

As in "what leads you to that conclusion".

PLANTS rule te earth and invented humans to deal with their waste
problem, namely oil and coal which we are supposed to burn and turn back
in to plant food , or Carbon Dioxide as we call it.

I agree on that, the "greenies" trying to stop us providing air for the plants to breathe is insane. What could possibly be wrong with bigger crops?

Afterr plants, cats rule the world. Eny Fule kno that.

Only if you let them. Mine do what they're told if they want fed. Cats are thick as **** and can't look after themselves, so they'd better be nice to me. For example I have two which try to drink water out of a tap when it's switched off. They can't turn it on themselves, and just lick it, get irritated, then sit silently waiting for me to turn it on for them, even though there's fresh water in a bowl I put down 2 minutes ago. I don't turn the tap on anymore, it's getting annoying when I forget to turn it off and it runs all night then wakes me up.

and loads of other species went extinct?
Loads of other species have beeing going extinct long before Man appeared.

And at a much faster rate since we we here.

On 16/12/2018 13:41, Kristy Ogilvie wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 09:04:06 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 15/12/2018 22:50, Kristy Ogilvie wrote:
Why do you think humans rule the earth?

As in "what leads you to that conclusion".

PLANTS rule te earth and invented humans to deal with their waste
problem, namely oil and coal which we are supposed to burn and turn back
in to plant food , or Carbon Dioxide as we call it.

I agree on that, the "greenies" trying to stop us providing air for the
plants to breathe is insane.Â* What could possibly be wrong with bigger
crops?

Afterr plants, cats rule the world. Eny Fule kno that.

Only if you let them.Â* Mine do what they're told if they want fed.Â* Cats
are thick as **** and can't look after themselves, so they'd better be
nice to me.Â* For example I have two which try to drink water out of a
tap when it's switched off.Â* They can't turn it on themselves, and just
lick it, get irritated, then sit silently waiting for me to turn it on
for them, even though there's fresh water in a bowl I put down 2 minutes
ago.Â* I don't turn the tap on anymore, it's getting annoying when I
forget to turn it off and it runs all night then wakes me up.

and loads of other species went extinct?
Loads of other species have beeing going extinct long before Man
appeared.

And at a much faster rate since we we here.

No. Not really. Asteroid strikes are a bit abrupt.


--
Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the
gospel of envy.

Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Of courese it will cxause cistr or problems but then soi will trying to
deciomission winmolls on 500 tonne concrete pads to return te sites back
to how they were.

Who will pay for windmill decomissioning? You will and I will

Think the costs of decommissioning windmills will be of little concern if
there is no longer wind to make them turn.

Rather different from the heavily polluted areas you end up with when a
coal or nuclear power station is obsolete. A windmill would be little
different in that respect to any other light industrial site.

Basically, you're scraping the bottom of the barrel again.

--
*Why is 'abbreviation' such a long word?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 14:28:48 -0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 16/12/2018 13:41, Kristy Ogilvie wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 09:04:06 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 15/12/2018 22:50, Kristy Ogilvie wrote:
Why do you think humans rule the earth?

As in "what leads you to that conclusion".

PLANTS rule te earth and invented humans to deal with their waste
problem, namely oil and coal which we are supposed to burn and turn back
in to plant food , or Carbon Dioxide as we call it.

I agree on that, the "greenies" trying to stop us providing air for the
plants to breathe is insane. What could possibly be wrong with bigger
crops?

Afterr plants, cats rule the world. Eny Fule kno that.

Only if you let them. Mine do what they're told if they want fed. Cats
are thick as **** and can't look after themselves, so they'd better be
nice to me. For example I have two which try to drink water out of a
tap when it's switched off. They can't turn it on themselves, and just
lick it, get irritated, then sit silently waiting for me to turn it on
for them, even though there's fresh water in a bowl I put down 2 minutes
ago. I don't turn the tap on anymore, it's getting annoying when I
forget to turn it off and it runs all night then wakes me up.

and loads of other species went extinct?
Loads of other species have beeing going extinct long before Man
appeared.

And at a much faster rate since we we here.

No. Not really. Asteroid strikes are a bit abrupt.

Apart from natural disasters - as we were discussing inferior species going away, not being destroyed suddenly by something they have no power to be immune to.

On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 14:28:48 +0000, The Natural Idiot, another mentally
challenged, troll-feeding senile idiot, blathered again:


Loads of other species have beeing going extinct long before Man
appeared.

And at a much faster rate since we we here.

No. Not really. Asteroid strikes are a bit abrupt.

Yep, THAT's the kind of idiotic "discussion" on which the Scottish ******
and attention whore thrives, you senile troll-feeding Natural Idiot!

"Kristy Ogilvie" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 09:06:12 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 15/12/2018 22:52, Kristy Ogilvie wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 17:14:15 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:

But no one has ever nicked any used fuel rods
being moved for reprocessing in the west.

I don't believe you.

Occasionally by some fresakl of nature Rod speed is vctaully correct.

Used fuel rods are virtually useless and somewhat dangerous. And covered
by so muuch tracking paperwork it is inconcievable that any went missing
unnoticed.

Behind the iron curtain all bets are of course off.

But I thought spent fuel was used for making weapons.

Only in places like North Korea. In the first world they have
dedicated nukes to make whats used in bombs because
those do it much better than power generation nukes.

Its only the dregs of the world that can afford dedicated
nukes for producing whats used in bombs.

"Kristy Ogilvie" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 09:04:06 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 15/12/2018 22:50, Kristy Ogilvie wrote:
Why do you think humans rule the earth?

As in "what leads you to that conclusion".

PLANTS rule te earth and invented humans to deal with their waste
problem, namely oil and coal which we are supposed to burn and turn back
in to plant food , or Carbon Dioxide as we call it.

I agree on that, the "greenies" trying to stop us providing air for the
plants to breathe is insane. What could possibly be wrong with bigger
crops?

Afterr plants, cats rule the world. Eny Fule kno that.

Only if you let them. Mine do what they're told if they want fed. Cats
are thick as **** and can't look after themselves, so they'd better be
nice to me. For example I have two which try to drink water out of a tap
when it's switched off. They can't turn it on themselves, and just lick
it, get irritated, then sit silently waiting for me to turn it on for
them, even though there's fresh water in a bowl I put down 2 minutes ago.
I don't turn the tap on anymore, it's getting annoying when I forget to
turn it off and it runs all night then wakes me up.

and loads of other species went extinct?
Loads of other species have beeing going extinct long before Man
appeared.

And at a much faster rate since we we here.

Only with a few species. With plenty of others there are now
far more than there ever were before, most obviously with
dogs, cats, horses, cattle, sheep, goats, chooks, turkeys etc.

On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 20:06:51 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"Kristy Ogilvie" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 09:04:06 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 15/12/2018 22:50, Kristy Ogilvie wrote:
Why do you think humans rule the earth?

As in "what leads you to that conclusion".

PLANTS rule te earth and invented humans to deal with their waste
problem, namely oil and coal which we are supposed to burn and turn back
in to plant food , or Carbon Dioxide as we call it.

I agree on that, the "greenies" trying to stop us providing air for the
plants to breathe is insane. What could possibly be wrong with bigger
crops?

Afterr plants, cats rule the world. Eny Fule kno that.

Only if you let them. Mine do what they're told if they want fed. Cats
are thick as **** and can't look after themselves, so they'd better be
nice to me. For example I have two which try to drink water out of a tap
when it's switched off. They can't turn it on themselves, and just lick
it, get irritated, then sit silently waiting for me to turn it on for
them, even though there's fresh water in a bowl I put down 2 minutes ago.
I don't turn the tap on anymore, it's getting annoying when I forget to
turn it off and it runs all night then wakes me up.

and loads of other species went extinct?
Loads of other species have beeing going extinct long before Man
appeared.

And at a much faster rate since we we here.

Only with a few species. With plenty of others there are now
far more than there ever were before, most obviously with
dogs, cats, horses, cattle, sheep, goats, chooks, turkeys etc.

I was only referring to the number of species. That's what's important. If you have 2000 dogs and 2000 cats, all is fine. If tomorrow you have 4000 dogs and 0 cats, you aren't doing as well, as you can never make another cat.

On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 20:03:23 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"Kristy Ogilvie" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 09:06:12 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 15/12/2018 22:52, Kristy Ogilvie wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 17:14:15 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:

But no one has ever nicked any used fuel rods
being moved for reprocessing in the west.

I don't believe you.

Occasionally by some fresakl of nature Rod speed is vctaully correct.

Used fuel rods are virtually useless and somewhat dangerous. And covered
by so muuch tracking paperwork it is inconcievable that any went missing
unnoticed.

Behind the iron curtain all bets are of course off.

But I thought spent fuel was used for making weapons.

Only in places like North Korea. In the first world they have
dedicated nukes to make whats used in bombs because
those do it much better than power generation nukes.

Its only the dregs of the world that can afford dedicated
nukes for producing whats used in bombs.

So used fuel rods are not useless then.

"Kristy Ogilvie" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 20:06:51 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Kristy Ogilvie" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 09:04:06 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 15/12/2018 22:50, Kristy Ogilvie wrote:
Why do you think humans rule the earth?

As in "what leads you to that conclusion".

PLANTS rule te earth and invented humans to deal with their waste
problem, namely oil and coal which we are supposed to burn and turn
back
in to plant food , or Carbon Dioxide as we call it.

I agree on that, the "greenies" trying to stop us providing air for the
plants to breathe is insane. What could possibly be wrong with bigger
crops?

Afterr plants, cats rule the world. Eny Fule kno that.

Only if you let them. Mine do what they're told if they want fed. Cats
are thick as **** and can't look after themselves, so they'd better be
nice to me. For example I have two which try to drink water out of a
tap
when it's switched off. They can't turn it on themselves, and just lick
it, get irritated, then sit silently waiting for me to turn it on for
them, even though there's fresh water in a bowl I put down 2 minutes
ago.
I don't turn the tap on anymore, it's getting annoying when I forget to
turn it off and it runs all night then wakes me up.

and loads of other species went extinct?
Loads of other species have beeing going extinct long before Man
appeared.

And at a much faster rate since we we here.

Only with a few species. With plenty of others there are now
far more than there ever were before, most obviously with
dogs, cats, horses, cattle, sheep, goats, chooks, turkeys etc.

I was only referring to the number of species. That's what's important.

Not its not. Doesn't matter a damn if a large number of obscure
insect species are now extinct because we have been pretty gung
ho in the use of insecticide since we invented those.

If you have 2000 dogs and 2000 cats, all is fine. If tomorrow you have
4000 dogs and 0 cats, you aren't doing as well, as you can never make
another cat.

We havent extincted anything that matters.

The dodo is gone, whoopy ****ing do. It was always
a complete dud anyway, that's why its now extinct.

"Kristy Ogilvie" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 20:03:23 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Kristy Ogilvie" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 09:06:12 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 15/12/2018 22:52, Kristy Ogilvie wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 17:14:15 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:

But no one has ever nicked any used fuel rods
being moved for reprocessing in the west.

I don't believe you.

Occasionally by some fresakl of nature Rod speed is vctaully correct.

Used fuel rods are virtually useless and somewhat dangerous. And
covered
by so muuch tracking paperwork it is inconcievable that any went
missing
unnoticed.

Behind the iron curtain all bets are of course off.

But I thought spent fuel was used for making weapons.

Only in places like North Korea. In the first world they have
dedicated nukes to make whats used in bombs because
those do it much better than power generation nukes.

Its only the dregs of the world that can afford dedicated
nukes for producing whats used in bombs.

So used fuel rods are not useless then.

No one said they are useless, but they don't get stolen enough
to matter and trivial to ensure none get stolen except in the
dregs of the world like russia and you need to do a lot more
than steal a few used fuel rods to make a weapon.

On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 21:07:49 -0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Kristy Ogilvie
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 20:03:23 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"Kristy Ogilvie" wrote in message
news On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 09:06:12 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 15/12/2018 22:52, Kristy Ogilvie wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 17:14:15 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:

But no one has ever nicked any used fuel rods
being moved for reprocessing in the west.

I don't believe you.

Occasionally by some fresakl of nature Rod speed is vctaully correct.

Used fuel rods are virtually useless and somewhat dangerous. And covered
by so muuch tracking paperwork it is inconcievable that any went missing
unnoticed.

Behind the iron curtain all bets are of course off.

But I thought spent fuel was used for making weapons.

Only in places like North Korea. In the first world they have
dedicated nukes to make whats used in bombs because
those do it much better than power generation nukes.

Its only the dregs of the world that can afford dedicated
nukes for producing whats used in bombs.

So used fuel rods are not useless then.

No, AIUI only 1% of the fuel in the rod will have been used, the rod
can be reprocessed and unused fuel extracted. Whether it's worth doing
that just yet is another matter.

https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power...r-reprocessing

"Reprocessing is a series of chemical operations that separates plutonium and uranium from other nuclear waste contained in the used (or €œspent€�) fuel from nuclear power reactors. The separated plutonium can be used to fuel reactors, but also to make nuclear weapons. In the late 1970s, the United States decided on nuclear non-proliferation grounds not to reprocess spent fuel from U.S. power reactors, but instead to directly dispose of it in a deep underground geologic repository where it would remain isolated from the environment for at least tens of thousands of years."

On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 21:51:05 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"Kristy Ogilvie" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 20:03:23 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Kristy Ogilvie" wrote in message
news On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 09:06:12 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 15/12/2018 22:52, Kristy Ogilvie wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 17:14:15 -0000, Rod Speed

wrote:

But no one has ever nicked any used fuel rods
being moved for reprocessing in the west.

I don't believe you.

Occasionally by some fresakl of nature Rod speed is vctaully correct.

Used fuel rods are virtually useless and somewhat dangerous. And
covered
by so muuch tracking paperwork it is inconcievable that any went
missing
unnoticed.

Behind the iron curtain all bets are of course off.

But I thought spent fuel was used for making weapons.

Only in places like North Korea. In the first world they have
dedicated nukes to make whats used in bombs because
those do it much better than power generation nukes.

Its only the dregs of the world that can afford dedicated
nukes for producing whats used in bombs.

So used fuel rods are not useless then.

No one said they are useless, but they don't get stolen enough
to matter and trivial to ensure none get stolen except in the
dregs of the world like russia and you need to do a lot more
than steal a few used fuel rods to make a weapon.

It might not be the rods, maybe it's the other waste.