Java Jive wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 19:51:32 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

You couldn't do that now. Modern domestic gas is heavier than air.

Really, I'm very surprised to hear that. I wonder what the different
formulae were/are.

It
used to be possible to fill a huge plastic bag with the stuff and
send it floating off into the sky, but it's no fun any more.

That *has* to be a good thing. Plastic bags that end up in the ocean
get mistaken by turtles for jellyfish. They try to swallow them, and
choke to death.

For many years, I've sailed off the west coast, particularly Wales, Scotland
and Ireland. More recently, I sailed the south coast extensively and also
crossing the Channel.

With our prevailing winds, I was staggered by the number of carnival
balloons that end up in the Channel. Made me rethink the kind of activities
I organise at charity events as a result, not for turtles in the Channel but
other sea life.

Saw a basking shark in the middle of the sea lanes in the Channel a couple
of years ago. Draw a line from Weymouth to Guernsey and whether that
crossing the lanes is roughly the location.

"J G Miller" wrote in message
news
On Tuesday, September 1st, 2009 at 20:43:19h +0100, Java Jive pondered:

I wonder what the different formulae were/are.

Town gas (synthetic gas) consists primarily of hydrogen (H2) and carbon
monoxide (C0), plus varying proportions of nitrogen (N2) and carbon
dioxide (C02).

A lot of methane too.

--
Max Demian

Andy Champ wrote:
Java Jive wrote:

Really, I'm very surprised to hear that. I wonder what the different
formulae were/are.

Town gas was largely hydrogen (with a substantial level of carbon
monoxide, which is why it was poisonous) whereas natural gas is largely
methane.

Andy

B____R. I bow to Mr Miller's better detail!

Andy

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 23:09:48 +0100, Max Demian wrote:

"J G Miller" wrote in message

Town gas (synthetic gas) consists primarily of hydrogen (H2) and carbon
monoxide (C0), plus varying proportions of nitrogen (N2) and carbon
dioxide (C02).

A lot of methane too.

What is your source for claiming that town gas contains a lot of methane?

"geoff" wrote in message
...

So what, without looking it up, it the explosive concentration for mains
gas ?

No peeking, if you don't know, take a guess ...

CH4 takes 2 02s, air is 1/5 02, so how about 10:1 air:gas?

In message , Clive
George writes
"geoff" wrote in message
...

So what, without looking it up, it the explosive concentration for mains
gas ?

No peeking, if you don't know, take a guess ...

CH4 takes 2 02s, air is 1/5 02, so how about 10:1 air:gas?


8% - 18% is the official explosive concentration, so yes, you are
within the limits there


--
geoff

"james" wrote in message
...
In message , Bill Wright
writes
We get this over and over again, and I wonder, Brian, if it makes you a
bit
self-conscious. Would it be a good idea if you amended your signature
thus?:
Blind user, so no pictures please, and my reading system dictates top
posting.

Well meant but I know what my answer would've been! JF

Why on earth would Brian top post if it wasn't easier for him?

Bill

In article , Andy Champ
scribeth thus
Java Jive wrote:

Really, I'm very surprised to hear that. I wonder what the different
formulae were/are.

Town gas was largely hydrogen (with a substantial level of carbon
monoxide, which is why it was poisonous) whereas natural gas is largely
methane.

Andy

This is why Cambridge was converted quite early too many students with
their heads in the gas oven if they couldn't hack the courses;(



Tony Sayer

In article ,
Usenet Nutter wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:20:32 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:
snipped
And who remembers the famous BBC Spaghetti Farm spoof-documentary?
snipped
Ah yes.That was Panorama with Mr Dimblebum Snr.

I remember seeing it 'live' as a kid. And the spaghetti hung on the trees
was so badly done it was obviously a spoof. Despite the film focus being
as soft as they dared.

--


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

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Brian Gaff is blind. His style of posting is dictated by practical
considerations.

We get this over and over again, and I wonder, Brian, if it makes you a
bit self-conscious. Would it be a good idea if you amended your
signature thus?: Blind user, so no pictures please, and my reading
system dictates top posting.

I can see it might be useful if top posting was the norm since his reader
would give him the new bits first.
But it's not - and only his replies are top posted and presumably he knows
what he's written? Just curious...

--
*He who laughs last has just realised the joke.

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

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
This is why Cambridge was converted quite early too many students with
their heads in the gas oven if they couldn't hack the courses;(

And now they just lower the pass mark...

--
*Never put off until tomorrow what you can avoid altogether *

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

In article , Terry
Casey writes
... unless you know of a way to carry out the same experiment for
cotton using materials commonly found in the average household ...

Vacuum-cleaner fluff would probably do it, although I have no intention
of finding out.
--
SimonM
----- TubeWiz.com -----
Video making/uploading that's easy to use & fun to share
Try it today! (now with DFace blurring)

In article , tony sayer
writes
In article , Andy Champ
scribeth thus
Java Jive wrote:

Really, I'm very surprised to hear that. I wonder what the different
formulae were/are.

Town gas was largely hydrogen (with a substantial level of carbon
monoxide, which is why it was poisonous) whereas natural gas is largely
methane.

Andy

This is why Cambridge was converted quite early too many students with
their heads in the gas oven if they couldn't hack the courses;(

Hmm. Methane may not be actually poisonous (unlike CO), but it will
still asphyxiate. OTOH, I think CO has some anaesthetic effect
concentrations, so presumably a potential suicide dies whilst
unconscious.

I assume that makes CO preferable if (a) you have the option, and (b)
you're trying to end it all. The scrappage scheme will cause problems in
that regard though - IIRC some well-tuned engine-cat combinations now
emit virtually zero CO (although plenty of CO2, which kills pretty
effectively).

Macabre. Thread change?
--
SimonM
----- TubeWiz.com -----
Video making/uploading that's easy to use & fun to share
Try it today! (now with DFace blurring)

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Usenet Nutter wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:20:32 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:
snipped
And who remembers the famous BBC Spaghetti Farm spoof-documentary?
snipped
Ah yes.That was Panorama with Mr Dimblebum Snr.

I remember seeing it 'live' as a kid. And the spaghetti hung on the trees
was so badly done it was obviously a spoof. Despite the film focus being
as soft as they dared.

Did you believe it at the time?

--
Max Demian

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 09:51:05 +0000, SpamTrapSeeSig wrote:

Methane may not be actually poisonous (unlike CO), but it will
still asphyxiate.

Correct.

Oxygen is transported around the body by haemoglobin in the blood stream.

Carbon monoxide binds more readily and more tightly to haemoglobin than
oxygen so that at sufficient levels, though very much lower than needed
for asphyxiation alone with other gases, the body is deprived of oxygen
and dies.

From http://www.ebi.ac.UK/interpro/potm/2005_10/Page2.htm

QUOTE

Carbon monoxide (CO) binds to haemoglobin with a higher affinity (200x
greater) than oxygen, and at the same binding site.

Consequently, carbon monoxide will bind haemoglobin preferentially over
oxygen when both are present in the lungs - even small amounts of carbon
monoxide can dramatically reduce the ability of haemoglobin to transport
oxygen.

Levels as low as 0.02% carbon monoxide can cause headaches and nausea,
while a concentration of 0.1% can lead to unconsciousness.

....

People who smoke heavily can block up to 20% of the oxygen binding sites
in haemoglobin with carbon monoxide

....

By contrast, carbon dioxide (CO2), which is produced as a waste product
after aerobic respiration, binds to haemoglobin at a different site,
therefore does not compete with oxygen for binding to haemoglobin.

UNQUOTE

In article ,
Max Demian wrote:
I remember seeing it 'live' as a kid. And the spaghetti hung on the
trees was so badly done it was obviously a spoof. Despite the film
focus being as soft as they dared.

Did you believe it at the time?

No. Kids tend to be quite aware it's All Fools day.

--
*A closed mouth gathers no feet.

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

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember james
saying something like:

For me sheer
luxury is having an entire 9-hour book reading or several concerts on
one CD.

CD? Move with the times, Daddy-O.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember tony sayer
saying something like:

Run of the mill audio is much better quality (wrt bass, treble and noise)
than was common in the past, at least electrically. A cheapy MP3 player
connected via the headphone socket to a hi-fi amp and speakers is almost as
good as CD.

Should get your hearing checked;!..

One great advantage of middle-aged hearing loss is the fortune I save on
not needing real HiFi

In message , Grimly
Curmudgeon writes
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember james
saying something like:

For me sheer
luxury is having an entire 9-hour book reading or several concerts on
one CD.

CD? Move with the times, Daddy-O.

Oh dear. A flaktoid! I'm not one for getting into willy-waving contests
but I do have a Creative Zen with a 20 gig capacity that's seemingly on
permanent loan to my wife.

JF

james wrote:
In message , Grimly
Curmudgeon writes
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember james
saying something like:

For me sheer
luxury is having an entire 9-hour book reading or several concerts on
one CD.

CD? Move with the times, Daddy-O.

Oh dear. A flaktoid! I'm not one for getting into willy-waving contests
but I do have a Creative Zen with a 20 gig capacity that's seemingly on
permanent loan to my wife.

JF

What's a flaktoid? Something to do with lossless compression?

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
news
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember tony sayer
saying something like:

Run of the mill audio is much better quality (wrt bass, treble and noise)
than was common in the past, at least electrically. A cheapy MP3 player
connected via the headphone socket to a hi-fi amp and speakers is almost
as
good as CD.

Should get your hearing checked;!..

One great advantage of middle-aged hearing loss is the fortune I save on
not needing real HiFi

What?

Bill

"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
om...
james wrote:

Oh dear. A flaktoid! I'm not one for getting into willy-waving contests
but I do have a Creative Zen with a 20 gig capacity that's seemingly on
permanent loan to my wife.

What's a flaktoid? Something to do with lossless compression?

It's the muscle whose failure prevents you from doing something you don't
want to do.

--
Max Demian

In message , "dennis@home"
writes:
Brian is blind and uses a screen reader of some sort.

Bottom posting is a problem when used with a screen reader as it is
difficult to find the content.

.. I'm puzzled as to how, and I'm sitting in a household belonging to two
screenreader users as I type this. ..

It may seem logical to bottom post but that doesn't make it correct
once you understand all the implications.

.. (Although I strongly prefer bottom-posting - or, actually, snip and
interposting, see later posts - I never say either is "incorrect".) ..
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Sarcasm: Barbed ire

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...

. (Although I strongly prefer bottom-posting - or, actually, snip and
interposting, see later posts - I never say either is "incorrect".) ..

I prefer logical chronological posts..
as I read a post and go to the next one I like the new stuff to be there and
not have to skip through loads of old quoted stuff that I have read in the
previous post.

See it is logical to top post and a waste of time to bottom post unless you
have a habit of reading the thread from the newest post first.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Max Demian"
saying something like:

What's a flaktoid?

It's the muscle whose failure prevents you from doing something you don't
want to do.

Crap shot.
Try again and this time get it right.

In message , J G Miller
writes:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 21:09:12 +0100, Max Demian wrote:

So how does he know what to reply to?

A better question is, why bother to quote the previous article at all?

.. It is the normal convention on usenet to quote some of the posting to
which one is replying, so that anyone joining the thread can get some
idea of what you're on about. However, although many people do not, it
is often courteous to do some judicial snipping, especially when your
post is the last of very many. How much of the entire thread to leave in
place for the benefit of newcomers is always a matter of personal
judgement, and there is no correct answer. (I tend to think that the
whole thread is the wrong answer, at least where the thread is active;
if you are posting a reply to a thread that has not had a posting for a
while, it may be wise to leave more of the post to which you are
replying in place.) ..
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Sarcasm: Barbed ire

In message , "dennis@home"
writes:
[]
See, I said people don't understand HiFi.

Headphones, even 99p ones, are usually more HiFi than even the best
speakers.
However mp3 is poor, very poor.


It can be; whether any given mp3 encoding actually is poor is a matter
of judgement, influenced by the source material and the sample rate and
bit rate chosen. IMO mp3 can be far better than poor.

(Incidentally, I have one mp3 coded at 8k which IMO is more than
acceptable, but that's a special case: it's a short section of alpine
horn playing.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Sarcasm: Barbed ire

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 22:16:09 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

It is the normal convention on usenet to quote some of the posting to
which one is replying, so that anyone joining the thread can get some
idea of what you're on about.

Yes no contention there, but the point was -- which is the lesser of the
two evils if snipping is not practical -- top posting on top of a wholly
regurgitated article, or just the response?

I would argue that the latter is less worse because in most cases one
can read the previous article in the thread if one needs the context.

In article ,
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
. It is the normal convention on usenet to quote some of the posting to
which one is replying, so that anyone joining the thread can get some
idea of what you're on about. However, although many people do not, it
is often courteous to do some judicial snipping, especially when your
post is the last of very many. How much of the entire thread to leave in
place for the benefit of newcomers is always a matter of personal
judgement, and there is no correct answer.

If you have to scroll on an 800x600 page before the new stuff starts
there's too much quoting. ;-)

--
*Everybody lies, but it doesn't matter since nobody listens*

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

On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 21:51:24 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 22:16:09 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

It is the normal convention on usenet to quote some of the posting to
which one is replying, so that anyone joining the thread can get some
idea of what you're on about.

Yes no contention there, but the point was -- which is the lesser of the
two evils if snipping is not practical

I'm sure the impractibility of snipping is rare. I agree with JPG. I
know blind users have special needs, but I far prefer bottom posting.
If it is a long post then use your keys to go to the end and then up a
bit to get the newest bit.

Interleaving, which is probably the best idea for sighted users in
some cases, does make things difficult, but otherwise standard usenet
standards are fine.

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 23:23:02 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

there's too much quoting. ;-)

Yes.

In message , "dennis@home"
writes:
[]
. (Although I strongly prefer bottom-posting - or, actually, snip and
interposting, see later posts - I never say either is "incorrect".) ..

I prefer logical chronological posts..
as I read a post and go to the next one I like the new stuff to be
there and not have to skip through loads of old quoted stuff that I
have read in the previous post.

.. You posted just two lines from my post, and then added your reply
_below_ the part to which you were responding; that is exactly the sort
of post I like to read! ..

See it is logical to top post and a waste of time to bottom post unless
you have a habit of reading the thread from the newest post first.


.. Well, I think what we are doing here is good: it makes it clear which
bit of the previous post is being responded to. People who leave
excessive amounts - let alone the whole - of the previous post in their
post do hardly anyone any favours, whether they top or bottom post.
(Though I still submit it's easier to see which point is being responded
to if the response doesn't come first.) ..
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Sarcasm: Barbed ire

In message , J G Miller
writes:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 22:16:09 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

It is the normal convention on usenet to quote some of the posting to
which one is replying, so that anyone joining the thread can get some
idea of what you're on about.

Yes no contention there, but the point was -- which is the lesser of the
two evils if snipping is not practical -- top posting on top of a wholly
regurgitated article, or just the response?

.. I am interested to know under what circumstances snipping is totally
not practical, rather than just requiring a little more effort. I can
imagine that there might be circumstances where this is indeed the case,
but I can't think what they might be at the moment. ..

I would argue that the latter is less worse because in most cases one
can read the previous article in the thread if one needs the context.

.. I would agree, a response only is probably the lesser of two evils.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Sarcasm: Barbed ire

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes:
[]
If you have to scroll on an 800x600 page before the new stuff starts
there's too much quoting. ;-)

.. I saw the smiley, but actually sounds a good rule of thumb! ..
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Sarcasm: Barbed ire

In message , Tiddy Ogg
writes:
[snip]
I'm sure the impractibility of snipping is rare. I agree with JPG. I

.. Your post crossed with mine saying much the same thing.

know blind users have special needs, but I far prefer bottom posting.
If it is a long post then use your keys to go to the end and then up a
bit to get the newest bit.

Interleaving, which is probably the best idea for sighted users in
some cases, does make things difficult, but otherwise standard usenet
standards are fine.

.. Why does interleaving make things difficult - is it that it becomes
hard to see who said what? Surely that is more a question of whether the
posting software puts in the quoting characters, and the access software
indicates their existence. I can see that if either of those isn't
correct, there could be confusion. Maybe ideally different voices could
be used, though I'm not aware whether any of the speech-based access
methods offer such an option, and it could be amusing if the same
person's text changes voice in subsequent posts because of the depth of
quoting characters!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Sarcasm: Barbed ire

In article , Grimly
Curmudgeon scribeth thus
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember tony sayer
saying something like:

Run of the mill audio is much better quality (wrt bass, treble and noise)
than was common in the past, at least electrically. A cheapy MP3 player
connected via the headphone socket to a hi-fi amp and speakers is almost as
good as CD.

Should get your hearing checked;!..

One great advantage of middle-aged hearing loss is the fortune I save on
not needing real HiFi

Poor you;(...
--
Tony Sayer

In article , J. P. Gilliver (John)
scribeth thus
In message , Tiddy Ogg
writes:
[snip]
I'm sure the impractibility of snipping is rare. I agree with JPG. I

. Your post crossed with mine saying much the same thing.

know blind users have special needs, but I far prefer bottom posting.
If it is a long post then use your keys to go to the end and then up a
bit to get the newest bit.

Interleaving, which is probably the best idea for sighted users in
some cases, does make things difficult, but otherwise standard usenet
standards are fine.

. Why does interleaving make things difficult - is it that it becomes
hard to see who said what? Surely that is more a question of whether the
posting software puts in the quoting characters, and the access software
indicates their existence. I can see that if either of those isn't
correct, there could be confusion. Maybe ideally different voices could
be used, though I'm not aware whether any of the speech-based access
methods offer such an option, and it could be amusing if the same
person's text changes voice in subsequent posts because of the depth of
quoting characters!

May I ask how blind poster's shall we say, communicate is it they
magnify the screen up by a substantial amount or do they have a text to
speech device?..
--
Tony Sayer

"Tiddy Ogg" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 21:51:24 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 22:16:09 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

It is the normal convention on usenet to quote some of the posting to
which one is replying, so that anyone joining the thread can get some
idea of what you're on about.

Yes no contention there, but the point was -- which is the lesser of the
two evils if snipping is not practical

I'm sure the impractibility of snipping is rare. I agree with JPG. I
know blind users have special needs, but I far prefer bottom posting.
If it is a long post then use your keys to go to the end and then up a
bit to get the newest bit.

and miss the bit in the middle


Interleaving, which is probably the best idea for sighted users in
some cases, does make things difficult, but otherwise standard usenet
standards are fine.


then misunderstand the last bit.

I think it much depends on whether you use Outlook Express etc. One of the
most annoying thing is when people quote whole streams from thread, then at
the very bottom say something like..
I agree.

Snipping is the word of the day.
However from the posting side, because OE top posts by default, and often
you have in your mind what you want to say, by the time you have done all
the pasting about and snipping you have forgotten what you wanted to bloody
say in the first place!!

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes:
Brian is blind and uses a screen reader of some sort.

Bottom posting is a problem when used with a screen reader as it is
difficult to find the content.

. I'm puzzled as to how, and I'm sitting in a household belonging to two
screenreader users as I type this. ..

It may seem logical to bottom post but that doesn't make it correct once
you understand all the implications.

. (Although I strongly prefer bottom-posting - or, actually, snip and
interposting, see later posts - I never say either is "incorrect".) ..
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Sarcasm: Barbed ire

In article ,
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
If you have to scroll on an 800x600 page before the new stuff starts
there's too much quoting. ;-)

. I saw the smiley, but actually sounds a good rule of thumb! ..

It's actually how my newsreader does it - you'll get a warning of
excessive quoting if this isn't the case. But of course it's not a PC one.
;-)

--
*Never put off until tomorrow what you can avoid altogether *

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