On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:43:31 +0100, Andy Furniss wrote:

It was nearly 30 years ago though, so it may be different now.

Actually it appears not.

According to the site http://home.clara.NET/darvill/altenerg/hydro.htm

QUOTE

When it was first built, the huge "Hoover Dam", on the Colorado river,
supplied much of the electricity for the city of Las Vegas; however
now Las Vegas has grown so much, the city gets most of its energy from
other sources.

UNQUOTE

See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Power_Company

for details of the power plants that do generate power for NV Power,
the utility company that provides power to Las Vegas.

So the Hoover Dam did make the bright lights possible in Las Vegas by
first providing power to the city and fostering its growth, but by
the time of your visit, the city was no longer using Hoover Dam as
a power source.

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 05:48:23 +0100, "Enzo Matrix"
wrote:

Bill Wright wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Adrian wrote:
English is the de facto international language.

One thinmg taht did come over

That sounds more like Esperanto!

Mi esporas ke kiam vi venos la vetero estos milda.

Could you send for the hall porter? There appears to be a frog in my
bidet.

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:10:19 +0100, mcp requested:

Could you send for the hall porter? There appears to be a frog in my
bidet.

According to http://www.kafejo.com/lingvoj/auxlangs/eo/tradukilo/
that would be

Povi vi sendi por la halo porter tie aperi al esti a rano en mia bidet.

I think that the original

"Mi esporas ke kiam vi venos la vetero estos milda."

means "I hope that when you come the weather will be mild."

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:08:26 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

Sorry Norman, very deeply sorry that you haven't the brain and
certainly not the patience and humility to even begin to
understand
even Newtonian physics..let alone anything else.

I understand them very well, thank you.

Trouble is Newtonian physics, as a model, doesn't fit modern
observations. Einstien came up with the General and Special Theories
of Relativity, they fit a a bit better. Then along comes Quantum
Mechanics which, as has already being pointed out, doesn't fit with
Relativity. Both models do fit the observations so as they don't
support each other they both must be "wrong" somewhere. Hence the
current quest for The Grand Unified Theory.

Norman, I suggest you wander off and do some in depth reading about
the advancements in the scientific theories relating to Quantum
Mechanics that have taken place in the last 30+ years. You appear to
be stuck in the theories of 50+ years ago.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:39:42 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller wrote:

You've just described nuclear fusion. There's not much of that
happening in your immediate environment (apart from the large
furnace
about eight light-minutes away).

No I have not.

If the electrostatic force of repulsion were not overcome by a stronger
force then matter would not exist.

And that force is the Strong Nuclear Force:

http://aether.lbl.gov/elements/stell...ng/strong.html

--
Cheers
Dave.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
Tim S wrote:

Seriously - yes, there is a mass increase.

I wind up my cuckoo clock. The driving weight (not the pendulum)
rises a metre. Has its mass increased due to the increase in
potential energy?


I think so, yes.

I guess that as the weights are further from the centre of the Earth, they
are moving in faster circles, and therefore have more mass according to
special relativity. Or summat.

--
Max Demian

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:52:13 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
So, what's it lost then? Electrons, neutrons, whole atoms, or
what?

Nothing, but that is not the point.

An electron which moves from a lower energy state to a higher
energy state gains mass, and similarly for the other particles.

A Nobel prize beckons if only you can prove it.

Since no *scientific* theory has ever been *proven*, it would more
be a Nobel prize for theology actually.

Don't be absurd. Loads of scientific theories have been proven to
loads or people's satisfaction.

Oh dear. You really know NOTHING. NO real scientist would EVER make
such a claim.

They would actually. It's all about the standard of proof one expects.

If you're saying that Nobel prizes are only
dished out for absolute 100% proof with no room for error at all
ever, you're wrong.

No, I am not. I am saying that anyone who can prove a scientific
theory AT ALL in any terms whatsoever is someone who has advanced
the whole cause of civilisation and reason way beyond the 40th
century.

You're applying, I think, an absolute standard of proof, which of course
is impossible to attain in anything. Back here in the real world, even
scientists accept a little less.



Why don't you go and play with yourself, and read up on e.g. Karl
Popper for light relief?

If you have a point, do make it.

Read Karl Popper. That is the point. Try 'conjectures and refutations'
to start with.

You cannot put any modern science in the correct context until you
understand the debate and his conclusions about what science actually
is, and can be, until you have.

Then you will understand why your position is philosophically meaningless.

Steve Thackery wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

If you go for I THINK anaerobic decomposition, the carbon in the tree
or plant eventually becomes carbon, or hydrocarbon..typically methane.

OK, but how's that gonna happen? Trees are surrounded by air, so there
is no way - in their natural environment - that there'll be much
anaerobic decomposition taking place.

Mind you, you definitely don't want any methane - it's a very potent
global warmer.

That is after all what carbon based fuels are..old swamps. silted over
and left to fester for a few million years.

Agreed, although the climatic conditions were very different back then.
I don't think there's much new peat or coal being formed these days,
although if you've got some links to supporting research, that would be
great.


Oh peat definitely is formed all the time in any suitable place. Its
very slow though.

One of the major worries in East Anglia, where I live, is the continual
oxidation of the Fens since drainage. The ground level has dropped IIRC
about a meter since they were first drained over a couple of hundred
years ago.

Google 'bog oak' for the first steps in coal production as well.



No, you can store it where it wont be subject to oxidation, thats all.

Typically underwater.

I don't think you mean "oxidation", do you? Anyway, didn't you say that
anaerobic decomposition would produce methane?


Ther are nay ways that wood will change over time..normal way is that
the wood is subject to fungal and bacterial attack. That does seem to
need air for the species I am most familiar with in the garden. Old wood
rots, shrinks, becomes fibrous and eventually forms an organic compost.

heat it aneaerobically, and you get charcoal. Which with a bit of
compression, is nearly coal (but not quite: Coals still has the tars in it )

Stick it under water and silt, and it doesn't degraded organically at
all as it were. I dont know the correct word.

But swamps rot differently, and you get the sort of reactions that lead
to methane and peat and eventually oil.


Whatever - I think we can both agree that thinking trees will absorb CO2
to any significant extent is wrong, and designing environmental policies
around it is wrong, too. Whilst *some* of a dead tree *might* end up as
peat or carbon, most of it goes straight back to CO2.

Oh yes, planting trees wont save the planet until a few million years
have passed..

I will say though, that it does actually happen more than you might expect.

I cut down an acre of scrub - mainly hawthorn and blackthorn, about 50
years old. The leaf mould was about 4-6" thick, and was what is
generally termed 'good topsoil' and clearly different from the subsoil
(pure yellow and blue clay) underneath.

I would say that the layer of sol that in general covers this part of
the world - originally boulder clay from the terminal moraines of the
last ice age - is on average about a foot thick. Its very much full of
organic type stuff. You probably get about an inch of carbon rich soil
every thousand years or so, as a final rate of buildup. It actually
happens faster than that, but erosion, farming and leaching and so on
take a lot out. Where there are fairly old woods here, the soil is rich
and deep - the farmland is much less so.

Aerable Farming does tend to almost completely halt soil formation it
seems, and in the fens, leads to its reduction.

I made a raised plateau of subsoil dug out to make a pond. That wasn't
even dignified with any topsoil. Just planted with grass. Its got almost
half an inch of what looks like topsoil on it after 6 years. Mainly leaf
mould as its overhung by trees.




SteveT

"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...
Yes, we should all pay full attention to a fictional work whose main
premise is that a nuclear meltdown in the USA would burrow its way
through the earth all the way to China, shouldn't we?

You daft pillock! That wasn't the main theme at all! The "China
Syndrome" was a casual term used in the US nuclear industry at that time
to refer to a meltdown, and the film makers just used it in the title
because it sounds catchy.

Have you seen the film? It raised some VERY important issues about how
the drive for private profit can compromise safety. That's all.
SteveT

Indeed, Nuclear power can only be run anywhere near safely,
if private profit is taken out of the equation.

Three mile island many not have happened otherwise

Steve Terry

Norman Wells wrote:
Steve Thackery wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

I am saying that anyone who can prove a scientific theory AT ALL in
any terms whatsoever is someone who has advanced the whole cause of
civilisation and reason way beyond the 40th century.

Scientific theories are not factual, never were and never will be.
They are models of how things appear to happen. The best you can say
is that they are not demonstrably wrong. Newton was demonstrably
wrong, but iot took 300 odd years to do it. Einstein *so far* is
not. If you want certainly, become a catholic. The pope is infallible.
Science is not. Religion claims the one Truth. Science does not.

TNP: although we disagree on some issues, I think this is the best
statement about how science works I've read in ages.

Absolutely spot on: science is not involved with "truth". It produces
"models" which explain the observed phenomena, and let us make useful
predictions.

All of the models have limitations, and most will be replaced in due
course by better ones. Indeed, we know (in advance) that there are
problems with two of our most powerful models, General Relativity and
Quantum Mechanics, because where they overlap they disagree. One day
we'll find something better. Until then, they are both extremely
useful for day-to-day science and technology.

I wish Norman would take this on board.

I would if either applied in the situations we're discussing. But they
don't.

Then you haven't taken them on board.

The philsophy of science is an absolutely essential study for anyone
who really wants to understand science, rather than parrot crude models
*as if they were fact*. In my day, that was the difference between O
level and A level physics. At O level it was taught as 'fact' - at A
level it was taught as 'these are the best handles we have to date on
this stuff: They are not facts, and never were nor ever can be: Its just
the best we can do and it seems to work'

There has been, always has been and always will be a HUGE debate as to
whether scientific models represent a deeper reality (rational
materialism) or are in fact 'just what works' (Instrumentalism) or any
shade between.

Even Galileo failed to understand that, whereas the Church actually did.
They wanted him to merely state (correctly in my opinion) that the re
normalisation of orbital paths to a heliocentric model, was a matter of
mathematical convenience and that to say it 'meant' the 'the earth goes
round the sun' was unjustified.

Relativity means, as much as anything else, that nothing goes round
anything, till you pick an arbitrary point.

Newton defined mass as the quality that produces inertia. That's what
mass has been defined at IN SCIENCE ever since. Einstein predicted, that
this quality would change with velocity, and with energy content,
whereas Newton predicted that it was a constant and an inherent
inviolate property of an object. This seems to be your position.

Einstein's formulae when applied to planetary motion, have been shown to
be more accurate.

Ergo we feel on safe ground saying that Einstein is 'right' or 'more
right' than Newton.

HOWEVER Einstein's formulae when applied to clock springs, pendulums,
and car batteries show that the actual mass change is pretty much beyond
the limits of detection of any way we have of measuring mass. WE have a
philosophical choice: To say that Einstein's formulae only apply when
you can detect the difference, which seems to be your position, or to
say that they apply universally, and the fact that you cant detect the
difference means that it is safe to use Newtonian approximations without
the cannon ball landing more than a few nanometers off target, as it were.

Occams Razor says that in the absence of any exact understanding of the
real case, which is always the situation in science, we don't mix and
match formulae according to taste when one formula works over a broader
range than another, and encompasses ALL that the other has to offer and
does more.

I.e. Einstein broadly agrees to a few parts per billion with Newton, at
'human scale' Physics, it disagrees quite a lot at cosmic scales, and is
shown to be more accurate. We therefore say that Einsteins relativity
and the experiments that are dome to see if it is refutable, have failed
to refute it, but have refuted Newton's theories.

Ergo current thinking is that Einsteins picture is more accurate and
complete, and Newtonian mechanics is in fact, in the limit, wrong. That
doesn't make Einstein RIGHT, just 'less wrong, so far' which as Popper
says, is actually the best that may be expected of a scientific theory.

It doesn't make Newton any less useful either. It's a very good
approximation at small masses and low relative velocities. Good enough
to send a rocket to the moon..just. I believe there were relativistic
corrections in that flight as well though. Someone may know more.

All this is about your sloppy use of such expressions as 'what really
happens' and 'scientific proof' both of which are empty statements
philosophically, and that is not mere verbal gymnastics either. Its a
very deep and very pertinent point: We actually know nothing for sure
about anything. What we have are a set of ideas about the world that
seem to work reliably. The average person calls those ideas 'facts' but
the scientist should never ever be deceived into that position, he
should be better than that.

The difference between you and me, I suspect is that when I say 'the
earth goes round the sun' I am actually aware that it is a shorthand
form for 'the mathematical analysis of orbital paths of the entities we
consider to be 'planets' and 'stars' is most simply achieved to a first
order approximation by choosing heliocentric co-ordinates'

YOU actually think that something real and solid called the earth
actually does go round a big fusion reactor in the sky called the sun.

THAT is an act of faith, worthy of a catholic. I have no such faith. I
know too much to ever believe I know, to quote Wittgenstein 'Reality,
(is whatever is the case)'

Bill Wright wrote:
"Jerry" wrote in message
...
"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
Few homosexuals would want to admit to "cottaging", even
today, as it's still an illegal act...

No-one's ever propositioned me in a public toilet. I can't understand why.


Lucky you.

Bill

Tim S wrote:
Tim S coughed up some electrons that declared:

Norman Wells coughed up some electrons that declared:


Then you have completely misuderstood relativity.
I'm still waiting for you to refute the Wikipedia article I cited...

No?

Methinks Norman has a brother. Half brother perhaps. A brother who owns a
hacksaw? And a prius.

Mmm.

Of the same species. Homo Cranio-Priapus.

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Tim S" wrote in message
...
Norman Wells coughed up some electrons that declared:

Steve Thackery wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

sigh

Education today.

Norman, you are making yourself look a prat. You need to do a little
reading about mass-energy equivalence. Then you will understand.

Energy and mass are _not_ freely interconvertible. You require
absolutely
extreme conditions for it to happen. On earth, you will only find it
happening in nuclear reactions.

Do you accept that an object increases in mass as it approaches light
speed?

Yes.

Looks like a perfect demonstration of mass/energy equivalence to me.
Kinetic
energy, which is itself a relative phenonemum appears to manifest as
increased mass. Where's the problem?

Lets take a rechargeable battery..

you claim that the bonds made while charging it store energy because
the subatomic particles move faster and hence absorb the energy.
So when I discharge the battery the bonds change and the particles
slow down and release the energy.
Now explain why the battery gets hot when you discharge it

It has internal resistance. A completely different effect.

Its getting hot, so the molecules are moving faster so its getting more
mass according to you.


Indeed, but since its kicking more energy into the load than its gaining
as heat, there is a net loss.


and where the
energy is coming from as you (or claim to be) are putting all the
particles into a lower energy state to reduce their mass.


Well you have just said it. That is where all the energy is coming
from. Both to drive the load and make the battery hot.

But a hot battery is moving more so it must be more massive than before.
How can it be more massive if its supplying the energy?
According to you you have to reduce the mass to provide the energy.

It loses lets say 10X femtograms to provide the energy and gains 1
femtogram to get hot. Total weight loss 9 femtograms.

Simples!

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"J G Miller" wrote in message
news On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:53:01 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

You require absolutely extreme conditions for it to happen.

No you do not.

On earth, you will only find it happening in nuclear reactions.

Not true. Just you repeating it ad nauseam does not make it so.

You have been given examples of how it happens outside of nuclear
reactions, and even a link to a government sponsored science site
where it states categorically that a car with increasing velocity,
and thus increasing kinetic energy, increases in mass.

If I sit on the moon, the car will have increased mass on one side of
the orbit to the other, that doesn't mean it actually changes its
mass as anyone standing next to it will be able to confirm.



That's because they are stationary with respect to the car. If they
were measuring from somewhere else, it would.

You dont understand vectors either..

I do, you don't appear to though.
The car doesn't have different energy just because I move

It does.

Try hitting a car when you are moving at its exact velocity less a
teensy bit, and when you are standing in the road ..


but it does
have different mass according to your use of Einstein's e=mc2.

Steve Terry wrote:
"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...
Yes, we should all pay full attention to a fictional work whose main
premise is that a nuclear meltdown in the USA would burrow its way
through the earth all the way to China, shouldn't we?
You daft pillock! That wasn't the main theme at all! The "China
Syndrome" was a casual term used in the US nuclear industry at that time
to refer to a meltdown, and the film makers just used it in the title
because it sounds catchy.

Have you seen the film? It raised some VERY important issues about how
the drive for private profit can compromise safety. That's all.
SteveT

Indeed, Nuclear power can only be run anywhere near safely,
if private profit is taken out of the equation.


Absolute tosh.

All that is required is an independent inspectorate with teeth.

If that was, in general true of all industry, we would have planes
falling out of the sky every other flight.

The fact is that planes are as safe as the CAA or whatever body it is,
requires them to be.



Three mile island many not have happened otherwise


The safety record in the nationalised coal industry was not any better
than in what's left of it post privatisation.


Steve Terry

"J G Miller" wrote in message
news
snip

[ in reply to Andy Furniss ]
:
: So the Hoover Dam did make the bright lights possible in Las
Vegas by
: first providing power to the city and fostering its growth, but
by
: the time of your visit, the city was no longer using Hoover Dam
as
: a power source.

Also didn't the Hoover Dam make it possible to sustain Las Vegas
(as a major habitation) in other ways, such as a sustainable and
reliable water supply?
--
Regards, Jerry.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
: Steve Terry wrote:

snip
:
: Indeed, Nuclear power can only be run anywhere near safely,
: if private profit is taken out of the equation.
:
:
: Absolute tosh.
:
: All that is required is an independent inspectorate with teeth.

Absolute tosh, all it needs is to take way any reason to cut
costs (profit) and there is then no need to have the additional
costs of an independent inspectorate with teeth that have to be
paid for out of the profits - in other words what you propose
would be an ever increasing vortex of extra costs being paid for
by ever greater cost cutting to maintain the same level of
profit!...

:
: If that was, in general true of all industry, we would have
planes
: falling out of the sky every other flight.
:
: The fact is that planes are as safe as the CAA or whatever body
it is,
: requires them to be.

Absolute tosh, no airline wants their planes 'falling out of the
sky', it tends to make people book on other airlines (or not use
air travel at all), it's the quickest route to bankruptcy there
is - as a couple of US airlines found out...

The function of the CAA is to work with other 'federal' aviation
authorities and the aircraft industry to achieve common safety
and maintenance schedules etc. (part of that latter work is to
investigate when there has been an air crash).
--
Regards, Jerry.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:08:26 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

Sorry Norman, very deeply sorry that you haven't the brain and
certainly not the patience and humility to even begin to understand
even Newtonian physics..let alone anything else.

I understand them very well, thank you.

Trouble is Newtonian physics, as a model, doesn't fit modern
observations. Einstien came up with the General and Special Theories
of Relativity, they fit a a bit better. Then along comes Quantum
Mechanics which, as has already being pointed out, doesn't fit with
Relativity. Both models do fit the observations so as they don't
support each other they both must be "wrong" somewhere. Hence the
current quest for The Grand Unified Theory.

Norman, I suggest you wander off and do some in depth reading about
the advancements in the scientific theories relating to Quantum
Mechanics that have taken place in the last 30+ years. You appear to
be stuck in the theories of 50+ years ago.

Unfortunately that won't help at all with situations that don't involve
quantum mechanics in the slightest.

The physics of sub-atomic particles has no relevance unless you're
considering sub-atomic particles. Winding a cuckoo clock doesn't.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:52:13 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
So, what's it lost then? Electrons, neutrons, whole atoms, or
what?

Nothing, but that is not the point.

An electron which moves from a lower energy state to a higher
energy state gains mass, and similarly for the other particles.

A Nobel prize beckons if only you can prove it.

Since no *scientific* theory has ever been *proven*, it would
more be a Nobel prize for theology actually.

Don't be absurd. Loads of scientific theories have been proven to
loads or people's satisfaction.

Oh dear. You really know NOTHING. NO real scientist would EVER make
such a claim.

They would actually. It's all about the standard of proof one
expects.

If you're saying that Nobel prizes are only
dished out for absolute 100% proof with no room for error at all
ever, you're wrong.

No, I am not. I am saying that anyone who can prove a scientific
theory AT ALL in any terms whatsoever is someone who has advanced
the whole cause of civilisation and reason way beyond the 40th
century.

You're applying, I think, an absolute standard of proof, which of
course is impossible to attain in anything. Back here in the real
world, even scientists accept a little less.



Why don't you go and play with yourself, and read up on e.g. Karl
Popper for light relief?

If you have a point, do make it.

Read Karl Popper. That is the point. Try 'conjectures and refutations'
to start with.

You cannot put any modern science in the correct context until you
understand the debate and his conclusions about what science actually
is, and can be, until you have.

Then you will understand why your position is philosophically
meaningless.

The point is, I'm not having a philosophical argument but a scientific one.

Jerry wrote:
"J G Miller" wrote in message
news
snip

[ in reply to Andy Furniss ]
:
: So the Hoover Dam did make the bright lights possible in Las
Vegas by
: first providing power to the city and fostering its growth, but
by
: the time of your visit, the city was no longer using Hoover Dam
as
: a power source.

Also didn't the Hoover Dam make it possible to sustain Las Vegas
(as a major habitation) in other ways, such as a sustainable and
reliable water supply?

Fairly sure that there was always water there.

Underground.

probably pumped with windmills. The desert is permanently windy there.

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:52:13 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
So, what's it lost then? Electrons, neutrons, whole atoms, or
what?

Nothing, but that is not the point.

An electron which moves from a lower energy state to a higher
energy state gains mass, and similarly for the other particles.

A Nobel prize beckons if only you can prove it.

Since no *scientific* theory has ever been *proven*, it would
more be a Nobel prize for theology actually.

Don't be absurd. Loads of scientific theories have been proven to
loads or people's satisfaction.

Oh dear. You really know NOTHING. NO real scientist would EVER make
such a claim.

They would actually. It's all about the standard of proof one
expects.
If you're saying that Nobel prizes are only
dished out for absolute 100% proof with no room for error at all
ever, you're wrong.

No, I am not. I am saying that anyone who can prove a scientific
theory AT ALL in any terms whatsoever is someone who has advanced
the whole cause of civilisation and reason way beyond the 40th
century.

You're applying, I think, an absolute standard of proof, which of
course is impossible to attain in anything. Back here in the real
world, even scientists accept a little less.



Why don't you go and play with yourself, and read up on e.g. Karl
Popper for light relief?

If you have a point, do make it.

Read Karl Popper. That is the point. Try 'conjectures and refutations'
to start with.

You cannot put any modern science in the correct context until you
understand the debate and his conclusions about what science actually
is, and can be, until you have.

Then you will understand why your position is philosophically
meaningless.

The point is, I'm not having a philosophical argument but a scientific one.

The point is, you don't understand either, nor their inextricable
connection.

You are stuck in a limited 17th century worldview, that has proved to be
inadequate.

So really there is no help for you, since your arrogance precludes a
rational converation.

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:24:01 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

Then they're all unbelievably stupid, regardless of their qualifications.
Where on earth did they get the idea to which the words China Syndrome are
meant to relate? What were those words meant to convey?

Maybe 'china' as in "fragile container, easily broken, resulting in
possibly disastrous loss of contents" ?

--

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
: Jerry wrote:
: "J G Miller" wrote in message
: news :
: snip
:
: [ in reply to Andy Furniss ]
: :
: : So the Hoover Dam did make the bright lights possible in
Las
: Vegas by
: : first providing power to the city and fostering its growth,
but
: by
: : the time of your visit, the city was no longer using Hoover
Dam
: as
: : a power source.
:
: Also didn't the Hoover Dam make it possible to sustain Las
Vegas
: (as a major habitation) in other ways, such as a sustainable
and
: reliable water supply?
:
: Fairly sure that there was always water there.
:
: Underground.
:
: probably pumped with windmills. The desert is permanently windy
there.
:

Indeed but I did say *as a major habitation*, Las Vegas was
nothing more that a dust-bowl desert settlement before being
developed into what most now think of as Las Vegas IIRC,
something changes that allowed made it able to support many tens
of thousands of people rather than a few hundred.
--
Regards, Jerry.

Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:24:01 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

Then they're all unbelievably stupid, regardless of their qualifications.
Where on earth did they get the idea to which the words China Syndrome are
meant to relate? What were those words meant to convey?

Maybe 'china' as in "fragile container, easily broken, resulting in
possibly disastrous loss of contents" ?

No, my understanding is that in a nuclear core melt down there's nothing to
stop it burning its way through through the planet and popping out the other
side (which of course gravity wouldn't allow). Do that from the US, and you
end up in China (except you wouldn't, it would be the middle of the Indian Ocean.



--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

Well, Alexander, that turned out to be a brilliant thread!

SteveT

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

The point is, I'm not having a philosophical argument but a
scientific one.

The point is, you don't understand either, nor their inextricable
connection.

You are stuck in a limited 17th century worldview, that has proved to
be inadequate.

So really there is no help for you, since your arrogance precludes a
rational converation.

You just can't accept I'm right, can you?

Norman Wells coughed up some electrons that declared:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

The point is, I'm not having a philosophical argument but a
scientific one.

The point is, you don't understand either, nor their inextricable
connection.

You are stuck in a limited 17th century worldview, that has proved to
be inadequate.

So really there is no help for you, since your arrogance precludes a
rational converation.

You just can't accept I'm right, can you?

No, because you just sit there making assertions repeatedly without
attempting to back them up or producing credible refutations of citations
that other people use to back up their claims.

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 11:03:50 +0100, Steve Thackery wrote:

Well, Alexander, that turned out to be a brilliant thread!

SteveT

Most of it was like watching chimpanzees arguing over the contents of an
electricians toolbox.

BW

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 10:11:17 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Fairly sure that there was always water there.

Underground.

probably pumped with windmills. The desert is permanently windy there.

The major source of water supply for Las Vegas is Lake Mead fed by
the Colorado River.

And the water supply is much more critical than the electrical power supply
and is rapidly becoming inadquate for the growing city.

http://www.reuters.COM/article/domesticNews/idUSN1335882320070821

http://www.lasvegasnow.COM/Global/story.asp?s=6943263

http://abcnews.go.COM/Nightline/story?id=3012250&page=1

Bambleweeny57 wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 11:03:50 +0100, Steve Thackery wrote:

Well, Alexander, that turned out to be a brilliant thread!

SteveT

Most of it was like watching chimpanzees arguing over the contents of
an electricians toolbox.

I suppose it would seem like that to any organism without the knowledge, wit
or intellect to join in.

"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...
Well, Alexander, that turned out to be a brilliant thread!

What makes you so sure the thread has finished? Although I would agree that
every response now is totally off topic.

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 11:34:43 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

Bambleweeny57 wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 11:03:50 +0100, Steve Thackery wrote:

Well, Alexander, that turned out to be a brilliant thread!

SteveT

Most of it was like watching chimpanzees arguing over the contents of
an electricians toolbox.

I suppose it would seem like that to any organism without the knowledge,
wit or intellect to join in.

If you say so...

BW

Mark Carver wrote:
Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:24:01 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

Then they're all unbelievably stupid, regardless of their
qualifications. Where on earth did they get the idea to which the
words China Syndrome are meant to relate? What were those words
meant to convey?

Maybe 'china' as in "fragile container, easily broken, resulting in
possibly disastrous loss of contents" ?

No, my understanding is that in a nuclear core melt down there's nothing
to stop it burning its way through through the planet and popping out
the other side (which of course gravity wouldn't allow). Do that from
the US, and you end up in China (except you wouldn't, it would be the
middle of the Indian Ocean.



except of course that it wouldn't work that way.

Once the core really melted, it wouldn't stay coherent enough to
maintain fission.

Its possible to design a reactor that stops fissioning when it gets too
hot as well. See pebble bed reactors.

every reactor problem has actually resulted in a serious FIRE as well
with the graphite moderators catching alight, and the general mess that
results more or less stops fissioning as well. Its nasty, its dirty, but
it wont melt its way to the center of the earth, although if it did, it
would be pretty safe, cos the evidence is that that is where all the
fissile uranium sits, helping keep your world warm, anyway.

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

The point is, I'm not having a philosophical argument but a
scientific one.
The point is, you don't understand either, nor their inextricable
connection.

You are stuck in a limited 17th century worldview, that has proved to
be inadequate.

So really there is no help for you, since your arrogance precludes a
rational converation.

You just can't accept I'm right, can you?

ROFLMAO.

I am sure a 16th century person would agree that you were. This is the
21st century.

If you are going to quote science, get it right. Its not me you are up
against: Its the whole body of modern physics. I cant fix your problem
mate. You want to be right about matters scientific, but you are not.
Philosophically you are in a hole of your won making. I didn't put you
there, and you have bitten my helping hands.

J G Miller wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 10:11:17 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Fairly sure that there was always water there.

Underground.

probably pumped with windmills. The desert is permanently windy there.

The major source of water supply for Las Vegas is Lake Mead fed by
the Colorado River.


Really? never saw any pipes..


And the water supply is much more critical than the electrical power supply
and is rapidly becoming inadquate for the growing city.


we can but hope..it dies completely. Dreadful place.

http://www.reuters.COM/article/domesticNews/idUSN1335882320070821

http://www.lasvegasnow.COM/Global/story.asp?s=6943263

http://abcnews.go.COM/Nightline/story?id=3012250&page=1

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

every reactor problem has actually resulted in a serious FIRE as well
with the graphite moderators catching alight, and the general mess
that results more or less stops fissioning as well. Its nasty, its
dirty, but it wont melt its way to the center of the earth, although
if it did, it would be pretty safe, cos the evidence is that that is
where all the fissile uranium sits, helping keep your world warm,
anyway.

Are you saying now that the earth has a nuclear reaction going on at its
centre, and that's the reason it's pretty warm down there?

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:18:07 +0100, The Natural Philosopher asked:

Really?

Yes, really.

never saw any pipes..

Maybe they are underground or well camouflaged.

From

http://www.lasvegassun.COM/news/2009/aug/22/25-years-out-no-end-sight-pipeline-fight/

QUOTE
The water level at Lake Mead, source of 90 percent of our water
UNQUOTE

See also

http://www.lvrj.COM/news/46614562.html

we can but hope..it dies completely. Dreadful place.

Building a city in the middle of a desert does not seem to be good
strategic civic planning.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

The point is, I'm not having a philosophical argument but a
scientific one.
The point is, you don't understand either, nor their inextricable
connection.

You are stuck in a limited 17th century worldview, that has proved
to be inadequate.

So really there is no help for you, since your arrogance precludes a
rational converation.

You just can't accept I'm right, can you?

ROFLMAO.

I am sure a 16th century person would agree that you were. This is the
21st century.

If you are going to quote science, get it right. Its not me you are up
against: Its the whole body of modern physics. I cant fix your problem
mate. You want to be right about matters scientific, but you are not.
Philosophically you are in a hole of your won making. I didn't put you
there, and you have bitten my helping hands.

Boy, you sure are a sore loser!

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

every reactor problem has actually resulted in a serious FIRE as well
with the graphite moderators catching alight, and the general mess
that results more or less stops fissioning as well. Its nasty, its
dirty, but it wont melt its way to the center of the earth, although
if it did, it would be pretty safe, cos the evidence is that that is
where all the fissile uranium sits, helping keep your world warm,
anyway.

Are you saying now that the earth has a nuclear reaction going on at its
centre, and that's the reason it's pretty warm down there?



Yes, and no, that's not the only reason. Not even the biggest reason. Of
course it has nuclear reactions going on down there..where else would
all the radon come from? and all the uranium is still decaying whether
we use it in reactors or not.

How concentrated the reactions are, where they are, and how ,much they
contribute to global warming, is a highly debatable subject. Possibly
the best evidence is taht most models of the earth show it OUGHT to be
cooler than it is, unless some slight nuclear warming is posited.


There is evidence that what amounts to 'open hearth' fission reactors
have existed naturally (without actually making china) in the past.

http://knol.google.com/k/j-marvin-he...8elf7fue7ro/4#

for an interesting read.


Radioactivity and nuclear fission is a totally natural phenomenon and
doesn't need Man to set it going.On a global scale all that uranium is
going to decay anyway, so we might as well concentrate it, speed it up
and use it to light fires with.

... if and only if you are living in cold regions....
You are posting to four newsgroups tagged "UK" (United Kingdom). It
_is_ cold for all of us. Not like HK...

There is hot weather in UK, isn't it?

--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Ubuntu 9.04) Linux 2.6.30.7
^ ^ 20:22:01 up 1 day 8:37 1 user load average: 1.24 1.34 1.34
�借貸! ��騙! ��交! �打交! �打劫! �自殺! 請考慮綜� (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa