On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:16:38 GMT, wrote:

On 27 Oct,
T i m wrote:


Hmm, I can't say I've noticed that particularly. I do have one of
those 'natural light' spiral type CFL's and that is VERY white!

I've a worklight with three CFLs.

Oooh, I was looking at those with the though of being able to rig a
couple on a stand as a field work lamp to go with my little genny (or
inverter if it came to it and assuming it worked). Summat like this
maybe:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/yl5nytk

Originally they were all daylight. one
failed and was replaced by a standard (too)warm white. It now look as if it
has two blue bulbs and a red bulb when viewed with them all lit.

Oooerr. Without a doubt if you only exposure to CFL's was this natural
light jobby I've got here you wouldn't like them. You wouldn't think
you could have a light that was too 'white' but you can [1].

The choice of colour temperature of CFLs is very poor, 3000k or 3500k would
be good, 6500k (daylight) is too blue and 2700k (the usual)is too red, but
that's generally all that's available.

Ok.

Many years ago, when my parent's eyes were aging and they had a 200w
incandescent lamp behind their chairs to read by,

(feck!)

I replaced the central 200W
lamp by a 6foot /white/, not /warm/ white, fluorescent, and they never needed
the reading lamps again.

;-)

They'd probably have burned the house down.

And didn't need any heating on either I suspect.

What we need is higher colour temperature CFLs.

No, the last thing any of us need is a choice (too confusing /
frustrating / expensive).

Cheers, T i m

[1] It's part of my gripe about HID headlights. Whilst they may be
great for the rider / driver IMHO they are just_too_bright to be
comfortable when you get a face full of them on a roundabout or
country lane (as will happen no matter how well adjusted they are). As
humans we have a range of comfort. How hot or cold we can be, how much
weight we can lift, how much 'G' force we can take, how much noise we
can stand and how bright a light we can look at without making us
wince. For me, HID headlamps are outside that range.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 01:31:27 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

snip

My friend was clearly not a boy racer, and was clearly not 'speeding'. It
was a totally pointless exercise nicking him. If he was near a school or
actually even in the village, fair enough, but this was at a place where a
long standing sensible limit, had been arbitrarily moved to satisfy some
traffic calming directive that some university dropout had come up with to
justify his job, and not for any practical or demonstrable safety or
accident prevention reasons.

The guy was in a new speed limit, where there's obviously an increased
chance of being nicked.

I'm not arguing with your facts but just that I think they should
bring back 'discretion? I guess you mention the "there's obviously an
increased chance of being nicked" because you accept they will be
doing some form of entrapment (that potentially will mostly trap those
who regularly travel that route). I would be much happier to hear
"there's obviously an increased chance of being advised to be careful
as the limit had recently changed ...", in just the same way I
expected (and got) a parking ticked cancelled because they had
recently change the local parking rules and I was caught out by them.
I understand the authorities have no knowledge of our intent but this
'we are always guilty because the computer says no' thing isn't what
it was supposed to be all about (well, not since we were burning
witches because_we_thought_they were witches anyway). ;-(

I would consider myself a reasonably attentive driver (I don't want a
GPS with a camera database because it wouldn't spot the mobile cameras
so I don't want to rely on it doing so etc) but there are times when I
have found myself doing as Arfa's mate did with an accompanying 'wtf'
while I work out what's going on. The point is that this 'lapse'
wouldn't be dangerous as I wouldn't be driving into something faster
than I judged safe in the first place and as Arfa states, the actual
'limit' on any section of road is generally an arbitrary one, often
with no bearing on the actual 'safe' limit on that road as such (and
as mentioned, often just traffic management in any case). ie, Take the
signs away completely and I would be no more dangerous as I drive to
what I can see in any case. [1]

I feel there really is too much emphasis (and tolerance by us) on
knicking 'drivers' for such things. I mean, how difficult would it be
for them to consider circumstances, check the driver database (to see
(say) the driver had an unblemished 20 year driving record) and let
him go with a 'drive safely sir' and a smile? That wouldn't raise any
cash though would it (not that most people would have an issue with a
small fine, it's the points (when issued in such circumstances) that
most people object to).

Out of interest, would the copper be sat in the same place doing
people for going at 25 mph in the thick fog?

Cheers, T i m

[1] There are many many roads where if you were to drive at the
posted limit you would probably die within minutes. Now I know some
people do just that (Darwin rules Ok g) but there are many more of
us who seem to cope and have been able to cope before much of what we
have now existed.

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:16:38 GMT, wrote:

On 27 Oct,
T i m wrote:


Hmm, I can't say I've noticed that particularly. I do have one of
those 'natural light' spiral type CFL's and that is VERY white!

I've a worklight with three CFLs.

Oooh, I was looking at those with the though of being able to rig a
couple on a stand as a field work lamp to go with my little genny (or
inverter if it came to it and assuming it worked). Summat like this
maybe:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/yl5nytk

Originally they were all daylight. one
failed and was replaced by a standard (too)warm white. It now look as if
it
has two blue bulbs and a red bulb when viewed with them all lit.

Oooerr. Without a doubt if you only exposure to CFL's was this natural
light jobby I've got here you wouldn't like them. You wouldn't think
you could have a light that was too 'white' but you can [1].

The choice of colour temperature of CFLs is very poor, 3000k or 3500k
would
be good, 6500k (daylight) is too blue and 2700k (the usual)is too red, but
that's generally all that's available.

Ok.

Many years ago, when my parent's eyes were aging and they had a 200w
incandescent lamp behind their chairs to read by,

(feck!)

I replaced the central 200W
lamp by a 6foot /white/, not /warm/ white, fluorescent, and they never
needed
the reading lamps again.

;-)

They'd probably have burned the house down.

And didn't need any heating on either I suspect.

What we need is higher colour temperature CFLs.

No, the last thing any of us need is a choice (too confusing /
frustrating / expensive).

Cheers, T i m

[1] It's part of my gripe about HID headlights. Whilst they may be
great for the rider / driver IMHO they are just_too_bright to be
comfortable when you get a face full of them on a roundabout or
country lane (as will happen no matter how well adjusted they are). As
humans we have a range of comfort. How hot or cold we can be, how much
weight we can lift, how much 'G' force we can take, how much noise we
can stand and how bright a light we can look at without making us
wince. For me, HID headlamps are outside that range.



They're not actually *that* much better from behind the wheel. Good halogen
lamps are perfectly adequate on the roads in this country. There used to be
very robust legislation about how the lighting on cars was designed. As I
recall, there were laid down specifications on how high lamps could be, and
how far apart, and visibility angles and all sorts of things. Now, it seems
that car designers are perfectly ok to decide on the overall shape of the
car to make it look pretty, and then just fit the lights in where they can
so as to not spoil that prettiness any more than they have to. Some of the
rear lighting on cars now is, IMHO, totally inadequate in all but the most
ideal of conditions, whilst others' rear lighting is so ludicrously bright,
that it dazzles you even in daylight. I often wonder how many of those
inexplicable traffic stops that occur on motorways nowadays, are caused by
drivers over-reacting on their brake pedals, to the red searchlights coming
on in front of them, when that driver just touches his brake pedal for
whatever reason ...

Arfa

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 01:31:27 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

snip

My friend was clearly not a boy racer, and was clearly not 'speeding'.
It
was a totally pointless exercise nicking him. If he was near a school or
actually even in the village, fair enough, but this was at a place where
a
long standing sensible limit, had been arbitrarily moved to satisfy some
traffic calming directive that some university dropout had come up with
to
justify his job, and not for any practical or demonstrable safety or
accident prevention reasons.

The guy was in a new speed limit, where there's obviously an increased
chance of being nicked.

I'm not arguing with your facts but just that I think they should
bring back 'discretion? I guess you mention the "there's obviously an
increased chance of being nicked" because you accept they will be
doing some form of entrapment (that potentially will mostly trap those
who regularly travel that route). I would be much happier to hear
"there's obviously an increased chance of being advised to be careful
as the limit had recently changed ...", in just the same way I
expected (and got) a parking ticked cancelled because they had
recently change the local parking rules and I was caught out by them.
I understand the authorities have no knowledge of our intent but this
'we are always guilty because the computer says no' thing isn't what
it was supposed to be all about (well, not since we were burning
witches because_we_thought_they were witches anyway). ;-(

I would consider myself a reasonably attentive driver (I don't want a
GPS with a camera database because it wouldn't spot the mobile cameras
so I don't want to rely on it doing so etc) but there are times when I
have found myself doing as Arfa's mate did with an accompanying 'wtf'
while I work out what's going on. The point is that this 'lapse'
wouldn't be dangerous as I wouldn't be driving into something faster
than I judged safe in the first place and as Arfa states, the actual
'limit' on any section of road is generally an arbitrary one, often
with no bearing on the actual 'safe' limit on that road as such (and
as mentioned, often just traffic management in any case). ie, Take the
signs away completely and I would be no more dangerous as I drive to
what I can see in any case. [1]

I feel there really is too much emphasis (and tolerance by us) on
knicking 'drivers' for such things. I mean, how difficult would it be
for them to consider circumstances, check the driver database (to see
(say) the driver had an unblemished 20 year driving record) and let
him go with a 'drive safely sir' and a smile? That wouldn't raise any
cash though would it (not that most people would have an issue with a
small fine, it's the points (when issued in such circumstances) that
most people object to).

Out of interest, would the copper be sat in the same place doing
people for going at 25 mph in the thick fog?

Cheers, T i m

[1] There are many many roads where if you were to drive at the
posted limit you would probably die within minutes. Now I know some
people do just that (Darwin rules Ok g) but there are many more of
us who seem to cope and have been able to cope before much of what we
have now existed.

Thank you for that reasoned and honest reply. At least you are *one* person
on here who understands *exactly* what I am saying ...

Arfa

In article ,
"Arfa Daily" writes:

"T i m" wrote in message
...
[1] It's part of my gripe about HID headlights. Whilst they may be
great for the rider / driver IMHO they are just_too_bright to be
comfortable when you get a face full of them on a roundabout or
country lane (as will happen no matter how well adjusted they are). As
humans we have a range of comfort. How hot or cold we can be, how much
weight we can lift, how much 'G' force we can take, how much noise we
can stand and how bright a light we can look at without making us
wince. For me, HID headlamps are outside that range.

They're not actually *that* much better from behind the wheel. Good halogen
lamps are perfectly adequate on the roads in this country. There used to be

The reason they aren't much better is they are the wrong colour for
the night time lighting level at which they're used. Manufacturers
well know this and did produce some the same colour as halogens (which
turns out to be about the ideal lighting colour for night time use).
However, car designers weren't interested in using lighting which
cost £1000 extra (at the time) unless other people could see you
spent £1000 extra on your car, which is the only reason they are
manufacturered to be different colour from halogens.

very robust legislation about how the lighting on cars was designed. As I

Europe sort of rolled over on the HID lighting standards - it
was a case of bolting horses and stable doors.

The only extra rule they put in place was that drivers were not
allowed manual control over the dip beam angle of HID lights; it
could automatically adjust though. (I don't know if that's still
in place -- it was an interim ruling at the time.)

Having said that, the EU vehicle lighting rules are much better
than the US rules, so much so that the US has allowed the use of
the EU rules in the US for many years now. However, US vehicle
manufacturers won't allow the US to upgrade their own poor
standards, because it would mean spending money fixing their poor
designs, an additional cost which imported vehicles wouldn't have
to bear because they already meet the better standards.

recall, there were laid down specifications on how high lamps could be, and
how far apart, and visibility angles and all sorts of things. Now, it seems
that car designers are perfectly ok to decide on the overall shape of the
car to make it look pretty, and then just fit the lights in where they can
so as to not spoil that prettiness any more than they have to. Some of the

I don't believe any of that has gone.

rear lighting on cars now is, IMHO, totally inadequate in all but the most
ideal of conditions, whilst others' rear lighting is so ludicrously bright,
that it dazzles you even in daylight. I often wonder how many of those
inexplicable traffic stops that occur on motorways nowadays, are caused by
drivers over-reacting on their brake pedals, to the red searchlights coming
on in front of them, when that driver just touches his brake pedal for
whatever reason ...

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Oct 27, 12:19*pm, (Andrew Gabriel)
wrote:
In article ,
* * * * T i m writes:

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:40:03 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:14:56 -0000, Ash wrote:

I wonder if the cavemen in the south of England 10,000 years ago knew
that their little log fires were melting the glaciers?

Except they wern't, their log fires were not releasing fossil carbon.
Now if they had found some black rocks and also discovered they
burn't well that would be a different matter.

Isn't it the same thing just over a longer time frame? ;-)

No.

Releasing carbon which was captured in the last few years,
or even the last few thousand years, is not an issue
(although lots of ecobollockists don't even understand that).

It's releasing the carbon which was captured during the
carboniferous period which is (possibly) an issue. That's
carbon which was trapped during a 50M+ year period in coal
seams and the like, and resulted in mopping up the high level
of CO2 in the atmosphere at the beginning of the carboniferous
down to the levels at the end of the carboniferous, which are
nearer to what we have today. Rereleased over a 100 or 200
year timeframe, that is a potential cause for concern.

*potential* maybe, but actual cause for concern?

Just what proportion of the CO2 that was captured and laid down during
the carboniferous period are we ever likely to be able to get at and
release?

MBQ

On 27 Oct, 19:57, Jules
wrote:

What did Trevithick's efforts use, then?

It depends on which engine you're talking about and when: Charcoal
(the models), coke or coal. When the high-pressure engine was fixed
in place as a stationary engine it switched to burning coal, but it
also gained a far taller chimney that was sufficient to create the
draught it needed.

Trevithick was also using a centre flue boiler with a fairly large
grate area, which will burn coal tolerably well (although
inefficiently). The smaller-grate locomotives were those that had
particular trouble using coal, without forced draught.

On 27 Oct, 22:15, Rod wrote:

the coal consumed was two hundredweight".

"Coal" in that period was commonly used to refer to any of the black,
lumpy fuels. You have to check carefully as to which was used. Even
charcoal is sometimes described as "coals" in the 16th century. "Pit
coal" or "sea coal" is the sort that we commonly know as coal.

Much of Trevithick's work took place in the Welsh valleys at Pen-y-
darren, but although this was a coal-mining area it was also an
ironmaking town and he had ready access to the coke that was being
used in the furnaces.

Arfa Daily wrote:
"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 01:31:27 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

snip

My friend was clearly not a boy racer, and was clearly not
'speeding'. It
was a totally pointless exercise nicking him. If he was near a
school or actually even in the village, fair enough, but this was
at a place where a
long standing sensible limit, had been arbitrarily moved to
satisfy some traffic calming directive that some university
dropout had come up with to
justify his job, and not for any practical or demonstrable safety
or accident prevention reasons.

The guy was in a new speed limit, where there's obviously an
increased chance of being nicked.

I'm not arguing with your facts but just that I think they should
bring back 'discretion? I guess you mention the "there's obviously
an increased chance of being nicked" because you accept they will be
doing some form of entrapment (that potentially will mostly trap
those who regularly travel that route). I would be much happier to
hear "there's obviously an increased chance of being advised to be
careful as the limit had recently changed ...", in just the same way
I expected (and got) a parking ticked cancelled because they had
recently change the local parking rules and I was caught out by them.
I understand the authorities have no knowledge of our intent but this
'we are always guilty because the computer says no' thing isn't what
it was supposed to be all about (well, not since we were burning
witches because_we_thought_they were witches anyway). ;-(

I would consider myself a reasonably attentive driver (I don't want a
GPS with a camera database because it wouldn't spot the mobile
cameras so I don't want to rely on it doing so etc) but there are
times when I have found myself doing as Arfa's mate did with an
accompanying 'wtf' while I work out what's going on. The point is
that this 'lapse' wouldn't be dangerous as I wouldn't be driving
into something faster than I judged safe in the first place and as
Arfa states, the actual 'limit' on any section of road is generally
an arbitrary one, often with no bearing on the actual 'safe' limit
on that road as such (and as mentioned, often just traffic
management in any case). ie, Take the signs away completely and I
would be no more dangerous as I drive to what I can see in any case.
[1] I feel there really is too much emphasis (and tolerance by us) on
knicking 'drivers' for such things. I mean, how difficult would it be
for them to consider circumstances, check the driver database (to see
(say) the driver had an unblemished 20 year driving record) and let
him go with a 'drive safely sir' and a smile? That wouldn't raise any
cash though would it (not that most people would have an issue with a
small fine, it's the points (when issued in such circumstances) that
most people object to).

Out of interest, would the copper be sat in the same place doing
people for going at 25 mph in the thick fog?

Cheers, T i m

[1] There are many many roads where if you were to drive at the
posted limit you would probably die within minutes. Now I know some
people do just that (Darwin rules Ok g) but there are many more of
us who seem to cope and have been able to cope before much of what we
have now existed.

Thank you for that reasoned and honest reply. At least you are *one*
person on here who understands *exactly* what I am saying ...


As a person that got caught speeding in exactly the same situation, I have a
great deal of sympathy with your mate. In my instance, I had been diligently
keeping to a 40 mph limit (despite a queue of cars up my tail) and was
slowing down as I came into the 30mph zone. They had just been moved (which
I had forgotten). Low and behold there was a camera van parked just within
the 30mph zone. I swear my rear bumper was still in the 40mph when they got
me!

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 03:52:03 -0000, "Bill Wright"
wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Tim W wrote:

It's the subtle introduction of "though crime" that's most worrying. You
try
to start a reasoned and balanced debate on "Is excessive immigration bad
for Britain" without being instantly labelled as BNP.

WEll that is changing. Its not immigration per se, its too many people
full stop.

No, it's immigration. There's too many foreigners in this country.

Mind you, the other thing is that the current system encourages the workshy
and the stupid to breed like rabbits. When these lasses get pregnant just to
get a council flat they should be send back to mum and dad with a flea in
their ear. Child benefit should be abolished.

********. The stupid are likely to "breed like rabbits" no matter
what the system is. The current benefits system does not encourage
having children. It costs far more to raise a child than you can get
from the state.

Child benefit is a godsend for many hardworking parents.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 03:00:07 -0700 (PDT), Andy Dingley
wrote:

On 27 Oct, 01:03, "Arfa Daily" wrote:

Obviously, there is some heavy duty subsidisation going on here somewhere.

There is government pressure on electricity companies to reduce the
CO2 impact of their generation.

The metric for this is written in such a way that cutting consumption
counts as reducing emissions, just as much as more efficient
generation would.

It's cheaper for electricity companies to hand out free CFLs than to
change plant. They still gain the government credit for emission
reduction.

If you hand out CFLs (or loft insulation) for free, few people want
it. If you "sell" it for a trivial sum, if flies off the shelves.

Where can I get free CFLs? I could do with some.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:45:39 -0000, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


[1] There are many many roads where if you were to drive at the
posted limit you would probably die within minutes. Now I know some
people do just that (Darwin rules Ok g) but there are many more of
us who seem to cope and have been able to cope before much of what we
have now existed.

Thank you for that reasoned and honest reply.

I didn't even know I could do reasoned. ;-)

At least you are *one* person
on here who understands *exactly* what I am saying ...

I'm sure there are more.

I still think much of the stuff we suffer wouldn't exist if the bean
counters weren't accepted as the last word. It's obvious to most good
managers that *sometimes* trying to fund things by persecuting the
average Joe is going to generate a backlash at some point or another.

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:58:34 -0000, "Clot"
wrote:


As a person that got caught speeding in exactly the same situation, I have a
great deal of sympathy with your mate. In my instance, I had been diligently
keeping to a 40 mph limit (despite a queue of cars up my tail) and was
slowing down as I came into the 30mph zone. They had just been moved (which
I had forgotten). Low and behold there was a camera van parked just within
the 30mph zone. I swear my rear bumper was still in the 40mph when they got
me!

So you were (effectively) fined for a lapse of memory, not
concentration or attention or because you were driving familar ground
but not driving dangerously?

Prior to this apparent change in tack of some of the authorities, I
imagine most of us would put our hands up and pay the fine. It now
appears many people are utilising loop-holes to confuse / evade the
system. Not because they aren't guilty in a technical sense but
because they feel they aren't guilty in a realistic one.

Driving issues IMHO *should* be down to actual dangerous driving or
inconsiderate attitude. Those who you see jump *every* set of lights
on a particular journey, or persistently undertake and / or then cut
people up to force their way back in. Or overtake down a line of cars
at a lane closure and try to do the same [1]. They (or those they
bully) are the ones who will inevitably cause a smash / or road-rage
incident somewhere down the line, further inconveniencing many many
more people.

Cheers, T i m

[1] I wonder if they would have the guts to try the same trick at a
cinema or football match queue?

"T i m" wrote in message
...

[1] There are many many roads where if you were to drive at the
posted limit you would probably die within minutes. Now I know some
people do just that (Darwin rules Ok g) but there are many more of
us who seem to cope and have been able to cope before much of what we
have now existed.

Two lasses crashed into a canal near Skipton in the past couple of years.
Went straight on at a tightish bend in NSL. Both dead, and I think one of
the passengers too.

Their mates said "But she was a safe driver, and the speed limit is 60
there".

No concept of taking responsibility for their actions.

Mark wrote:


********. The stupid are likely to "breed like rabbits" no matter
what the system is. The current benefits system does not encourage
having children. It costs far more to raise a child than you can get
from the state.


But it does not cost far more to feed them junk and let them run wild.


Child benefit is a godsend for many hardworking parents.

And a godsend for the terminally useless. you tot up what you get paid
as an unmarried mother with 5 kids..

Man at B&Q wrote:
On Oct 27, 12:19 pm, (Andrew Gabriel)
wrote:
In article ,
T i m writes:

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:40:03 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:14:56 -0000, Ash wrote:
I wonder if the cavemen in the south of England 10,000 years ago knew
that their little log fires were melting the glaciers?
Except they wern't, their log fires were not releasing fossil carbon.
Now if they had found some black rocks and also discovered they
burn't well that would be a different matter.
Isn't it the same thing just over a longer time frame? ;-)
No.

Releasing carbon which was captured in the last few years,
or even the last few thousand years, is not an issue
(although lots of ecobollockists don't even understand that).

It's releasing the carbon which was captured during the
carboniferous period which is (possibly) an issue. That's
carbon which was trapped during a 50M+ year period in coal
seams and the like, and resulted in mopping up the high level
of CO2 in the atmosphere at the beginning of the carboniferous
down to the levels at the end of the carboniferous, which are
nearer to what we have today. Rereleased over a 100 or 200
year timeframe, that is a potential cause for concern.

*potential* maybe, but actual cause for concern?

Just what proportion of the CO2 that was captured and laid down during
the carboniferous period are we ever likely to be able to get at and
release?


more than enough. Probably about 15% at a guess.

MBQ

Andy Dingley wrote:
On 27 Oct, 19:57, Jules
wrote:

What did Trevithick's efforts use, then?

It depends on which engine you're talking about and when: Charcoal
(the models), coke or coal. When the high-pressure engine was fixed
in place as a stationary engine it switched to burning coal, but it
also gained a far taller chimney that was sufficient to create the
draught it needed.

Trevithick was also using a centre flue boiler with a fairly large
grate area, which will burn coal tolerably well (although
inefficiently). The smaller-grate locomotives were those that had
particular trouble using coal, without forced draught.

Rubbish.

Coal doesn't need a forced draught. Coke does.

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:58:34 -0000, "Clot"
wrote:


As a person that got caught speeding in exactly the same situation, I have
a
great deal of sympathy with your mate. In my instance, I had been
diligently
keeping to a 40 mph limit (despite a queue of cars up my tail) and was
slowing down as I came into the 30mph zone. They had just been moved
(which
I had forgotten). Low and behold there was a camera van parked just within
the 30mph zone. I swear my rear bumper was still in the 40mph when they
got
me!

So you were (effectively) fined for a lapse of memory, not
concentration or attention or because you were driving familar ground
but not driving dangerously?

"Sorry, I forgot the road had a corner here"

Lapse of memory is no excuse at all. There are big circles with numbers in
them, with red borders. If you're driving with any degree of attention
whatsoever, you'll notice them.

If you claim it's a lapse of memory which caused you to not see a speeed
limit, then that's good grounds for a charge of driving without due care and
attention.

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

Thank you for that reasoned and honest reply. At least you are *one*
person on here who understands *exactly* what I am saying ...

Oh, I do understand *exactly* what you're saying. I don't agree you're right
though.

Andy Dingley wrote:
On 27 Oct, 22:15, Rod wrote:

the coal consumed was two hundredweight".

"Coal" in that period was commonly used to refer to any of the black,
lumpy fuels. You have to check carefully as to which was used. Even
charcoal is sometimes described as "coals" in the 16th century. "Pit
coal" or "sea coal" is the sort that we commonly know as coal.


Rubbish

Much of Trevithick's work took place in the Welsh valleys at Pen-y-
darren, but although this was a coal-mining area it was also an
ironmaking town and he had ready access to the coke that was being
used in the furnaces.

Coke was initially developed to cast iron making - cf Abraham Darby and
the BLAST furnace. Note that its COKE that needs the blast furnace, not
coal.

Coke is used in iron smelting because it is relatively pure carbon And
general silcates that form ash): As such, it is much harder to burn than
coal, which contains lots of other more easily burnable hydrocarbons.

Coke was made from coal in a similar way to charcoal from wood. In fact
since coal is essentially fossilised wood, the same principles ought to
apply. heated coal in the absence of oxygen gives off hydrogen and
carbon monoxide and leaves mainly pure carbon. That's the coking process.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:48:15 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"T i m" wrote in message
.. .

[1] There are many many roads where if you were to drive at the
posted limit you would probably die within minutes. Now I know some
people do just that (Darwin rules Ok g) but there are many more of
us who seem to cope and have been able to cope before much of what we
have now existed.

Two lasses crashed into a canal near Skipton in the past couple of years.
Went straight on at a tightish bend in NSL. Both dead, and I think one of
the passengers too.

Their mates said "But she was a safe driver, and the speed limit is 60
there".

No concept of taking responsibility for their actions.

Then Darwinism is alive and working on the roads today (unfortunately
for the innocent victims etc).

This seems relevant (WS) 2:15 onwards:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAGJpISVERg

Cheers, T i m

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:58:31 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Jules wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:55:11 -0700, Andy Dingley wrote:
The first coal-fired steam locomotive was Stephenson's Rocket, the
crucial innovation being the use of a blastpipe to encourage draught
on the fire.

What did Trevithick's efforts use, then? I did did some googling but
couldn't find any mention of the actual heat source used.

wood or coal of course.

Yes, that's what I suspected - and particularly as his early efforts
seemed attached to the coal mining industry, it would seem like a good
possibility for use as the fuel source. I'm sure the engines weren't
particularly good due to the boiler design - I was just surprised that the
later Rocket was perhaps claimed to be the first coal-fired loco.

I think Stephenson largely brought several existing inventions together in
one package, rather than providing much innovation of his own. But then
carving a spot in history often does seem to be more of a PR exercise than
anything...

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:58:53 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"T i m" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:58:34 -0000, "Clot"
wrote:


As a person that got caught speeding in exactly the same situation, I have
a
great deal of sympathy with your mate. In my instance, I had been
diligently
keeping to a 40 mph limit (despite a queue of cars up my tail) and was
slowing down as I came into the 30mph zone. They had just been moved
(which
I had forgotten). Low and behold there was a camera van parked just within
the 30mph zone. I swear my rear bumper was still in the 40mph when they
got
me!

So you were (effectively) fined for a lapse of memory, not
concentration or attention or because you were driving familar ground
but not driving dangerously?

"Sorry, I forgot the road had a corner here"

You aren't actually driving the road by memory, you are prioritising
the important stuff, like what that kid on a bike is about to do not
if the number on a stick is the same as it was yesterday.

Lapse of memory is no excuse at all. There are big circles with numbers in
them, with red borders. If you're driving with any degree of attention
whatsoever, you'll notice them.

Have you never been though a set of lights and suddenly had the
thought that you didn't consciously 'notice' the state of the lights
(but a glance in the mirror suggests they must have been green)?

If you claim it's a lapse of memory which caused you to not see a speeed
limit, then that's good grounds for a charge of driving without due care and
attention.

Possibly (by your rules) but not relevant in the real (driving safety)
world.

Speed limits and then cameras are primarily there to manage trap
those who can't make decisions on their own (and in that process also
trap those spending more time actually driving attentively and not
staring at their speedo or circles on sticks). I'm not saying most of
us can't do both of course but speed and safe driving can be two
different things.

ie, They have speed limits in the pits on race tracks but not on the
track yet not everyone dies?

Cheers, T i m

On 28 Oct, 12:56, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Coal doesn't need a forced draught. Coke does.

Efficient burning of either needs a forced draught, which you can gain
from a moderate chimney.

Clean burning of coal, without a pall of black smoke, requires more
chimney height than is practical on a moving vehicle. Even back to
Queen Elizabeth's reign, there were laws against burning coal without
suitable smoke-preventative measures. As coke was widely known by now
for metallurgy, and any steam locomotive in this period was at the
leading edge of engineering, coke was an obvious solution.

The solution to burning coal on locomotives was to use the blastpipe
to increase the draught. This post-dates Trevithick, and was probably
invented by Hackworth. Coal may have been used by Hackworth at Wylam,
or at the Middleton railway (these locomotives were probably capable
of doing so, with excessive smoke) but the real shift from coke to
coal as a practical locomotive fuel is well documented through
experiments by Stephensons.

On 28 Oct, 13:01, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Coke was initially developed to cast iron making - cf Abraham Darby and
the BLAST furnace.

And your point is?

By Trevithick's day, coke had a hundred years of use in ironfounding.
It was easily available to the early locomotive builders, and they
chose to use it.


BTW - It wasn't developed for cast iron making either, but for use in
the blast furnace, the smelter for converting iron ore to pig iron.
This iron was later re-heated and manufactured as wrought iron
(hammered whilst hot and pasty rather than melted and poured). Cast
iron came a little later, as it required a less viscous melt if it was
to be pourable into moulds.

T i m wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:58:34 -0000, "Clot"
wrote:


As a person that got caught speeding in exactly the same situation,
I have a great deal of sympathy with your mate. In my instance, I
had been diligently keeping to a 40 mph limit (despite a queue of
cars up my tail) and was slowing down as I came into the 30mph zone.
They had just been moved (which I had forgotten). Low and behold
there was a camera van parked just within the 30mph zone. I swear my
rear bumper was still in the 40mph when they got me!

So you were (effectively) fined for a lapse of memory, not
concentration or attention or because you were driving familar ground
but not driving dangerously?

Precisely so.

Prior to this apparent change in tack of some of the authorities, I
imagine most of us would put our hands up and pay the fine. It now
appears many people are utilising loop-holes to confuse / evade the
system. Not because they aren't guilty in a technical sense but
because they feel they aren't guilty in a realistic one.

Doesn't do much to endear one to the autorities.

Driving issues IMHO *should* be down to actual dangerous driving or
inconsiderate attitude. Those who you see jump *every* set of lights
on a particular journey, or persistently undertake and / or then cut
people up to force their way back in. Or overtake down a line of cars
at a lane closure and try to do the same [1]. They (or those they
bully) are the ones who will inevitably cause a smash / or road-rage
incident somewhere down the line, further inconveniencing many many
more people.

Wholly agree.

And then those that will drive at the limit in unsuitable conditions because
they think that it must be safe!

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:54:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Mark wrote:

********. The stupid are likely to "breed like rabbits" no matter
what the system is. The current benefits system does not encourage
having children. It costs far more to raise a child than you can get
from the state.

But it does not cost far more to feed them junk and let them run wild.

Child benefit is a godsend for many hardworking parents.

And a godsend for the terminally useless. you tot up what you get paid
as an unmarried mother with 5 kids..

Exactly the same as a hardworking married couple with 5 children.

The truth is there are far more single parents in this world that are
only in their predicament through no fault of their own than there are
single parents who deliberately set out to be like this.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

Clive George wrote:
"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:58:34 -0000, "Clot"
wrote:


As a person that got caught speeding in exactly the same situation,
I have a
great deal of sympathy with your mate. In my instance, I had been
diligently
keeping to a 40 mph limit (despite a queue of cars up my tail) and
was slowing down as I came into the 30mph zone. They had just been
moved (which
I had forgotten). Low and behold there was a camera van parked just
within the 30mph zone. I swear my rear bumper was still in the
40mph when they got
me!

So you were (effectively) fined for a lapse of memory, not
concentration or attention or because you were driving familar ground
but not driving dangerously?

"Sorry, I forgot the road had a corner here"

Lapse of memory is no excuse at all. There are big circles with
numbers in them, with red borders. If you're driving with any degree
of attention whatsoever, you'll notice them.

If you claim it's a lapse of memory which caused you to not see a
speeed limit, then that's good grounds for a charge of driving
without due care and attention.

I can't agree. Driving according to the road conditions and anticipating
what hazards may lie ahead is far more important than watching out for
technical breach of the law.

T i m wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:58:53 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:58:34 -0000, "Clot"
wrote:


As a person that got caught speeding in exactly the same
situation, I have a
great deal of sympathy with your mate. In my instance, I had been
diligently
keeping to a 40 mph limit (despite a queue of cars up my tail) and
was slowing down as I came into the 30mph zone. They had just been
moved (which
I had forgotten). Low and behold there was a camera van parked
just within the 30mph zone. I swear my rear bumper was still in
the 40mph when they got
me!

So you were (effectively) fined for a lapse of memory, not
concentration or attention or because you were driving familar
ground but not driving dangerously?

"Sorry, I forgot the road had a corner here"

You aren't actually driving the road by memory, you are prioritising
the important stuff, like what that kid on a bike is about to do not
if the number on a stick is the same as it was yesterday.

Lapse of memory is no excuse at all. There are big circles with
numbers in them, with red borders. If you're driving with any degree
of attention whatsoever, you'll notice them.

Have you never been though a set of lights and suddenly had the
thought that you didn't consciously 'notice' the state of the lights
(but a glance in the mirror suggests they must have been green)?

If you claim it's a lapse of memory which caused you to not see a
speeed limit, then that's good grounds for a charge of driving
without due care and attention.

Possibly (by your rules) but not relevant in the real (driving safety)
world.

Speed limits and then cameras are primarily there to manage trap
those who can't make decisions on their own (and in that process also
trap those spending more time actually driving attentively and not
staring at their speedo or circles on sticks). I'm not saying most of
us can't do both of course but speed and safe driving can be two
different things.

Agreed.

On 28 Oct, 13:32, Jules
wrote:

Yes, that's what I suspected - and particularly as his early efforts
seemed attached to the coal mining industry,

Trevithick was one of the few who _wasn't_ attached to coal mining.
His "Newcastle" locomotive, for the Wylam colliery, was something like
his sixth engine (we don't know how many stationary engine he built
beforehand). Before that he'd come from Cornwall via Wales, with
detours through road transport and exhibitions. The industries he was
more closely associated with were metal ore mining in Cornwall and
iron-founding in Wales.

As Cornwall had no coal available and little wood at most of the mine
locations the large number of stationary pumping engines there were
dependent on imported fuel at greater cost. This encourages a more
careful approach to efficiency and innovation than in the coalfields
of Dudley or Tyneside. Many innovations, like Woolf's compounding, and
the whole Cornish engine approach itself (slow, huge, but surprisingly
efficient, right into the 20th century) were driven by the price of
fuel in Cornwall.

T i m wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:48:15 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"T i m" wrote in message
...

[1] There are many many roads where if you were to drive at the
posted limit you would probably die within minutes. Now I know some
people do just that (Darwin rules Ok g) but there are many more of
us who seem to cope and have been able to cope before much of what
we have now existed.

Two lasses crashed into a canal near Skipton in the past couple of
years. Went straight on at a tightish bend in NSL. Both dead, and I
think one of the passengers too.

Their mates said "But she was a safe driver, and the speed limit is
60 there".

No concept of taking responsibility for their actions.

Then Darwinism is alive and working on the roads today (unfortunately
for the innocent victims etc).

This seems relevant (WS) 2:15 onwards:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAGJpISVERg

Appreciated the clip. Quite!

Clive George wrote:
"T i m" wrote in message
...

[1] There are many many roads where if you were to drive at the
posted limit you would probably die within minutes. Now I know some
people do just that (Darwin rules Ok g) but there are many more of
us who seem to cope and have been able to cope before much of what we
have now existed.

Two lasses crashed into a canal near Skipton in the past couple of
years. Went straight on at a tightish bend in NSL. Both dead, and I
think one of the passengers too.

Their mates said "But she was a safe driver, and the speed limit is 60
there".

No concept of taking responsibility for their actions.

The point I was making elsewhere in the thread.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:02:50 -0000, "Clot"
wrote:

Clive George wrote:
"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:58:34 -0000, "Clot"
wrote:


As a person that got caught speeding in exactly the same situation,
I have a
great deal of sympathy with your mate. In my instance, I had been
diligently
keeping to a 40 mph limit (despite a queue of cars up my tail) and
was slowing down as I came into the 30mph zone. They had just been
moved (which
I had forgotten). Low and behold there was a camera van parked just
within the 30mph zone. I swear my rear bumper was still in the
40mph when they got
me!

So you were (effectively) fined for a lapse of memory, not
concentration or attention or because you were driving familar ground
but not driving dangerously?

"Sorry, I forgot the road had a corner here"

Lapse of memory is no excuse at all. There are big circles with
numbers in them, with red borders. If you're driving with any degree
of attention whatsoever, you'll notice them.

If you claim it's a lapse of memory which caused you to not see a
speeed limit, then that's good grounds for a charge of driving
without due care and attention.

I can't agree. Driving according to the road conditions and anticipating
what hazards may lie ahead is far more important than watching out for
technical breach of the law.

Anyone driving should be able to do both. Failure to do so is either
a lack of ability or a disregard for others.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]

"T i m" wrote in message
...

So you were (effectively) fined for a lapse of memory, not
concentration or attention or because you were driving familar ground
but not driving dangerously?

"Sorry, I forgot the road had a corner here"

You aren't actually driving the road by memory, you are prioritising
the important stuff, like what that kid on a bike is about to do not
if the number on a stick is the same as it was yesterday.

If you're overloaded by that information (kid on bike, number on sign), you
either need to take steps to reduce that load or increase the amount of
information you can take on. The latter means concentrating on driving, not
going on autopilot. There is another alternative, which is to slow down to a
level where you can cope with the amount of information coming in, but
that's clearly a ridiculous idea.

And I bet there wasn't a kid on a bike at the point where Clot had his
memory lapse...

Lapse of memory is no excuse at all. There are big circles with numbers in
them, with red borders. If you're driving with any degree of attention
whatsoever, you'll notice them.

Have you never been though a set of lights and suddenly had the
thought that you didn't consciously 'notice' the state of the lights
(but a glance in the mirror suggests they must have been green)?

Occasionally. And I take that as a reminder that I wasn't concentrating
adequately, and any ****up which would have resulted from that would have
been my fault. I try to learn from my mistakes.

If you claim it's a lapse of memory which caused you to not see a speeed
limit, then that's good grounds for a charge of driving without due care
and
attention.

Possibly (by your rules) but not relevant in the real (driving safety)
world.

Yes, 100% relevant in the real world. The point isn't that the number on the
stick may be different to what's safe, the point is that you should be
driving such that you know what the number on the stick is and what your
speed is without compromising your safety. Do you see the difference?

"Clot" wrote in message
...

I can't agree. Driving according to the road conditions and anticipating
what hazards may lie ahead is far more important than watching out for
technical breach of the law.

There's nothing stopping you from doing both. It's not even especially hard.

Remember, road conditions includes the law in place, and anticipating
hazards includes anticipating speed limits.

For example, if you're driving along behind somebody and you come to a lower
speed limit, seeing the sign lets you know that driver might decide to
suddenly slow down to that limit.

On 27 Oct, 19:08, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

So why did the Thames freeze over 200 years ago then?

Because.

Which has little relation to any _additional_ causes we kick into
play. One doesn't preclude the other.

One might also suggest that the absence of "little ice ages", frost
fairs etc. since we started messing with stuff would tend to support
the anthropocene hypothesis, rather than discredit it.

Clive George wrote:
"T i m" wrote in message
...

[1] There are many many roads where if you were to drive at the
posted limit you would probably die within minutes. Now I know some
people do just that (Darwin rules Ok g) but there are many more of
us who seem to cope and have been able to cope before much of what we
have now existed.

Two lasses crashed into a canal near Skipton in the past couple of years.
Went straight on at a tightish bend in NSL. Both dead, and I think one of
the passengers too.

Their mates said "But she was a safe driver, and the speed limit is 60
there".

No concept of taking responsibility for their actions.


Indeed. round here there are regular accidents on un limited minor roads
where people come around at 60 mph, or even at the posted 40mph on some
limited streches and find a combine harvester, a stopped car, or a
horsebox, or a deer..in the middle of the road.

At this time of year, wet leaves are a literal killer, to.

There's far too much emphasis on driving to the Law, and far too little
on driving to the conditions IMO.

Mark wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:54:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Mark wrote:
********. The stupid are likely to "breed like rabbits" no matter
what the system is. The current benefits system does not encourage
having children. It costs far more to raise a child than you can get
from the state.

But it does not cost far more to feed them junk and let them run wild.

Child benefit is a godsend for many hardworking parents.
And a godsend for the terminally useless. you tot up what you get paid
as an unmarried mother with 5 kids..

Exactly the same as a hardworking married couple with 5 children.


ER no, they end up with LESS actually: you lose benefits when you work.

The truth is there are far more single parents in this world that are
only in their predicament through no fault of their own than there are
single parents who deliberately set out to be like this.


I dont think they set out to be like that, it happens, and there is no
reason *not* to let it happen.

Compare and contrast the 20's and 30's say, where to be an unmarried
mother was to be socially beyond the pale, and to get married required
that at least the man had a steady job, and enough income before the
girl would, quite rightly, consider it.

Or even more than a quick fuumble in teh bushes.

People will always have sex and make babies: Its the easiest thing in
the world. There needs to be a strong incentive NOT too. Or else we are
all headed for a completely impoverished society. We are GROSSLY
overpopulated already.


Harsh individually it may be, but collectively we need to stop
supporting childbirth.

Clot wrote:
Clive George wrote:
"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:58:34 -0000, "Clot"
wrote:


As a person that got caught speeding in exactly the same situation,
I have a
great deal of sympathy with your mate. In my instance, I had been
diligently
keeping to a 40 mph limit (despite a queue of cars up my tail) and
was slowing down as I came into the 30mph zone. They had just been
moved (which
I had forgotten). Low and behold there was a camera van parked just
within the 30mph zone. I swear my rear bumper was still in the
40mph when they got
me!
So you were (effectively) fined for a lapse of memory, not
concentration or attention or because you were driving familar ground
but not driving dangerously?
"Sorry, I forgot the road had a corner here"

Lapse of memory is no excuse at all. There are big circles with
numbers in them, with red borders. If you're driving with any degree
of attention whatsoever, you'll notice them.

If you claim it's a lapse of memory which caused you to not see a
speeed limit, then that's good grounds for a charge of driving
without due care and attention.

I can't agree. Driving according to the road conditions and anticipating
what hazards may lie ahead is far more important than watching out for
technical breach of the law.


failure to do either will limit your driving career.

It's important to regard both as natural hazards.

Mark wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:02:50 -0000, "Clot"
wrote:

Clive George wrote:
"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:58:34 -0000, "Clot"
wrote:


As a person that got caught speeding in exactly the same situation,
I have a
great deal of sympathy with your mate. In my instance, I had been
diligently
keeping to a 40 mph limit (despite a queue of cars up my tail) and
was slowing down as I came into the 30mph zone. They had just been
moved (which
I had forgotten). Low and behold there was a camera van parked just
within the 30mph zone. I swear my rear bumper was still in the
40mph when they got
me!
So you were (effectively) fined for a lapse of memory, not
concentration or attention or because you were driving familar ground
but not driving dangerously?
"Sorry, I forgot the road had a corner here"

Lapse of memory is no excuse at all. There are big circles with
numbers in them, with red borders. If you're driving with any degree
of attention whatsoever, you'll notice them.

If you claim it's a lapse of memory which caused you to not see a
speeed limit, then that's good grounds for a charge of driving
without due care and attention.
I can't agree. Driving according to the road conditions and anticipating
what hazards may lie ahead is far more important than watching out for
technical breach of the law.

Anyone driving should be able to do both.

only about 1% of drivers do., though.


Failure to do so is either
a lack of ability or a disregard for others.

Indeed. And that covers the 99%.