On 10/11/2011 21:42, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 21:38:58 -0000, Roger Chapman
wrote:

On 10/11/2011 20:30, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

Why are they called radiators when they are primarily convectors?

ISTR that it is roughly even stephen but can't remember whether the
information relates to modern panel radiators or the old fashioned
monster cast iron ones which were the original radiators.

Probably the old ones. You can test yourself, just see how much hot air
is flowing up form the modern ones (there's a reason for that concertina
stuff inside). And you can't feel anywhere near as much being radiated.
Mind you it might help if they were black, but then you'd need brighter
lights,

In the thermal longwave infrared just about anything that isn't a shiny
metallic surface is a good approximation to black - even white paint.

ISTR as a rough rule of thumb radiative heat transfer starts to become
significant at about 55C with an ambient of 20C. It scales with absolute
temperature to the fourth power so takes off rapidly.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 22:06:23 -0000, Roger Chapman wrote:

On 10/11/2011 21:42, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

On 10/11/2011 20:30, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

Why are they called radiators when they are primarily convectors?

ISTR that it is roughly even stephen but can't remember whether the
information relates to modern panel radiators or the old fashioned
monster cast iron ones which were the original radiators.

Probably the old ones. You can test yourself, just see how much hot air
is flowing up form the modern ones (there's a reason for that concertina
stuff inside). And you can't feel anywhere near as much being radiated.
Mind you it might help if they were black, but then you'd need brighter
lights,

Probably, but possibly just finless. The radiator I am sitting next to
is a single panel with no fins. Fins make a substantial difference -
about 42% greater output according to one site I checked.

I've never seen a finless one, what a strange idea! Even my slimline single panel hall radiator has fins at the back.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

If quizzes are quizzical, what are tests?

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 22:15:11 -0000, Davey wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 20:23:51 -0000
"Lieutenant Scott" wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 10:55:00 -0000, Davey
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 00:14:59 +0000
Frank Erskine wrote:

On Tue, 8 Nov 2011 22:54:15 +0000, Davey
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Nov 2011 21:02:32 +0000
Ian Jackson wrote:

In message m,
"dennis@home" writes


"Chris J Dixon" wrote in message
.. .
Jules Richardson wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 01:38:12 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

url:http://www.buy4now.ie/woodiesdiy/productdetail.aspx?
pid=14046&loc=P&catid=110.0

Reflecting cold? That's an interesting concept.

It's like photocopying cold to make it warmer...

Perhaps it comes from the same school of thought that tells
us electric current flows in the opposite direction to the
electrons.

Oh come on, everyone knows its the holes that go that way.

And that light bulbs work by sucking the darkness in.

I think it's time to resurrect the Phlogiston theory.

And miasma/contagion :-)

Actually the idea of hot/cold isn't too silly.

In the morning I open the living-room curtains to let the darkness
out, which is just the reverse logic to letting the light in.

It's all relative/relativity really innit...


Relatively speaking, yes it is.

So how do we deal with those people who annoyingly describe
something as being 'three times smaller' than something else?

That's just a minor English usage point, and nowhere near as silly as
the other above reversals.


Maybe, but it's still annoying.

Why? It's just stating the factor that you multiply or divide with.

How would you rewrite the following anyway?:
"Tom's cock was three times longer than Jim's, but Jim's nose was five times smaller than Tom's."

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Always talk to your wife while you're making love -- if there's a phone handy.

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 22:13:21 -0000, Davey wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 20:24:35 -0000
"Lieutenant Scott" wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 01:00:04 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Ian Jackson wrote:
In message m,
"dennis@home" writes


"Chris J Dixon" wrote in message
...
Jules Richardson wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 01:38:12 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:


pid=14046&loc=P&catid=110.0


It's like photocopying cold to make it warmer...

Perhaps it comes from the same school of thought that tells us
electric current flows in the opposite direction to the
electrons.

Oh come on, everyone knows its the holes that go that way.

And that light bulbs work by sucking the darkness in.

*shrug* Its a theory. But really, what isn't?

(serious deep question)

It's a stupid theory. The bulb would get bigger and bigger with all
that darkness in it.


It's dark. You can't see it.

I don't think the glass would think of it that way when it felt the pressure of all that dark matter.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

TV takes over your life when you could be doing useful things like smoking crack and stealing car stereos.

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 22:26:19 -0000, Martin Brown wrote:

On 10/11/2011 21:42, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 21:38:58 -0000, Roger Chapman
wrote:

On 10/11/2011 20:30, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

Why are they called radiators when they are primarily convectors?

ISTR that it is roughly even stephen but can't remember whether the
information relates to modern panel radiators or the old fashioned
monster cast iron ones which were the original radiators.

Probably the old ones. You can test yourself, just see how much hot air
is flowing up form the modern ones (there's a reason for that concertina
stuff inside). And you can't feel anywhere near as much being radiated.
Mind you it might help if they were black, but then you'd need brighter
lights,

In the thermal longwave infrared just about anything that isn't a shiny
metallic surface is a good approximation to black - even white paint.

ISTR as a rough rule of thumb radiative heat transfer starts to become
significant at about 55C with an ambient of 20C. It scales with absolute
temperature to the fourth power so takes off rapidly.

My Physics teacher (who had a Doctorate) disagreed. Stupid woman.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

A hammer is a device designed to break valuable objects next to the nail you are aiming at.

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 22:54:22 -0000
"Lieutenant Scott" wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 22:15:11 -0000, Davey
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 20:23:51 -0000
"Lieutenant Scott" wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 10:55:00 -0000, Davey
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 00:14:59 +0000
Frank Erskine wrote:

On Tue, 8 Nov 2011 22:54:15 +0000, Davey
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Nov 2011 21:02:32 +0000
Ian Jackson wrote:

In message
m,
"dennis@home" writes


"Chris J Dixon" wrote in message
.. .
Jules Richardson wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 01:38:12 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:

url:http://www.buy4now.ie/woodiesdiy/productdetail.aspx?
pid=14046&loc=P&catid=110.0

Reflecting cold? That's an interesting concept.

It's like photocopying cold to make it warmer...

Perhaps it comes from the same school of thought that
tells us electric current flows in the opposite direction
to the electrons.

Oh come on, everyone knows its the holes that go that way.

And that light bulbs work by sucking the darkness in.

I think it's time to resurrect the Phlogiston theory.

And miasma/contagion :-)

Actually the idea of hot/cold isn't too silly.

In the morning I open the living-room curtains to let the
darkness out, which is just the reverse logic to letting the
light in.

It's all relative/relativity really innit...


Relatively speaking, yes it is.

So how do we deal with those people who annoyingly describe
something as being 'three times smaller' than something else?

That's just a minor English usage point, and nowhere near as silly
as the other above reversals.


Maybe, but it's still annoying.

Why? It's just stating the factor that you multiply or divide with.

How would you rewrite the following anyway?:
"Tom's cock was three times longer than Jim's, but Jim's nose was
five times smaller than Tom's."


"Tom's cock was four times the size of Jim's, but Jim's nose was a
fifth of the size of Tom's".
If that is what you mean by 'five times smaller', of course.
--
Davey.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article m,
"dennis@home" wrote:

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


"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
On 09/11/2011 10:07, dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


*shrug* Its a theory. But really, what isn't?

(serious deep question)

The idea that the mass of an object changes depending on how much
energy
it has isn't according to you.


So something gets heavier (or perhaps lighter) depending how hot it
is is a new one on me. Were can I find the details of this certain
fact?

Ask TNP.
He was the one arguing with me when I said the theory of relativity
didn't actually say that.

That's because, in fact, it does.

I say its a theory, not fact.

Now don't be silly, dennis.

Now don't be silly tim, I said its a theory.

It *is* a theory because any number of experiments have been done to
verify it. If you think it's only a hypothesis, you'll need to refute all
the experiments that have confirmed it over the last 100 years.

I said its a theory, where did I say it isn't?


I also say that the theory has been revised in the past and will be in
the future.

That's perfectly possible.

To a scientist that means its not fact.
Scientists don't have tiny closed minds like you, they accept that if the
evidence shows a theory to be wrong, you change it.

Correct.

I know, and I was correct about the bits you corrected too.

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 23:04:46 -0000, Davey wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 22:54:22 -0000
"Lieutenant Scott" wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 22:15:11 -0000, Davey
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 20:23:51 -0000
"Lieutenant Scott" wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 10:55:00 -0000, Davey
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 00:14:59 +0000
Frank Erskine wrote:

On Tue, 8 Nov 2011 22:54:15 +0000, Davey
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Nov 2011 21:02:32 +0000
Ian Jackson wrote:

In message
m,
"dennis@home" writes


"Chris J Dixon" wrote in message
.. .
Jules Richardson wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 01:38:12 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:

url:http://www.buy4now.ie/woodiesdiy/productdetail.aspx?
pid=14046&loc=P&catid=110.0

Reflecting cold? That's an interesting concept.

It's like photocopying cold to make it warmer...

Perhaps it comes from the same school of thought that
tells us electric current flows in the opposite direction
to the electrons.

Oh come on, everyone knows its the holes that go that way.

And that light bulbs work by sucking the darkness in.

I think it's time to resurrect the Phlogiston theory.

And miasma/contagion :-)

Actually the idea of hot/cold isn't too silly.

In the morning I open the living-room curtains to let the
darkness out, which is just the reverse logic to letting the
light in.

It's all relative/relativity really innit...


Relatively speaking, yes it is.

So how do we deal with those people who annoyingly describe
something as being 'three times smaller' than something else?

That's just a minor English usage point, and nowhere near as silly
as the other above reversals.


Maybe, but it's still annoying.

Why? It's just stating the factor that you multiply or divide with.

How would you rewrite the following anyway?:
"Tom's cock was three times longer than Jim's, but Jim's nose was
five times smaller than Tom's."


"Tom's cock was four times the size of Jim's, but Jim's nose was a
fifth of the size of Tom's".
If that is what you mean by 'five times smaller', of course.

That's just ridiculous. Why do you find "five times smaller" so difficult to understand? "Five times" is simply quantifying the ratio.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

The microwave was invented after a researcher walked by a radar
tube and a chocolate bar melted in his pocket.

On Nov 10, 8:29*pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 18:38:57 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 09/11/2011 20:20, dennis@home wrote:

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...

It is a corollary of the famous E = mc^2 equation.

And where does that say that if you increase the energy in a system you
increase its mass?

Are you really so thick that you cannot rearrange the equation?

m = E/c^2

c^2 being a rather large number makes the change in mass effect small for
modest energies but it is not always negligible.

So if you move an object on Earth to a larger distance you increase the
potential energy.
Which one actually increases in mass, the Earth or the object?

I'd say neither. *That's POTENTIAL energy.

--http://petersparrots.comhttp://petersphotos.com

If trains stop at train stations, what happens at workstations?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you move an object away from Earth you increase its potential
energy.
If you accelarate and object, its mass increases .
As it gets to light speed it's mass becomes infinity. Which is why
FTL speeds are impossible.
Unless of course the object had no mass to start with.
Hence the neutrino conundrum.

On 10/11/2011 22:52, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

Why are they called radiators when they are primarily convectors?

ISTR that it is roughly even stephen but can't remember whether the
information relates to modern panel radiators or the old fashioned
monster cast iron ones which were the original radiators.

Probably the old ones. You can test yourself, just see how much hot air
is flowing up form the modern ones (there's a reason for that concertina
stuff inside). And you can't feel anywhere near as much being radiated.
Mind you it might help if they were black, but then you'd need brighter
lights,

Probably, but possibly just finless. The radiator I am sitting next to
is a single panel with no fins. Fins make a substantial difference -
about 42% greater output according to one site I checked.

I've never seen a finless one, what a strange idea! Even my slimline
single panel hall radiator has fins at the back.

This house had central heating fitted in about 1975, 3 years before I
moved in. No fins on any of the original radiators. I have a catalogue
which I think dates to the early 1980s (gas fired CH boilers from £75)
with not a single finned rad in sight except for Finrad skirting
radiators which was referred to as "this new concept". The section on
'Comfort' ends with:
"For these reasons perimeter skirting radiators provide fullest comfort
at lower air temperatures then are required by other forms of central
heating which have less efficient heat distribution. Even on the coldest
days there is no need to set the thermostat in the 70s to feel warm;
with perimeter skirting radiators the mid 60's produce that healthy
sense of comfort, at a present to breathe air temperatures."

For those to whom Fahrenheit is a foreign language 70F is 21.1C and 65F
is 18.3C.

--
Roger Chapman

In message , Huge
writes
On 2011-11-10, Davey wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 20:24:35 -0000
"Lieutenant Scott" wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 01:00:04 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Ian Jackson wrote:
In message m,
"dennis@home" writes


"Chris J Dixon" wrote in message
...
Jules Richardson wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 01:38:12 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:


pid=14046&loc=P&catid=110.0


It's like photocopying cold to make it warmer...

Perhaps it comes from the same school of thought that tells us
electric current flows in the opposite direction to the
electrons.

Oh come on, everyone knows its the holes that go that way.

And that light bulbs work by sucking the darkness in.

*shrug* Its a theory. But really, what isn't?

(serious deep question)

It's a stupid theory. The bulb would get bigger and bigger with all
that darkness in it.


It's dark. You can't see it.

Don't be silly. It's piped away down the wires to the power station, where
it's converted into clouds. That's why it's cloudier in the winter when more
people have their lights on.

The process of piping the darkness back to the power station is not 100%
efficient. Some residue gets left in the bulb, and can this can usually
be seen as a dark film on the inside of the glass. In time, this becomes
more and more apparent, and the light progressively becomes dimmer and
dimmer. Eventually, the piping mechanism fails completely, causing the
bulb to fill up instantly with saturated darkness.
--
Ian

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 09:40:32 +0000
Ian Jackson wrote:

In message , Huge
writes
On 2011-11-10, Davey wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 20:24:35 -0000
"Lieutenant Scott" wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 01:00:04 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Ian Jackson wrote:
In message
m,
"dennis@home" writes


"Chris J Dixon" wrote in message
...
Jules Richardson wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 01:38:12 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:


pid=14046&loc=P&catid=110.0


It's like photocopying cold to make it warmer...

Perhaps it comes from the same school of thought that tells
us electric current flows in the opposite direction to the
electrons.

Oh come on, everyone knows its the holes that go that way.

And that light bulbs work by sucking the darkness in.

*shrug* Its a theory. But really, what isn't?

(serious deep question)

It's a stupid theory. The bulb would get bigger and bigger with
all that darkness in it.


It's dark. You can't see it.

Don't be silly. It's piped away down the wires to the power station,
where it's converted into clouds. That's why it's cloudier in the
winter when more people have their lights on.

The process of piping the darkness back to the power station is not
100% efficient.

So that's why the government is reducing the feed-back tariff for solar
power generation?
--
Davey.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 02:15:31 -0000
"Lieutenant Scott" wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 23:04:46 -0000, Davey
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 22:54:22 -0000
"Lieutenant Scott" wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 22:15:11 -0000, Davey
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 20:23:51 -0000
"Lieutenant Scott" wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 10:55:00 -0000, Davey
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 00:14:59 +0000
Frank Erskine wrote:

On Tue, 8 Nov 2011 22:54:15 +0000, Davey
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Nov 2011 21:02:32 +0000
Ian Jackson wrote:

In message
m,
"dennis@home" writes


"Chris J Dixon" wrote in message
.. .
Jules Richardson wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 01:38:12 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:

url:http://www.buy4now.ie/woodiesdiy/productdetail.aspx?
pid=14046&loc=P&catid=110.0

Reflecting cold? That's an interesting concept.

It's like photocopying cold to make it warmer...

Perhaps it comes from the same school of thought that
tells us electric current flows in the opposite
direction to the electrons.

Oh come on, everyone knows its the holes that go that
way.

And that light bulbs work by sucking the darkness in.

I think it's time to resurrect the Phlogiston theory.

And miasma/contagion :-)

Actually the idea of hot/cold isn't too silly.

In the morning I open the living-room curtains to let the
darkness out, which is just the reverse logic to letting the
light in.

It's all relative/relativity really innit...


Relatively speaking, yes it is.

So how do we deal with those people who annoyingly describe
something as being 'three times smaller' than something else?

That's just a minor English usage point, and nowhere near as
silly as the other above reversals.


Maybe, but it's still annoying.

Why? It's just stating the factor that you multiply or divide
with.

How would you rewrite the following anyway?:
"Tom's cock was three times longer than Jim's, but Jim's nose was
five times smaller than Tom's."


"Tom's cock was four times the size of Jim's, but Jim's nose was a
fifth of the size of Tom's".
If that is what you mean by 'five times smaller', of course.

That's just ridiculous. Why do you find "five times smaller" so
difficult to understand? "Five times" is simply quantifying the
ratio.


Tim Streater expressed it perfectly. It's a nonsense way of expressing
a relationship, as I showed with the first part of the sentence.
--
Davey.

On 10/11/2011 21:42, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 10/11/2011 21:13, Tim Streater wrote:

Which is why some people falsely believe you will freeze to death in
space. More likely you will explode due to exceedingly high relative
blood pressure.

Depends where is space you are. Equilibrium temperature at Earth's
distance from the Sun is -15C. The fact that the Earth's average
temperature is +15C is a bit of a clue that there is life here.

Don't know about that but surely blood would boil at zero pressure
almost regardless of temperature.

Your blood isn't at zero pressure though. Skin is actually a very strong
elastic material and provided you remember to breathe out can easily
tolerate being in zero pressure. The problem is with all the delicate
orifices like ears which cannot adjust fast enough.

And drying of the surface of the eyeballs where there is free water
exposed. Your skin only has to provide an overpressure of about 1psi to
prevent your blood boiling.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/bo...ter-d_926.html

Explosive decompression of a plane is perfectly survivable provided you
remember to put the oxygen mask on and that at full cruise height
represents losing almost 90% of the atmospheric pressure.

Slow leaks during high altitude flight are far more dangerous...

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 11/11/2011 10:06, Tim Streater wrote:
In article op.v4q2hny7ytk5n5@i7-940, "Lieutenant Scott"
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 21:13:09 -0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article op.v4qziypkytk5n5@i7-940, "Lieutenant Scott"
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 19:57:20 -0000, Gib Bogle
wrote:

Depends where is space you are. Equilibrium temperature at Earth's
distance from the Sun is -15C. The fact that the Earth's average
temperature is +15C is a bit of a clue that there is life here.

By space I clearly meant away from here! In the middle of nowhere!

If you mean in inter-galactic space, you'll cool down to 3K or whatever
the temp of the background radiation is. I think you don't actually
explode but fizz, rather.


Not sure what you mean by the clue about life though - are you
suggesting that life increases it be 30C?

Yes. The atmosphere is full of oxygen, a poisonous and extremely
reactive gas. And don't say it isn't poisonous, because although we need
it for life, life takes good care to ship it round the body extremely
carefully, bound up in small packets inside haemoglobin. If you took
away all the life processes that produce it, it's reckoned that it would
all disappear within about a million years or so - the Earth would
"rust", essentially.

Photosynthesis actually works *against* the greenhouse effect CO2 is
triatomic and a potent greenhouse gas whereas O2 is diatomic and is not.
The very first plants by stripping the atmosphere of CO2 and CH4 made
the planet cooler (and the original higher CO2/CH4 concentrations in
part compensated for a weaker young sun). The oxygen pollution they
produced initially forced soluble iron out of solution leading to some
of the exteremely red oldest sedimentary rocks (and also mineable iron
ore bodies).

So the Earth is far away from the equilibrium state that you would
expect (wrong average temp, lots of a very reactive gas in the atmos).
Clues to life.

This is very true. Finding O2 and CH4 in the same planetary atmosphere
advertises interesting non-equilibrium chemistry (ie. possibly life).

Which is in fact why you don't need probes to land on Mars to look for
life. Atmos: neutral gases like carbon dioxide. Average temp: what a
black body's equilibrium temp would be at that distance from the Sun.

That's what James Lovelock says, anyway. [1]

He could well be wrong though. Methane emissions have now been observed
in the Martian summers which is a big surprise when the surface is
covered in superoxides and peroxides and illuminated by hard UV. It is
now also known that dig down a bit and you find water and dry ice too.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ma...rsmethane.html

I don't think there is any way to resolve it without sending probes. It
is unlikely to be more than a few microbes eking out a living in the
permafrost. But wherever we have looked on Earth there have been some
extremophiles living there albeit growing very slowly and hard to spot.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 11/11/2011 09:39, Tim Streater wrote:
So how do we deal with those people who annoyingly describe
something as being 'three times smaller' than something else?

That's just a minor English usage point, and nowhere near as silly as
the other above reversals.


Maybe, but it's still annoying.

Why? It's just stating the factor that you multiply or divide with.

How would you rewrite the following anyway?:
"Tom's cock was three times longer than Jim's, but Jim's nose was five
times smaller than Tom's."

You can't get less than one times smaller - which makes it zero. What
you want to say is that Jim's nose is one fifth the size of Tom's. "Five
times smaller" is meaningless.

Unfortunately such practices are impossible to stamp out once the usage
becomes common. There is some modern usage that doesn't actually make
sense if you don't know the convention. I was reminded of the original
meaning of 'port your helm' (turn to starboard) before it was turned on
its head but thought I had best look it up before mentioning it and came
across this:

"A steering wheel is usually connected to the rudder by cables and
pulleys in such a fashion that the wheel, the rudder and the vessel all
turn in the same direction."

Wheels, like control knobs, don't move in any direction, they rotate but
common usage (or convention if you will) now dictates that turn to the
right is clockwise and turn to the left anti-clockwise.

And don't get me started on Grid References ...

--
Roger Chapman

On 11/11/2011 10:05, Martin Brown wrote:
On 10/11/2011 21:42, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 10/11/2011 21:13, Tim Streater wrote:

Which is why some people falsely believe you will freeze to death in
space. More likely you will explode due to exceedingly high relative
blood pressure.

Depends where is space you are. Equilibrium temperature at Earth's
distance from the Sun is -15C. The fact that the Earth's average
temperature is +15C is a bit of a clue that there is life here.

Don't know about that but surely blood would boil at zero pressure
almost regardless of temperature.

Your blood isn't at zero pressure though. Skin is actually a very strong
elastic material and provided you remember to breathe out can easily
tolerate being in zero pressure. The problem is with all the delicate
orifices like ears which cannot adjust fast enough.

And drying of the surface of the eyeballs where there is free water
exposed. Your skin only has to provide an overpressure of about 1psi to
prevent your blood boiling.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/bo...ter-d_926.html

Explosive decompression of a plane is perfectly survivable provided you
remember to put the oxygen mask on and that at full cruise height
represents losing almost 90% of the atmospheric pressure.

If you out in space without an oxygen supply you would be dead very
shortly anyway but even if the skin is strong enough to contain that
which is more usually supported by 14.7lb/in^2 of air pressure there is
a direct atmosphere/blood connection in the lungs where the blood could
boil off.

Slow leaks during high altitude flight are far more dangerous...

Only if they aren't noticed. ;-)

--
Roger Chapman

On 11/11/2011 11:07, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:

On 11/11/2011 10:06, Tim Streater wrote:

That's what James Lovelock says, anyway. [1]

He could well be wrong though. Methane emissions have now been
observed in the Martian summers which is a big surprise when the
surface is covered in superoxides and peroxides and illuminated by
hard UV. It is now also known that dig down a bit and you find water
and dry ice too.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ma...rsmethane.html

I don't think there is any way to resolve it without sending probes.
It is unlikely to be more than a few microbes eking out a living in
the permafrost. But wherever we have looked on Earth there have been
some extremophiles living there albeit growing very slowly and hard to
spot.

:-)

I'm inclined to agree with you, actually. If nothing else, sending
probes is *fun*.

IIRC Lovelock was asked by NASA to design an instrument for the Viking
landers, to do an experiment looking for life signs. He suggested you
could get the main thrust of it by doing spectroscopic analysis of Mars'
atmosphere from here. The NASA klods were not amused.

That much he was right about, but it took until a couple of years ago
for the remote sensors to become good enough to pick up the faint traces
of methane on Mars. It may one day work at much greater distances too -
at least for Earth like planets that are well out of equilibrium.

The favoured probe technique now on Mars will be to feed the critters
isotopically marked food and then watch for signs of preferential uptake
of light isotopes over any above inorganic rates.

This should avoid Viking like confusion where inorganic oxidisers could
have been responsible for the CO2 signals they saw. I suspect that most
tests will remain null or inconclusive unless we strike really lucky...

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

In article , Tim Streater wrote:

Maybe, but it's still annoying.

Why? It's just stating the factor that you multiply or divide with.

How would you rewrite the following anyway?:
"Tom's cock was three times longer than Jim's, but Jim's nose was five times
smaller than Tom's."

You can't get less than one times smaller - which makes it zero. What
you want to say is that Jim's nose is one fifth the size of Tom's. "Five
times smaller" is meaningless.

Rubbish. You might prefer that meaning to be expressed differently,
but I suspect even you understand what is meant by it, and certainly
it seems to be used with a consistent meaning.

(If you really don't understand it: "A is X times smaller than B" means
the same as "B is X times larger than A" or "A is 1/X times the size of B".)

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:56:58 +0000
Roger Chapman wrote:

On 11/11/2011 09:39, Tim Streater wrote:
So how do we deal with those people who annoyingly describe
something as being 'three times smaller' than something else?

That's just a minor English usage point, and nowhere near as
silly as the other above reversals.


Maybe, but it's still annoying.

Why? It's just stating the factor that you multiply or divide
with.

How would you rewrite the following anyway?:
"Tom's cock was three times longer than Jim's, but Jim's nose was
five times smaller than Tom's."

You can't get less than one times smaller - which makes it zero.
What you want to say is that Jim's nose is one fifth the size of
Tom's. "Five times smaller" is meaningless.

Unfortunately such practices are impossible to stamp out once the
usage becomes common. There is some modern usage that doesn't
actually make sense if you don't know the convention. I was reminded
of the original meaning of 'port your helm' (turn to starboard)
before it was turned on its head but thought I had best look it up
before mentioning it and came across this:

"A steering wheel is usually connected to the rudder by cables and
pulleys in such a fashion that the wheel, the rudder and the vessel
all turn in the same direction."

I saw some discussion that possibly linked the change of the convention
to the sinking of the Titanic. Previously, pushing a tiller to the left
(port) resulted in a movement of the ship to the right (starboard), and
apparently early ships' wheels followed that convention, whereas the
Titanic was one of the early ships to change to the system as described
above. I am merely quoting a report, I have no idea if it's true or not.
But it reflects your quotation; 'port your helm' (turn to starboard)
before it was turned on its head.

Thank you for your support. I agree that the practice is becoming more
and more common, unfortunately. I also now see in print the use of 'of'
for 'have', which was surely first a spoken mis-use, but is now becoming
more frequent. As in: "I could of done that differently". It makes me
cringe.
And as for the American 'gonna', which is invading these shores, Help!

I notice that nobody has yet commented on my interpretation of the
relative sizes of Jim's and Tom's nether appendages.
--
Davey.

Davey wrote:

Thank you for your support. I agree that the practice is becoming more
and more common, unfortunately. I also now see in print the use of 'of'
for 'have', which was surely first a spoken mis-use, but is now becoming
more frequent. As in: "I could of done that differently". It makes me
cringe.

Indeed so. It has clearly been around for a while - I notice that
my Word 2003 autocorrect is set up, by default, to remove many of
these abominations. Nevertheless, it does surprise me how such
poor language becomes common usage.

I have to accept that language is not static, but that does not
mean that I cannot lament the passing of such distinctions as the
difference between disinterested and uninterested.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

Alan Braggins wrote:

(If you really don't understand it: "A is X times smaller than B" means
the same as "B is X times larger than A" or "A is 1/X times the size of B".)

There is an interesting case where the way you express things has
a significant impact.

Consider an item previously sold at £3, now reduced to £2. This
is clearly a reduction of 1/3 (33.3%). The more cunning will say
instead something like "Previously on sale at 50% more."

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

In message , Alan Braggins
writes
In article , Tim
Streater wrote:

Maybe, but it's still annoying.

Why? It's just stating the factor that you multiply or divide with.

How would you rewrite the following anyway?:
"Tom's cock was three times longer than Jim's, but Jim's nose was
five times
smaller than Tom's."

You can't get less than one times smaller - which makes it zero. What
you want to say is that Jim's nose is one fifth the size of Tom's. "Five
times smaller" is meaningless.

Rubbish. You might prefer that meaning to be expressed differently,
but I suspect even you understand what is meant by it, and certainly
it seems to be used with a consistent meaning.

(If you really don't understand it: "A is X times smaller than B" means
the same as "B is X times larger than A" or "A is 1/X times the size of B".)

Indeed. I'm often a bit picky about how English is used. However, in
simple, everyday speech, "five times smaller" is perfectly logical,
understandable and unambiguous. I'm sure it's the sort of thing I've
heard many learned people say.
--
Ian

"Davey" wrote in message
...

And as for the American 'gonna', which is invading these shores, Help!

That's not American.. its been around here for at least 40 years.
As in "I am gonna buy a new car"

In message , Roger Chapman
writes
On 11/11/2011 10:05, Martin Brown wrote:
On 10/11/2011 21:42, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 10/11/2011 21:13, Tim Streater wrote:

Which is why some people falsely believe you will freeze to death in
space. More likely you will explode due to exceedingly high relative
blood pressure.

Depends where is space you are. Equilibrium temperature at Earth's
distance from the Sun is -15C. The fact that the Earth's average
temperature is +15C is a bit of a clue that there is life here.

Don't know about that but surely blood would boil at zero pressure
almost regardless of temperature.

Your blood isn't at zero pressure though. Skin is actually a very strong
elastic material and provided you remember to breathe out can easily
tolerate being in zero pressure. The problem is with all the delicate
orifices like ears which cannot adjust fast enough.

And drying of the surface of the eyeballs where there is free water
exposed. Your skin only has to provide an overpressure of about 1psi to
prevent your blood boiling.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/bo...ter-d_926.html

Explosive decompression of a plane is perfectly survivable provided you
remember to put the oxygen mask on and that at full cruise height
represents losing almost 90% of the atmospheric pressure.

If you out in space without an oxygen supply you would be dead very
shortly anyway but even if the skin is strong enough to contain that
which is more usually supported by 14.7lb/in^2 of air pressure there is
a direct atmosphere/blood connection in the lungs where the blood could
boil off.

Slow leaks during high altitude flight are far more dangerous...

Only if they aren't noticed. ;-)

In the movie, "2001", the computer (Hal) turns nasty, and starts bumping
off the crew of the space ship. The last survivor, Dr. Frank Poole gets
locked outside, in an EVA pod. Hal has locked all the doors, and the
only chance Poole has of getting back in is to use the emergency airlock
- the only door which can be opened manually from the outside.
Unfortunately, Poole has forgotten to take his space helmet.
Nevertheless, he does make it back inside the ship. Find out how, in
next week's thrilling episode of "2001: A Space Odyssey".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A...sey_%28film%29
--
Ian

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 07:44:33 +0000, Roger Chapman wrote:
Probably, but possibly just finless. The radiator I am sitting next to
is a single panel with no fins. Fins make a substantial difference -
about 42% greater output according to one site I checked.

I've never seen a finless one, what a strange idea! Even my slimline
single panel hall radiator has fins at the back.

This house had central heating fitted in about 1975, 3 years before I
moved in. No fins on any of the original radiators.

Are they completely flat, or do they have a corrugated appearance? My
parents have the latter at their place (house also built in the 70s), and
there aren't any back-fins, only the two brackets for securing to the
wall.

cheers

Jules

On 11/11/2011 14:37, Jules Richardson wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 07:44:33 +0000, Roger Chapman wrote:
Probably, but possibly just finless. The radiator I am sitting next to
is a single panel with no fins. Fins make a substantial difference -
about 42% greater output according to one site I checked.

I've never seen a finless one, what a strange idea! Even my slimline
single panel hall radiator has fins at the back.

This house had central heating fitted in about 1975, 3 years before I
moved in. No fins on any of the original radiators.

Are they completely flat, or do they have a corrugated appearance? My
parents have the latter at their place (house also built in the 70s), and
there aren't any back-fins, only the two brackets for securing to the
wall.

Not completely flat. I suppose you could call them corrugated although
their appearance has more in common with modern steel roofing sheets
(-=-=-=-=-) than corrugated asbestos sheets. They also have distinctive
header and footer reservoirs that roll top panels don't have.

--
Roger Chapman

On 11/11/2011 13:54, Ian Jackson wrote:

snip

If you out in space without an oxygen supply you would be dead very
shortly anyway but even if the skin is strong enough to contain that
which is more usually supported by 14.7lb/in^2 of air pressure there
is a direct atmosphere/blood connection in the lungs where the blood
could boil off.

Slow leaks during high altitude flight are far more dangerous...

Only if they aren't noticed. ;-)

In the movie, "2001", the computer (Hal) turns nasty, and starts bumping
off the crew of the space ship. The last survivor, Dr. Frank Poole gets
locked outside, in an EVA pod. Hal has locked all the doors, and the
only chance Poole has of getting back in is to use the emergency airlock
- the only door which can be opened manually from the outside.
Unfortunately, Poole has forgotten to take his space helmet.
Nevertheless, he does make it back inside the ship. Find out how, in
next week's thrilling episode of "2001: A Space Odyssey".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A...sey_%28film%29

But would he in real life?

--
Roger Chapman

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 13:52:17 -0000
"dennis@home" wrote:



"Davey" wrote in message
...

And as for the American 'gonna', which is invading these shores,
Help!

That's not American.. its been around here for at least 40 years.
As in "I am gonna buy a new car"




Has it been written as such for that time, or just spoken? America was
where I first found it written down as normal speech, rather than
spoken as lazy speech. And that was 30+ years ago.
--
Davey.

On 11/11/2011 15:21, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 11/11/2011 13:54, Ian Jackson wrote:

snip

If you out in space without an oxygen supply you would be dead very
shortly anyway but even if the skin is strong enough to contain that
which is more usually supported by 14.7lb/in^2 of air pressure there
is a direct atmosphere/blood connection in the lungs where the blood
could boil off.

Slow leaks during high altitude flight are far more dangerous...

Only if they aren't noticed. ;-)

In the movie, "2001", the computer (Hal) turns nasty, and starts bumping
off the crew of the space ship. The last survivor, Dr. Frank Poole gets
locked outside, in an EVA pod. Hal has locked all the doors, and the
only chance Poole has of getting back in is to use the emergency airlock
- the only door which can be opened manually from the outside.
Unfortunately, Poole has forgotten to take his space helmet.
Nevertheless, he does make it back inside the ship. Find out how, in
next week's thrilling episode of "2001: A Space Odyssey".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A...sey_%28film%29

But would he in real life?

Apart from perhaps the risk of asphyxiating first or being blown away by
the escaping gasses probably yes on a good day with a trailing wind.
Kubrick was meticulous about getting the details right in filming 2001.

The zero gravity sequences in the shuttle were particularly well done.

ISTR some of the stop motion sequences and heads up displays took almost
forever to film because he wanted it all tack sharp. A decade and a half
later the humble Beebon could do it in realtime a la Elite.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Nov 11, 9:46*am, Davey wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 09:40:32 +0000





Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Huge
writes
On 2011-11-10, Davey wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 20:24:35 -0000
"Lieutenant Scott" wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 01:00:04 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Ian Jackson wrote:
In message
m,
"dennis@home" writes

"Chris J Dixon" wrote in message
...
Jules Richardson wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 01:38:12 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

pid=14046&loc=P&catid=110.0

It's like photocopying cold to make it warmer...

Perhaps it comes from the same school of thought that tells
us electric current flows in the opposite direction to the
electrons.

Oh come on, everyone knows its the holes that go that way.

And that light bulbs work by sucking the darkness in.

*shrug* Its a theory. But really, what isn't?

(serious deep question)

It's a stupid theory. *The bulb would get bigger and bigger with
all that darkness in it.

It's dark. You can't see it.

Don't be silly. It's piped away down the wires to the power station,
where it's converted into clouds. That's why it's cloudier in the
winter when more people have their lights on.

The process of piping the darkness back to the power station is not
100% efficient.

So that's why the government is reducing the feed-back tariff for solar
power generation?
--
Davey.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Apparently there was a cap on the money.It has been reached much
sooner than expected. Everybody now knows their savings with be going
down the drain due to inflation this next few years sothere has been a
big rush on. There is an even bigger rush now.
I was not aware there was a cap.

On Nov 11, 12:30*pm, Chris J Dixon wrote:
Davey wrote:
Thank you for your support. I agree that the practice is becoming more
and more common, unfortunately. I also now see in print the use of 'of'
for 'have', which was surely first a spoken mis-use, but is now becoming
more frequent. As in: "I could of done that differently". It makes me
cringe.

Indeed so. It has clearly been around for a while - I notice that
my Word 2003 autocorrect is set up, by default, to remove many of
these abominations. Nevertheless, it does surprise me how such
poor language becomes common usage.

I have to accept that language is not static, but that does not
mean that I cannot lament the passing of such distinctions as the
difference between disinterested and uninterested.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon *Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

Or flammable and inflammable.
Priceless and worthless.

On Nov 11, 2:37*pm, Jules Richardson
wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 07:44:33 +0000, Roger Chapman wrote:
Probably, but possibly just finless. The radiator I am sitting next to
is a single panel with no fins. Fins make a substantial difference -
about 42% greater output according to one site I checked.

I've never seen a finless one, what a strange idea! Even my slimline
single panel hall radiator has fins at the back.

This house had central heating fitted in about 1975, 3 years before I
moved in. No fins on any of the original radiators.

Are they completely flat, or do they have a corrugated appearance? My
parents have the latter at their place (house also built in the 70s), and
there aren't any back-fins, only the two brackets for securing to the
wall.

cheers

Jules

At one time all pressed steel radiators were finless though they had
indentations. You could only get single ones too, no doubles.

On 11/11/2011 16:15, harry wrote:

At one time all pressed steel radiators were finless though they had
indentations. You could only get single ones too, no doubles.


When was that then? (No doubles).

--
Roger Chapman

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:05:23 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:


Explosive decompression of a plane is perfectly survivable provided you
remember to put the oxygen mask on and that at full cruise height
represents losing almost 90% of the atmospheric pressure.

You wouldn't lose 90% on a normal commercial airline as that would
require flying at more than 50000ft. 75% is closer for around the
high 30's.






--

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:06:20 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

That's what James Lovelock says, anyway. [1]

[1] He of the Gaia Hypothesis (note the use of the word hypothesis) [2]

[2] A strong proponent of nuclear power, and quite fed up with all the
flower-power airy-fairy new-age do-gooders who have taken his Gaia idea
and mis-interpreted it to mean that the rocks are alive etc etc.

I've met people like that. Fruitcakes is too polite a word for them.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 08:07:37 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

Apparently there was a cap on the money.It has been reached much
sooner than expected. Everybody now knows their savings with be going
down the drain due to inflation this next few years sothere has been a
big rush on. There is an even bigger rush now.
I was not aware there was a cap.

This cap; does it affect the dark money flow?
Only, I'm thinking, if you were to take the dark money and expose it
to light for a nanosecond, you'd be able to regenerate the
darkcashflow and recharge your pockets with dark money, thus creating
a Dark Ponzi Scheme.

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 22:54:22 -0000, "Lieutenant Scott"
wrote:

How would you rewrite the following anyway?:
"Tom's cock was three times longer than Jim's, but Jim's nose was five times smaller than Tom's."

Jim was jealous but he was pretty.

On 11/11/2011 11:52, Davey wrote:
I saw some discussion that possibly linked the change of the convention
to the sinking of the Titanic. Previously, pushing a tiller to the left
(port) resulted in a movement of the ship to the right (starboard), and
apparently early ships' wheels followed that convention, whereas the
Titanic was one of the early ships to change to the system as described
above. I am merely quoting a report, I have no idea if it's true or not.
But it reflects your quotation; 'port your helm' (turn to starboard)
before it was turned on its head.

I have never seen any ship with a reversed wheel. Not even historic
replicas.

x-posted to uk.rec.sailing...

Andy

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 23:05:23 +0000
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 08:07:37 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

Apparently there was a cap on the money.It has been reached much
sooner than expected. Everybody now knows their savings with be going
down the drain due to inflation this next few years sothere has been
a big rush on. There is an even bigger rush now.
I was not aware there was a cap.

This cap; does it affect the dark money flow?
Only, I'm thinking, if you were to take the dark money and expose it
to light for a nanosecond, you'd be able to regenerate the
darkcashflow and recharge your pockets with dark money, thus creating
a Dark Ponzi Scheme.

Thereby creating a Pyramid of the Dark. I wonder if it sharpens knives,
too?
--
Davey.