"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Yes, in fact does anyone know why places like Manchester, Edinburgh, are
putting in trams at ruinous expense instead of electric trolley busses?
Apart from the willy-waving factor, that is.

Trams are much more energy efficient. Less rolling friction.

But more weight and infrastructure maintenance. Which respectively require
more energy to accelerate, and generate CO2 emissions. And the extra
congestion they cause makes other road users use more fuel. And they're
less flexible in use. It would be much cheaper and more space efficient to
use trolleybuses on a guided busway.

Oh no, he can't reads either. Supercap buses have eliminated trolleybuses
off the future transport map.

Trams are good where you have a *lot* of people to move in a steady stream
along a dedicated track. Or is that a train?

A tram is a train on a street - a daft idea. See my post on my they came
about.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Sep 20, 10:53 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:

In the future, motoring will once again be the province of the
wealthy.
The herbs will be on the buses/trains.

What fuel will buses/trains use that will be cheaper than that for a car?

Electricity. In terms of per passenger it will be cheaper than
personal transport.
From a mix of tecnologies. And before you ask,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_bus

Thisn is the way forward. Supercapicitor buses. Capabus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capa_vehicle

Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:

So the new energy system has to be subsidised. The theory is that by
2020 parity in fuel costs will be achieved. After that renewable
energies will be cheaper.

It's actually a hypothesis, not a theory, but leaving that side, perhaps
you'd like to tell us what this hypothesis is *based* on.

so called 'levelised' costs which you obtain by taxing carbon and
subsidising windmills.

A complete fraud, but it fools harry well enough


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

Andy Champ wrote:

CO2 most definitely is toxic.

No, not in the slightest.

(Not very toxic, you can take a few
percent).

It's not toxic at all.

And the carbon particles in diesel exhaust are carcinogenic.

No they aren't.

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 22:18:31 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

Oh no, he can't reads either. Supercap buses have eliminated trolleybuses
off the future transport map.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-18724776

"The Department for Transport will pay £173.5m towards the scheme, with the rest
coming from local authorities"

"Work is expected to start in 2016, with the network operational by 2018."


--

On Sep 20, 7:59*pm, John Williamson
wrote:
harry wrote:
If I bought a petrol generator,I would have to buy petrol forever more.

No you wouldn't. It will burn alcohol, which can be made easily from
plant material, or synthesised hydrocarbons made by using carbon
dioxide, water and nuclear energy.

If desperate, you could split water using solar energy, and perform the
minor conversion to let the engine run on hydrogen.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.


It's very difficult to make a piston engine run on hydrogen.

On Sep 20, 10:01*pm, tony sayer wrote:
So to RELIABLY make a trip of 30 miles there, and 30 miles back EVERY
DAY harry will meed 800 sq meters of panels. And of course, that's *only
if he travels at night and charges by day.

The cost will be a little bit shy of a million quid.

Of course in summer he will simply throw the power away, because there
is no way he can use it.

In summer he might generate 80 times as much.

When no one needs it or wants it.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are a bloody half wit. A range of renewable technolgies are
needed. Solar is just the Summer one.

Well suggest some workable reliable ones then Harry, and don't bother
with Solar I've been working outside all this week and the amount of
sunshine.. Well wouldn't power a dolls house let alone the few delivery
lorries we've had here...

And the wind .. lets ignore that so whats left?..

--
Tony Sayer- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think Iknow exactly howmuch electricity a PV array generates. How
would you know as a non-owner?

Why are you ignoring wind?

Tidal, Wave, Geothermal, Hydro electric are the important ones
remaining.

On Sep 20, 10:16*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,

*harry wrote:
So the new energy system has to be subsidised. The theory is that by
2020 parity in fuel costs will be achieved. After that renewable
energies will be cheaper.

It's actually a hypothesis, not a theory, but leaving that side, perhaps
you'd like to tell us what this hypothesis is *based* on.

It is a DECC thing.

harry wrote:
On Sep 20, 10:01 pm, tony sayer wrote:
So to RELIABLY make a trip of 30 miles there, and 30 miles back EVERY
DAY harry will meed 800 sq meters of panels. And of course, that's only
if he travels at night and charges by day.
The cost will be a little bit shy of a million quid.
Of course in summer he will simply throw the power away, because there
is no way he can use it.
In summer he might generate 80 times as much.
When no one needs it or wants it.
--
Ineptocracy
(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You are a bloody half wit. A range of renewable technolgies are
needed. Solar is just the Summer one.
Well suggest some workable reliable ones then Harry, and don't bother
with Solar I've been working outside all this week and the amount of
sunshine.. Well wouldn't power a dolls house let alone the few delivery
lorries we've had here...

And the wind .. lets ignore that so whats left?..

--
Tony Sayer- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think Iknow exactly howmuch electricity a PV array generates. How
would you know as a non-owner?

That's quite easy harry.

You measure the incident sunlight, with a meter and using the effciency
figure and size of installed panels, you calculate what a panel that
size would have given, and that's how we can tell when you are lying.


Why are you ignoring wind?

Tidal, Wave, Geothermal, Hydro electric are the important ones
remaining.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

harry wrote:
On Sep 20, 10:16 pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,

harry wrote:
So the new energy system has to be subsidised. The theory is that by
2020 parity in fuel costs will be achieved. After that renewable
energies will be cheaper.
It's actually a hypothesis, not a theory, but leaving that side, perhaps
you'd like to tell us what this hypothesis is *based* on.

It is a DECC thing.

It is not.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Sep 20, 11:30*pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Andy Champ wrote:
CO2 most definitely is toxic.

No, not in the slightest.

*(Not very toxic, you can take a few
percent).

It's not toxic at all.

And the carbon particles in diesel exhaust are carcinogenic.

No they aren't.

Yes they are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_pa...Health_effects
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_...health_effects

On Sep 20, 11:50*pm, The Other Mike
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 22:18:31 +0100, "Doctor *Drivel"

wrote:
Oh no, he can't reads either. Supercap buses have eliminated trolleybuses
off the future transport map.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-18724776

"The Department for Transport will pay £173.5m towards the scheme, with the rest
coming from local authorities"

"Work is expected to start in 2016, with the network operational by 2018."

--

They ran until the 1960's
I remember them well. And the f***g awful diesel buses that replaced
them.

On Sep 21, 9:03*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On Sep 20, 10:01 pm, tony sayer wrote:
So to RELIABLY make a trip of 30 miles there, and 30 miles back EVERY
DAY harry will meed 800 sq meters of panels. And of course, that's *only
if he travels at night and charges by day.
The cost will be a little bit shy of a million quid.
Of course in summer he will simply throw the power away, because there
is no way he can use it.
In summer he might generate 80 times as much.
When no one needs it or wants it.
--
Ineptocracy
(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You are a bloody half wit. A range of renewable technolgies are
needed. Solar is just the Summer one.
Well suggest some workable reliable ones then Harry, and don't bother
with Solar I've been working outside all this week and the amount of
sunshine.. Well wouldn't power a dolls house let alone the few delivery
lorries we've had here...

And the wind .. lets ignore that so whats left?..

--
Tony Sayer- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think Iknow exactly howmuch electricity a PV array generates. How
would you know as a non-owner?

That's quite easy harry.

You measure the incident sunlight, *with a meter and using the effciency
figure and size of installed panels, you calculate what a panel that
size would have given, and that's how we can tell when you are lying.


Well **** head, shows you don't know a thing.
Day length, oreintation, azumith, shading and atmospheric moisture are
major factors.
But I suppose everything's simple to the simple minded.

I just look at my electricity meter and I know exactly.

harry wrote:
On Sep 21, 9:03 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On Sep 20, 10:01 pm, tony sayer wrote:
So to RELIABLY make a trip of 30 miles there, and 30 miles back EVERY
DAY harry will meed 800 sq meters of panels. And of course, that's only
if he travels at night and charges by day.
The cost will be a little bit shy of a million quid.
Of course in summer he will simply throw the power away, because there
is no way he can use it.
In summer he might generate 80 times as much.
When no one needs it or wants it.
--
Ineptocracy
(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You are a bloody half wit. A range of renewable technolgies are
needed. Solar is just the Summer one.
Well suggest some workable reliable ones then Harry, and don't bother
with Solar I've been working outside all this week and the amount of
sunshine.. Well wouldn't power a dolls house let alone the few delivery
lorries we've had here...
And the wind .. lets ignore that so whats left?..
--
Tony Sayer- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I think Iknow exactly howmuch electricity a PV array generates. How
would you know as a non-owner?
That's quite easy harry.

You measure the incident sunlight, with a meter and using the effciency
figure and size of installed panels, you calculate what a panel that
size would have given, and that's how we can tell when you are lying.


Well **** head, shows you don't know a thing.
Day length, oreintation, azumith, shading and atmospheric moisture are
major factors.

thats called 'measuring the incident sunlight' harry.

And of course those are all; easy to quntify, but most are irrelevant.


But I suppose everything's simple to the simple minded.

I just look at my electricity meter and I know exactly.

Assuming the installers calibrated it top tell the truth, and it works
correctly..

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

In article
,
harry wrote:
It's very difficult to make a piston engine run on hydrogen.

Really? BMW managed it on a dual fuel production car.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Hydrogen_7

--
*Vegetarians taste great*

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

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
(Steve Firth) wrote:

Andy Champ wrote:
CO2 most definitely is toxic.
No, not in the slightest.
(Not very toxic, you can take a few percent).
It's not toxic at all.

Just as water isn't. I can't quite figure out why all these dip****s
don't know what the word "toxic" means.

I think you had it at "dip****s".

It's not just here though, some of my time at work is spent defeating the
four horsemen of ignorance. Stupidity, Ignorance, Mendacity and
****wittery.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

harry wrote:
On Sep 20, 11:30 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Andy Champ wrote:
CO2 most definitely is toxic.

No, not in the slightest.

(Not very toxic, you can take a few
percent).

It's not toxic at all.

And the carbon particles in diesel exhaust are carcinogenic.

No they aren't.

Yes they are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_pa...Health_effects
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_...health_effects

No they are not. Read the ****ing articles you brainless clown.


--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
(Steve Firth) wrote:

Andy Champ wrote:
CO2 most definitely is toxic.
No, not in the slightest.
(Not very toxic, you can take a few percent).
It's not toxic at all.

Just as water isn't. I can't quite figure out why all these dip****s
don't know what the word "toxic" means.

I think you had it at "dip****s".

It's not just here though, some of my time at work is spent defeating the
four horsemen of ignorance. Stupidity, Ignorance, Mendacity and
****wittery.

Wow! It amazing, everyone is wrong except yourself.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article
,
harry wrote:

On Sep 20, 7:09Â pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On Sep 20, 10:53 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
  harry wrote:

On Sep 19, 10:38 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
  harry wrote:
If I buy an electric car, it will do infinity MPG if worked on a
cash
basis. I can charge it from my solar panels.
Er, we're talking about relative fuel costs aren't we?
All fuels have a capital cost implication.
But solar has no primary fuel source such as gas oil or coal.
So you buy your panels and there are no other costs apart from
repair
s if by badluck you need any..
Well, if you bought an underground tank of petrol and forget the
purchase
price, that would provide free fuel too. Until it ran out. Solar
panels
failing with time, exactly the same.

I don't have to fill a solar panel with increasingly expensive fuel,
it never "runs out."

It runs out every single night harry,.

 It is a one off cost.  The energy it produces

becomes increasingly valuable as time goes by..

Not really. It will always be more expensive than nuclear power so in a
world where nuclear power exists it will be worthless - or only worth
about 1/4 as much as nuclear power because it is so inflexible.

This is what renewable means, Don't you understand that? It's simple
enough.

No, I dont know what renewable means. Since physics tells us that the
universe itself does not renew.

My you ARE pretty thick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy

You are drivel AICMFP.

Harry, was right. You are thick.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 19/09/2012 11:30, The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 08:37:57 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
geoff wrote:

Yeah - what sports car did he claim to have too ?

DB5 or other exotic?

That I do have.

and it's made by Dinky - do they allow metal objects in your secure
facility?

Its probably like the one I have - there is a button to push on the
side that makes the little plastic man fly out of the ejector seat ;-)

Chav do you still have one?

How's your Trabant, knobhead?

My God, the witticisms roll on. Wow.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

Trolley busses don't, of course, have the limitations that trams have.

It is like talking to children. Trolleybuses are silly the regularly run
off the wires.

No they don't.

Wires are expensive and ugly.

It's a city and therefore ugly anyway. Who cares.

snip drivel

Thicko, look at the wiki on Capbuses I posted. Tolleybuses are old hat.
They were dropped for good reason. If they were any good we would all be
using them. But few do.

Capabuses have superseded trams and these contraptions you stupidly bark
about.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
Andy Champ wrote:

CO2 most definitely is toxic.

No, not in the slightest.

(Not very toxic, you can take a few
percent).

It's not toxic at all.

Thicko, it is toxic to the atmosphere.

"The Other Mike" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 22:18:31 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

Oh no, he can't reads either. Supercap buses have eliminated trolleybuses
off the future transport map.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-18724776

"The Department for Transport will pay £173.5m towards the scheme, with
the rest
coming from local authorities"

"Work is expected to start in 2016, with the network operational by 2018."

****ing madness!!

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Sep 20, 11:50 pm, The Other Mike
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 22:18:31 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"

wrote:
Oh no, he can't reads either. Supercap buses have eliminated trolleybuses
off the future transport map.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-18724776

"The Department for Transport will pay £173.5m towards the scheme, with
the rest
coming from local authorities"

"Work is expected to start in 2016, with the network operational by 2018."

This is a panic measure. Leeds has an appalling transport network. No
rapid-rail, etc. Expect the wires to be ripped down and SuperCap buss
replace the dogs in the future.

harry wrote:
On Sep 20, 7:59 pm, John Williamson
wrote:
harry wrote:
If I bought a petrol generator,I would have to buy petrol forever more.
No you wouldn't. It will burn alcohol, which can be made easily from
plant material, or synthesised hydrocarbons made by using carbon
dioxide, water and nuclear energy.

If desperate, you could split water using solar energy, and perform the
minor conversion to let the engine run on hydrogen.



It's very difficult to make a piston engine run on hydrogen.

I'll be sure to tell Wrightbus and BMW, among others, of your opinion.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
It's not just here though, some of my time at work is spent defeating
the four horsemen of ignorance. Stupidity, Ignorance, Mendacity and
****wittery.

Wow! It amazing, everyone is wrong except yourself.

Do you actually read any of the posts here?

This straw poll says you are wrong more than right. Which is no surprise
given your track record of believing every single advert and loony idea -
provided it agrees with yours.

You should go back to your treatment centre and demand a refund. It fails
you every time.

--
*"I am " is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. *

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

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 22:03:59 +0100 Doctor Drivel wrote :
Carrying capacity? Our newest 'Bumblebee' 5-section trams can take up
to 240 people.

Depends. Smaller trains with greater frequencies is generally better.

Route 96, on which these trams run, is every six minutes at peak times.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
In the future, motoring will once again be the province of the
wealthy.
The herbs will be on the buses/trains.

What fuel will buses/trains use that will be cheaper than that for a
car?

nuclear electricity of course.

Trolley busses.

Yes, in fact does anyone know why places like Manchester, Edinburgh,
are putting in trams at ruinous expense instead of electric trolley
busses? Apart from the willy-waving factor, that is.

Trams make traffic jams. A waste of time in many cases. Manchester try
to pass off Metrolink as rapid-transit. What a joke! Rapid transit has
to be grade segregated.

for 95% of the route it is

Rapid it is not.

well that's relative isn't it.

The term is "rapid-transit", where in its basic form transit means Public
Transport.

Compared with the bus Metrolink IS rapid

tim

"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
Andy Champ wrote:

CO2 most definitely is toxic.

No, not in the slightest.

(Not very toxic, you can take a few
percent).

It's not toxic at all.

Thicko, it is toxic to the atmosphere.

Not even that you lame brained disappointment to your parents.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

Steve Firth wrote:
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
Andy Champ wrote:

CO2 most definitely is toxic.
No, not in the slightest.

(Not very toxic, you can take a few
percent).
It's not toxic at all.
Thicko, it is toxic to the atmosphere.

Not even that you lame brained disappointment to your parents.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
toxic [ˈtɒksɪk]
adj
1. of, relating to, or caused by a toxin or poison; poisonous
2. (Medicine / Pathology) harmful or deadly
[from medical Latin toxicus, from Latin toxicum poison, from Greek
toxikon (pharmakon) (poison) used on arrows, from toxon arrow]

(Definition 2) CO2 is harmful or deadly to most animal life when
concentration in the breathing gas is excessive. Therefore, it is toxic.
Admittedly, not as toxic as a lot of other gases, including carbon
monoxide, but still toxic.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
It's not just here though, some of my time at work is spent
defeating the four horsemen of ignorance. Stupidity, Ignorance,
Mendacity and ****wittery.

Wow! It amazing, everyone is wrong except yourself.

Do

You are senile.

tim..... wrote:
"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
In the future, motoring will once again be the province of the
wealthy.
The herbs will be on the buses/trains.

What fuel will buses/trains use that will be cheaper than that
for a car?

nuclear electricity of course.

Trolley busses.

Yes, in fact does anyone know why places like Manchester,
Edinburgh, are putting in trams at ruinous expense instead of
electric trolley busses? Apart from the willy-waving factor, that
is.

Trams make traffic jams. A waste of time in many cases.
Manchester try to pass off Metrolink as rapid-transit. What a
joke! Rapid transit has to be grade segregated.

for 95% of the route it is

Rapid it is not.

well that's relative isn't it.


The wagon train is only as fast as the slowest wagon. The 5% choke spot
means the services is poor.

The term is "rapid-transit", where in its basic form transit means
Public Transport.

There is a big difference between transit and rapid-transit. Merseyrail is
rapid-transit, Metrolink is not. Manchester wanted an underground but could
not afford it, so went for trams. Some parts of Metrolink are fine where it
uses old rail lines and stations. Once off the fast segratgated lines it
slows up on the streets, even on segregated track.




Compared with the bus Metrolink IS rapid

tim

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
Andy Champ wrote:

CO2 most definitely is toxic.

No, not in the slightest.

(Not very toxic, you can take a few
percent).

It's not toxic at all.

Thicko, it is toxic to the atmosphere.

Not

Thicko, it is toxic to the atmosphere

In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
(Definition 2) CO2 is harmful or deadly to most animal life when
concentration in the breathing gas is excessive. Therefore, it is toxic.
Admittedly, not as toxic as a lot of other gases, including carbon
monoxide, but still toxic.

Oxygen is deadly to most animal life when in concentration too.

There's a difference between something not supporting life and being toxic
- even although the end result may be the same.

--
*We have enough youth, how about a fountain of Smart?

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

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 22:03:59 +0100 Doctor Drivel wrote :
Carrying capacity? Our newest 'Bumblebee' 5-section trams can take
up to 240 people.

Depends. Smaller trains with greater frequencies is generally better.

Route 96, on which these trams run, is every six minutes at peak
times.

Half the size then they can run every 3 minutes.

But running large trains during the day mean infrequent services. Some
detach cars and run more frequent services.

If a rapid-transit urban railway has frequent services people use it

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
harry wrote:

Carbon particles can give you cancer.

That's utter and complete ****.

This proves you are a knobhead.

"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
Andy Champ wrote:

CO2 most definitely is toxic.

No, not in the slightest.

(Not very toxic, you can take a few
percent).

It's not toxic at all.

Thicko, it is toxic to the atmosphere.

Not

Thicko, it is toxic to the atmosphere

Repeating drivel does not make it true.


--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

John Williamson wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
Andy Champ wrote:

CO2 most definitely is toxic.
No, not in the slightest.

(Not very toxic, you can take a few
percent).
It's not toxic at all.
Thicko, it is toxic to the atmosphere.
Not even that you lame brained disappointment to your parents. The
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published
by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
toxic [ˈtɒksɪk]
adj
1. of, relating to, or caused by a toxin or poison; poisonous
2. (Medicine / Pathology) harmful or deadly
[from medical Latin toxicus, from Latin toxicum poison, from Greek
toxikon (pharmakon) (poison) used on arrows, from toxon arrow]

(Definition 2) CO2 is harmful or deadly to most animal life when
concentration in the breathing gas is excessive. Therefore, it is toxic.
Admittedly, not as toxic as a lot of other gases, including carbon
monoxide, but still toxic.

No, you are wrong. CO2 is not toxic. By your argument a pillow or a knife
ate both toxic.

CO2 is an asphyxiant, remove it in time and the subject recovers. It has no
long term metabic effect.

Relying upon a dictionary for medical knowledge, other than a medical
dictionary, is fraught with problems. Not least that dictionary compilers
have no knowledge of chemistry, toxicology or medicine.


--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
Andy Champ wrote:

CO2 most definitely is toxic.

No, not in the slightest.

(Not very toxic, you can take a few
percent).

It's not toxic at all.

Thicko, it is toxic to the atmosphere.

A completely meaningless comment.

Knobhead, Again, " it is toxic to the atmosphere".

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
Andy Champ wrote:

CO2 most definitely is toxic.

No, not in the slightest.

(Not very toxic, you can take a few
percent).

It's not toxic at all.

Thicko, it is toxic to the atmosphere.

Not

Thicko, it is toxic to the atmosphere

Repeating drivel does not make it true.

Knobhead, repeating what Doctor Drivel writes is very true.