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.

-----------------

Do you count water as a toxin then? It can undoubtedly be toxic in
overdose but I don't think most folk would classify it as a toxin. Ditto
with CO2.

Tin


U

"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
"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

Keep the new sig, it suits you.



--
€¢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.

So is every single thing in the world. I'd like to see the effects of
you ingesting a tonne of beansprouts, for example.

Admittedly, not as toxic as a lot of other gases, including carbon
monoxide, but still toxic.



--
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.

Tim+ wrote:
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.

-----------------

Do you count water as a toxin then? It can undoubtedly be toxic in
overdose but I don't think most folk would classify it as a toxin. Ditto
with CO2.

Tin


U
Toxic, in greenspeak, means, 'something we can plausibly spin as
dangerous about the competition's product, that doesn't appear in ours,
at least superficially'


It has no medical or chemical implications whatsoever.


--
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
s.com, harry scribeth thus
On Sep 20, 10:01Â*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 Â*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?

I don't have to Harry its common knowledge..


Why are you ignoring wind?

Because its bloody useless in practice..


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

Result in sod all of the power we need...
--
Tony Sayer

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:08:41 +0100, 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.


This sums up as I see it:

"Carbon dioxide is a toxic gas which is odourless and colourless. Rising
levels of carbon dioxide affect the human body, but what level is
dangerous and how do you know you are suffering from carbon Dioxide
poisoning?

Carbon dioxide is 'not just an asphyxiant'."

http://www.analox.net/carbon-dioxide-dangers.php

--
Rod

On Sep 21, 9:46*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
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..


Tch. How can installer calibrate it dopey? That would take
specialised equipment even if it wasn't sealed.

On Sep 21, 10:24*am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
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.

I see they have given up on it too. Wonder why?

harry wrote:
On Sep 21, 9:46 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
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..


Tch. How can installer calibrate it dopey? That would take
specialised equipment even if it wasn't sealed.
So you are relying in the MANUFACTURER to be honest about his product.

What naive faith.


--
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 21, 10:24 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
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.

I see they have given up on it too. Wonder why?

Think about safe hydrogen storage..

--
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 21, 10:43*am, Steve Firth wrote:
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.

Well here's another one **** for brains.
http://press.iarc.fr/pr213_E.pdf

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:35:33 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

harry wrote:
On Sep 21, 10:24 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
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.
I see they have given up on it too. Wonder why?

Think about safe hydrogen storage..

Simple - instead of storing pure hydrogen, store it as an oxide.

--
Rod

On Sep 21, 11:16*am, John Williamson
wrote:
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.

BMW has abandoned hydrogen.

Bus is running on fuel cells not IC engine.
http://www.busandcoach.com/newspage....9&categoryid=0

polygonum wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:35:33 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

harry wrote:
On Sep 21, 10:24 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
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.
I see they have given up on it too. Wonder why?

Think about safe hydrogen storage..

Simple - instead of storing pure hydrogen, store it as an oxide.

:-)

--
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 21, 2:08Â*pm, John Williamson
wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
"Doctor Â*Drivel" wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
Andy Champ wrote:

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

Â*(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.

You are right.
However,
If there were no CO2 in our lungs, we would die.

On Sep 21, 5:34*pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article
s.com, harry scribeth thus





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?

I don't have to Harry its common knowledge..



Why are you ignoring wind?

Because its bloody useless in practice..



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

Result in sod all of the power we need...
--
Tony Sayer- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Norway runs on around 90% hydro I believe.
Brazil, Venezuela, Egypt, Zambia, China and the USA have huge hydro
electric power stations.

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:47:56 +0100, harry wrote:


BMW has abandoned hydrogen.


What? Completely?

Only higher atomic weight elements are good enough for BMW.

--
Rod

harry wrote:
On Sep 21, 5:34 pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article
s.com, harry scribeth thus





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?
I don't have to Harry its common knowledge..



Why are you ignoring wind?
Because its bloody useless in practice..



Tidal, Wave, Geothermal, Hydro electric are the important ones
remaining.
Result in sod all of the power we need...
--
Tony Sayer- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Norway runs on around 90% hydro I believe.
Brazil, Venezuela, Egypt, Zambia, China and the USA have huge hydro
electric power stations.
Not a lot of use in Brackley tho harry


--
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.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

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

Carbon particles can give you cancer.

That's utter and complete ****.

This proves you are a knobhead.

Please feel free to give a reference to a peer-reviewed journal that
states that carbon particles cause cancer.

harry wrote:

I see they have given up on it too. Wonder why?

Because hydrogen is not a fuel. Because hydrogen needs heavy containment
vessels. Because petrol, alcohol and diesel oil are all better fuels.

**** but you're thick.

polygonum wrote:

[snip]

This sums up as I see it:

No, the following sums it up as a company that sells CO2 sensors wishes
to see it and that happened to agree with your prejudices.

"Carbon dioxide is a toxic gas which is odourless and colourless. Rising
levels of carbon dioxide affect the human body, but what level is
dangerous and how do you know you are suffering from carbon Dioxide
poisoning?

You won't ever suffer from carbon dioxide poisoning. It's not possible.

Carbon dioxide is 'not just an asphyxiant'."

That last statement with no basis in fact.

http://www.analox.net/carbon-dioxide-dangers.php

Yes, perhaps you should have read all of it:

"The longer the exposure and the higher the level of carbon dioxide the
quicker *suffocation* occurs."

Note that *suffocation*. So according to you and that ****witted
web****e a pillow is toxic.

On Sep 21, 5:34*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On Sep 21, 9:46 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
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..

Tch. How can installer calibrate it dopey? *That would take
specialised equipment even if it wasn't sealed.

So you are relying in the MANUFACTURER to be honest about his product.

What naive faith.

You are a dopey old *******. Just about very bit of equipment you buy
has to be calibrated by the manufacturer.
Nearly every country in the world has a standards office to make sure
they are as described.

On Sep 21, 5:35*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On Sep 21, 10:24 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
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..

I see they have given up on it too. Wonder why?

Think about safe hydrogen storage..

Well they building one in London.
http://www.busandcoach.com/newspage....9&categoryid=0

On Sep 21, 5:42*pm, polygonum wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:35:33 +0100, The Natural Philosopher





wrote:
harry wrote:
On Sep 21, 10:24 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
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.
*I see they have given up on it too. Wonder why?

Think about safe hydrogen storage..

Simple - instead of storing pure hydrogen, store it as an oxide.



Yeah. We could store petrol as fizzy water too.

On Sep 21, 6:00*pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
harry wrote:
I see they have given up on it too. Wonder why?

Because hydrogen is not a fuel. Because hydrogen needs heavy containment
vessels. Because petrol, alcohol and diesel oil are all better fuels.

**** but you're thick.

Hydrogen is not a fuel??????????????
I should lie down and take a pill if I were you.

harry wrote:

On Sep 21, 10:43 am, Steve Firth wrote:
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.

Well here's another one **** for brains.
http://press.iarc.fr/pr213_E.pdf

Try reading it you ****ing brainless clown. It does not say that carbon
particles are carcinogenic.

There's yeast that has managed higher intellectual achievements than
you.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
harry wrote:
On Sep 21, 10:24 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
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.
I see they have given up on it too. Wonder why?

Think about safe hydrogen storage..

I'm pretty sure they have a hydrogen filling station in Iceland. Probably
far enough away to be safe. ;-)

Tim

polygonum wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:35:33 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

harry wrote:
On Sep 21, 10:24 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
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.
I see they have given up on it too. Wonder why?

Think about safe hydrogen storage..

Simple - instead of storing pure hydrogen, store it as an oxide.

Yeah, H2O2 would be a lot safer. ;-)

Tim

harry wrote:


Result in sod all of the power we need...
[snip]

Norway runs on around 90% hydro I believe.

Which bit of the word "we" are you failing to understand you dimwit?

harry wrote:

On Sep 21, 6:00 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
harry wrote:
I see they have given up on it too. Wonder why?

Because hydrogen is not a fuel. Because hydrogen needs heavy containment
vessels. Because petrol, alcohol and diesel oil are all better fuels.

**** but you're thick.

Hydrogen is not a fuel??????????????

Correct. Hydrogen is not a fuel.

I should lie down and take a pill if I were you.

If I were you I'd shoot myself. I couldn't live with being thicker than
a cockroach.

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 18:16:50 +0100, Tim+ wrote:

polygonum wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:35:33 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

harry wrote:
On Sep 21, 10:24 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
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.
I see they have given up on it too. Wonder why?

Think about safe hydrogen storage..

Simple - instead of storing pure hydrogen, store it as an oxide.

Yeah, H2O2 would be a lot safer. ;-)

Tim

I like it. :-) But if anyone is worried about all that dangerous oxygen,
maybe hydrazine instead?

--
Rod

Why are you ignoring wind?

Because its bloody useless in practice..



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

Result in sod all of the power we need...
--
Tony Sayer- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Norway runs on around 90% hydro I believe.
Brazil, Venezuela, Egypt, Zambia, China and the USA have huge hydro
electric power stations.

And where can we put ours then;?...
--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:
Why are you ignoring wind?
Because its bloody useless in practice..



Tidal, Wave, Geothermal, Hydro electric are the important ones
remaining.
Result in sod all of the power we need...
--
Tony Sayer- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Norway runs on around 90% hydro I believe.
Brazil, Venezuela, Egypt, Zambia, China and the USA have huge hydro
electric power stations.

And where can we put ours then;?...
#
I think the theory is you buil a 1000 ft dam all around Scotland and
flood it.

Seems like a plan. Especially if you don't empty the people out first.


--
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 Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:58:52 +0100, Steve Firth
wrote:

polygonum wrote:

[snip]

This sums up as I see it:

No, the following sums it up as a company that sells CO2 sensors wishes
to see it and that happened to agree with your prejudices.

"Carbon dioxide is a toxic gas which is odourless and colourless. Rising
levels of carbon dioxide affect the human body, but what level is
dangerous and how do you know you are suffering from carbon Dioxide
poisoning?

You won't ever suffer from carbon dioxide poisoning. It's not possible.

Carbon dioxide is 'not just an asphyxiant'."

That last statement with no basis in fact.

http://www.analox.net/carbon-dioxide-dangers.php

Yes, perhaps you should have read all of it:

"The longer the exposure and the higher the level of carbon dioxide the
quicker *suffocation* occurs."

Note that *suffocation*. So according to you and that ****witted
web****e a pillow is toxic.

I did read all of it. Some, indeed many, people would die long before the
levels reached suffocation level. Even if the level of oxygen is
maintained at normal atmospheric concentration. And not from the lack of
oxygen but from the effects of the carbon dioxide on their systems. Is
that not a toxic effect?

--
Rod

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 19:29:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

tony sayer wrote:
Why are you ignoring wind?
Because its bloody useless in practice..



Tidal, Wave, Geothermal, Hydro electric are the important ones
remaining.
Result in sod all of the power we need...
--
Tony Sayer- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Norway runs on around 90% hydro I believe.
Brazil, Venezuela, Egypt, Zambia, China and the USA have huge hydro
electric power stations.
And where can we put ours then;?...
#
I think the theory is you buil a 1000 ft dam all around Scotland and
flood it.

Seems like a plan. Especially if you don't empty the people out first.


I thought it might be easier to damn the Irish sea and the channel...

--
Rod

In article
,
harry wrote:
On Sep 21, 10:24 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
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


I see they have given up on it too. Wonder why?

Because like all these wonderful ideas it has disadvantages over petrol
and diesel.

--
*A nest isn't empty until all their stuff is out of the attic

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

Steve Firth wrote:
harry wrote:

On Sep 21, 6:00 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
harry wrote:
I see they have given up on it too. Wonder why?
Because hydrogen is not a fuel. Because hydrogen needs heavy containment
vessels. Because petrol, alcohol and diesel oil are all better fuels.

**** but you're thick.
Hydrogen is not a fuel??????????????

Correct. Hydrogen is not a fuel.

And which obscure dictionary did you read to come up with that theory?

It might not be a primary fuel, but the Yanks in the 1960s thought it
and oxygen made a darn good fuel for shoving a rocket into orbit.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 20/09/2012 23:27, 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.


Steve, I don't always know what I'm talking about. But this time I do.
JFGI.

And the carbon particles in diesel exhaust are carcinogenic.

No they aren't.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18415532

Andy

John Williamson wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
harry wrote:

On Sep 21, 6:00 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
harry wrote:
I see they have given up on it too. Wonder why?
Because hydrogen is not a fuel. Because hydrogen needs heavy containment
vessels. Because petrol, alcohol and diesel oil are all better fuels.

**** but you're thick.
Hydrogen is not a fuel??????????????

Correct. Hydrogen is not a fuel.

And which obscure dictionary did you read to come up with that theory?

Unlike you I don't rely on ****poor dictionary definitions.

It might not be a primary fuel, but the Yanks in the 1960s thought it
and oxygen made a darn good fuel for shoving a rocket into orbit.

Hydrogen is a fuel in the same way that a battery is a fuel. You get
less out than you put in. If you need an incredibly large specific
impulse for a given weight you may well think that the losses are worth
the conversion. However unless you are powering a rocket or a SABRE
engine all you are doing is ****ing fuel up against the wall in order to
create hydrogen.

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

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

Carbon particles can give you cancer.

That's utter and complete ****.

This proves you are a knobhead.

Please feel free to give a reference to a peer-reviewed journal that
states that carbon particles cause cancer.

This proves you are a knobhead.