On 30/04/15 10:57, Simon Brown wrote:


"harryagain" wrote in message
...


It produces worse.

What gets added to the atmosphere by nukes is
much less than coal fired power stations alone.

Its invisible, It lasts for billions of years, people have died of it.

Its CARBON DIOXIDE - almost as lethal as dihydrogen oxide.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

It's either diesel or it isn't.

There is a difference between making
it from crude oil and from CO2.

I refer you to the sentence below.

Or perhaps you consider alcohol or hydrogen that
a petrol engine can run on just synthetic petrol?

I make an obscene gesture in your general direction, as always.

Collins GEM English Dictionary
diesel n. ~diesel oil fuel obtained from petroleum distillation.

Pity about biodiesel.

A fuel made from other than that may well
work in a CI engine, but isn't diesel oil.

If its chemically identical, it is.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/15 08:39, Simon Brown wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/15 06:12, wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 April 2015 18:41:38 UTC+1, harry wrote:

Advancement rarely comes by accident these days.
Inventors "stand on the shoulders" of their predeccesors.
So if you have no education, you are unlikely to invent anything.
Or even have an idea of what's possible.

yes

Virtually all the easy stuff has been found out.
No more inventions in garden sheds these days.

utter rubbish

Sadly not true.

Fraid so.

At least in terms of major break throughs.

That isn't true either, most obviously with apps.

Do you really thing apps are a serious breakthrough?

Some of them are, most obviously with an app that can for
example listen to a bird call and show you what bird it is.

Inventing the transistor was a serious breakthrough.

Yes.

Not coding up a bit of java

That can be too when it does something that hasnt been done before.

In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
I wasn't talking about diesel engines. Why would I when the thread isn't
about them? 'IC' refers to internal combustion which covers petrol and
diesel types as well as those running on alternative fuels like LPG and so
on.

Though the thread did start with a link to
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-water-1498524
which is specifically about diesel.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/15 10:57, Simon Brown wrote:


"harryagain" wrote in message
...


It produces worse.

What gets added to the atmosphere by nukes is
much less than coal fired power stations alone.

Its invisible, It lasts for billions of years, people have died of it.

No one has died from the CO2 from a coal fired power station.

Its CARBON DIOXIDE - almost as lethal as dihydrogen oxide.

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 20:44:03 +1000, "Simon Brown"
wrote:



"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/15 08:39, Simon Brown wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/15 06:12, wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 April 2015 18:41:38 UTC+1, harry wrote:

Advancement rarely comes by accident these days.
Inventors "stand on the shoulders" of their predeccesors.
So if you have no education, you are unlikely to invent anything.
Or even have an idea of what's possible.

yes

Virtually all the easy stuff has been found out.
No more inventions in garden sheds these days.

utter rubbish

Sadly not true.

Fraid so.

At least in terms of major break throughs.

That isn't true either, most obviously with apps.

Do you really thing apps are a serious breakthrough?

Some of them are, most obviously with an app that can for
example listen to a bird call and show you what bird it is.

Inventing the transistor was a serious breakthrough.

Yes.

Not coding up a bit of java

That can be too when it does something that hasn't been done before.

ROTFLMA! It seems you have no concept of what is meant by a serious
breakthrough!

We'll see...

Are you going to discover the Higgs boson in your shed,

A viable flying machine was produced in someone's shed.

or confine a plasma to achieve nuclear
fusion, or understand Dark Matter?

Viable flying machines are a serious breakthrough.

I think not!

You did get that right.

On 28/04/2015 20:59, John Rumm wrote:
On 28/04/2015 16:38, Tim w wrote:
This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-water-1498524


Since it requires a process temperature of 800 deg C it would be an
ideal partner for a LFTR reactor, since they can achieve the high
process temperatures directly.


Not green enough! Surely needs one of those Spanish / California type
focussed solar arrays.

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

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 21:08:27 +1000, "Simon Brown"
wrote:



"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 20:44:03 +1000, "Simon Brown"
wrote:



"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/15 08:39, Simon Brown wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/15 06:12, wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 April 2015 18:41:38 UTC+1, harry wrote:

Advancement rarely comes by accident these days.
Inventors "stand on the shoulders" of their predeccesors.
So if you have no education, you are unlikely to invent anything.
Or even have an idea of what's possible.

yes

Virtually all the easy stuff has been found out.
No more inventions in garden sheds these days.

utter rubbish

Sadly not true.

Fraid so.

At least in terms of major break throughs.

That isn't true either, most obviously with apps.

Do you really thing apps are a serious breakthrough?

Some of them are, most obviously with an app that can for
example listen to a bird call and show you what bird it is.

Inventing the transistor was a serious breakthrough.

Yes.

Not coding up a bit of java

That can be too when it does something that hasn't been done before.

ROTFLMA! It seems you have no concept of what is meant by a serious
breakthrough!

We'll see...

Are you going to discover the Higgs boson in your shed,

A viable flying machine was produced in someone's shed.

or confine a plasma to achieve nuclear
fusion, or understand Dark Matter?

Viable flying machines are a serious breakthrough.

To quote Harry from further up in this thread:
Virtually all the easy stuff has been found out.
No more inventions in garden sheds these days.

The Wright brothers were over a century ago.

Yes, but Wozniak produced a significant breakthrough rather later than that.

Sikorsky's helicopter 75 years ago. Hardly qualify for 'these days'!
Anything else is derivative.

Not with apps.

On Tuesday, 28 April 2015 21:08:07 UTC+1, Tim w wrote:
On 28/04/2015 20:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/04/15 19:46, alan_m wrote:
On 28/04/2015 17:24, Capitol wrote:


It looks like snake oil. The efficiency of the process is not
mentioned. What is the cost per litre of production?


And how much energy is required in the production? I also suspect that
the "direct air capture" is a heavily subsidised processes looking for a
market for the output.

Its just more technobollox trying to keep the green wet dream alive.

Like all green****e, its technically possible and commercially
catastrophic.


People like you with no vision, no faith and no hope for the future are
living walking tragedies. If I was king I would have you all put socks
in your mouths so that the rest of us didn't have to hear the constant,
dismal, negative, droning.

Tim W

Why not just havest all that wasted energy I'm sure the green have a way to do it :-)

On Thursday, 30 April 2015 08:24:39 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/04/15 08:19, nt wrote:
On Thursday, 30 April 2015 06:35:09 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/04/15 06:12, nt wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 April 2015 18:41:38 UTC+1, harry wrote:

Advancement rarely comes by accident these days.
Inventors "stand on the shoulders" of their predeccesors.
So if you have no education, you are unlikely to invent anything.
Or even have an idea of what's possible.

yes

Virtually all the easy stuff has been found out.
No more inventions in garden sheds these days.

utter rubbish

Sadly not true.

I shan't agree

Well I suppose you might dream up a new crypto algorithm in yer garden shed.

an odd proposition


NT

On Thursday, 30 April 2015 12:08:40 UTC+1, Simon Brown wrote:
"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 20:44:03 +1000, "Simon Brown"
wrote:



"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/15 08:39, Simon Brown wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/15 06:12, wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 April 2015 18:41:38 UTC+1, harry wrote:

Advancement rarely comes by accident these days.
Inventors "stand on the shoulders" of their predeccesors.
So if you have no education, you are unlikely to invent anything.
Or even have an idea of what's possible.

yes

Virtually all the easy stuff has been found out.
No more inventions in garden sheds these days.

utter rubbish

Sadly not true.

Fraid so.

At least in terms of major break throughs.

That isn't true either, most obviously with apps.

Do you really thing apps are a serious breakthrough?

Some of them are, most obviously with an app that can for
example listen to a bird call and show you what bird it is.

Inventing the transistor was a serious breakthrough.

Yes.

Not coding up a bit of java

That can be too when it does something that hasn't been done before.

ROTFLMA! It seems you have no concept of what is meant by a serious
breakthrough!

We'll see...

Are you going to discover the Higgs boson in your shed,

A viable flying machine was produced in someone's shed.

or confine a plasma to achieve nuclear
fusion, or understand Dark Matter?

Viable flying machines are a serious breakthrough.

As time goes on it gets ever harder to invent 'a serious breakthrough,' whatever exactly that means. So the percentage of lone inventors falls, but not to zero. Many inventions are concepts rather than brute force trial, and significant concepts can still be and are still produced by single minds.

The computer is a geat example - although long in the past, it was a piece of elemental conceptual thinking that changed history. Its construction is an example of where money is required, but its invention is not.


NT

"Simon Brown" wrote in message
...


"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 29/04/15 22:04, Simon Brown wrote:
Hasn't failed in Norway. They have done much better
with their socialised oil and gas system than Britain has.

when you have a population as low as they have and as much oil/gas as
they have you can afford socialism. Till the oil runs out....

Not that they are even socialist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erna_Solberg

Of course they are when the government owns
the oil and gas and much of the hydro industries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Resources


Norway hasn't been socialist for years.

"Simon Brown" wrote in message
...


"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 20:44:03 +1000, "Simon Brown"
wrote:



"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/15 08:39, Simon Brown wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/15 06:12, wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 April 2015 18:41:38 UTC+1, harry wrote:

Advancement rarely comes by accident these days.
Inventors "stand on the shoulders" of their predeccesors.
So if you have no education, you are unlikely to invent anything.
Or even have an idea of what's possible.

yes

Virtually all the easy stuff has been found out.
No more inventions in garden sheds these days.

utter rubbish

Sadly not true.

Fraid so.

At least in terms of major break throughs.

That isn't true either, most obviously with apps.

Do you really thing apps are a serious breakthrough?

Some of them are, most obviously with an app that can for
example listen to a bird call and show you what bird it is.

Inventing the transistor was a serious breakthrough.

Yes.

Not coding up a bit of java

That can be too when it does something that hasn't been done before.

ROTFLMA! It seems you have no concept of what is meant by a serious
breakthrough!

We'll see...

Are you going to discover the Higgs boson in your shed,

A viable flying machine was produced in someone's shed.

or confine a plasma to achieve nuclear
fusion, or understand Dark Matter?

Viable flying machines are a serious breakthrough.

That was quite some time ago.
Are you planning to invent anti-gravity n your shed?
Or create anti-matter?
That would be some breakthrough.

wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 30 April 2015 12:08:40 UTC+1, Simon Brown wrote:
"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 20:44:03 +1000, "Simon Brown"
wrote:



"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/15 08:39, Simon Brown wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/15 06:12, wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 April 2015 18:41:38 UTC+1, harry wrote:

Advancement rarely comes by accident these days.
Inventors "stand on the shoulders" of their predeccesors.
So if you have no education, you are unlikely to invent anything.
Or even have an idea of what's possible.

yes

Virtually all the easy stuff has been found out.
No more inventions in garden sheds these days.

utter rubbish

Sadly not true.

Fraid so.

At least in terms of major break throughs.

That isn't true either, most obviously with apps.

Do you really thing apps are a serious breakthrough?

Some of them are, most obviously with an app that can for
example listen to a bird call and show you what bird it is.

Inventing the transistor was a serious breakthrough.

Yes.

Not coding up a bit of java

That can be too when it does something that hasn't been done before.

ROTFLMA! It seems you have no concept of what is meant by a serious
breakthrough!

We'll see...

Are you going to discover the Higgs boson in your shed,

A viable flying machine was produced in someone's shed.

or confine a plasma to achieve nuclear
fusion, or understand Dark Matter?

Viable flying machines are a serious breakthrough.

As time goes on it gets ever harder to invent 'a serious breakthrough,'
whatever exactly that means. So the percentage of lone inventors falls, but
not to zero. Many inventions are concepts rather than brute force trial, and
significant concepts can still be and are still produced by single minds.

The computer is a geat example - although long in the past, it was a piece
of elemental conceptual thinking that changed history. Its construction is
an example of where money is required, but its invention is not.

Drivel.
Thousands of people were involved in making a working device.
It was derived from previous mechancal devices in any case.
Some going back thousands of years.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

It's either diesel or it isn't.

There is a difference between making
it from crude oil and from CO2.

I refer you to the sentence below.

Or perhaps you consider alcohol or hydrogen that
a petrol engine can run on just synthetic petrol?

I make an obscene gesture in your general direction, as always.

Yes - it's called typing in your case.

Collins GEM English Dictionary
diesel n. ~diesel oil fuel obtained from petroleum distillation.

Pity about biodiesel.

Thought even you might notice that's a different name.

A fuel made from other than that may well
work in a CI engine, but isn't diesel oil.

If its chemically identical, it is.

And, of course, the whole point of this is they ain't chemically
identical. Which is why it's wrong to call it diesel.

Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot yet again.

--
*Money isn‘t everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch

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

In article ,
Alan Braggins wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
I wasn't talking about diesel engines. Why would I when the thread isn't
about them? 'IC' refers to internal combustion which covers petrol and
diesel types as well as those running on alternative fuels like LPG and so
on.

Though the thread did start with a link to
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-water-1498524
which is specifically about diesel.

One expects journalists to be inaccurate. It's what they do for a living.
Just hoped for higher standards on here.

--
*How about "never"? Is "never" good for you?

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

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

On 30/04/15 12:08, Simon Brown wrote:
Viable flying machines are a serious breakthrough.

No they are not,. They *were* perhaps a serious breakthrough, but really
all the breakthrough was in fact the petrol internal combustion engine.
Once that existed aircraft were inevitable.

Yes, because of the power to weight ratio - something that fluffy bunny
halfwits cannot comprehend. From time to time, also, one hears of
people imagining we might put steam engines in cars. It doesn't occur
to them to wonder why steam engines are so large.

For powered flight, it also just required a bit of imagination to
realise that one had to copy gliding birds rather than birds flapping
their wings. AISB, people probably knew that such things were possible
in principle at least 100 years before the Wright Brothers. The trouble
with Mr Brown is that he seems to think that no one considered flying
machines and suddenly the Wright Brothers had this lightbulb moment and
next thing you knew, there was a working example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_f...e_age_of_steam

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article om,
"Dennis@home" wrote:

On 29/04/2015 16:36, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , GB
wrote:

On 29/04/2015 05:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No green technology exists without massive subsidies. Its all a house
of
cards.

It's cheaper to pump oil out of the ground than to recycle plastics,
etc. But there are hidden costs involved in the pumping, such as the
costs of waste disposal and the long term effects on the environment
for future generations. I think that our generation will be viewed as
incredibly wastrel litter louts.

Pious twaddle.

You mean as in the same way that we view with contempt generations in
the 17th and 8th centuries who cut down the forests of southern England
to provide wood to build ships with? Those *arseholes* !! Why didn't
they think of the future and leave those primeval forests alone for
*us* to enjoy?

Never mind them how about the assholes that covered the UK in green fields
instead of wild forests.

If you cut down the forests I would imagine fields is what you're left
with, O Soppy One.

No, fields are an entirely atrificial construction.
You would be left with scrubland which would eventually become a forest
again.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

It's either diesel or it isn't.

There is a difference between making
it from crude oil and from CO2.

I refer you to the sentence below.

Or perhaps you consider alcohol or hydrogen that
a petrol engine can run on just synthetic petrol?

I make an obscene gesture in your general direction, as always.

Yes - it's called typing in your case.

Collins GEM English Dictionary
diesel n. ~diesel oil fuel obtained from petroleum distillation.

Pity about biodiesel.

Thought even you might notice that's a different name.

A fuel made from other than that may well
work in a CI engine, but isn't diesel oil.

If its chemically identical, it is.

And, of course, the whole point of this is they ain't chemically
identical. Which is why it's wrong to call it diesel.

but - "diesel" is the "comprssion ignition" cycle* that the engine runs
with. It's not the fuel used - except by association.

- named after Herr Diesel its inventor.
Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot yet again.

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

"Simon Brown" wrote in message
...


"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Simon Brown" wrote in message
...


"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 28/04/15 22:56, Tim w wrote:
You know that Fascism wasn't defeated in Europe by people dreaming of
a
world of ready-meals and Ant and Dec?

No. it was defeated by hard works and superior technology actually,
and a bit of luck.

Fascism was defeated by money.


Fascism was defeated by the yanks choosing to get involved.

Hitler declared war on America after the Pearl Harbour attack.

Irrelevant to whether the yanks got involved in europe, again.

He had a pact with Japan.

Yes.

The Yanks had no choice.

Of course they did. They could have concentrated on Japan and
made an obscene gesture in the general direction of europe
that was furiously ripping each other's throats out, again.

Nazi submarines were sinking American shipping.
And not just in the Atlantic.



They were no friends of ours.

If the yanks had just ignored europe, your parents would
have been shipped off to the gas chambers and crematoria
and you wouldn’t have even been born.

They had a plan at that time to invade Canada.
And were making preparations to do so.

But had no possibility of ever doing that.

Only WW2 stopped it.

Money to provide the industry and the waepons.

It was about much more than just money.

Everything is about money.

No, the industrial revolution didn’t
happen in Britain because of money.

Neither did the Vikings, or the Romans, or the Normans.

Hitler hoped to form an alliance with us.

Yes. And you lot would have put your hands up eventually
if the yanks had just made an obscene gesture in your
general direction and had continued to fund Hitler.


The Russian did more to defeat Hitler than anyone else.

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

It's either diesel or it isn't.

There is a difference between making
it from crude oil and from CO2.

I refer you to the sentence below.

Or perhaps you consider alcohol or hydrogen that
a petrol engine can run on just synthetic petrol?

I make an obscene gesture in your general direction, as always.

Yes - it's called typing in your case.

Collins GEM English Dictionary
diesel n. ~diesel oil fuel obtained from petroleum distillation.

Pity about biodiesel.

Thought even you might notice that's a different name.

A fuel made from other than that may well
work in a CI engine, but isn't diesel oil.

If its chemically identical, it is.

And, of course, the whole point of this is they ain't chemically
identical. Which is why it's wrong to call it diesel.

It's called diesel fuel because itis optimised to run in "normal" diesel
engines.
Diesel engines can be designed to run on almost any fuel.
But they are all polluting.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
charles wrote:
And, of course, the whole point of this is they ain't chemically
identical. Which is why it's wrong to call it diesel.

but - "diesel" is the "comprssion ignition" cycle* that the engine runs
with. It's not the fuel used - except by association.

- named after Herr Diesel its inventor.

Quite. And one of the beauties of the CI engine is it can run on a variety
of fuels. So are we just to call them all by the same name?

If so, why bother with the name biodiesel if it is just plain diesel?

To identify it's source,

Quite. And one of the beauties of the CI engine is it can run on a variety
of fuels. So are we just to call them all by the same name?

If so, why bother with the name biodiesel if it is just plain diesel?

We bother with the name biodiesel so that we can all feel warm and
virtuous, safe in the knowledge that it's everyone *else* who's ****ing
up the planet, not us.

All biodiesel does is cause starvation.

And pollution.

On 30/04/15 11:44, Simon Brown wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/15 08:39, Simon Brown wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/15 06:12, wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 April 2015 18:41:38 UTC+1, harry wrote:

Advancement rarely comes by accident these days.
Inventors "stand on the shoulders" of their predeccesors.
So if you have no education, you are unlikely to invent anything.
Or even have an idea of what's possible.

yes

Virtually all the easy stuff has been found out.
No more inventions in garden sheds these days.

utter rubbish

Sadly not true.

Fraid so.

At least in terms of major break throughs.

That isn't true either, most obviously with apps.

Do you really thing apps are a serious breakthrough?

Some of them are, most obviously with an app that can for
example listen to a bird call and show you what bird it is.

**** me that is really going to solve the world problems.,

One starving man to another 'Ere that's a blackbird, notta thrush'
'**** off so I can die in peace'


Inventing the transistor was a serious breakthrough.

Yes.

Not coding up a bit of java

That can be too when it does something that hasnt been done before.

I can type the keys here and make your computer spell
Catfartinabasketaquilidocious. That's never been done before.

Do I get a Nobel Prize?


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 30/04/15 11:46, Simon Brown wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/15 10:57, Simon Brown wrote:


"harryagain" wrote in message
...


It produces worse.

What gets added to the atmosphere by nukes is
much less than coal fired power stations alone.

Its invisible, It lasts for billions of years, people have died of it.

No one has died from the CO2 from a coal fired power station.

Actually I suspect they may well have. I bet somewhere in the annals
there is a case of suffocations for someone climbing up and exhaust stack.

My point however was that CO2 can kill you if it excludes oxygen.

It is a poison so to speak .




Its CARBON DIOXIDE - almost as lethal as dihydrogen oxide.





--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 30/04/15 11:54, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 20:44:03 +1000, "Simon Brown"
wrote:



"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/15 08:39, Simon Brown wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/15 06:12, wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 April 2015 18:41:38 UTC+1, harry wrote:

Advancement rarely comes by accident these days.
Inventors "stand on the shoulders" of their predeccesors.
So if you have no education, you are unlikely to invent anything.
Or even have an idea of what's possible.

yes

Virtually all the easy stuff has been found out.
No more inventions in garden sheds these days.

utter rubbish

Sadly not true.

Fraid so.

At least in terms of major break throughs.

That isn't true either, most obviously with apps.

Do you really thing apps are a serious breakthrough?

Some of them are, most obviously with an app that can for
example listen to a bird call and show you what bird it is.

Inventing the transistor was a serious breakthrough.

Yes.

Not coding up a bit of java

That can be too when it does something that hasnt been done before.

ROTFLMA! It seems you have no concept of what is meant by a serious
breakthrough! Are you going to discover the Higgs boson in your shed,
or confine a plasma to achieve nuclear fusion, or understand Dark
Matter? I think not!


I suspect if he pushes his head further up his own arse he might
discover dark matter.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 30/04/15 12:08, Simon Brown wrote:


"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 20:44:03 +1000, "Simon Brown"
wrote:



"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/15 08:39, Simon Brown wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/15 06:12, wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 April 2015 18:41:38 UTC+1, harry wrote:

Advancement rarely comes by accident these days.
Inventors "stand on the shoulders" of their predeccesors.
So if you have no education, you are unlikely to invent anything.
Or even have an idea of what's possible.

yes

Virtually all the easy stuff has been found out.
No more inventions in garden sheds these days.

utter rubbish

Sadly not true.

Fraid so.

At least in terms of major break throughs.

That isn't true either, most obviously with apps.

Do you really thing apps are a serious breakthrough?

Some of them are, most obviously with an app that can for
example listen to a bird call and show you what bird it is.

Inventing the transistor was a serious breakthrough.

Yes.

Not coding up a bit of java

That can be too when it does something that hasn't been done before.

ROTFLMA! It seems you have no concept of what is meant by a serious
breakthrough!

We'll see...

Are you going to discover the Higgs boson in your shed,

A viable flying machine was produced in someone's shed.

*was*. Ive produced loads of viable flying machines in my hobby room.
They are not breakthroughs though and those days are gone.



or confine a plasma to achieve nuclear
fusion, or understand Dark Matter?

Viable flying machines are a serious breakthrough.

No they are not,. They *were* perhaps a serious breakthrough, but really
all the breakthrough was in fact the petrol internal combustion engine.
Once that existed aircraft were inevitable.

I think not!

You did get that right.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 30/04/15 12:55, Simon Brown wrote:

Yes, but Wozniak produced a significant breakthrough rather later than
that.


No he didn't.

he just packaged up some chips in a rather ckueful way.

Sikorsky's helicopter 75 years ago. Hardly qualify for 'these days'!
Anything else is derivative.

Not with apps.

Oh **** OFF with your 'apps' Apps are just ideas expressed in software.
There is nothing new there at all, just filling in the corners as the
last few areas that haven't been coded to death get coded to death.




--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 30/04/15 13:34, wrote:
On Thursday, 30 April 2015 08:24:39 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/04/15 08:19, nt wrote:
On Thursday, 30 April 2015 06:35:09 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/04/15 06:12, nt wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 April 2015 18:41:38 UTC+1, harry wrote:

Advancement rarely comes by accident these days.
Inventors "stand on the shoulders" of their predeccesors.
So if you have no education, you are unlikely to invent anything.
Or even have an idea of what's possible.

yes

Virtually all the easy stuff has been found out.
No more inventions in garden sheds these days.

utter rubbish

Sadly not true.

I shan't agree

Well I suppose you might dream up a new crypto algorithm in yer garden shed.

an odd proposition

Probably prime as well.

NT



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 30/04/15 13:45, wrote:
On Thursday, 30 April 2015 12:08:40 UTC+1, Simon Brown wrote:
"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 20:44:03 +1000, "Simon Brown"
wrote:



"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/15 08:39, Simon Brown wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/15 06:12, wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 April 2015 18:41:38 UTC+1, harry wrote:

Advancement rarely comes by accident these days.
Inventors "stand on the shoulders" of their predeccesors.
So if you have no education, you are unlikely to invent anything.
Or even have an idea of what's possible.

yes

Virtually all the easy stuff has been found out.
No more inventions in garden sheds these days.

utter rubbish

Sadly not true.

Fraid so.

At least in terms of major break throughs.

That isn't true either, most obviously with apps.

Do you really thing apps are a serious breakthrough?

Some of them are, most obviously with an app that can for
example listen to a bird call and show you what bird it is.

Inventing the transistor was a serious breakthrough.

Yes.

Not coding up a bit of java

That can be too when it does something that hasn't been done before.

ROTFLMA! It seems you have no concept of what is meant by a serious
breakthrough!

We'll see...

Are you going to discover the Higgs boson in your shed,

A viable flying machine was produced in someone's shed.

or confine a plasma to achieve nuclear
fusion, or understand Dark Matter?

Viable flying machines are a serious breakthrough.

As time goes on it gets ever harder to invent 'a serious breakthrough,' whatever exactly that means. So the percentage of lone inventors falls, but not to zero. Many inventions are concepts rather than brute force trial, and significant concepts can still be and are still produced by single minds.

The computer is a geat example - although long in the past, it was a piece of elemental conceptual thinking that changed history. Its construction is an example of where money is required, but its invention is not.



For sure if its just an idea, I've got a great one. Instantaneous matter
transfer.

I am sure now you have that idea you can build me a matter transmitter.


NT



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 30/04/15 13:53, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Simon Brown
wrote:

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...

The Wright brothers were over a century ago.

Yes, but Wozniak produced a significant breakthrough rather later than
that.

What breakthrough was that, then? Do tell, I'm keen to know.

He found out how to mix cannabis and ecstasy, and broke through to
another dimension.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

In article ,
charles wrote:
And, of course, the whole point of this is they ain't chemically
identical. Which is why it's wrong to call it diesel.

but - "diesel" is the "comprssion ignition" cycle* that the engine runs
with. It's not the fuel used - except by association.

- named after Herr Diesel its inventor.

Quite. And one of the beauties of the CI engine is it can run on a variety
of fuels. So are we just to call them all by the same name?

If so, why bother with the name biodiesel if it is just plain diesel?

Do we call the fuel used for a hydrogen powered car petrol because the
engine is basically the same? Why bother with LPG if petrol would do?

--
*Too many clicks spoil the browse *

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

On 29/04/2015 05:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

snip

Hitler's Germany was also making fuel from coal and other raw materials.

And the Italians were extracting oils from herbs - Mussolini made the
trains run on thyme.

Cheers
--
Syd

On 30/04/15 15:09, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
And, of course, the whole point of this is they ain't chemically
identical. Which is why it's wrong to call it diesel.

but - "diesel" is the "comprssion ignition" cycle* that the engine runs
with. It's not the fuel used - except by association.

- named after Herr Diesel its inventor.

Quite. And one of the beauties of the CI engine is it can run on a variety
of fuels. So are we just to call them all by the same name?

If so, why bother with the name biodiesel if it is just plain diesel?

Why bother with the name Shell/Esso/Texaco/BP V power diesel when its
just plain diesel?


Do we call the fuel used for a hydrogen powered car petrol because the
engine is basically the same? Why bother with LPG if petrol would do?



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 30/04/15 15:10, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/04/15 12:08, Simon Brown wrote:
Viable flying machines are a serious breakthrough.

No they are not,. They *were* perhaps a serious breakthrough, but
really all the breakthrough was in fact the petrol internal combustion
engine. Once that existed aircraft were inevitable.

Yes, because of the power to weight ratio - something that fluffy bunny
halfwits cannot comprehend. From time to time, also, one hears of
people imagining we might put steam engines in cars. It doesn't occur
to them to wonder why steam engines are so large.

they aren't. I saw a mamod steam engine smaller than a shoe box...:-)


For powered flight, it also just required a bit of imagination to
realise that one had to copy gliding birds rather than birds flapping
their wings. AISB, people probably knew that such things were possible
in principle at least 100 years before the Wright Brothers. The trouble
with Mr Brown is that he seems to think that no one considered flying
machines and suddenly the Wright Brothers had this lightbulb moment and
next thing you knew, there was a working example.


Well that's how people who have never invented or designed anything
think it happens


Whereas in fact people had been trying, on and off, for years.


And damn near succeeded. Langley's steam powered models were actually
capable of flight if he hadn't just thrown them off the top of a houseboat.

If there is one thing to note about the Wright brothers plane, its that
within 4 years planes started to look like planes have looked ever
since. It was an aerodynamic abortion. And flew despite that, not
because of it.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 30/04/15 15:14, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


For sure if its just an idea, I've got a great one. Instantaneous
matter transfer.

I am sure now you have that idea you can build me a matter transmitter.

Oh yes please. Then we can beam all the ****ing lefties into the centre
of the Sun.

I think give them their own planet and let them all die of ideology.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On Thursday, 30 April 2015 15:05:21 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/04/15 13:45, nt wrote:
On Thursday, 30 April 2015 12:08:40 UTC+1, Simon Brown wrote:
"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 20:44:03 +1000, "Simon Brown"
wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/15 08:39, Simon Brown wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/15 06:12, nt wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 April 2015 18:41:38 UTC+1, harry wrote:

Advancement rarely comes by accident these days.
Inventors "stand on the shoulders" of their predeccesors.
So if you have no education, you are unlikely to invent anything.
Or even have an idea of what's possible.

yes

Virtually all the easy stuff has been found out.
No more inventions in garden sheds these days.

utter rubbish

Sadly not true.

Fraid so.

At least in terms of major break throughs.

That isn't true either, most obviously with apps.

Do you really thing apps are a serious breakthrough?

Some of them are, most obviously with an app that can for
example listen to a bird call and show you what bird it is.

Inventing the transistor was a serious breakthrough.

Yes.

Not coding up a bit of java

That can be too when it does something that hasn't been done before.

ROTFLMA! It seems you have no concept of what is meant by a serious
breakthrough!

We'll see...

Are you going to discover the Higgs boson in your shed,

A viable flying machine was produced in someone's shed.

or confine a plasma to achieve nuclear
fusion, or understand Dark Matter?

Viable flying machines are a serious breakthrough.

As time goes on it gets ever harder to invent 'a serious breakthrough,' whatever exactly that means. So the percentage of lone inventors falls, but not to zero. Many inventions are concepts rather than brute force trial, and significant concepts can still be and are still produced by single minds.

The computer is a geat example - although long in the past, it was a piece of elemental conceptual thinking that changed history. Its construction is an example of where money is required, but its invention is not.



For sure if its just an idea, I've got a great one. Instantaneous matter
transfer.

I am sure now you have that idea you can build me a matter transmitter.

Congrats on missing the point. An invention is not an idea, its demonstrating how to do the idea - and that's not the same as doing it. Babbage never made his computer work but he did invent it. His plans, when followed later, worked.


NT

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
If so, why bother with the name biodiesel if it is just plain diesel?

Why bother with the name Shell/Esso/Texaco/BP V power diesel when its
just plain diesel?

You don't understand branding either?

--
*DOES THE LITTLE MERMAID WEAR AN ALGEBRA?

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

On Thursday, 30 April 2015 15:10:41 UTC+1, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/04/15 12:08, Simon Brown wrote:
Viable flying machines are a serious breakthrough.

No they are not,. They *were* perhaps a serious breakthrough, but really
all the breakthrough was in fact the petrol internal combustion engine.
Once that existed aircraft were inevitable.

Yes, because of the power to weight ratio - something that fluffy bunny
halfwits cannot comprehend. From time to time, also, one hears of
people imagining we might put steam engines in cars.

Doble E series, the ultimate steam car

It doesn't occur
to them to wonder why steam engines are so large.

Mr. Doble solved that

Steam airplanes have been done btw.


NT

On Thursday, 30 April 2015 16:44:42 UTC+1, harry wrote:
nt wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 30 April 2015 12:08:40 UTC+1, Simon Brown wrote:

Are you going to discover the Higgs boson in your shed,

A viable flying machine was produced in someone's shed.

or confine a plasma to achieve nuclear
fusion, or understand Dark Matter?

Viable flying machines are a serious breakthrough.

As time goes on it gets ever harder to invent 'a serious breakthrough,'
whatever exactly that means. So the percentage of lone inventors falls, but
not to zero. Many inventions are concepts rather than brute force trial, and
significant concepts can still be and are still produced by single minds.

The computer is a geat example - although long in the past, it was a piece
of elemental conceptual thinking that changed history. Its construction is
an example of where money is required, but its invention is not.

Drivel.

a real compliment from you

Thousands of people were involved in making a working device.

I don't believe his son employed 1000s of people

It was derived from previous mechancal devices in any case.
Some going back thousands of years.

as most all inventions are


NT