On 07/05/2015 07:06, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/2015 22:12, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/2015 18:49, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 06/05/2015 16:12, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 May 2015 11:37:32 UTC+1, Dennis@home wrote:
On 06/05/2015 09:10, Bod wrote:
On 05/05/2015 23:08, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 05/05/2015 18:23, Bod wrote:
On 05/05/2015 18:01, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 16:38, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
and dangerous.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsWPnpZLiLs


Crikey.

not a nice way to go......


An absailing rope and a point to hook it onto, might be handy
for the
future or even just a rope. At least it would give them a
chance of
descending relatively safely.

A rope might burn through. I think I'd prefer a parachute if the
tower
were high enough.

From my parachuting days, I seem to remember that the minimum
height
for a chute to open is about 500ft and that's assuming that the
chute
opens perfectly, which is not always the case.

You need a rope and an air brake, just attach to harness and
jump, the
rope should survive the few tens of seconds needed.

Its still a bit risky if its windy, then you need the rope to be
attached to the ground.

Would a bungi rope be practical (obviously a slightly advanged
one, in
that it's slowly breaks the fall) If you know the hieght would it be
that difficult to design such a thing ?


We obviously need the HSE to step in and regulate these highly
dangerous
structures.

What about metal rungs going part of the way down (say20ft) and a
little
covered safe area where 2 people can sit and wait for rescue?

Makes more sense to have a fire proof rope and a gadget
that allows a controlled rate of descent on that rope.

Mechanisms can freeze up in icy weather.

In practice that is easily avoided by the mountaineers and riggers.

I still think that the best and safest/cheapest way, is to have metal
rungs so they can quickly climb down a short distance to a small covered
cubby hole where they can clip themselves onto until they are rescued.
They'd be away from the smoke and a small metal cover over their heads
will protect them from any falling bits. I'm sure it wouldn't cost much
to equip all of them like that.
There'd be no mechanisms to possibly fail either.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 07/05/2015 07:04, Jacko wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/2015 21:28, Jacko wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/15 15:59, Dennis@home wrote:
On 06/05/2015 10:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The sad fact is that our civilisation will collapse, not in a
nuclear
holocaust, not on a welter of dangerous waste, but in a welter of
incompetence, because in the end, democracy has proved but one
thing:
mots people are too stupid to vote.





Well tomorrow we will see hoe many are stupid enough to vote UKIP.

Well tomorrow we will see how many are stupid enough not to vote UKIP.

Nothing stupid about realising that there isn't a lot of point in
voting for a party that might get 3 MPs elected if they are lucky.

What you are effectively saying, is follow the crowd and don't vote
for who you really want to vote for.

No, vote for the party that has some chance of being
the government which proposes to do what you think
is the better way of doing things.



I'll vote for the party who I feel has the best policies for the country
as a whole.

There is no point in voting for a party that might
end up with just 3 seats if they are lucky and has no
hope of having any say on government policy at all.

To vote any other way is following the sheep

Nothing whatever to do with following sheep, it's
all about doing something useful with your vote.

and doesn't make sense.

Makes a lot more sense that wasting your vote.

I don't like the idea of tactical voting.

That approach is what sees your vote actually do something useful.

Have the conviction for what you believe in.

I do, but want to see at least some of what I believe in happen.

If you for example want to see Britain leave the EU,
it makes sense to vote in a way that will ensure that
the entire country will get to vote on the question
of Britain leaving the EU and that means voting for
the Torys in your seat if it isn't a safe seat for Labour.

Yes, it was certainly UKIP that got Cameron to promise
that there would be a referendum on that, but NOW
what matters on that is that the party that has promised
to do that gets to carry out that promise if that is what
you want to see happen.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 07/05/2015 07:06, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/2015 22:12, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/2015 18:49, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 06/05/2015 16:12, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 May 2015 11:37:32 UTC+1, Dennis@home wrote:
On 06/05/2015 09:10, Bod wrote:
On 05/05/2015 23:08, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 05/05/2015 18:23, Bod wrote:
On 05/05/2015 18:01, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 16:38, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
and dangerous.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsWPnpZLiLs


Crikey.

not a nice way to go......


An absailing rope and a point to hook it onto, might be handy
for the
future or even just a rope. At least it would give them a
chance of
descending relatively safely.

A rope might burn through. I think I'd prefer a parachute if the
tower
were high enough.

From my parachuting days, I seem to remember that the minimum
height
for a chute to open is about 500ft and that's assuming that the
chute
opens perfectly, which is not always the case.

You need a rope and an air brake, just attach to harness and
jump, the
rope should survive the few tens of seconds needed.

Its still a bit risky if its windy, then you need the rope to be
attached to the ground.

Would a bungi rope be practical (obviously a slightly advanged
one, in
that it's slowly breaks the fall) If you know the hieght would it be
that difficult to design such a thing ?


We obviously need the HSE to step in and regulate these highly
dangerous
structures.

What about metal rungs going part of the way down (say20ft) and a
little
covered safe area where 2 people can sit and wait for rescue?

Makes more sense to have a fire proof rope and a gadget
that allows a controlled rate of descent on that rope.

Mechanisms can freeze up in icy weather.

In practice that is easily avoided by the mountaineers and riggers.

I still think that the best and safest/cheapest way, is to have metal
rungs so they can quickly climb down a short distance to a small covered
cubby hole where they can clip themselves onto until they are rescued.

No, because there is no guarantee that the main body of the turbine
will be where those in it or on top of it can get to those rungs.

With a fire proof rope, it doesn’t matter where the main body
of the turbine is pointing, it will always be possible to use the
rope and possible to have more than one of them too.

They'd be away from the smoke and a small metal cover over their heads
will protect them from any falling bits.

Sure, but that isn't the problem, the problem is ensuring everyone
who is up there can get onto the rungs in the first place.

I'm sure it wouldn't cost much to equip all of them like that.

Sure, the cost isn't the problem.

There'd be no mechanisms to possibly fail either.

Doesn’t matter if you can't use them because
it isn't possible to get onto the rungs.

On 07/05/2015 07:36, Bod wrote:
On 07/05/2015 07:06, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/2015 22:12, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/2015 18:49, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 06/05/2015 16:12, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 May 2015 11:37:32 UTC+1, Dennis@home wrote:
On 06/05/2015 09:10, Bod wrote:
On 05/05/2015 23:08, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 05/05/2015 18:23, Bod wrote:
On 05/05/2015 18:01, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 16:38, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
and dangerous.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsWPnpZLiLs


Crikey.

not a nice way to go......


An absailing rope and a point to hook it onto, might be handy
for the
future or even just a rope. At least it would give them a
chance of
descending relatively safely.

A rope might burn through. I think I'd prefer a parachute if the
tower
were high enough.

From my parachuting days, I seem to remember that the minimum
height
for a chute to open is about 500ft and that's assuming that the
chute
opens perfectly, which is not always the case.

You need a rope and an air brake, just attach to harness and
jump, the
rope should survive the few tens of seconds needed.

Its still a bit risky if its windy, then you need the rope to be
attached to the ground.

Would a bungi rope be practical (obviously a slightly advanged
one, in
that it's slowly breaks the fall) If you know the hieght would it be
that difficult to design such a thing ?


We obviously need the HSE to step in and regulate these highly
dangerous
structures.

What about metal rungs going part of the way down (say20ft) and a
little
covered safe area where 2 people can sit and wait for rescue?

Makes more sense to have a fire proof rope and a gadget
that allows a controlled rate of descent on that rope.

Mechanisms can freeze up in icy weather.

In practice that is easily avoided by the mountaineers and riggers.

I still think that the best and safest/cheapest way, is to have metal
rungs so they can quickly climb down a short distance to a small covered
cubby hole where they can clip themselves onto until they are rescued.
They'd be away from the smoke and a small metal cover over their heads
will protect them from any falling bits. I'm sure it wouldn't cost much
to equip all of them like that.
There'd be no mechanisms to possibly fail either.


There are already access ladders and they failed.

I still think one of these would be better
http://www.safelincs.co.uk/davy-desc...d-fire-escape/

If its windy you need a guide wire putting in place before you start
work so you don't blow around into the tower.

On 07/05/2015 08:07, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 07/05/2015 07:04, Jacko wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/2015 21:28, Jacko wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/15 15:59, Dennis@home wrote:
On 06/05/2015 10:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The sad fact is that our civilisation will collapse, not in a
nuclear
holocaust, not on a welter of dangerous waste, but in a welter of
incompetence, because in the end, democracy has proved but one
thing:
mots people are too stupid to vote.





Well tomorrow we will see hoe many are stupid enough to vote UKIP.

Well tomorrow we will see how many are stupid enough not to vote
UKIP.

Nothing stupid about realising that there isn't a lot of point in
voting for a party that might get 3 MPs elected if they are lucky.

What you are effectively saying, is follow the crowd and don't vote
for who you really want to vote for.

No, vote for the party that has some chance of being
the government which proposes to do what you think
is the better way of doing things.



I'll vote for the party who I feel has the best policies for the
country as a whole.

There is no point in voting for a party that might
end up with just 3 seats if they are lucky and has no
hope of having any say on government policy at all.

To vote any other way is following the sheep

Nothing whatever to do with following sheep, it's
all about doing something useful with your vote.

and doesn't make sense.

Makes a lot more sense that wasting your vote.

I don't like the idea of tactical voting.

That approach is what sees your vote actually do something useful.

Have the conviction for what you believe in.

I do, but want to see at least some of what I believe in happen.

If you for example want to see Britain leave the EU,
it makes sense to vote in a way that will ensure that
the entire country will get to vote on the question
of Britain leaving the EU and that means voting for
the Torys in your seat if it isn't a safe seat for Labour.

Yes, it was certainly UKIP that got Cameron to promise
that there would be a referendum on that, but NOW
what matters on that is that the party that has promised
to do that gets to carry out that promise if that is what
you want to see happen.

But you can't trust the Tories on a definite vote for a referendum.
They reneged last time they promised one and they've left a loophole to
renege on their promise this time...namely,they said, if they can't get
a change from the EU then he'll allow a referendum. What he'll probably
do, is to get a tiny insignificant change that means virtually nothing
and then say "there! I got the change so there'll be no referendum". He
*desperately* wants to stay in the EU.

On 07/05/2015 06:47, harryagain wrote:

The strange thing is that the fire just happened when they were present.
Also they didn't notice 'til it was too late.
And the built in fire extiguishers didn't work.

Looks to me like they done something stupid.



Most fires are because someone does something stupid, that's why you
need escape plans .

On 07/05/2015 08:12, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 07/05/2015 07:06, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/2015 22:12, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/2015 18:49, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 06/05/2015 16:12, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 May 2015 11:37:32 UTC+1, Dennis@home wrote:
On 06/05/2015 09:10, Bod wrote:
On 05/05/2015 23:08, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 05/05/2015 18:23, Bod wrote:
On 05/05/2015 18:01, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 16:38, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
and dangerous.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsWPnpZLiLs


Crikey.

not a nice way to go......


An absailing rope and a point to hook it onto, might be handy
for the
future or even just a rope. At least it would give them a
chance of
descending relatively safely.

A rope might burn through. I think I'd prefer a parachute if the
tower
were high enough.

From my parachuting days, I seem to remember that the minimum
height
for a chute to open is about 500ft and that's assuming that the
chute
opens perfectly, which is not always the case.

You need a rope and an air brake, just attach to harness and
jump, the
rope should survive the few tens of seconds needed.

Its still a bit risky if its windy, then you need the rope to be
attached to the ground.

Would a bungi rope be practical (obviously a slightly advanged
one, in
that it's slowly breaks the fall) If you know the hieght would
it be
that difficult to design such a thing ?


We obviously need the HSE to step in and regulate these highly
dangerous
structures.

What about metal rungs going part of the way down (say20ft) and a
little
covered safe area where 2 people can sit and wait for rescue?

Makes more sense to have a fire proof rope and a gadget
that allows a controlled rate of descent on that rope.

Mechanisms can freeze up in icy weather.

In practice that is easily avoided by the mountaineers and riggers.

I still think that the best and safest/cheapest way, is to have metal
rungs so they can quickly climb down a short distance to a small covered
cubby hole where they can clip themselves onto until they are rescued.

No, because there is no guarantee that the main body of the turbine
will be where those in it or on top of it can get to those rungs.

With a fire proof rope, it doesn’t matter where the main body
of the turbine is pointing, it will always be possible to use the
rope and possible to have more than one of them too.

They'd be away from the smoke and a small metal cover over their heads
will protect them from any falling bits.

Sure, but that isn't the problem, the problem is ensuring everyone
who is up there can get onto the rungs in the first place.

I'm sure it wouldn't cost much to equip all of them like that.

Sure, the cost isn't the problem.

There'd be no mechanisms to possibly fail either.

Doesn’t matter if you can't use them because
it isn't possible to get onto the rungs.

Each engineer could carry a short rope with clips on and climb down
the rope to a ladder. Obviously a hitching point must be available.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 07/05/2015 08:07, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 07/05/2015 07:04, Jacko wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/2015 21:28, Jacko wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/15 15:59, Dennis@home wrote:
On 06/05/2015 10:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The sad fact is that our civilisation will collapse, not in a
nuclear
holocaust, not on a welter of dangerous waste, but in a welter of
incompetence, because in the end, democracy has proved but one
thing:
mots people are too stupid to vote.





Well tomorrow we will see hoe many are stupid enough to vote UKIP.

Well tomorrow we will see how many are stupid enough not to vote
UKIP.

Nothing stupid about realising that there isn't a lot of point in
voting for a party that might get 3 MPs elected if they are lucky.

What you are effectively saying, is follow the crowd and don't vote
for who you really want to vote for.

No, vote for the party that has some chance of being
the government which proposes to do what you think
is the better way of doing things.



I'll vote for the party who I feel has the best policies for the
country as a whole.

There is no point in voting for a party that might
end up with just 3 seats if they are lucky and has no
hope of having any say on government policy at all.

To vote any other way is following the sheep

Nothing whatever to do with following sheep, it's
all about doing something useful with your vote.

and doesn't make sense.

Makes a lot more sense that wasting your vote.

I don't like the idea of tactical voting.

That approach is what sees your vote actually do something useful.

Have the conviction for what you believe in.

I do, but want to see at least some of what I believe in happen.

If you for example want to see Britain leave the EU,
it makes sense to vote in a way that will ensure that
the entire country will get to vote on the question
of Britain leaving the EU and that means voting for
the Torys in your seat if it isn't a safe seat for Labour.

Yes, it was certainly UKIP that got Cameron to promise
that there would be a referendum on that, but NOW
what matters on that is that the party that has promised
to do that gets to carry out that promise if that is what
you want to see happen.

But you can't trust the Tories on a definite vote for a referendum.

But they are a much better prospect for doing that than
a party that can only get 3 MPs elected if they are lucky.

Corse you may not actually want a referendum and would
prefer a govt that just leaves the EU without asking anyone,
but that isn't going to happen with a party which can only
get 3 MPs elected if they are lucky, even if they do end up
as part of the coalition that is the govt.

They reneged last time they promised one and they've left a loophole to
renege on their promise this time...namely,they said, if they can't get a
change from the EU then he'll allow a referendum. What he'll probably do,
is to get a tiny insignificant change that means virtually nothing and
then say "there! I got the change so there'll be no referendum". He
*desperately* wants to stay in the EU.

Still a better prospect of a referendum than with any other
party that has any possibility of being part of the govt.

Even if UKIP does end up being part of the coalition that
forms govt, they wont be able to force a referendum.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 07/05/2015 08:12, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 07/05/2015 07:06, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/2015 22:12, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/2015 18:49, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 06/05/2015 16:12, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 May 2015 11:37:32 UTC+1, Dennis@home wrote:
On 06/05/2015 09:10, Bod wrote:
On 05/05/2015 23:08, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 05/05/2015 18:23, Bod wrote:
On 05/05/2015 18:01, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 16:38, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
and dangerous.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsWPnpZLiLs


Crikey.

not a nice way to go......


An absailing rope and a point to hook it onto, might be handy
for the
future or even just a rope. At least it would give them a
chance of
descending relatively safely.

A rope might burn through. I think I'd prefer a parachute if
the
tower
were high enough.

From my parachuting days, I seem to remember that the minimum
height
for a chute to open is about 500ft and that's assuming that the
chute
opens perfectly, which is not always the case.

You need a rope and an air brake, just attach to harness and
jump, the
rope should survive the few tens of seconds needed.

Its still a bit risky if its windy, then you need the rope to be
attached to the ground.

Would a bungi rope be practical (obviously a slightly advanged
one, in
that it's slowly breaks the fall) If you know the hieght would
it be
that difficult to design such a thing ?


We obviously need the HSE to step in and regulate these highly
dangerous
structures.

What about metal rungs going part of the way down (say20ft) and a
little
covered safe area where 2 people can sit and wait for rescue?

Makes more sense to have a fire proof rope and a gadget
that allows a controlled rate of descent on that rope.

Mechanisms can freeze up in icy weather.

In practice that is easily avoided by the mountaineers and riggers.

I still think that the best and safest/cheapest way, is to have metal
rungs so they can quickly climb down a short distance to a small covered
cubby hole where they can clip themselves onto until they are rescued.

No, because there is no guarantee that the main body of the turbine
will be where those in it or on top of it can get to those rungs.

With a fire proof rope, it doesn’t matter where the main body
of the turbine is pointing, it will always be possible to use the
rope and possible to have more than one of them too.

They'd be away from the smoke and a small metal cover over their heads
will protect them from any falling bits.

Sure, but that isn't the problem, the problem is ensuring everyone
who is up there can get onto the rungs in the first place.

I'm sure it wouldn't cost much to equip all of them like that.

Sure, the cost isn't the problem.

There'd be no mechanisms to possibly fail either.

Doesn’t matter if you can't use them because
it isn't possible to get onto the rungs.

Each engineer could carry a short rope with clips on and climb down
the rope to a ladder. Obviously a hitching point must be available.

That isn't going to work when the main body of
the turbine is sitting over the start of the rungs.

Makes a lot more sense to use the fireproof rope
from the main body of the turbine so it doesn’t
matter here it sits with respect to the tower.

What about metal rungs going part of the way down (say20ft) and a
little
covered safe area where 2 people can sit and wait for rescue?

Makes more sense to have a fire proof rope and a gadget
that allows a controlled rate of descent on that rope.

Mechanisms can freeze up in icy weather.

In practice that is easily avoided by the mountaineers and riggers.

I still think that the best and safest/cheapest way, is to have metal
rungs so they can quickly climb down a short distance to a small covered
cubby hole where they can clip themselves onto until they are rescued.
They'd be away from the smoke and a small metal cover over their heads
will protect them from any falling bits. I'm sure it wouldn't cost much
to equip all of them like that.
There'd be no mechanisms to possibly fail either.


There are already access ladders and they failed.

I still think one of these would be better
http://www.safelincs.co.uk/davy-desc...d-fire-escape/

If its windy you need a guide wire putting in place before you start
work so you don't blow around into the tower.

Ah! that looks a great idea and so simple. I was envisioning a great
big wind fan type of air brake. That one looks really compact.

On 07/05/2015 08:30, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 07/05/2015 08:07, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 07/05/2015 07:04, Jacko wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/2015 21:28, Jacko wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/15 15:59, Dennis@home wrote:
On 06/05/2015 10:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The sad fact is that our civilisation will collapse, not in a
nuclear
holocaust, not on a welter of dangerous waste, but in a welter of
incompetence, because in the end, democracy has proved but one
thing:
mots people are too stupid to vote.





Well tomorrow we will see hoe many are stupid enough to vote UKIP.

Well tomorrow we will see how many are stupid enough not to vote
UKIP.

Nothing stupid about realising that there isn't a lot of point in
voting for a party that might get 3 MPs elected if they are lucky.

What you are effectively saying, is follow the crowd and don't vote
for who you really want to vote for.

No, vote for the party that has some chance of being
the government which proposes to do what you think
is the better way of doing things.



I'll vote for the party who I feel has the best policies for the
country as a whole.

There is no point in voting for a party that might
end up with just 3 seats if they are lucky and has no
hope of having any say on government policy at all.

To vote any other way is following the sheep

Nothing whatever to do with following sheep, it's
all about doing something useful with your vote.

and doesn't make sense.

Makes a lot more sense that wasting your vote.

I don't like the idea of tactical voting.

That approach is what sees your vote actually do something useful.

Have the conviction for what you believe in.

I do, but want to see at least some of what I believe in happen.

If you for example want to see Britain leave the EU,
it makes sense to vote in a way that will ensure that
the entire country will get to vote on the question
of Britain leaving the EU and that means voting for
the Torys in your seat if it isn't a safe seat for Labour.

Yes, it was certainly UKIP that got Cameron to promise
that there would be a referendum on that, but NOW
what matters on that is that the party that has promised
to do that gets to carry out that promise if that is what
you want to see happen.

But you can't trust the Tories on a definite vote for a referendum.

But they are a much better prospect for doing that than
a party that can only get 3 MPs elected if they are lucky.

Corse you may not actually want a referendum and would
prefer a govt that just leaves the EU without asking anyone,
but that isn't going to happen with a party which can only
get 3 MPs elected if they are lucky, even if they do end up
as part of the coalition that is the govt.

They reneged last time they promised one and they've left a loophole
to renege on their promise this time...namely,they said, if they
can't get a change from the EU then he'll allow a referendum. What
he'll probably do, is to get a tiny insignificant change that means
virtually nothing and then say "there! I got the change so there'll be
no referendum". He *desperately* wants to stay in the EU.

Still a better prospect of a referendum than with any other
party that has any possibility of being part of the govt.

Even if UKIP does end up being part of the coalition that
forms govt, they wont be able to force a referendum.

True, but they can heavily influence.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 07/05/2015 08:30, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 07/05/2015 08:07, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 07/05/2015 07:04, Jacko wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/2015 21:28, Jacko wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/15 15:59, Dennis@home wrote:
On 06/05/2015 10:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The sad fact is that our civilisation will collapse, not in a
nuclear
holocaust, not on a welter of dangerous waste, but in a welter
of
incompetence, because in the end, democracy has proved but one
thing:
mots people are too stupid to vote.





Well tomorrow we will see hoe many are stupid enough to vote
UKIP.

Well tomorrow we will see how many are stupid enough not to vote
UKIP.

Nothing stupid about realising that there isn't a lot of point in
voting for a party that might get 3 MPs elected if they are lucky.

What you are effectively saying, is follow the crowd and don't vote
for who you really want to vote for.

No, vote for the party that has some chance of being
the government which proposes to do what you think
is the better way of doing things.



I'll vote for the party who I feel has the best policies for the
country as a whole.

There is no point in voting for a party that might
end up with just 3 seats if they are lucky and has no
hope of having any say on government policy at all.

To vote any other way is following the sheep

Nothing whatever to do with following sheep, it's
all about doing something useful with your vote.

and doesn't make sense.

Makes a lot more sense that wasting your vote.

I don't like the idea of tactical voting.

That approach is what sees your vote actually do something useful.

Have the conviction for what you believe in.

I do, but want to see at least some of what I believe in happen.

If you for example want to see Britain leave the EU,
it makes sense to vote in a way that will ensure that
the entire country will get to vote on the question
of Britain leaving the EU and that means voting for
the Torys in your seat if it isn't a safe seat for Labour.

Yes, it was certainly UKIP that got Cameron to promise
that there would be a referendum on that, but NOW
what matters on that is that the party that has promised
to do that gets to carry out that promise if that is what
you want to see happen.

But you can't trust the Tories on a definite vote for a referendum.

But they are a much better prospect for doing that than
a party that can only get 3 MPs elected if they are lucky.

Corse you may not actually want a referendum and would
prefer a govt that just leaves the EU without asking anyone,
but that isn't going to happen with a party which can only
get 3 MPs elected if they are lucky, even if they do end up
as part of the coalition that is the govt.

They reneged last time they promised one and they've left a loophole
to renege on their promise this time...namely,they said, if they
can't get a change from the EU then he'll allow a referendum. What
he'll probably do, is to get a tiny insignificant change that means
virtually nothing and then say "there! I got the change so there'll be
no referendum". He *desperately* wants to stay in the EU.

Still a better prospect of a referendum than with any other
party that has any possibility of being part of the govt.

Even if UKIP does end up being part of the coalition that
forms govt, they wont be able to force a referendum.

True, but they can heavily influence.

I dont believe they can with just 3 MPs at most out of 650.

And your vote only gets one elected if one of those 3 is your seat too.

On 06/05/15 22:34, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
"cpb"@ wrote:

On 06/05/2015 22:16, Rod Speed wrote:
"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
...
I suspect that an integral fire fighting system would have been of
more use to the two Dutch engineers.

But a lot more expensive than a fire proof rope.

That was the point of my suggestion that wind generators should be
subject to more regulation - price them out of the market.

As a matter of interest, what is up there that's so flammable?

Gearbox oil.
Glass fibre.


--
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 06/05/15 22:52, Jacko wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/15 21:28, Jacko wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/15 15:59, Dennis@home wrote:
On 06/05/2015 10:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The sad fact is that our civilisation will collapse, not in a nuclear
holocaust, not on a welter of dangerous waste, but in a welter of
incompetence, because in the end, democracy has proved but one thing:
mots people are too stupid to vote.





Well tomorrow we will see hoe many are stupid enough to vote UKIP.

Well tomorrow we will see how many are stupid enough not to vote UKIP.

Nothing stupid about realising that there isn't a lot of point in
voting for a party that might get 3 MPs elected if they are lucky.

Extremely stupid to not realise there is every point in voting for a
party that has already put immigration, EU membership and energy
policy up for debate.

Irrespective of having any MPs at all..

But if it has already done that, what is the point in voting for that
party now ?
To keep those items on the agenda. You don't actually believe that
Cameron and Miliband care a toss about referenda or immigration if they
are *not* bleeding supprt to UKIP?

Look at out Tim here, tells you the tories are the party of a referendum
on Europe. Well they promised one last time and nothing happened, till
UKIP started gaining seats in local and MEP terms.

Now they are promising another: That promise will never ever be followed
through. Been there, done that.


--
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 07/05/15 07:04, Jacko wrote:



No, vote for the party that has some chance of being
the government which proposes to do what you think
is the better way of doing things.


Well there is no such party. Now what?



--
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 07/05/15 08:21, Bod wrote:
What he'll probably do, is to get a tiny insignificant change that means
virtually nothing and then say "there! I got the change so there'll be
no referendum". He *desperately* wants to stay in the EU.
+100


--
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 07/05/15 08:22, Dennis@home wrote:
On 07/05/2015 06:47, harryagain wrote:

The strange thing is that the fire just happened when they were present.
Also they didn't notice 'til it was too late.
And the built in fire extiguishers didn't work.

Looks to me like they done something stupid.



Most fires are because someone does something stupid, that's why you
need escape plans .

Most fires in wind turbines are down to failed gearboxes.

The only stupid thing anyone has done is to actually pay people to put
the ****ing things up.


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

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/15 22:52, Jacko wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/15 21:28, Jacko wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/15 15:59, Dennis@home wrote:
On 06/05/2015 10:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The sad fact is that our civilisation will collapse, not in a
nuclear
holocaust, not on a welter of dangerous waste, but in a welter of
incompetence, because in the end, democracy has proved but one
thing:
mots people are too stupid to vote.





Well tomorrow we will see hoe many are stupid enough to vote UKIP.

Well tomorrow we will see how many are stupid enough not to vote UKIP.

Nothing stupid about realising that there isn't a lot of point in
voting for a party that might get 3 MPs elected if they are lucky.

Extremely stupid to not realise there is every point in voting for a
party that has already put immigration, EU membership and energy
policy up for debate.

Irrespective of having any MPs at all..

But if it has already done that, what is the point in voting for that
party now ?
To keep those items on the agenda. You don't actually believe that Cameron
and Miliband care a toss about referenda or immigration if they are *not*
bleeding supprt to UKIP?

IMO both of them will have much more important things on
their minds than either of those in the next couple of days.

Look at out Tim here, tells you the tories are the party of a referendum
on Europe. Well they promised one last time and nothing happened, till
UKIP started gaining seats in local and MEP terms.

Now they are promising another: That promise will never ever be followed
through. Been there, done that.

But voting for UKIP today won't change that.

On Wednesday, 6 May 2015 18:49:10 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 06/05/2015 16:12, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 May 2015 11:37:32 UTC+1, Dennis@home wrote:
On 06/05/2015 09:10, Bod wrote:
On 05/05/2015 23:08, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 05/05/2015 18:23, Bod wrote:
On 05/05/2015 18:01, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 16:38, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
and dangerous.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsWPnpZLiLs


Crikey.

not a nice way to go......


An absailing rope and a point to hook it onto, might be handy for the
future or even just a rope. At least it would give them a chance of
descending relatively safely.

A rope might burn through. I think I'd prefer a parachute if the tower
were high enough.

From my parachuting days, I seem to remember that the minimum height
for a chute to open is about 500ft and that's assuming that the chute
opens perfectly, which is not always the case.

You need a rope and an air brake, just attach to harness and jump, the
rope should survive the few tens of seconds needed.

Its still a bit risky if its windy, then you need the rope to be
attached to the ground.

Would a bungi rope be practical (obviously a slightly advanged one, in that it's slowly breaks the fall) If you know the hieght would it be that difficult to design such a thing ?


We obviously need the HSE to step in and regulate these highly dangerous
structures.


yes we need to make sure that they kill less people than nuclear has, so every single turbin would need to have safety equipment installed so people don't get killed by them, and that cost should be added to the cost production just like any other system for generating power.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 6 May 2015 18:49:10 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 06/05/2015 16:12, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 May 2015 11:37:32 UTC+1, Dennis@home wrote:
On 06/05/2015 09:10, Bod wrote:
On 05/05/2015 23:08, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 05/05/2015 18:23, Bod wrote:
On 05/05/2015 18:01, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 16:38, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
and dangerous.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsWPnpZLiLs


Crikey.

not a nice way to go......


An absailing rope and a point to hook it onto, might be handy for
the
future or even just a rope. At least it would give them a chance of
descending relatively safely.

A rope might burn through. I think I'd prefer a parachute if the
tower
were high enough.

From my parachuting days, I seem to remember that the minimum
height
for a chute to open is about 500ft and that's assuming that the chute
opens perfectly, which is not always the case.

You need a rope and an air brake, just attach to harness and jump, the
rope should survive the few tens of seconds needed.

Its still a bit risky if its windy, then you need the rope to be
attached to the ground.

Would a bungi rope be practical (obviously a slightly advanged one, in
that it's slowly breaks the fall) If you know the hieght would it be
that difficult to design such a thing ?


We obviously need the HSE to step in and regulate these highly dangerous
structures.


yes we need to make sure that they kill less people than nuclear has,

No, because neither of them kill enough to matter.

so every single turbin would need to have safety
equipment installed so people don't get killed by them,

No. What matters is that hardly anyone ends up dead.

and that cost should be added to the cost production
just like any other system for generating power.

It isn't with coal fired power generation.

On Wednesday, 6 May 2015 21:38:54 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 6 May 2015 11:37:32 UTC+1, Dennis@home wrote:
On 06/05/2015 09:10, Bod wrote:
On 05/05/2015 23:08, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 05/05/2015 18:23, Bod wrote:
On 05/05/2015 18:01, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 16:38, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
and dangerous.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsWPnpZLiLs


Crikey.

not a nice way to go......


An absailing rope and a point to hook it onto, might be handy for the
future or even just a rope. At least it would give them a chance of
descending relatively safely.

A rope might burn through. I think I'd prefer a parachute if the tower
were high enough.

From my parachuting days, I seem to remember that the minimum height
for a chute to open is about 500ft and that's assuming that the chute
opens perfectly, which is not always the case.

You need a rope and an air brake, just attach to harness and jump, the
rope should survive the few tens of seconds needed.

Its still a bit risky if its windy, then you need the rope to be
attached to the ground.

Would a bungi rope be practical

Too much risk of slamming into the tower at the end of the fall.

Not much risk at all if you get the measurments right, plenty of people do it for fun.
http://www.ukbungee.co.uk/content/24...ne-bungee-jump



(obviously a slightly advanged one, in that it's slowly breaks the fall)
If you know the hieght would it be that difficult to design such a thing ?

Sure, the height isn't the problem.

So what is ?


Much better to have a fire proof rope and some mechanism
that allows you to slide down that rope at a controlled speed.

well that's obvious better sill have a cable car system between the turbins
Better still a special personal quad-copter type unit with auto navigation.

Doesn't need to be fire proof forever, just for long enough for
all of those needing to use it to slide down it.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 6 May 2015 21:38:54 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 6 May 2015 11:37:32 UTC+1, Dennis@home wrote:
On 06/05/2015 09:10, Bod wrote:
On 05/05/2015 23:08, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 05/05/2015 18:23, Bod wrote:
On 05/05/2015 18:01, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 16:38, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
and dangerous.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsWPnpZLiLs


Crikey.

not a nice way to go......


An absailing rope and a point to hook it onto, might be handy for
the
future or even just a rope. At least it would give them a chance
of
descending relatively safely.

A rope might burn through. I think I'd prefer a parachute if the
tower
were high enough.

From my parachuting days, I seem to remember that the minimum
height
for a chute to open is about 500ft and that's assuming that the
chute
opens perfectly, which is not always the case.

You need a rope and an air brake, just attach to harness and jump, the
rope should survive the few tens of seconds needed.

Its still a bit risky if its windy, then you need the rope to be
attached to the ground.

Would a bungi rope be practical

Too much risk of slamming into the tower at the end of the fall.

Not much risk at all if you get the measurments right, plenty of people do
it for fun.
http://www.ukbungee.co.uk/content/24...ne-bungee-jump

That is nothing even remotely like a wind turbine.

(obviously a slightly advanged one, in that it's slowly breaks the fall)
If you know the hieght would it be that difficult to design such a thing
?

Sure, the height isn't the problem.

So what is ?

Slamming into the tower at the end of the fall.

Much better to have a fire proof rope and some mechanism
that allows you to slide down that rope at a controlled speed.

well that's obvious better sill have a cable car system between the
turbins
Better still a special personal quad-copter type unit with auto
navigation.

If you can't do any better than this sort of ****,
I'll be ignoring your ****.

Doesn't need to be fire proof forever, just for long enough for
all of those needing to use it to slide down it.

Charlie expressed precisely :
tolerant citizens of
a tolerant United Kingdom.

Isn't that just too many tolerances?

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

On 07/05/2015 10:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/05/15 08:22, Dennis@home wrote:
On 07/05/2015 06:47, harryagain wrote:

The strange thing is that the fire just happened when they were present.
Also they didn't notice 'til it was too late.
And the built in fire extiguishers didn't work.

Looks to me like they done something stupid.



Most fires are because someone does something stupid, that's why you
need escape plans .

Most fires in wind turbines are down to failed gearboxes.

The only stupid thing anyone has done is to actually pay people to put
the ****ing things up.


And a death sentence to the engineers if they catch fire.

On Thursday, 7 May 2015 10:41:15 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 6 May 2015 18:49:10 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 06/05/2015 16:12, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 May 2015 11:37:32 UTC+1, Dennis@home wrote:
On 06/05/2015 09:10, Bod wrote:
On 05/05/2015 23:08, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 05/05/2015 18:23, Bod wrote:
On 05/05/2015 18:01, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 16:38, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
and dangerous.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsWPnpZLiLs


Crikey.

not a nice way to go......


An absailing rope and a point to hook it onto, might be handy for
the
future or even just a rope. At least it would give them a chance of
descending relatively safely.

A rope might burn through. I think I'd prefer a parachute if the
tower
were high enough.

From my parachuting days, I seem to remember that the minimum
height
for a chute to open is about 500ft and that's assuming that the chute
opens perfectly, which is not always the case.

You need a rope and an air brake, just attach to harness and jump, the
rope should survive the few tens of seconds needed.

Its still a bit risky if its windy, then you need the rope to be
attached to the ground.

Would a bungi rope be practical (obviously a slightly advanged one, in
that it's slowly breaks the fall) If you know the hieght would it be
that difficult to design such a thing ?


We obviously need the HSE to step in and regulate these highly dangerous
structures.


yes we need to make sure that they kill less people than nuclear has,

No, because neither of them kill enough to matter.

If yuo're putting safety measures in for nuclear then you must also put safety measureing in for turbiuns the same goes for coal and gas. Thta's teh only way to properly price energy in order to compare the cost and safety aspects.





so every single turbin would need to have safety
equipment installed so people don't get killed by them,

No. What matters is that hardly anyone ends up dead.

Hardley anyone isn't good enough.
I don;t think ANYONE has been killed because of storing old fuel cells from nuclear reactors.
Perhaps you need to talk to harry about this, he seems very concenred about the cost of making sure no one dies from nuclear but couldn't give a **** about those dying because of wind turbins or even coal production.




and that cost should be added to the cost production
just like any other system for generating power.

It isn't with coal fired power generation.

It is.
The cost of the safety equipment in mines is added to the cost of coal supplied.
Same goes for oil.

On 07/05/15 10:20, Jacko wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/15 22:52, Jacko wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/15 21:28, Jacko wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/15 15:59, Dennis@home wrote:
On 06/05/2015 10:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The sad fact is that our civilisation will collapse, not in a
nuclear
holocaust, not on a welter of dangerous waste, but in a welter of
incompetence, because in the end, democracy has proved but one
thing:
mots people are too stupid to vote.





Well tomorrow we will see hoe many are stupid enough to vote UKIP.

Well tomorrow we will see how many are stupid enough not to vote
UKIP.

Nothing stupid about realising that there isn't a lot of point in
voting for a party that might get 3 MPs elected if they are lucky.

Extremely stupid to not realise there is every point in voting for a
party that has already put immigration, EU membership and energy
policy up for debate.

Irrespective of having any MPs at all..

But if it has already done that, what is the point in voting for that
party now ?
To keep those items on the agenda. You don't actually believe that
Cameron and Miliband care a toss about referenda or immigration if
they are *not* bleeding supprt to UKIP?

IMO both of them will have much more important things on
their minds than either of those in the next couple of days.

Look at out Tim here, tells you the tories are the party of a
referendum on Europe. Well they promised one last time and nothing
happened, till UKIP started gaining seats in local and MEP terms.

Now they are promising another: That promise will never ever be
followed through. Been there, done that.

But voting for UKIP today won't change that.

It will if 20% of the voters vote that way.


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

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 7 May 2015 10:41:15 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 6 May 2015 18:49:10 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 06/05/2015 16:12, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 May 2015 11:37:32 UTC+1, Dennis@home wrote:
On 06/05/2015 09:10, Bod wrote:
On 05/05/2015 23:08, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 05/05/2015 18:23, Bod wrote:
On 05/05/2015 18:01, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 16:38, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
and dangerous.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsWPnpZLiLs


Crikey.

not a nice way to go......


An absailing rope and a point to hook it onto, might be handy
for
the
future or even just a rope. At least it would give them a chance
of
descending relatively safely.

A rope might burn through. I think I'd prefer a parachute if the
tower
were high enough.

From my parachuting days, I seem to remember that the minimum
height
for a chute to open is about 500ft and that's assuming that the
chute
opens perfectly, which is not always the case.

You need a rope and an air brake, just attach to harness and jump,
the
rope should survive the few tens of seconds needed.

Its still a bit risky if its windy, then you need the rope to be
attached to the ground.

Would a bungi rope be practical (obviously a slightly advanged one,
in
that it's slowly breaks the fall) If you know the hieght would it be
that difficult to design such a thing ?


We obviously need the HSE to step in and regulate these highly
dangerous
structures.


yes we need to make sure that they kill less people than nuclear has,

No, because neither of them kill enough to matter.

If yuo're putting safety measures in for nuclear then
you must also put safety measureing in for turbiuns

Nope.

the same goes for coal and gas.

Not even possible with coal fired power.

Thta's teh only way to properly price energy in
order to compare the cost and safety aspects.

That has never been what its about.

so every single turbin would need to have safety
equipment installed so people don't get killed by them,

No. What matters is that hardly anyone ends up dead.

Hardley anyone isn't good enough.

Corse it is. It will never be possible to see no one dead.

I don;t think ANYONE has been killed because
of storing old fuel cells from nuclear reactors.

Yes, but even you should have noticed
that few did end up dead in Chernobyl.

Perhaps you need to talk to harry about this,

No point, he doesn't have a clue about the basics.

he seems very concenred about the cost of
making sure no one dies from nuclear but
couldn't give a **** about those dying because
of wind turbins or even coal production.

What I said in a lot more words.

No surprise given that he is a socialist.

and that cost should be added to the cost production
just like any other system for generating power.

It isn't with coal fired power generation.

It is.

Wrong, as always.

The cost of the safety equipment in mines
is added to the cost of coal supplied.

Pity about those who end up dead as a result of what is
added to the atmosphere by the coal fired power generation.

Same goes for oil.

Wrong, as always.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 07/05/15 10:20, Jacko wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/15 22:52, Jacko wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/15 21:28, Jacko wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/15 15:59, Dennis@home wrote:
On 06/05/2015 10:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The sad fact is that our civilisation will collapse, not in a
nuclear
holocaust, not on a welter of dangerous waste, but in a welter of
incompetence, because in the end, democracy has proved but one
thing:
mots people are too stupid to vote.





Well tomorrow we will see hoe many are stupid enough to vote UKIP.

Well tomorrow we will see how many are stupid enough not to vote
UKIP.

Nothing stupid about realising that there isn't a lot of point in
voting for a party that might get 3 MPs elected if they are lucky.

Extremely stupid to not realise there is every point in voting for a
party that has already put immigration, EU membership and energy
policy up for debate.

Irrespective of having any MPs at all..

But if it has already done that, what is the point in voting for that
party now ?
To keep those items on the agenda. You don't actually believe that
Cameron and Miliband care a toss about referenda or immigration if
they are *not* bleeding supprt to UKIP?

IMO both of them will have much more important things on
their minds than either of those in the next couple of days.

Look at out Tim here, tells you the tories are the party of a
referendum on Europe. Well they promised one last time and nothing
happened, till UKIP started gaining seats in local and MEP terms.

Now they are promising another: That promise will never ever be
followed through. Been there, done that.

But voting for UKIP today won't change that.

It will if 20% of the voters vote that way.

They won't, you watch.

On 07/05/15 11:23, Jacko wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 07/05/15 10:20, Jacko wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/15 22:52, Jacko wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/15 21:28, Jacko wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/15 15:59, Dennis@home wrote:
On 06/05/2015 10:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The sad fact is that our civilisation will collapse, not in a
nuclear
holocaust, not on a welter of dangerous waste, but in a welter of
incompetence, because in the end, democracy has proved but one
thing:
mots people are too stupid to vote.





Well tomorrow we will see hoe many are stupid enough to vote UKIP.

Well tomorrow we will see how many are stupid enough not to vote
UKIP.

Nothing stupid about realising that there isn't a lot of point in
voting for a party that might get 3 MPs elected if they are lucky.

Extremely stupid to not realise there is every point in voting for a
party that has already put immigration, EU membership and energy
policy up for debate.

Irrespective of having any MPs at all..

But if it has already done that, what is the point in voting for that
party now ?
To keep those items on the agenda. You don't actually believe that
Cameron and Miliband care a toss about referenda or immigration if
they are *not* bleeding supprt to UKIP?

IMO both of them will have much more important things on
their minds than either of those in the next couple of days.

Look at out Tim here, tells you the tories are the party of a
referendum on Europe. Well they promised one last time and nothing
happened, till UKIP started gaining seats in local and MEP terms.

Now they are promising another: That promise will never ever be
followed through. Been there, done that.

But voting for UKIP today won't change that.

It will if 20% of the voters vote that way.

They won't, you watch.

Well I will.


--
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 , harryagain
writes

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 6 May 2015 03:06:07 UTC+1, Denis McMahon wrote:
On Tue, 05 May 2015 23:16:59 +0100, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

On 05/05/2015 22:24, Denis McMahon wrote:
On Tue, 05 May 2015 21:34:18 +0100, Jonno wrote:

Denis McMahon scribbled


On Tue, 05 May 2015 16:38:43 +0100, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

and dangerous.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsWPnpZLiLs

I'd find that alleged[1] 2013 incident more believable if I could
find a single mainstream media or industry report for it. Having
failed to verify the first story in the video, I didn't bother going
any further with it.

[1] Alleged because all the reports I can find for it seem to be
based in social media, groups with an anti wind energy bias, or
pseudo-news generators.

http://renews.biz/52979/two-dead-aft...-turbine-fire/

Looks like an industry interest.

http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1q0sca/
last_week_two_engineers_die
d_when_the_windmill/

Social media.

BBC News? Telegraph? Guardian?

No particular reason why they would cover an industrial accident
abroad.

Mainstream Netherlands Media? ....

I don't read Dutch, but it is on an English language Dutch news site:

http://www.nltimes.nl/2013/10/30/dea...-wind-turbine-
ooltgensplaat/

Yes, that's the pseudo news generator I was talking about. Click their
"about" link. They have a total staff of 4.

They may not be a spoof site, but they're not mainstream news. They do
seem to be the source quoted for some other media organisations, eg a
local county paper somewhere in the USA quoted them.

This rather graphic image of people having to choose between jumping to
almost certain death or being burned alive is the sort of thing that rags
such as the mirror, mail, sun, star, even daily express these days seem
to thrive on, and yet none of them picked it up.

I'm not saying it didn't happen (at the moment), I'm saying I'm very
sceptical about the reports I've seen so far.

The strange thing is that the fire just happened when they were present.
Also they didn't notice 'til it was too late.
And the built in fire extiguishers didn't work.

Looks to me like they done something stupid.


Like the people at Chernobyl then.
Pilot Error strikes again.
--
bert

In article , Harry
Bloomfield writes
Charlie expressed precisely :
tolerant citizens of
a tolerant United Kingdom.

Isn't that just too many tolerances?

I can't tolerate any more of this.
--
bert

In article , Bod
writes
On 07/05/2015 08:07, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 07/05/2015 07:04, Jacko wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/2015 21:28, Jacko wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/15 15:59, Dennis@home wrote:
On 06/05/2015 10:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The sad fact is that our civilisation will collapse, not in a
nuclear
holocaust, not on a welter of dangerous waste, but in a welter of
incompetence, because in the end, democracy has proved but one
thing:
mots people are too stupid to vote.





Well tomorrow we will see hoe many are stupid enough to vote UKIP.

Well tomorrow we will see how many are stupid enough not to vote
UKIP.

Nothing stupid about realising that there isn't a lot of point in
voting for a party that might get 3 MPs elected if they are lucky.

What you are effectively saying, is follow the crowd and don't vote
for who you really want to vote for.

No, vote for the party that has some chance of being
the government which proposes to do what you think
is the better way of doing things.



I'll vote for the party who I feel has the best policies for the
country as a whole.

There is no point in voting for a party that might
end up with just 3 seats if they are lucky and has no
hope of having any say on government policy at all.

To vote any other way is following the sheep

Nothing whatever to do with following sheep, it's
all about doing something useful with your vote.

and doesn't make sense.

Makes a lot more sense that wasting your vote.

I don't like the idea of tactical voting.

That approach is what sees your vote actually do something useful.

Have the conviction for what you believe in.

I do, but want to see at least some of what I believe in happen.

If you for example want to see Britain leave the EU,
it makes sense to vote in a way that will ensure that
the entire country will get to vote on the question
of Britain leaving the EU and that means voting for
the Torys in your seat if it isn't a safe seat for Labour.

Yes, it was certainly UKIP that got Cameron to promise
that there would be a referendum on that, but NOW
what matters on that is that the party that has promised
to do that gets to carry out that promise if that is what
you want to see happen.

But you can't trust the Tories on a definite vote for a referendum.
They reneged last time they promised one and they've left a loophole to
renege on their promise this time...namely,they said, if they can't
get a change from the EU then he'll allow a referendum. What he'll
probably do, is to get a tiny insignificant change that means virtually
nothing and then say "there! I got the change so there'll be no
referendum". He *desperately* wants to stay in the EU.
No. Cameron has said he will negotiate the best deal he can get then put
the results to the country in a referendum. This gives him a much better
negotiating position than UKIP who say we will have the referendum now
then if the country votes to leave the EU we will then attempt to
negotiate a new deal with the UK outside the EU.
It is surprising that those who support the EU seem to assume that they
would lose in a referendum. I don't think it's as clear cut as that at
all.
--
bert

On 07/05/15 12:00, bert wrote:
He *desperately* wants to stay in the EU.
No. Cameron has said he will negotiate the best deal he can get then put
the results to the country in a referendum.

The two are not incompatible.

Cameron DOES want to stay in the EU - where else will he go when he gets
junked as PM?

Likewise political expediency will force him to have *some* sort of
referendum, along the lines of 'do you want to stay in the EU or live in
abject poverty and have no NHS when voting UKIP makes your babies all
have two heads'

He who sets the agenda fixes the result.

Of course once he doesn't win the election outright, whoever he teams up
with can be used as a handy excuse why there cant actually BE a
referendum, and why of course national government doesn't matter because
the EU runs stuff anyway.

Surely no one actually believes that the referendum promise is anything
nore than a sucker ploy to get UKIP voters back?


--
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 07/05/15 07:04, Jacko wrote:
No, vote for the party that has some chance of being
the government which proposes to do what you think
is the better way of doing things.

I could take a narrow view and vote for the individual who would be best
for the constituency. But the constituency is just a random lump carved
out of the inner-city; though I have lived here 30 years and have family
connections with the district for 80, its geography is not a place on my
personal mental map.
I could consider who would be be most useful and capable as my local MP.
But one of the disadvantages of living in a safe seat is that, unless at
least one of the also-ran parties puts up a rising star hoping for a
more winnable opportunity next time, there is little choice. And unless
the MP presumptive has form as an independent thinker rather than lobby
fodder a vote for the most competent candidate would be a vote for the
party I would least like to form the next government. (If they were of
their own mind it would be unlikely that they would have been parachuted
in to a safe seat.)
So the best I can do is lend a vote to the 'share of popular vote'
calculus. Which is still not an easy choice. Should I vote for a minor
party so as to keep a major party in mind of its promises, even though
the local candidate is clearly not creditable. Or vote for a governing
party who have my support but not without reservations and who could be
beaten into a third place by the loony-greeny left.

On 07/05/15 07:36, Bod wrote:
On 07/05/2015 07:06, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/2015 22:12, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/2015 18:49, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 06/05/2015 16:12, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 May 2015 11:37:32 UTC+1, Dennis@home wrote:
On 06/05/2015 09:10, Bod wrote:
On 05/05/2015 23:08, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 05/05/2015 18:23, Bod wrote:
On 05/05/2015 18:01, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 16:38, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
and dangerous.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsWPnpZLiLs


Crikey.

not a nice way to go......


An absailing rope and a point to hook it onto, might be handy
for the
future or even just a rope. At least it would give them a
chance of
descending relatively safely.

A rope might burn through. I think I'd prefer a parachute if the
tower
were high enough.

From my parachuting days, I seem to remember that the minimum
height
for a chute to open is about 500ft and that's assuming that the
chute
opens perfectly, which is not always the case.

You need a rope and an air brake, just attach to harness and
jump, the
rope should survive the few tens of seconds needed.

Its still a bit risky if its windy, then you need the rope to be
attached to the ground.

Would a bungi rope be practical (obviously a slightly advanged
one, in
that it's slowly breaks the fall) If you know the hieght would it be
that difficult to design such a thing ?


We obviously need the HSE to step in and regulate these highly
dangerous
structures.

What about metal rungs going part of the way down (say20ft) and a
little
covered safe area where 2 people can sit and wait for rescue?

Makes more sense to have a fire proof rope and a gadget
that allows a controlled rate of descent on that rope.

Mechanisms can freeze up in icy weather.

In practice that is easily avoided by the mountaineers and riggers.

I still think that the best and safest/cheapest way, is to have metal
rungs so they can quickly climb down a short distance to a small covered
cubby hole where they can clip themselves onto until they are rescued.
They'd be away from the smoke and a small metal cover over their heads
will protect them from any falling bits. I'm sure it wouldn't cost much
to equip all of them like that.
There'd be no mechanisms to possibly fail either.


Or even at hatch into the internal shaft at that lower level, where
there would be some prospect of descending from within. The fires seem
to be at the top.

On 07/05/2015 14:23, DJC wrote:
On 07/05/15 07:36, Bod wrote:
On 07/05/2015 07:06, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/2015 22:12, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/2015 18:49, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 06/05/2015 16:12, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 May 2015 11:37:32 UTC+1, Dennis@home wrote:
On 06/05/2015 09:10, Bod wrote:
On 05/05/2015 23:08, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 05/05/2015 18:23, Bod wrote:
On 05/05/2015 18:01, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 16:38, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
and dangerous.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsWPnpZLiLs


Crikey.

not a nice way to go......


An absailing rope and a point to hook it onto, might be handy
for the
future or even just a rope. At least it would give them a
chance of
descending relatively safely.

A rope might burn through. I think I'd prefer a parachute if the
tower
were high enough.

From my parachuting days, I seem to remember that the minimum
height
for a chute to open is about 500ft and that's assuming that the
chute
opens perfectly, which is not always the case.

You need a rope and an air brake, just attach to harness and
jump, the
rope should survive the few tens of seconds needed.

Its still a bit risky if its windy, then you need the rope to be
attached to the ground.

Would a bungi rope be practical (obviously a slightly advanged
one, in
that it's slowly breaks the fall) If you know the hieght would
it be
that difficult to design such a thing ?


We obviously need the HSE to step in and regulate these highly
dangerous
structures.

What about metal rungs going part of the way down (say20ft) and a
little
covered safe area where 2 people can sit and wait for rescue?

Makes more sense to have a fire proof rope and a gadget
that allows a controlled rate of descent on that rope.

Mechanisms can freeze up in icy weather.

In practice that is easily avoided by the mountaineers and riggers.

I still think that the best and safest/cheapest way, is to have metal
rungs so they can quickly climb down a short distance to a small covered
cubby hole where they can clip themselves onto until they are rescued.
They'd be away from the smoke and a small metal cover over their heads
will protect them from any falling bits. I'm sure it wouldn't cost much
to equip all of them like that.
There'd be no mechanisms to possibly fail either.


Or even at hatch into the internal shaft at that lower level, where
there would be some prospect of descending from within. The fires seem
to be at the top.



Interesting idea and food for thought.

On 06/05/2015 23:40, Rod Speed wrote:
Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote

I suspect that an integral fire fighting system would have been of
more use to the two Dutch engineers.

But a lot more expensive than a fire proof rope.

That was the point of my suggestion that wind generators should be
subject to more regulation - price them out of the market.

I'm not convinced it would do that. The cost of an integrated
fire system would be a pretty small part of the total cost.

It's a start. I'm sure that a thorough investigation of all the
potential risks could produce a lot more regulations. For example,
enclosing the blades in a cage to contain them if they break up or fall off.

--
Colin Bignell

On 07/05/2015 10:55, whisky-dave wrote:
....
Hardley anyone isn't good enough.

Although setting a target figure of no worse than nuclear power,
excluding Chernobyl, would be a start. That would be around 0.004 deaths
per TWh.

I don;t think ANYONE has been killed because of storing old fuel cells from nuclear reactors...

It is actually safe to swim in spent fuel cell ponds, provided you stay
on the surface. Diving to get closer to the cells is not recommended though.


--
Colin Bignell

On 07/05/2015 10:44, whisky-dave wrote:
....
Better still a special personal quad-copter type unit with auto navigation.
....

I like that. I'll add it to my list of essential safety equipment for
wind turbines.


--
Colin Bignell

On Thursday, 7 May 2015 10:52:47 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 6 May 2015 21:38:54 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 6 May 2015 11:37:32 UTC+1, Dennis@home wrote:
On 06/05/2015 09:10, Bod wrote:
On 05/05/2015 23:08, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 05/05/2015 18:23, Bod wrote:
On 05/05/2015 18:01, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 16:38, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
and dangerous.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsWPnpZLiLs


Crikey.

not a nice way to go......


An absailing rope and a point to hook it onto, might be handy for
the
future or even just a rope. At least it would give them a chance
of
descending relatively safely.

A rope might burn through. I think I'd prefer a parachute if the
tower
were high enough.

From my parachuting days, I seem to remember that the minimum
height
for a chute to open is about 500ft and that's assuming that the
chute
opens perfectly, which is not always the case.

You need a rope and an air brake, just attach to harness and jump, the
rope should survive the few tens of seconds needed.

Its still a bit risky if its windy, then you need the rope to be
attached to the ground.

Would a bungi rope be practical

Too much risk of slamming into the tower at the end of the fall.

Not much risk at all if you get the measurments right, plenty of people do
it for fun.
http://www.ukbungee.co.uk/content/24...ne-bungee-jump

That is nothing even remotely like a wind turbine.

(obviously a slightly advanged one, in that it's slowly breaks the fall)
If you know the hieght would it be that difficult to design such a thing
?

Sure, the height isn't the problem.

So what is ?

Slamming into the tower at the end of the fall.

Why don't bungi jumpers slam in the where they jump from then ?

Much better to have a fire proof rope and some mechanism
that allows you to slide down that rope at a controlled speed.

well that's obvious better sill have a cable car system between the
turbins
Better still a special personal quad-copter type unit with auto
navigation.

If you can't do any better than this sort of ****,
I'll be ignoring your ****.

good that is the aim.