"harry" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 26 September 2015 09:26:15 UTC+1, tim..... wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 26 September 2015 05:00:26 UTC+1, Archibald Tarquin
Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 10:09:27 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

wrote

If Britain leaves the EU, does that mean we can have
back our white oil based paint that doesn't yellow?

And can we get rid of that bloody awful and
potentially dangerous Edison Screw system?

Nope. That was allowed even before the EU was even invented.

The exit will lose all fervour when the populace realises the benefits
& savings of the new 250W max kettle.

AB

Drivel.
There's dopes here believes crap like that.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...d-kettles.html

(other newspapers are available)

tim

Any one who wasn't ****-fer-brains would realise that a higher wattage
will use less power overall because there are less losses because the
process is quicker.

have you met the average EU Commission employee :-)

tim

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 22:57:18 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Saturday, 26 September 2015 10:36:03 UTC+1, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 00:19:47 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Saturday, 26 September 2015 05:00:26 UTC+1, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 10:09:27 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

wrote

If Britain leaves the EU, does that mean we can have
back our white oil based paint that doesn't yellow?

And can we get rid of that bloody awful and
potentially dangerous Edison Screw system?

Nope. That was allowed even before the EU was even invented.

The exit will lose all fervour when the populace realises the benefits
& savings of the new 250W max kettle.

AB

Drivel.
There's dopes here believes crap like that.
And if a few years ago you were told you couldn't buy your choice of
bulbs, had to put up with reduced wattage vacuums, innefective paint
and weedkiller, would you have believed it?


Straight bananas are starting to seem like a distinct possibility [
Low height one's that save power and produce a higher safety factor
during harvesting of course].


AB

I see you,re one of the ****-fer-brains.
As all electric heating appliances are 100% efficient, it's pointless reducing wattages.
Overall, more power is used due to longer working times.

However, for non-heating electrical applications there's scope for new/better technology that is more efficient.
Which is what all this is about.

I beg to differ.

You have obviously not taken resistance generation into account.

It isn't new technology BTW, it has been fully documented years ago,
it's just that there was no real requirement to restrict power in
those days.


AB

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 10:56:36 +0100, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:

I see you,re one of the ****-fer-brains.
As all electric heating appliances are 100% efficient, it's pointless
reducing wattages.
Overall, more power is used due to longer working times.

However, for non-heating electrical applications there's scope for
new/better technology that is more efficient.
Which is what all this is about.

I beg to differ.

You have obviously not taken resistance generation into account.

Or insulation.
Or how element design might affect heat transference.

If it was that simple, then it would take the same time to boil a litre
of water in a lidless metal saucepan on an electric hob or in a highly
insulated kettle of the same power. Clearly, it doesn't.

It's easy to demonstrate - just put a lid on the pan.

On 27/09/15 10:56, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 22:57:18 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:


I see you,re one of the ****-fer-brains.
As all electric heating appliances are 100% efficient, it's pointless reducing wattages.
Overall, more power is used due to longer working times.

However, for non-heating electrical applications there's scope for new/better technology that is more efficient.
Which is what all this is about.

I beg to differ.


I am curious to understand what you are differing about.. Are you saying
that resistance heating is not 100% efficient?

You have obviously not taken resistance generation into account.


As a highly qualified electrical engineer, I haver never met that term:
Nor does wiki reveal it as a term used by the electrical engineering
profession.

I seldom support harry,. who is a tool of the first order, but in this
case I have to say that you seem to have out-tooled harry Himself.

A rare feat.

It isn't new technology BTW, it has been fully documented years ago,
it's just that there was no real requirement to restrict power in
those days.

What 'isn't new technology', dearie?

This strange 'resistance generation' of which no one else seems to have
heard..





AB



--
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the
world it's not directly responsible for.

On 27/09/15 11:02, Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 10:56:36 +0100, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:

I see you,re one of the ****-fer-brains.
As all electric heating appliances are 100% efficient, it's pointless
reducing wattages.
Overall, more power is used due to longer working times.

However, for non-heating electrical applications there's scope for
new/better technology that is more efficient.
Which is what all this is about.

I beg to differ.

You have obviously not taken resistance generation into account.

Or insulation.
Or how element design might affect heat transference.

If it was that simple, then it would take the same time to boil a litre
of water in a lidless metal saucepan on an electric hob or in a highly
insulated kettle of the same power. Clearly, it doesn't.

It's easy to demonstrate - just put a lid on the pan.


That has nothing to do with the heating efficiency overall.


You are talking about where the heat goes, not how efficiently it is made.

And, mutatis mutandis., changing kettle wattages does not affect the
heat transfer parameters

In short a total straw man.


--
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the
world it's not directly responsible for.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:07:11 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 27/09/15 10:56, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 22:57:18 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:


I see you,re one of the ****-fer-brains.
As all electric heating appliances are 100% efficient, it's pointless reducing wattages.
Overall, more power is used due to longer working times.

However, for non-heating electrical applications there's scope for new/better technology that is more efficient.
Which is what all this is about.

I beg to differ.


I am curious to understand what you are differing about.. Are you saying
that resistance heating is not 100% efficient?

You have obviously not taken resistance generation into account.


As a highly qualified electrical engineer, I haver never met that term:
Nor does wiki reveal it as a term used by the electrical engineering
profession.

I seldom support harry,. who is a tool of the first order, but in this
case I have to say that you seem to have out-tooled harry Himself.

A rare feat.

It isn't new technology BTW, it has been fully documented years ago,
it's just that there was no real requirement to restrict power in
those days.

What 'isn't new technology', dearie?

This strange 'resistance generation' of which no one else seems to have
heard..

It isn't strange, in fact it was a dammned nuicance in the days of
high Voltages and thermionic valves.

I remember reading of an experiment to rectify the noise value of high
value resistors [ thus decreasing losses due to skin effect and indeed
inherent reactive losses in every practical load. Unfortunately in
those days carbon resistors were the norm so there was a very real
danger of the resistors increasing in value, as anyone with experience
of anode loads in audio triodes would vouch for completely.

The led to the seemingly absurd postulation that for any practical
generator using resistance generation, a fail safe of a resistive load
would be automatically introduced in order to prevent damage to the
supplied equipment.

I have little doubt that this would not be needed and an inverter
would provide a simple and cheap answer. Unfortunately semiconductor
based inverters were not around fifty years ago, which may account for
another reason resistance generation was never taken up.

AB

Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:07:11 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


On 27/09/15 10:56, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 22:57:18 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:



I see you,re one of the ****-fer-brains.
As all electric heating appliances are 100% efficient, it's pointless reducing wattages.
Overall, more power is used due to longer working times.

However, for non-heating electrical applications there's scope for new/better technology that is more efficient.
Which is what all this is about.

I beg to differ.


I am curious to understand what you are differing about.. Are you saying
that resistance heating is not 100% efficient?


You have obviously not taken resistance generation into account.


As a highly qualified electrical engineer, I haver never met that term:
Nor does wiki reveal it as a term used by the electrical engineering
profession.

I seldom support harry,. who is a tool of the first order, but in this
case I have to say that you seem to have out-tooled harry Himself.

A rare feat.


It isn't new technology BTW, it has been fully documented years ago,
it's just that there was no real requirement to restrict power in
those days.


What 'isn't new technology', dearie?

This strange 'resistance generation' of which no one else seems to have
heard..


It isn't strange, in fact it was a dammned nuicance in the days of
high Voltages and thermionic valves.

I remember reading of an experiment to rectify the noise value of high
value resistors [ thus decreasing losses due to skin effect and indeed
inherent reactive losses in every practical load. Unfortunately in
those days carbon resistors were the norm so there was a very real
danger of the resistors increasing in value, as anyone with experience
of anode loads in audio triodes would vouch for completely.

The led to the seemingly absurd postulation that for any practical
generator using resistance generation, a fail safe of a resistive load
would be automatically introduced in order to prevent damage to the
supplied equipment.

I have little doubt that this would not be needed and an inverter
would provide a simple and cheap answer. Unfortunately semiconductor
based inverters were not around fifty years ago, which may account for
another reason resistance generation was never taken up.

AB


This reads like bull**** to me.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 13:54:37 +0100, Capitol wrote:

Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:07:11 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


On 27/09/15 10:56, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 22:57:18 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:



I see you,re one of the ****-fer-brains.
As all electric heating appliances are 100% efficient, it's pointless reducing wattages.
Overall, more power is used due to longer working times.

However, for non-heating electrical applications there's scope for new/better technology that is more efficient.
Which is what all this is about.

I beg to differ.


I am curious to understand what you are differing about.. Are you saying
that resistance heating is not 100% efficient?


You have obviously not taken resistance generation into account.


As a highly qualified electrical engineer, I haver never met that term:
Nor does wiki reveal it as a term used by the electrical engineering
profession.

I seldom support harry,. who is a tool of the first order, but in this
case I have to say that you seem to have out-tooled harry Himself.

A rare feat.


It isn't new technology BTW, it has been fully documented years ago,
it's just that there was no real requirement to restrict power in
those days.


What 'isn't new technology', dearie?

This strange 'resistance generation' of which no one else seems to have
heard..


It isn't strange, in fact it was a dammned nuicance in the days of
high Voltages and thermionic valves.

I remember reading of an experiment to rectify the noise value of high
value resistors [ thus decreasing losses due to skin effect and indeed
inherent reactive losses in every practical load. Unfortunately in
those days carbon resistors were the norm so there was a very real
danger of the resistors increasing in value, as anyone with experience
of anode loads in audio triodes would vouch for completely.

The led to the seemingly absurd postulation that for any practical
generator using resistance generation, a fail safe of a resistive load
would be automatically introduced in order to prevent damage to the
supplied equipment.

I have little doubt that this would not be needed and an inverter
would provide a simple and cheap answer. Unfortunately semiconductor
based inverters were not around fifty years ago, which may account for
another reason resistance generation was never taken up.

AB


This reads like bull**** to me.
Aah, you young 'ens.

It seems so recently that resistance generation was a prime concern of
designers of valve circuitry, the metal oxide based resistance
elements which are so common today were produced in no small part in
response to a strong demand by those wanting to process fairly low
level signals without them being swamped by what was effectively a
carbon based generator.


Frankly I feel agrieved that such people as John B Johnson [Possibly
our only hope in the battle against global warming], are not common
houshold names.


Open your mind young Capitol, I suspect you had a bit of a problem
with Ohms law once also.

AB

On 27/09/15 13:28, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:07:11 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 27/09/15 10:56, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 22:57:18 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:


I see you,re one of the ****-fer-brains.
As all electric heating appliances are 100% efficient, it's pointless reducing wattages.
Overall, more power is used due to longer working times.

However, for non-heating electrical applications there's scope for new/better technology that is more efficient.
Which is what all this is about.

I beg to differ.


I am curious to understand what you are differing about.. Are you saying
that resistance heating is not 100% efficient?

You have obviously not taken resistance generation into account.


As a highly qualified electrical engineer, I haver never met that term:
Nor does wiki reveal it as a term used by the electrical engineering
profession.

I seldom support harry,. who is a tool of the first order, but in this
case I have to say that you seem to have out-tooled harry Himself.

A rare feat.

It isn't new technology BTW, it has been fully documented years ago,
it's just that there was no real requirement to restrict power in
those days.

What 'isn't new technology', dearie?

This strange 'resistance generation' of which no one else seems to have
heard..

It isn't strange, in fact it was a dammned nuicance in the days of
high Voltages and thermionic valves.

I remember reading of an experiment to rectify the noise value of high
value resistors [ thus decreasing losses due to skin effect and indeed
inherent reactive losses in every practical load. Unfortunately in
those days carbon resistors were the norm so there was a very real
danger of the resistors increasing in value, as anyone with experience
of anode loads in audio triodes would vouch for completely.


You are talking gobbledygook

The led to the seemingly absurd postulation that for any practical
generator using resistance generation,

There is no such thing as resistance generation.

a fail safe of a resistive load
would be automatically introduced in order to prevent damage to the
supplied equipment.

This is meaninfgless technobabble


I have little doubt that this would not be needed and an inverter
would provide a simple and cheap answer. Unfortunately semiconductor
based inverters were not around fifty years ago, which may account for
another reason resistance generation was never taken up.


I suspect its because it is a meaningless concept and was probably
something you read in 'Wireless World in the April 1 issue.

AB



--
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the
world it's not directly responsible for.

On 27/09/15 13:54, Capitol wrote:
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:07:11 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 27/09/15 10:56, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 22:57:18 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

I see you,re one of the ****-fer-brains.
As all electric heating appliances are 100% efficient, it's
pointless reducing wattages.
Overall, more power is used due to longer working times.

However, for non-heating electrical applications there's scope for
new/better technology that is more efficient.
Which is what all this is about.
I beg to differ.

I am curious to understand what you are differing about.. Are you saying
that resistance heating is not 100% efficient?

You have obviously not taken resistance generation into account.

As a highly qualified electrical engineer, I haver never met that term:
Nor does wiki reveal it as a term used by the electrical engineering
profession.

I seldom support harry,. who is a tool of the first order, but in this
case I have to say that you seem to have out-tooled harry Himself.

A rare feat.

It isn't new technology BTW, it has been fully documented years ago,
it's just that there was no real requirement to restrict power in
those days.

What 'isn't new technology', dearie?

This strange 'resistance generation' of which no one else seems to have
heard..

It isn't strange, in fact it was a dammned nuicance in the days of
high Voltages and thermionic valves.

I remember reading of an experiment to rectify the noise value of high
value resistors [ thus decreasing losses due to skin effect and indeed
inherent reactive losses in every practical load. Unfortunately in
those days carbon resistors were the norm so there was a very real
danger of the resistors increasing in value, as anyone with experience
of anode loads in audio triodes would vouch for completely.

The led to the seemingly absurd postulation that for any practical
generator using resistance generation, a fail safe of a resistive load
would be automatically introduced in order to prevent damage to the
supplied equipment.

I have little doubt that this would not be needed and an inverter
would provide a simple and cheap answer. Unfortunately semiconductor
based inverters were not around fifty years ago, which may account for
another reason resistance generation was never taken up.

AB

This reads like bull**** to me.

Its not even that good.


--
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the
world it's not directly responsible for.

On 27/09/15 14:51, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 13:54:37 +0100, Capitol wrote:

Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:07:11 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


On 27/09/15 10:56, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 22:57:18 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:



I see you,re one of the ****-fer-brains.
As all electric heating appliances are 100% efficient, it's pointless reducing wattages.
Overall, more power is used due to longer working times.

However, for non-heating electrical applications there's scope for new/better technology that is more efficient.
Which is what all this is about.

I beg to differ.


I am curious to understand what you are differing about.. Are you saying
that resistance heating is not 100% efficient?


You have obviously not taken resistance generation into account.


As a highly qualified electrical engineer, I haver never met that term:
Nor does wiki reveal it as a term used by the electrical engineering
profession.

I seldom support harry,. who is a tool of the first order, but in this
case I have to say that you seem to have out-tooled harry Himself.

A rare feat.


It isn't new technology BTW, it has been fully documented years ago,
it's just that there was no real requirement to restrict power in
those days.


What 'isn't new technology', dearie?

This strange 'resistance generation' of which no one else seems to have
heard..


It isn't strange, in fact it was a dammned nuicance in the days of
high Voltages and thermionic valves.

I remember reading of an experiment to rectify the noise value of high
value resistors [ thus decreasing losses due to skin effect and indeed
inherent reactive losses in every practical load. Unfortunately in
those days carbon resistors were the norm so there was a very real
danger of the resistors increasing in value, as anyone with experience
of anode loads in audio triodes would vouch for completely.

The led to the seemingly absurd postulation that for any practical
generator using resistance generation, a fail safe of a resistive load
would be automatically introduced in order to prevent damage to the
supplied equipment.

I have little doubt that this would not be needed and an inverter
would provide a simple and cheap answer. Unfortunately semiconductor
based inverters were not around fifty years ago, which may account for
another reason resistance generation was never taken up.

AB


This reads like bull**** to me.
Aah, you young 'ens.

It seems so recently that resistance generation was a prime concern of
designers of valve circuitry, the metal oxide based resistance
elements which are so common today were produced in no small part in
response to a strong demand by those wanting to process fairly low
level signals without them being swamped by what was effectively a
carbon based generator.

Yes, we all know about nose from resistor but thats not a way of
generating power, its a side effect of DISSIPATING power and the
statistical nature of electron(or hole) flow.


Frankly I feel agrieved that such people as John B Johnson [Possibly
our only hope in the battle against global warming], are not common
houshold names.


I think you have been at the vicar's sherry again.


Open your mind young Capitol, I suspect you had a bit of a problem
with Ohms law once also.


I think you still have a bit of a problem with it..

AB








--
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the
world it's not directly responsible for.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 14:58:46 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 27/09/15 13:28, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:07:11 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 27/09/15 10:56, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 22:57:18 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:


I see you,re one of the ****-fer-brains.
As all electric heating appliances are 100% efficient, it's pointless reducing wattages.
Overall, more power is used due to longer working times.

However, for non-heating electrical applications there's scope for new/better technology that is more efficient.
Which is what all this is about.

I beg to differ.


I am curious to understand what you are differing about.. Are you saying
that resistance heating is not 100% efficient?

You have obviously not taken resistance generation into account.


As a highly qualified electrical engineer, I haver never met that term:
Nor does wiki reveal it as a term used by the electrical engineering
profession.

I seldom support harry,. who is a tool of the first order, but in this
case I have to say that you seem to have out-tooled harry Himself.

A rare feat.

It isn't new technology BTW, it has been fully documented years ago,
it's just that there was no real requirement to restrict power in
those days.

What 'isn't new technology', dearie?

This strange 'resistance generation' of which no one else seems to have
heard..

It isn't strange, in fact it was a dammned nuicance in the days of
high Voltages and thermionic valves.

I remember reading of an experiment to rectify the noise value of high
value resistors [ thus decreasing losses due to skin effect and indeed
inherent reactive losses in every practical load. Unfortunately in
those days carbon resistors were the norm so there was a very real
danger of the resistors increasing in value, as anyone with experience
of anode loads in audio triodes would vouch for completely.


You are talking gobbledygook

The led to the seemingly absurd postulation that for any practical
generator using resistance generation,

There is no such thing as resistance generation.

a fail safe of a resistive load
would be automatically introduced in order to prevent damage to the
supplied equipment.

This is meaninfgless technobabble


I'm afraid you are flying your true colours here. To attempt to
discredit a safety feature without fully understanding the
implications or indeed the reasons for its inclusion is a sad
reflection on your engineering "philosophy".



I have little doubt that this would not be needed and an inverter
would provide a simple and cheap answer. Unfortunately semiconductor
based inverters were not around fifty years ago, which may account for
another reason resistance generation was never taken up.


I suspect its because it is a meaningless concept and was probably
something you read in 'Wireless World in the April 1 issue.

I would without hesitation state that you are wrong and your
suspicions are totally unfounded, but I am open minded and I am aware
that to date no resistance generator is in large scale commercial
production.

I daresay sceptics such as yourself will want to put that down to the
likes of BP and Esso buying the patents though.

AB



AB

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher writes:
On 26/09/15 10:35, mcp wrote:
There are no EU proposals to restrict the maximum power of hairdryers,
smartphones or kettles

Well Siemens/Bosch hasn't designed a low power kettle yet, so its not
surprising.

Most EU countries I've visited don't have electric kettles.
They boil water much less efficiently on hobs or in microwaves.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Sunday, 27 September 2015 11:02:38 UTC+1, Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 10:56:36 +0100, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:

I see you,re one of the ****-fer-brains.
As all electric heating appliances are 100% efficient, it's pointless
reducing wattages.
Overall, more power is used due to longer working times.

However, for non-heating electrical applications there's scope for
new/better technology that is more efficient.
Which is what all this is about.

I beg to differ.

You have obviously not taken resistance generation into account.

Or insulation.
Or how element design might affect heat transference.

If it was that simple, then it would take the same time to boil a litre
of water in a lidless metal saucepan on an electric hob or in a highly
insulated kettle of the same power. Clearly, it doesn't.

It's easy to demonstrate - just put a lid on the pan.

You really are brain dead.
A 1000w heater will put out 1000w whatever you do to it.
If you insulated it, it would just run hotter.
But the 1000w would still be there.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 16:08:08 +0000, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

Most EU countries I've visited don't have electric kettles. They boil
water much less efficiently on hobs or in microwaves.

Or use a coffee maker.

On Sunday, 27 September 2015 13:28:52 UTC+1, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:07:11 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 27/09/15 10:56, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 22:57:18 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:


I see you,re one of the ****-fer-brains.
As all electric heating appliances are 100% efficient, it's pointless reducing wattages.
Overall, more power is used due to longer working times.

However, for non-heating electrical applications there's scope for new/better technology that is more efficient.
Which is what all this is about.

I beg to differ.


I am curious to understand what you are differing about.. Are you saying
that resistance heating is not 100% efficient?

You have obviously not taken resistance generation into account.


As a highly qualified electrical engineer, I haver never met that term:
Nor does wiki reveal it as a term used by the electrical engineering
profession.

I seldom support harry,. who is a tool of the first order, but in this
case I have to say that you seem to have out-tooled harry Himself.

A rare feat.

It isn't new technology BTW, it has been fully documented years ago,
it's just that there was no real requirement to restrict power in
those days.

What 'isn't new technology', dearie?

This strange 'resistance generation' of which no one else seems to have
heard..

It isn't strange, in fact it was a dammned nuicance in the days of
high Voltages and thermionic valves.

I remember reading of an experiment to rectify the noise value of high
value resistors [ thus decreasing losses due to skin effect and indeed
inherent reactive losses in every practical load. Unfortunately in
those days carbon resistors were the norm so there was a very real
danger of the resistors increasing in value, as anyone with experience
of anode loads in audio triodes would vouch for completely.

The led to the seemingly absurd postulation that for any practical
generator using resistance generation, a fail safe of a resistive load
would be automatically introduced in order to prevent damage to the
supplied equipment.

I have little doubt that this would not be needed and an inverter
would provide a simple and cheap answer. Unfortunately semiconductor
based inverters were not around fifty years ago, which may account for
another reason resistance generation was never taken up.

AB

Claptrap.
All electrical heating effects are due to resistance.
Wanted or unwanted

On Saturday, 26 September 2015 12:34:18 UTC+1, Brian Gaff wrote:
I think in the case of ES, they were around a long time before the eu. I
just think its choice. I can still apparently get bc, but how is that any
safer, stick a finger into a live bc socket as a test.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


wrote in message
...
If Britain leaves the EU, does that mean we can have back our white oil
based paint that
doesn't yellow? And can we get rid of that bloody awful and potentially
dangerous Edison
Screw system?

They are the standard in the USA and have been for around 100 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Edison

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 09:19:09 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Sunday, 27 September 2015 13:28:52 UTC+1, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:07:11 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 27/09/15 10:56, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 22:57:18 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:


I see you,re one of the ****-fer-brains.
As all electric heating appliances are 100% efficient, it's pointless reducing wattages.
Overall, more power is used due to longer working times.

However, for non-heating electrical applications there's scope for new/better technology that is more efficient.
Which is what all this is about.

I beg to differ.


I am curious to understand what you are differing about.. Are you saying
that resistance heating is not 100% efficient?

You have obviously not taken resistance generation into account.


As a highly qualified electrical engineer, I haver never met that term:
Nor does wiki reveal it as a term used by the electrical engineering
profession.

I seldom support harry,. who is a tool of the first order, but in this
case I have to say that you seem to have out-tooled harry Himself.

A rare feat.

It isn't new technology BTW, it has been fully documented years ago,
it's just that there was no real requirement to restrict power in
those days.

What 'isn't new technology', dearie?

This strange 'resistance generation' of which no one else seems to have
heard..

It isn't strange, in fact it was a dammned nuicance in the days of
high Voltages and thermionic valves.

I remember reading of an experiment to rectify the noise value of high
value resistors [ thus decreasing losses due to skin effect and indeed
inherent reactive losses in every practical load. Unfortunately in
those days carbon resistors were the norm so there was a very real
danger of the resistors increasing in value, as anyone with experience
of anode loads in audio triodes would vouch for completely.

The led to the seemingly absurd postulation that for any practical
generator using resistance generation, a fail safe of a resistive load
would be automatically introduced in order to prevent damage to the
supplied equipment.

I have little doubt that this would not be needed and an inverter
would provide a simple and cheap answer. Unfortunately semiconductor
based inverters were not around fifty years ago, which may account for
another reason resistance generation was never taken up.

AB

Claptrap.
All electrical heating effects are due to resistance.
Wanted or unwanted

But I never said or implied otherwise.

Although strictly speaking, physics suggests that you are wrong.

AB

On 27/09/15 17:08, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher writes:
On 26/09/15 10:35, mcp wrote:
There are no EU proposals to restrict the maximum power of hairdryers,
smartphones or kettles

Well Siemens/Bosch hasn't designed a low power kettle yet, so its not
surprising.

Most EU countries I've visited don't have electric kettles.
They boil water much less efficiently on hobs or in microwaves.

I assume 'most EU countries I have visited' = Albania alone?



--
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the
world it's not directly responsible for.

On 27/09/15 15:52, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 14:58:46 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 27/09/15 13:28, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:07:11 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 27/09/15 10:56, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 22:57:18 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:


I see you,re one of the ****-fer-brains.
As all electric heating appliances are 100% efficient, it's pointless reducing wattages.
Overall, more power is used due to longer working times.

However, for non-heating electrical applications there's scope for new/better technology that is more efficient.
Which is what all this is about.

I beg to differ.


I am curious to understand what you are differing about.. Are you saying
that resistance heating is not 100% efficient?

You have obviously not taken resistance generation into account.


As a highly qualified electrical engineer, I haver never met that term:
Nor does wiki reveal it as a term used by the electrical engineering
profession.

I seldom support harry,. who is a tool of the first order, but in this
case I have to say that you seem to have out-tooled harry Himself.

A rare feat.

It isn't new technology BTW, it has been fully documented years ago,
it's just that there was no real requirement to restrict power in
those days.

What 'isn't new technology', dearie?

This strange 'resistance generation' of which no one else seems to have
heard..

It isn't strange, in fact it was a dammned nuicance in the days of
high Voltages and thermionic valves.

I remember reading of an experiment to rectify the noise value of high
value resistors [ thus decreasing losses due to skin effect and indeed
inherent reactive losses in every practical load. Unfortunately in
those days carbon resistors were the norm so there was a very real
danger of the resistors increasing in value, as anyone with experience
of anode loads in audio triodes would vouch for completely.


You are talking gobbledygook

The led to the seemingly absurd postulation that for any practical
generator using resistance generation,

There is no such thing as resistance generation.

a fail safe of a resistive load
would be automatically introduced in order to prevent damage to the
supplied equipment.

This is meaninfgless technobabble


I'm afraid you are flying your true colours here. To attempt to
discredit a safety feature without fully understanding the
implications or indeed the reasons for its inclusion is a sad
reflection on your engineering "philosophy".



I have little doubt that this would not be needed and an inverter
would provide a simple and cheap answer. Unfortunately semiconductor
based inverters were not around fifty years ago, which may account for
another reason resistance generation was never taken up.


I suspect its because it is a meaningless concept and was probably
something you read in 'Wireless World in the April 1 issue.

I would without hesitation state that you are wrong and your
suspicions are totally unfounded, but I am open minded and I am aware
that to date no resistance generator is in large scale commercial
production.

I daresay sceptics such as yourself will want to put that down to the
likes of BP and Esso buying the patents though.


Not only is it not on production, it wouldn't work either. And no one on
the internet but you appears to have ever used the term,

It is assuredly an engineers joke, based on bull**** about Johnson noise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnso...3Nyquist_noise

Of course feel free to disagree with someone with a Cambridge degree in
engineering dating back to the days of valves.


AB



AB



--
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the
world it's not directly responsible for.

In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 27/09/15 15:52, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 14:58:46 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 27/09/15 13:28, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:07:11 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 27/09/15 10:56, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 22:57:18 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:


I see you,re one of the ****-fer-brains. As all electric heating
appliances are 100% efficient, it's pointless reducing wattages.
Overall, more power is used due to longer working times.

However, for non-heating electrical applications there's scope for
new/better technology that is more efficient. Which is what all
this is about.

I beg to differ.


I am curious to understand what you are differing about.. Are you
saying that resistance heating is not 100% efficient?

You have obviously not taken resistance generation into account.


As a highly qualified electrical engineer, I haver never met that
term: Nor does wiki reveal it as a term used by the electrical
engineering profession.

I seldom support harry,. who is a tool of the first order, but in
this case I have to say that you seem to have out-tooled harry
Himself.

A rare feat.

It isn't new technology BTW, it has been fully documented years
ago, it's just that there was no real requirement to restrict power
in those days.

What 'isn't new technology', dearie?

This strange 'resistance generation' of which no one else seems to
have heard..

It isn't strange, in fact it was a dammned nuicance in the days of
high Voltages and thermionic valves.

I remember reading of an experiment to rectify the noise value of
high value resistors [ thus decreasing losses due to skin effect and
indeed inherent reactive losses in every practical load.
Unfortunately in those days carbon resistors were the norm so there
was a very real danger of the resistors increasing in value, as
anyone with experience of anode loads in audio triodes would vouch
for completely.


You are talking gobbledygook

The led to the seemingly absurd postulation that for any practical
generator using resistance generation,

There is no such thing as resistance generation.

a fail safe of a resistive load would be automatically introduced in
order to prevent damage to the supplied equipment.

This is meaninfgless technobabble


I'm afraid you are flying your true colours here. To attempt to
discredit a safety feature without fully understanding the implications
or indeed the reasons for its inclusion is a sad reflection on your
engineering "philosophy".



I have little doubt that this would not be needed and an inverter
would provide a simple and cheap answer. Unfortunately semiconductor
based inverters were not around fifty years ago, which may account
for another reason resistance generation was never taken up.


I suspect its because it is a meaningless concept and was probably
something you read in 'Wireless World in the April 1 issue.

I would without hesitation state that you are wrong and your suspicions
are totally unfounded, but I am open minded and I am aware that to date
no resistance generator is in large scale commercial production.

I daresay sceptics such as yourself will want to put that down to the
likes of BP and Esso buying the patents though.


Not only is it not on production, it wouldn't work either. And no one on
the internet but you appears to have ever used the term,

It is assuredly an engineers joke, based on bull**** about Johnson noise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnso...3Nyquist_noise

Of course feel free to disagree with someone with a Cambridge degree in
engineering dating back to the days of valves.

another one with MST ;-)

--
Please note new email address:

On 26/09/2015 18:55, Nightjar cpb wrote:

I prefer it to bayonet. I've never had an ES lamp glass break free from
its base because the contact pins have indented into the solder on the
lamp and stopped the base from turning.

I had an ES bulb unscrew from its base the other day.

Annoyingly it was a working bulb I was stealing as a temporary measure
to put somewhere more important

Andy

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 20:09:30 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 27/09/15 15:52, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 14:58:46 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 27/09/15 13:28, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:07:11 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 27/09/15 10:56, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 22:57:18 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:


I see you,re one of the ****-fer-brains.
As all electric heating appliances are 100% efficient, it's pointless reducing wattages.
Overall, more power is used due to longer working times.

However, for non-heating electrical applications there's scope for new/better technology that is more efficient.
Which is what all this is about.

I beg to differ.


I am curious to understand what you are differing about.. Are you saying
that resistance heating is not 100% efficient?

You have obviously not taken resistance generation into account.


As a highly qualified electrical engineer, I haver never met that term:
Nor does wiki reveal it as a term used by the electrical engineering
profession.

I seldom support harry,. who is a tool of the first order, but in this
case I have to say that you seem to have out-tooled harry Himself.

A rare feat.

It isn't new technology BTW, it has been fully documented years ago,
it's just that there was no real requirement to restrict power in
those days.

What 'isn't new technology', dearie?

This strange 'resistance generation' of which no one else seems to have
heard..

It isn't strange, in fact it was a dammned nuicance in the days of
high Voltages and thermionic valves.

I remember reading of an experiment to rectify the noise value of high
value resistors [ thus decreasing losses due to skin effect and indeed
inherent reactive losses in every practical load. Unfortunately in
those days carbon resistors were the norm so there was a very real
danger of the resistors increasing in value, as anyone with experience
of anode loads in audio triodes would vouch for completely.


You are talking gobbledygook

The led to the seemingly absurd postulation that for any practical
generator using resistance generation,

There is no such thing as resistance generation.

a fail safe of a resistive load
would be automatically introduced in order to prevent damage to the
supplied equipment.

This is meaninfgless technobabble


I'm afraid you are flying your true colours here. To attempt to
discredit a safety feature without fully understanding the
implications or indeed the reasons for its inclusion is a sad
reflection on your engineering "philosophy".



I have little doubt that this would not be needed and an inverter
would provide a simple and cheap answer. Unfortunately semiconductor
based inverters were not around fifty years ago, which may account for
another reason resistance generation was never taken up.


I suspect its because it is a meaningless concept and was probably
something you read in 'Wireless World in the April 1 issue.

I would without hesitation state that you are wrong and your
suspicions are totally unfounded, but I am open minded and I am aware
that to date no resistance generator is in large scale commercial
production.

I daresay sceptics such as yourself will want to put that down to the
likes of BP and Esso buying the patents though.


Not only is it not on production, it wouldn't work either. And no one on
the internet but you appears to have ever used the term,

It is assuredly an engineers joke, based on bull**** about Johnson noise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnso...3Nyquist_noise

Of course feel free to disagree with someone with a Cambridge degree in
engineering dating back to the days of valves.


AB



AB

You seem very determined to dismiss the concept. What valves did you
specialise in? Were they thermionic, or could they perhaps be
mechanical or electromechanical as used in the petro-chemical
industry.

I brought up the subject of resistance generation merely as an aside
to the main argument of EC interference regarding domestic appliances.
I have nothing to gain from the technology and am not employed by
anyone with a financial interest in the rescource.

Your approach of denial, coupled with your obvious disdain for the
safety factors involved is starting to make sense now.

It may take a few years, but you can't buy progress away for ever you
know. Even if global warming doesn't force the issue, the increasing
scarcity of oil will stop the likes of youself profiting from denial.



Engineering isn't just about degree's, educational attainments or
corporate position. Engineering is a dedication of fairness and
integrity to Ones clients, Oneself and the rest of the planet.

It isn't a bit of casual work to be dismissed as meaningless when the
opportunity to take a very beneficial technology from the market
occurs.

Frankly I'm rather dissapointed!

AB

On 27/09/15 21:29, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 20:09:30 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 27/09/15 15:52, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 14:58:46 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 27/09/15 13:28, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:07:11 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 27/09/15 10:56, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 22:57:18 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:


I see you,re one of the ****-fer-brains.
As all electric heating appliances are 100% efficient, it's pointless reducing wattages.
Overall, more power is used due to longer working times.

However, for non-heating electrical applications there's scope for new/better technology that is more efficient.
Which is what all this is about.

I beg to differ.


I am curious to understand what you are differing about.. Are you saying
that resistance heating is not 100% efficient?

You have obviously not taken resistance generation into account.


As a highly qualified electrical engineer, I haver never met that term:
Nor does wiki reveal it as a term used by the electrical engineering
profession.

I seldom support harry,. who is a tool of the first order, but in this
case I have to say that you seem to have out-tooled harry Himself.

A rare feat.

It isn't new technology BTW, it has been fully documented years ago,
it's just that there was no real requirement to restrict power in
those days.

What 'isn't new technology', dearie?

This strange 'resistance generation' of which no one else seems to have
heard..

It isn't strange, in fact it was a dammned nuicance in the days of
high Voltages and thermionic valves.

I remember reading of an experiment to rectify the noise value of high
value resistors [ thus decreasing losses due to skin effect and indeed
inherent reactive losses in every practical load. Unfortunately in
those days carbon resistors were the norm so there was a very real
danger of the resistors increasing in value, as anyone with experience
of anode loads in audio triodes would vouch for completely.


You are talking gobbledygook

The led to the seemingly absurd postulation that for any practical
generator using resistance generation,

There is no such thing as resistance generation.

a fail safe of a resistive load
would be automatically introduced in order to prevent damage to the
supplied equipment.

This is meaninfgless technobabble


I'm afraid you are flying your true colours here. To attempt to
discredit a safety feature without fully understanding the
implications or indeed the reasons for its inclusion is a sad
reflection on your engineering "philosophy".



I have little doubt that this would not be needed and an inverter
would provide a simple and cheap answer. Unfortunately semiconductor
based inverters were not around fifty years ago, which may account for
another reason resistance generation was never taken up.


I suspect its because it is a meaningless concept and was probably
something you read in 'Wireless World in the April 1 issue.

I would without hesitation state that you are wrong and your
suspicions are totally unfounded, but I am open minded and I am aware
that to date no resistance generator is in large scale commercial
production.

I daresay sceptics such as yourself will want to put that down to the
likes of BP and Esso buying the patents though.


Not only is it not on production, it wouldn't work either. And no one on
the internet but you appears to have ever used the term,

It is assuredly an engineers joke, based on bull**** about Johnson noise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnso...3Nyquist_noise

Of course feel free to disagree with someone with a Cambridge degree in
engineering dating back to the days of valves.


AB



AB

You seem very determined to dismiss the concept. What valves did you
specialise in? Were they thermionic, or could they perhaps be
mechanical or electromechanical as used in the petro-chemical
industry.

I brought up the subject of resistance generation merely as an aside
to the main argument of EC interference regarding domestic appliances.
I have nothing to gain from the technology and am not employed by
anyone with a financial interest in the rescource.

Your approach of denial, coupled with your obvious disdain for the
safety factors involved is starting to make sense now.

It may take a few years, but you can't buy progress away for ever you
know. Even if global warming doesn't force the issue, the increasing
scarcity of oil will stop the likes of youself profiting from denial.



Engineering isn't just about degree's, educational attainments or
corporate position. Engineering is a dedication of fairness and
integrity to Ones clients, Oneself and the rest of the planet.

It isn't a bit of casual work to be dismissed as meaningless when the
opportunity to take a very beneficial technology from the market
occurs.

Frankly I'm rather dissapointed!

Frankly you are completely demented.



AB



--
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the
world it's not directly responsible for.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 21:58:25 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:



Frankly you are completely demented.



AB


An anticipated outcome I'm afraid.

I do hope things work out for you, you obviously have your demons.

AB

On 27/09/15 22:13, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 21:58:25 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:



Frankly you are completely demented.



AB


An anticipated outcome I'm afraid.

I do hope things work out for you, you obviously have your demons.

yeah, but at l;east they are not on my email address.

-

AB



--
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the
world it's not directly responsible for.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/09/15 14:51, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 13:54:37 +0100, Capitol wrote:

Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 11:07:11 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


On 27/09/15 10:56, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 22:57:18 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:



I see you,re one of the ****-fer-brains.
As all electric heating appliances are 100% efficient, it's
pointless reducing wattages.
Overall, more power is used due to longer working times.

However, for non-heating electrical applications there's scope
for new/better technology that is more efficient.
Which is what all this is about.

I beg to differ.


I am curious to understand what you are differing about.. Are you
saying
that resistance heating is not 100% efficient?


You have obviously not taken resistance generation into account.


As a highly qualified electrical engineer, I haver never met that
term:
Nor does wiki reveal it as a term used by the electrical engineering
profession.

I seldom support harry,. who is a tool of the first order, but in
this
case I have to say that you seem to have out-tooled harry Himself.

A rare feat.


It isn't new technology BTW, it has been fully documented years ago,
it's just that there was no real requirement to restrict power in
those days.


What 'isn't new technology', dearie?

This strange 'resistance generation' of which no one else seems to
have
heard..


It isn't strange, in fact it was a dammned nuicance in the days of
high Voltages and thermionic valves.

I remember reading of an experiment to rectify the noise value of high
value resistors [ thus decreasing losses due to skin effect and indeed
inherent reactive losses in every practical load. Unfortunately in
those days carbon resistors were the norm so there was a very real
danger of the resistors increasing in value, as anyone with experience
of anode loads in audio triodes would vouch for completely.

The led to the seemingly absurd postulation that for any practical
generator using resistance generation, a fail safe of a resistive load
would be automatically introduced in order to prevent damage to the
supplied equipment.

I have little doubt that this would not be needed and an inverter
would provide a simple and cheap answer. Unfortunately semiconductor
based inverters were not around fifty years ago, which may account for
another reason resistance generation was never taken up.

AB


This reads like bull**** to me.
Aah, you young 'ens.

It seems so recently that resistance generation was a prime concern of
designers of valve circuitry, the metal oxide based resistance
elements which are so common today were produced in no small part in
response to a strong demand by those wanting to process fairly low
level signals without them being swamped by what was effectively a
carbon based generator.

Yes, we all know about nose from resistor but thats not a way of
generating power, its a side effect of DISSIPATING power and the
statistical nature of electron(or hole) flow.


Frankly I feel agrieved that such people as John B Johnson [Possibly
our only hope in the battle against global warming], are not common
houshold names.


I think you have been at the vicar's sherry again.


Open your mind young Capitol, I suspect you had a bit of a problem
with Ohms law once also.


I think you still have a bit of a problem with it..

AB








No, his problem is the lack of understanding of entropy.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 22:17:01 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 27/09/15 22:13, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 21:58:25 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:



Frankly you are completely demented.



AB


An anticipated outcome I'm afraid.

I do hope things work out for you, you obviously have your demons.

yeah, but at l;east they are not on my email address.

-

AB

Not a demon at all!

Old Oozings is a spiffing entity, keen draughts player and general
comms dogsbody.

I'm flattered that you engaged in the neccessary research.



AB

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 18:51:26 +0100, "tim....."
wrote:


"mcp" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 09:26:12 +0100, "tim....."
wrote:


"harry" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 26 September 2015 05:00:26 UTC+1, Archibald Tarquin
Blenkinsopp wrote:
The exit will lose all fervour when the populace realises the benefits
& savings of the new 250W max kettle.

AB

Drivel.
There's dopes here believes crap like that.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...d-kettles.html

(other newspapers are available)

The fact that right wing anti-EU newspapers all print the same lies is
not really surprising.

http://www.ecodesign-wp3.eu/documents

There are no EU proposals to restrict the maximum power of hairdryers,
smartphones or kettles

Only because the numpies who proposed it were shown the error of their ways.

But they DID suggest it

The only numpties are the lying journalists who made it up and those
who believe them.

The EU examined a number of ways to improve various products for the
environment & the consumer, taking into account the impact on
industry. The responses to their consultation are on their web site,
nowhere is power limits for kettles mentioned.

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 22:50:17 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Saturday, 26 September 2015 09:26:15 UTC+1, tim..... wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 26 September 2015 05:00:26 UTC+1, Archibald Tarquin
Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 10:09:27 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

wrote

If Britain leaves the EU, does that mean we can have
back our white oil based paint that doesn't yellow?

And can we get rid of that bloody awful and
potentially dangerous Edison Screw system?

Nope. That was allowed even before the EU was even invented.

The exit will lose all fervour when the populace realises the benefits
& savings of the new 250W max kettle.

AB

Drivel.
There's dopes here believes crap like that.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...d-kettles.html

(other newspapers are available)

tim

Any one who wasn't ****-fer-brains would realise that a higher wattage will use less power overall because there are less losses because the process is quicker.

Any one who wasn't ****-fer-brains would realise the difference
between power and energy.