http://tinyurl.com/hzwxj76

http://tinyurl.com/j8au57k

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2012...i-jumbo-v2.jpg

A few years back somebody very politically incorrectly came up with a
variation on the old treadmill idea from penal colonies of the past, where
prisoners were used to generate electricity by peddling bikes for a time in
shifts.
Somehow I feel this would be rather inefficient from the energy point of
view as presumably feeding the prisoners would take more energy than could
be generated.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"harry" wrote in message
...
http://tinyurl.com/hzwxj76

http://tinyurl.com/j8au57k

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2012...i-jumbo-v2.jpg

On Fri, 13 May 2016 09:14:08 +0100, Brian Gaff wrote:

Somehow I feel this would be rather inefficient from the energy point
of view as presumably feeding the prisoners would take more energy than
could be generated.

But aren't you going to feed them anyway?

UK Prison population approx 85,000, a resonably fit person pedling at
a rate they can sustain ought to be able to produce about 100 W. So
8.5 MW
but with eating and sleeping and an 8 hour shift pattern only 1/3 of
that, at very best, would be avialable. Then there would be "un-fit"
for what ever reason perhaps you might get 25%? or about 2 MW?

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Friday, 13 May 2016 09:34:25 UTC+1, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 09:14:08 +0100, Brian Gaff wrote:

Somehow I feel this would be rather inefficient from the energy point
of view as presumably feeding the prisoners would take more energy than
could be generated.

But aren't you going to feed them anyway?

You'd have to feed them more. Such atheliets have specail diets too.


UK Prison population approx 85,000, a resonably fit person pedling at
a rate they can sustain ought to be able to produce about 100 W. So
8.5 MW .

Were did you get that figure I heard 80w average for an hour.


but with eating and sleeping and an 8 hour shift pattern only 1/3 of
that, at very best, would be avialable. Then there would be "un-fit"
for what ever reason perhaps you might get 25%? or about 2 MW?

I'd suggest we make it an olympic event why waste money on a velodrome
when all you really need is a bike stand and a watt meter.
Our team GB would also be doing something useful while training/practicing.

Although I'm not sure providing a certain Mr Armstrong or others with free drugs would make it economically viable.

whisky-dave wrote
Dave Liquorice wrote
Brian Gaff wrote

Somehow I feel this would be rather inefficient from the
energy point of view as presumably feeding the prisoners
would take more energy than could be generated.

But aren't you going to feed them anyway?

You'd have to feed them more.

Nope, they just wouldnt get as obese when they are actually
doing something instead of sitting around on their lard arses.

Such atheliets have specail diets too.

Not in prison they dont unless they pay for that themselves.

UK Prison population approx 85,000, a resonably
fit person pedling at a rate they can sustain ought
to be able to produce about 100 W. So 8.5 MW .

Were did you get that figure I heard 80w average for an hour.

but with eating and sleeping and an 8 hour shift pattern only 1/3 of
that, at very best, would be avialable. Then there would be "un-fit"
for what ever reason perhaps you might get 25%? or about 2 MW?

I'd suggest we make it an olympic event why waste money on a
velodrome when all you really need is a bike stand and a watt meter.
Our team GB would also be doing something useful while
training/practicing.

No point, they will all be dying of Zika.

Although I'm not sure providing a certain Mr Armstrong or
others with free drugs would make it economically viable.

On 13/05/16 09:14, Brian Gaff wrote:
A few years back somebody very politically incorrectly came up with a
variation on the old treadmill idea from penal colonies of the past, where
prisoners were used to generate electricity by peddling bikes for a time in
shifts.
Somehow I feel this would be rather inefficient from the energy point of
view as presumably feeding the prisoners would take more energy than could
be generated.
Brian

Vastly more Brian.

First of all the conversion rate of sunlight to crops - food - is about 1%.

And that's to burnable cellulose, which we cant digest, so in a typical
veggie diet, most of that goes out as ****.

Or we can get cows to turn it into good meat, but that's another huge
loss of energy along the way.

And then mostly muscles turn it into heat..




--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

On Fri, 13 May 2016 11:25:26 +0100
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Or we can get cows to turn it into good meat, but that's another huge
loss of energy along the way.

If you could capture the resulting methane, that would help by maybe 0.5
% or so.
Every little helps, they say.

--
Davey.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/05/16 09:14, Brian Gaff wrote:
A few years back somebody very politically incorrectly came up with a
variation on the old treadmill idea from penal colonies of the past,
where
prisoners were used to generate electricity by peddling bikes for a
time in
shifts.
Somehow I feel this would be rather inefficient from the energy
point of
view as presumably feeding the prisoners would take more energy than
could
be generated.
Brian

Vastly more Brian.

First of all the conversion rate of sunlight to crops - food - is
about 1%.

And that's to burnable cellulose, which we cant digest, so in a
typical veggie diet, most of that goes out as ****.

Or we can get cows to turn it into good meat, but that's another huge
loss of energy along the way.

And then mostly muscles turn it into heat..





But if we hang them istead of feeding them, their energy
consumption reduces to almost zero so we have a win/win situation!

On 13/05/2016 07:42, harry wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/hzwxj76

http://tinyurl.com/j8au57k

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2012...i-jumbo-v2.jpg

Spot on!

On 13/05/16 15:54, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 12:26:56 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:

On Fri, 13 May 2016 10:08:12 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

On 13/05/2016 07:42, harry wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/hzwxj76

http://tinyurl.com/j8au57k

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2012...i-jumbo-v2.jpg

Spot on!

+1

And also these http://tinyurl.com/j6mwf6v

Well the Septics always were good at Uglification.

Septics? I thought I was a Septic! I certainly wouldn't want the
English countryside to be disfigured in any way, let alone like that
and in pursuit of an objective founded on a fantasy. Would you be
meaning what I call Alarmists?

No, he means a septic tank.
Yank


--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

On Friday, 13 May 2016 07:42:11 UTC+1, harry wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/hzwxj76

http://tinyurl.com/j8au57k

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2012...i-jumbo-v2.jpg

India's pollution problem has nothing to do with how we should generate energy.


NT

On 13/05/2016 07:42, harry wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/hzwxj76

http://tinyurl.com/j8au57k

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2012...i-jumbo-v2.jpg



The pollution comes from the factories producing solar panels.

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 13/05/2016 07:42, harry wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/hzwxj76

http://tinyurl.com/j8au57k

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2012...i-jumbo-v2.jpg


Western countries have very strict rules about pollution. In any case
pollution is nothing to do with renewable energy. C02 is not a
pollutant. It is essential for life.

Bill

On 13/05/2016 07:42, harry wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/hzwxj76

http://tinyurl.com/j8au57k

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2012...i-jumbo-v2.jpg


We no longer have smog like that, unfortunately the clean air has
resulted in a temperature rise and some idiots have capitalised on that
by making nonsense claims about a global warming catastrophe.

On 13/05/2016 10:27, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 23:42:09 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/hzwxj76

http://tinyurl.com/j8au57k

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2012...i-jumbo-v2.jpg

No it's not. It's why we need nuclear energy!


+1

--
Colin Bignell