On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:08:44 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Franz Heymann wrote:

As clear as daylight. The reason for the reduced area of Thermomax is
that
it has twice the efficiency as the flat plate. *Not* that it has "twice
the
efficiency per square foot".


Its because he didn't go t uni.

I did. Thankfully not one of those snotty uni ones, full of half-breds.


Really.... Which one??






---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:10:58 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
So? Modern timbers are far superior to Victorian houses.



It gets better and better....


It's all down to those new fangled polymerised timber trees they grow
now.... that where you get plastic wood from you know ;-)



Don't be silly John. Everyone knows its because all the timbers now go
to university and get a certificate of Political Correctness.

So they are full of saps, then?

Let's not branch out on that one....

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:10:58 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:
It gets better and better....


It's all down to those new fangled polymerised timber trees they grow
now.... that where you get plastic wood from you know ;-)



Don't be silly John. Everyone knows its because all the timbers now go
to university and get a certificate of Political Correctness.

So they are full of saps, then?

Let's not branch out on that one....

How else are we going to get the root of the problem?

Mark

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:08:44 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Franz Heymann wrote:

As clear as daylight. The reason for the reduced area of Thermomax
is
that
it has twice the efficiency as the flat plate. *Not* that it has
"twice
the
efficiency per square foot".


Its because he didn't go t uni.

I did. Thankfully not one of those snotty uni ones, full of half-breds.

Really.... Which one??

Not a snotty one that is for sure.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004

Mark wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:10:58 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:

It gets better and better....


It's all down to those new fangled polymerised timber trees they grow
now.... that where you get plastic wood from you know ;-)



Don't be silly John. Everyone knows its because all the timbers now go
to university and get a certificate of Political Correctness.

So they are full of saps, then?

Let's not branch out on that one....


How else are we going to get the root of the problem?



Easy, take a leaf out of my book..


Mark

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Don't be silly John. Everyone knows its because all the timbers now go
to university and get a certificate of Political Correctness.

So they are full of saps, then?

Let's not branch out on that one....

True - they'll think we're all barking.

--
*Upon the advice of my attorney, my shirt bears no message at this time

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:11:54 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Mark wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:10:58 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:

It gets better and better....


It's all down to those new fangled polymerised timber trees they grow
now.... that where you get plastic wood from you know ;-)



Don't be silly John. Everyone knows its because all the timbers now go
to university and get a certificate of Political Correctness.

So they are full of saps, then?

Let's not branch out on that one....


How else are we going to get the root of the problem?



Easy, take a leaf out of my book..

What would be the resin for that?





Mark





..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 15:38:29 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:08:44 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Franz Heymann wrote:

As clear as daylight. The reason for the reduced area of Thermomax
is
that
it has twice the efficiency as the flat plate. *Not* that it has
"twice
the
efficiency per square foot".


Its because he didn't go t uni.

I did. Thankfully not one of those snotty uni ones, full of half-breds.

Really.... Which one??

Not a snotty one that is for sure.


Uh huh.... So come on then, which illustrious institution had the
pleasure of your presence?




---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 15:38:29 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:08:44 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Franz Heymann wrote:

As clear as daylight. The reason for the reduced area of
Thermomax
is
that
it has twice the efficiency as the flat plate. *Not* that it has
"twice
the
efficiency per square foot".


Its because he didn't go t uni.

I did. Thankfully not one of those snotty uni ones, full of
half-breds.

Really.... Which one??

Not a snotty one that is for sure.


Uh huh.... So come on then, which illustrious institution had the
pleasure of your presence?

Now stop trying to make out I went to a snotty one. I never.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:27:56 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




I did. Thankfully not one of those snotty uni ones, full of
half-breds.

Really.... Which one??

Not a snotty one that is for sure.


Uh huh.... So come on then, which illustrious institution had the
pleasure of your presence?

Now stop trying to make out I went to a snotty one. I never.

I think that your last sentence confirms suspicions regarding your
education......






---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 15:03:29 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

Let's not branch out on that one....

I've just twigged what this is all about.

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't
guaranteed to reach me.

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Uh huh.... So come on then, which illustrious institution had the
pleasure of your presence?

Now stop trying to make out I went to a snotty one. I never.

I think that your last sentence confirms suspicions regarding your
education......

Must have been the university of life. But not as we know it.

--
*What happens if you get scared half to death twice? *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:27:56 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




I did. Thankfully not one of those snotty uni ones, full of
half-breds.

Really.... Which one??

Not a snotty one that is for sure.


Uh huh.... So come on then, which illustrious institution had the
pleasure of your presence?

Now stop trying to make out I went to a snotty one. I never.

I think that your last sentence confirms suspicions regarding your
education......

Exactly! I never went to a snot!


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004

"martin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 01:38:55 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Franz Heymann wrote:


As clear as daylight. The reason for the reduced area of Thermomax is
that
it has twice the efficiency as the flat plate. *Not* that it has
"twice the
efficiency per square foot".


Its because he didn't go t uni. He's very sensitive about it.

Perhaps, he didn't go to school. These aren't concepts taught at
university, they used to be taught to 15 year olds at school in the
nineteen fifties

What concepts would you be on about, oh know-it-all one?

He sort of graps the concept that a square foot of one is better than a
square foot of another, but detailed explanatins of teh correct words to
use just pass hum by.

You are a man of limited intelligence.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 21:35:11 +0100, martin wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 01:38:55 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Franz Heymann wrote:


As clear as daylight. The reason for the reduced area of Thermomax is that
it has twice the efficiency as the flat plate. *Not* that it has "twice the
efficiency per square foot".


Its because he didn't go t uni. He's very sensitive about it.

Perhaps, he didn't go to school. These aren't concepts taught at
university, they used to be taught to 15 year olds at school in the
nineteen fifties

Even in the seventies, Martin.



He sort of graps the concept that a square foot of one is better than a
square foot of another, but detailed explanatins of teh correct words to
use just pass hum by.

He's a humpty dumpty. Words mean what HE wants them to mean.

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 20:38:12 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




Now stop trying to make out I went to a snotty one. I never.

I think that your last sentence confirms suspicions regarding your
education......

Exactly! I never went to a snot!

I doubt whether you completed any formal education. Your thought
processes don't appear to follow those of anybody that I know who
attended any kind of university, snotty or not, in any discipline.

You would be more convincing were you to enlighten us regarding
location and course. I won't even embarrass you by asking about the
class of your alleged degree......




---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 20:38:12 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




Now stop trying to make out I went to a snotty one. I never.

I think that your last sentence confirms suspicions regarding your
education......

Exactly! I never went to a snot!

I doubt whether you completed any formal education.

You are a fool.

Your thought processes don't appear to
follow those of anybody that I know who
attended any kind of university, snotty
or not, in any discipline.

Brilliant people;le always think differently! You can't even figure out
that you have been duped by the Tories all this time for God's sake.





---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 20:59:36 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 20:38:12 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




Your thought processes don't appear to
follow those of anybody that I know who
attended any kind of university, snotty
or not, in any discipline.

Brilliant people;le always think differently!

I know quite a number. There is, however, usually some logic.

You persistently claim to have a university education but always evade
the issue when asked. It doesn't exactly lend any weight of evidence
does it?





---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

The pollution of the atmosphere by fossil
fuel stations is vastly worse than
the pollution caused by nuclear power stations.

That is certainly true.

If all power stations were nuclear around
the world the waste would pile up
and be a huge problem in the future. Silly
idea and should be forgotten.

It is obvious that you have never given a
moments intelligent thought to
this question. You are just following the flock.

My God, he is the only with insight now.

I have some insight into the matter.
There are very many other folk who also have insight (more than me) about
waste disposal.

The waste from a nuclear
power station is in fact a great deal easier
to dispose of safely than the
waste from a fossil fuel plant.

But is isn't!! It is dumped at the bottom of the ocean in casks that
might
last 100 years, then they will slowly leak their toxic contents into the
ocean and into the food chain. This is a very sill idea. As people in
the
20th century cursed the Victorian legacy of piled up dangerous slag heaps
and other filth, future generations will think the same of us.

You have behaved exactly as I expected a member of the non-nuclear lobby to
behave. You trotted oout the received wisdom before you even knew what my
case was based on.
I am not speaking about dumping anything anywhere.

I have spent all my working life in particle accelerator laboratories.
(Atom smashers to you).
I know that practically any element which is exposed to a sufficiently large
does of high energy particles will be converted into a *short* lived
radioactive element. In particular, all the material which is said to be
difficult to store (spuriously so) can be transmuted into short lived
radioactive materials. ( Stuff which is typically rendered safe within days
or less). The suggestion was originally made a few years ago by a Nobel
prize winning physicist, Carlo Rubbia and has been analysed in great detail
by a group of high energy particle physicists, The process has been shown to
be entirely feasible.
It has even been shown that the energy in the heat produced in the process
of transmuting the waste elements is within a hair's breadth enough to make
the whole process self-sufficient in energy requirements.

The only reason as far as I can see that no government has so far acted
on the suggestion is that they are either all dead scared of the
anti-nuclear lobbies, or they don't understand the very innovative
suggestion..

The waste can be dumped down deep disused mines and then the seams
concreted
up. In 1000 years time some one will probably tunnel into it. Of course
they will make a record, which will be lost. There are 4, 5 or 6 (no one
quite knows) underground store of TNT under Belgium fields. No one quite
knows where they are. These were the largest non-nuclear bombs ever made.
The British would tunnel under the German trenches, fill with TNT and
detonate, killing 10,000 men in one explosion from one bomb. The disused
bombs were not used because the British trenches had moved forwards over
them. One of these bombs went off by accident in 1955. Luckily no one was
killed. It is a matter of time before the others explode. Records of
where the bombs are? Some, but not all.

You have simply regurgitated all the standard anti-nuclear lobby
scaremongering arguments.
What you omitted to say is that fossil fuel plants don't even try to deal
with their waste. They simply pour it into the atmosphere and contribute
grossly to the greenhouse effect which is harming the planet NOW, not in the
1000 years from now scenario which you dutifully trot out.

If every powerstatio in the world was nuclear, where would all the waste
go?

I have indicated one totally acceptable method of coping: Convert all into
short lived radioactive nucleids and wait a few days before advertising it
for sale or burying it under the road.

Privately owned stations would cheaply dump the waste (illegal dumping of
chemicals in all countries is common),

I am not in favour of a privatised nuclear industry, but it would be no
great shakes to set up a suitable inspectorate.

insead of down expensive deep mines
and sealing up with concrete. It is the human error aspect that is the
flaw. When it goes wrong the effects last for 100s of years after.

You have said this before. I have pointed out that with the scheme I
favour, it is all irrelevant.

Also, cases of leukaemia are far greater around nuclear facilities.

(1) You have not ever studied the evidence for that The statistical
significance of the evidence is quite poor.
(2) There are also (stronger?) pockets of leukaemia in areas which have
nothing to do with nuclear power stations.

Just
co-incidence the nuclear people say. ********!!!

No not ********. The statistical evidence is in fact quite weak.

The trouble lies entirely in the fact that
the shepherds who persistently lead
the sheep astray on this matter have not
even the faintest understanding of the
issues involved in comparing methods
of disposing of waste from power stations.

They have a lot of common sense, that is clear.

No, it is not at all clear. They are simply grinding axes most of the time.

Dependency on fossil fuel
power can be vastly reduced by use of insulation, passive solar, superior
town planning eliminating cars, CHP, more efficient engines, etc, etc.

Not "vastly", as you said. The correct adjective is "somewhat"

And, by the way, there are arguments to counter what you call flaws in your
own regurgitated suggestions for dumping, but I won't bother, since dumping
is not essential at all.

Franz

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
In message , Franz Heymann
writes

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Franz Heymann wrote:

Fusion power is going to turn out to be a great deal filthier than
fission
power.

I don't think so. The fisson products would all be relatively short
lived isoptopes, and teh main product is helieum. Non radioactve
helieum

Its only the vast amounts of radiation intereacting with the shielding
that would cause some radioactive compounds to be generated.

No. In the reactions which are presently considered, there will be a lot
of
tritium around. Tritium is a gas and it has a long half life. It scares
the pants off me.

Tritium isn't all that bad. Its half life of about 12 years is short
compared to millenia for fission waste. Tritium is a beta emitter with
18keV electron decay and there is quite a market in tritiated plastics
for permanent glow in the dark (and still some requirement for H-bomb
initiators). Emergency lighting in some applications is based on it.

I am quite happy about making sensible use of the tritium which one manages
to capture. My worry is the stuff which escapes into the atmosphere.
Remember it is a gas.


Fission power is the cleanest and least polluting energy source ever
produced on earth.

Yes, I tend to agree with you.

You have to get the whole life cycle right though. And they still
haven't an adequate solution for long term storage of high level waste.

Franz

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 20:59:36 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 20:38:12 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

Your thought processes don't appear to
follow those of anybody that I know who
attended any kind of university, snotty
or not, in any discipline.

Brilliant people always think differently!

I know quite a number. There is, however, usually some logic.

I am full of logic. my mind is not bursting with the views of what others
fed into it.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:32:24 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 20:59:36 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 20:38:12 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

Your thought processes don't appear to
follow those of anybody that I know who
attended any kind of university, snotty
or not, in any discipline.

Brilliant people always think differently!

I know quite a number. There is, however, usually some logic.

I am full of logic. my mind is not bursting with the views of what others
fed into it.

There can be a number of reasons for that of course......




---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

The pollution of the atmosphere by fossil
fuel stations is vastly worse than
the pollution caused by nuclear power stations.

That is certainly true.

If all power stations were nuclear around
the world the waste would pile up
and be a huge problem in the future. Silly
idea and should be forgotten.

It is obvious that you have never given a
moments intelligent thought to
this question. You are just following the flock.

My God, he is the only with insight now.

I have some insight into the matter.
There are very many other folk who also
have insight (more than me) about
waste disposal.

The waste from a nuclear
power station is in fact a great deal easier
to dispose of safely than the
waste from a fossil fuel plant.

But is isn't!! It is dumped at the bottom
of the ocean in casks that
might last 100 years, then they will slowly
leak their toxic contents into the
ocean and into the food chain. This is a
very sill idea. As people in the
20th century cursed the Victorian legacy
of piled up dangerous slag heaps
and other filth, future generations will
think the same of us.

You have behaved exactly as I expected
a member of the non-nuclear lobby to
behave. You trotted oout the received
wisdom before you even knew what my
case was based on.
I am not speaking about dumping anything
anywhere.

Existing nuclear power needs to dump the waste, that is one of the big
problems.

I have spent all my working life in particle
accelerator laboratories.
(Atom smashers to you).

No wonder you shout about highly dangerous nuclear. One thing I have learnt
well in life is that people will defend to the hilt whoever pays their wages
.. They even tell themselves lies and then believe it.

I know that practically any element which is exposed to a sufficiently
large
does of high energy particles will be converted into a *short* lived
radioactive element. In particular, all the material which is said to be
difficult to store (spuriously so) can be transmuted into short lived
radioactive materials. ( Stuff which is typically rendered safe within
days
or less). The suggestion was originally made a few years ago by a Nobel
prize winning physicist, Carlo Rubbia and has been analysed in great
detail
by a group of high energy particle physicists, The process has been shown
to
be entirely feasible.
It has even been shown that the energy in the heat produced in the process
of transmuting the waste elements is within a hair's breadth enough to
make
the whole process self-sufficient in energy requirements.

This is not as yet proven in the field. Currently we have nuclear waste,
which in the past 50 years has been disposed of appallingly badly.

The only reason as far as I can see that no government has so far acted
on the suggestion is that they are either all dead scared of the
anti-nuclear lobbies, or they don't understand the very innovative
suggestion..

The waste can be dumped down deep disused mines
and then the seams concreted
up. In 1000 years time someone will probably tunnel into it. Of course
they will make a record, which will be lost. There are 4, 5 or 6 (no
one
quite knows) underground stores of TNT under Belgium fields. No one
quite
knows where they are. These were the largest non-nuclear bombs ever
made.
The British would tunnel under the German trenches, fill with TNT and
detonate, killing 10,000 men in one explosion from one bomb. The
disused
bombs were not used because the British trenches had moved forwards over
them. One of these bombs went off by accident in 1955. Luckily no one
was
killed. It is a matter of time before the others explode. Records of
where the bombs are? Some, but not all.

You have simply regurgitated all the standard anti-nuclear lobby
scaremongering arguments.

Which are based on how human beings act and react. Nuclear is a "highly"
dangerous energy. It needs to be handled 100% correctly at all times, with
procedures followed 100% correctly at all times. It needs to be disposed of
100% correctly at all time. If not the consequences can be dire indeed. If
the many, many 1000s of power stations all over the world were nuclear, does
anyone sane think that everything from now to eternity will be handled 100%
correctly at all times. If you think that you are half mad.

I lived in the Middle East, where air controllers would drop the controls to
face Mecca and prey as planes were flying all over the place around the
airport and about to land. I saw it in front of me, with pilots screaming
down the radio to them. Many pilots would abort and fly to safety. Atoms
for peace my arse!!! Putting this sort of equipment in the hands of such
people is madness. In 1st world countries they can't even get it right,
what chance in the third world, where logic and values are very different.

What you omitted to say is that fossil
fuel plants don't even try to deal
with their waste. They simply pour it
into the atmosphere and contribute
grossly to the greenhouse effect
which is harming the planet NOW,
not in the 1000 years from now
scenario which you dutifully trot out.

That is being addressed. At least their waste can be discarded in a slap
dash way, which nuclear cannot.

If every powerstatio in the world was nuclear,
where would all the waste go?

I have indicated one totally acceptable method of coping: Convert all
into
short lived radioactive nucleids and wait a few days before advertising it
for sale or burying it under the road.

Privately owned stations would cheaply
dump the waste (illegal dumping of
chemicals in all countries is common),

I am not in favour of a privatised nuclear
industry, but it would be no
great shakes to set up a suitable inspectorate.

Yerrr!! Sure it will work. In Italy millions of Lire will buy them off make
no mistake about it. And in just about every other third world country too.

insead of down expensive deep mines
and sealing up with concrete. It is the human error aspect that is the
flaw. When it goes wrong the effects last for 100s of years after.

You have said this before. I have pointed
out that with the scheme I
favour, it is all irrelevant.

Also, cases of leukaemia are far greater around nuclear facilities.

(1) You have not ever studied the evidence for that The statistical
significance of the evidence is quite poor.

Not what I read and TV programmes are highlighted.

(2) There are also (stronger?) pockets
of leukaemia in areas which have
nothing to do with nuclear power stations.

Two wrongs do not make a right. That chemical plant has high cases of
leukaemia, so na, na, na, we should have some cases around our nuclear plant
too.

Just co-incidence the nuclear people say. ********!!!

No not ********. The statistical evidence is in fact quite weak.

The trouble lies entirely in the fact that
the shepherds who persistently lead
the sheep astray on this matter have not
even the faintest understanding of the
issues involved in comparing methods
of disposing of waste from power stations.

They have a lot of common sense, that is clear.

No, it is not at all clear. They are simply grinding axes most of the
time.

Dependency on fossil fuel
power can be vastly reduced by use of insulation, passive solar,
superior
town planning eliminating cars, CHP, more efficient engines, etc, etc.

Not "vastly", as you said. The correct adjective is "somewhat"

No! "vastly". Transportation is greatly reduced and energy to heat and cool
is virtually eliminated.

And, by the way, there are arguments to
counter what you call flaws in your
own regurgitated suggestions for dumping,
but I won't bother, since dumping
is not essential at all.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004

"IMM" wrote in
:

I lived in the Middle East, where air controllers would drop the
controls to face Mecca and prey as planes were flying all over the
place around the airport and about to land. I saw it in front of me,
with pilots screaming down the radio to them. Many pilots would abort
and fly to safety. Atoms for peace my arse!!! Putting this sort of
equipment in the hands of such people is madness. In 1st world
countries they can't even get it right, what chance in the third
world, where logic and values are very different.


Makes you wonder why the controllers aren't set up to face Mecca at their
stations? At least they would be in the right orientation when they get up
again. (I have seen similar but luckily only in computer operations rooms
and similar - nothing that critical.)

Rod

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:32:24 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 20:59:36 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 20:38:12 -0000, "IMM"
wrote:

Your thought processes don't appear to
follow those of anybody that I know who
attended any kind of university, snotty
or not, in any discipline.

Brilliant people always think differently!

I know quite a number. There is, however, usually some logic.

I am full of logic. my mind is not bursting with the views of what
others
fed into it.

There can be a number of reasons for that of course......

...it works by itself and reasons by itself. Have you got the 2004 colour
bumper edition of How Things Work?


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004

"Rod Hewitt" wrote in message
...
"IMM" wrote in
:

I lived in the Middle East, where air controllers would drop the
controls to face Mecca and prey as planes were flying all over the
place around the airport and about to land. I saw it in front of me,
with pilots screaming down the radio to them. Many pilots would abort
and fly to safety. Atoms for peace my arse!!! Putting this sort of
equipment in the hands of such people is madness. In 1st world
countries they can't even get it right, what chance in the third
world, where logic and values are very different.


Makes you wonder why the controllers aren't set up to face Mecca at their
stations? At least they would be in the right orientation when they get up
again. (I have seen similar but luckily only in computer operations rooms
and similar - nothing that critical.)

The tower didn't face Mecca, they have to turn around. Even if it did face
Mecca no one paying attention makes no difference. I have seen civilian
planes nearly hit hawk arrestors because of these dickheads.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004

Andy Hall wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:11:54 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


Mark wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...


On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:10:58 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:


It gets better and better....


It's all down to those new fangled polymerised timber trees they grow
now.... that where you get plastic wood from you know ;-)




Don't be silly John. Everyone knows its because all the timbers now go
to university and get a certificate of Political Correctness.


So they are full of saps, then?


Let's not branch out on that one....



How else are we going to get the root of the problem?



Easy, take a leaf out of my book..


What would be the resin for that?






Get knotted.





Mark





.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Andy Hall wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 15:38:29 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
. ..

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:08:44 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Franz Heymann wrote:


As clear as daylight. The reason for the reduced area of Thermomax

is

that

it has twice the efficiency as the flat plate. *Not* that it has

"twice

the

efficiency per square foot".


Its because he didn't go t uni.

I did. Thankfully not one of those snotty uni ones, full of half-breds.

Really.... Which one??

Not a snotty one that is for sure.



Uh huh.... So come on then, which illustrious institution had the
pleasure of your presence?




Broadmoor?




---


.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

PoP wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 15:03:29 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:


Let's not branch out on that one....


I've just twigged what this is all about.


You are a sap if it took you that long.



PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't
guaranteed to reach me.

martin wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 01:38:55 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


Franz Heymann wrote:



As clear as daylight. The reason for the reduced area of Thermomax is that
it has twice the efficiency as the flat plate. *Not* that it has "twice the
efficiency per square foot".


Its because he didn't go t uni. He's very sensitive about it.


Perhaps, he didn't go to school. These aren't concepts taught at
university, they used to be taught to 15 year olds at school in the
nineteen fifties



Yes, but today you only get to learn them at snotty unis.

Its called 'Progress and equality in educayshun'

The basic idea is to wreck teh snotty unis and teh grammare schools to
appeas teh Laber Votahs who think that not being stupid is some kind of
clarss privilege.

Whilst most of the Laber MP's send their kids to private schools (on tax
payers money)a nd went to them themselves, or at least snotty grammar
schools, before going free to univesrity (on taxpayers money).

Its normal 'animal farm' stuff. Everybody is equally miserable, stupid
and badly educated, except for the Party Elite, who simply become teh
new aristocracy, just like in the Soviet Union.

One wouldn't mind, except they are so BAD at it.





He sort of graps the concept that a square foot of one is better than a
square foot of another, but detailed explanatins of teh correct words to
use just pass hum by.

He's a humpty dumpty. Words mean what HE wants them to mean.

IMM wrote:

"martin" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 01:38:55 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


Franz Heymann wrote:



As clear as daylight. The reason for the reduced area of Thermomax is

that

it has twice the efficiency as the flat plate. *Not* that it has

"twice the

efficiency per square foot".


Its because he didn't go t uni. He's very sensitive about it.

Perhaps, he didn't go to school. These aren't concepts taught at
university, they used to be taught to 15 year olds at school in the
nineteen fifties


What concepts would you be on about, oh know-it-all one?


He sort of graps the concept that a square foot of one is better than a
square foot of another, but detailed explanatins of teh correct words to
use just pass hum by.


You are a man of limited intelligence.



We are all men of limited intelligence, some however, are more limited
than others.

Andy Hall wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 20:38:12 -0000, "IMM" wrote:



Now stop trying to make out I went to a snotty one. I never.

I think that your last sentence confirms suspicions regarding your
education......

Exactly! I never went to a snot!


I doubt whether you completed any formal education. Your thought
processes don't appear to follow those of anybody that I know who
attended any kind of university, snotty or not, in any discipline.

You would be more convincing were you to enlighten us regarding
location and course. I won't even embarrass you by asking about the
class of your alleged degree......




I told you. Its broadmoor. He keeps hearing these voices.




---


.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

It gets better and better....

It's all down to those new fangled polymerised timber trees they
grow
now.... that where you get plastic wood from you know ;-)

Don't be silly John. Everyone knows its because all the timbers now
go
to university and get a certificate of Political Correctness.

So they are full of saps, then?

Let's not branch out on that one....

How else are we going to get the root of the problem?

Easy, take a leaf out of my book..

What would be the resin for that?

Get knotted.

I'm stumped!


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 20:38:12 -0000, "IMM" wrote:



Now stop trying to make out I went to a snotty one. I never.

I think that your last sentence confirms suspicions regarding your
education......

Exactly! I never went to a snot!


I doubt whether you completed any formal education. Your thought
processes don't appear to follow those of anybody that I know who
attended any kind of university, snotty or not, in any discipline.

You would be more convincing were you to enlighten us regarding
location and course. I won't even embarrass you by asking about the
class of your alleged degree......

I told you. Its broadmoor. He keeps hearing these voices.

Those Voices? What voice do you hear?


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004

Franz Heymann wrote:

In particular, all the material which is said to be
difficult to store (spuriously so) can be transmuted into short lived
radioactive materials. ( Stuff which is typically rendered safe within days
or less). The suggestion was originally made a few years ago by a Nobel
prize winning physicist, Carlo Rubbia and has been analysed in great detail
by a group of high energy particle physicists, The process has been shown to
be entirely feasible.

I would be intensely interested in any material on the web that you
could direct my attention to, concerning this.

If it is true, it needs serious evaluation.

What you aretalking about is essentially ';sterilisation' of long lived
isotopes by blasting them in and around a recator into presumably
somewhat 'hotter' but less enduring isotopes, that could be stuck
somewhere for ten years, and then be 'cold' enough to dispose of in more
normal ways?

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

We are all men of limited intelligence, some however, are more limited
than others.

You are....so true.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004

IMM wrote:


I am full of logic. my mind is not bursting with the views of what others
fed into it.



No, it seems to have an endless capacity to ingest and regurgitate them
with little alteration other than some corruption due to total
incomprehension..

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
martin wrote:

Yes, but today you only get to learn them at snotty unis.

Its called 'Progress and equality in educayshun'

You are in cloud cuckoo land!

The basic idea is to wreck teh snotty unis and teh grammare schools

That sounds appealing.

snip drivel



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004

IMM wrote:

One thing I have learnt
well in life is that people will defend to the hilt whoever pays their wages
. They even tell themselves lies and then believe it.


Yah...well...no...fine ! :-)

And who pays YOUR wages? Phony Liar?

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

snip drivel


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004