whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Brian Gaff wrote

For example, there is a lot to be said for
inductively charging mobile phones where
you put the phone down overnight etc.

But it might be better to have them
charging during the day via solar power.

Not viable for mobiles, only for much lower
powered devices like watches and calculators.

They are slowing getting charging to work at a distance of a few
feet so you could have your phone being trickle charged all day.

Still inductive rather than with a cord plugged in.

its going to be inductive and even if the hz is
raised to make it more efficient that has got to
have losses. All so we do not have a plug in psu??

So you dont have to plug the phone in every night.

or at any time.

I notice you can now get sofas with built in USB ports
so the next step is obviously wireless charging arms.

More likely the sofa side table.

No from the sofa, quite easy to do a search for them.

But too easy to knock it off the arm and smash it expensively.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Chris J Dixon
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

It contuinues to amaze me how much we learnt then for O levels, which
isn't even studied at degree level these days.

Notwithstanding that, it was noticeable when I got to Uni to do
Physics, how much harder the course content was than even A-level
Physics. Much, much harder.

Indeed!. Up to A level I was fortunate that I seemed able to
understand and remember enough without really having to try, and
got an A pass. At university, studying electrical engineering, I
rested on my laurels somewhat, and didn't devote enough time (or
effort) to the physics course, and had to resit the first year exam.

I am minded to wonder how it goes with aspiring physics students these
days, if the exams are supposed to have been dumbed down. You can't dumb
down reality,

But you can avoid asking about the harder stuff in the exam.

so you can't dumb down degree-level physics.

But you can obviously not cover the most complex stuff.

Must make it even harder when they get there.

No reason why it needs to.

Andy Burns wrote:

There are battery schemes within the national grid's "enhanced frequency
regulation" scheme, not found yet whether this one does

Apparently, yes is is ...

"Clay Hill will bid for revenue streams from various tenders €“ both
Enhanced and Fast Frequency Response, and the Capacity Market €“ when ready."

https://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/blogs/inside_clay_hill_the_uks_first_subsidy_free_solar_ farm

On 27/09/2017 10:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/09/17 08:48, Tim Streater wrote:

You may be right, but it doesn't inspire confidence if their publicity
department doesn't have the technical savvy to use the correct units.

O-level education, you mean?

I went for an eye test at the opticains and was dealt with by a young
bespectacled lady in a hajib.

I would have walked out.

Bill

On 27/09/2017 13:55, Chris J Dixon wrote:

Notwithstanding that, it was noticeable when I got to Uni to do
Physics, how much harder the course content was than even A-level
Physics. Much, much harder.

Indeed!. Up to A level I was fortunate that I seemed able to
understand and remember enough without really having to try, and
got an A pass. At university, studying electrical engineering, I
rested on my laurels somewhat, and didn't devote enough time (or
effort) to the physics course, and had to resit the first year
exam.

I failed my 11+ and was thrown on the scrap heap, so I avoided all that
****.

Bill

On 27/09/2017 21:10, Tim Lamb wrote:

Did you get to get to repeat Millikans experiment? I think my group were
a bit overenthusiastic with the oil puffer and we didn't get any
worthwhile results let alone determine the electron charge.


Sarah Millican? I think she's ****.

Bill

On 27/09/2017 21:22, Rod Speed wrote:

No from the sofa, quite easy to do a search for them.

But too easy to knock it off the arm and smash it expensively.

Why expensively? My grandchildren smash things for free.

Bill

On 27/09/2017 12:32, Tim Streater wrote:

But all that happens with poor coupling is that less energy is
transferred; the losses are not higher. With poor coupling, the EMF
generated back to the source winding is reduced, so its impedance goes
up and the current flow is reduced.


It doesn't matter then. Just do it bigger.

Bill

On 27/09/2017 18:58, alan_m wrote:

Even if the roof faces the 'wrong' way?


When the craze was on they were putting panels on north facing roofs.

Bill

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
news
On 27/09/2017 10:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/09/17 08:48, Tim Streater wrote:

You may be right, but it doesn't inspire confidence if their publicity
department doesn't have the technical savvy to use the correct units.

O-level education, you mean?

I went for an eye test at the opticains and was dealt with by a young
bespectacled lady in a hajib.

I would have walked out.

No surprises there.

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
news
On 27/09/2017 21:22, Rod Speed wrote:

No from the sofa, quite easy to do a search for them.

But too easy to knock it off the arm and smash it expensively.

Why expensively?

You tried getting the screen on a high end smartphone lately ?

My grandchildren smash things for free.

Must be in their jeans.

On Thursday, 28 September 2017 03:43:39 UTC+1, Bill Wright wrote:
On 27/09/2017 18:58, alan_m wrote:

Even if the roof faces the 'wrong' way?


When the craze was on they were putting panels on north facing roofs.

Bill

True, there is one near me.
But an East or West facing roof loses 25% of output compared with South.

On 28/09/2017 03:29, Bill Wright wrote:
On 27/09/2017 10:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/09/17 08:48, Tim Streater wrote:

You may be right, but it doesn't inspire confidence if their publicity
department doesn't have the technical savvy to use the correct units.

O-level education, you mean?

I went for an eye test at the opticains and was dealt with by a young
bespectacled lady in a hajib.

I would have walked out.

Bill

I bet you would do the same in A&E.

On 28/09/17 08:24, dennis@home wrote:
On 28/09/2017 03:29, Bill Wright wrote:
On 27/09/2017 10:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/09/17 08:48, Tim Streater wrote:

You may be right, but it doesn't inspire confidence if their publicity
department doesn't have the technical savvy to use the correct units.

O-level education, you mean?

I went for an eye test at the opticains and was dealt with by a young
bespectacled lady in a hajib.

I would have walked out.

Bill

I bet you would do the same in A&E.

A& E was a little mor scary, the heavily bearded islamic gentleman
doing blood tests was surly 'they wont allow me to do other stuff'

"Tjoepstil" wrote in message
news
On 28/09/17 08:24, dennis@home wrote:
On 28/09/2017 03:29, Bill Wright wrote:
On 27/09/2017 10:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/09/17 08:48, Tim Streater wrote:

You may be right, but it doesn't inspire confidence if their
publicity
department doesn't have the technical savvy to use the correct units.

O-level education, you mean?

I went for an eye test at the opticains and was dealt with by a young
bespectacled lady in a hajib.

I would have walked out.

Bill

I bet you would do the same in A&E.

A& E was a little mor scary, the heavily bearded islamic gentleman doing
blood tests was surly 'they wont allow me to do other stuff'

How odd that we havent actually seen even a single one of those
in that magnificent series "24 Hours in Emergency"

On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 03:29:38 +0100, Bill Wright wrote:

On 27/09/2017 10:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/09/17 08:48, Tim Streater wrote:

You may be right, but it doesn't inspire confidence if their
publicity department doesn't have the technical savvy to use the
correct units.

O-level education, you mean?

I went for an eye test at the opticains and was dealt with by a young
bespectacled lady in a hajib.

I would have walked out.

Why?

On 28/09/2017 10:37, Mark Allread wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 03:29:38 +0100, Bill Wright wrote:

On 27/09/2017 10:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/09/17 08:48, Tim Streater wrote:

You may be right, but it doesn't inspire confidence if their
publicity department doesn't have the technical savvy to use the
correct units.

O-level education, you mean?

I went for an eye test at the opticains and was dealt with by a young
bespectacled lady in a hajib.

I would have walked out.

Why?


He is stupid.

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 09:52:40 +0100, wrote:

But what about those old now rare aerial/ antenna arrangements like
Rugby and Rampisham etc . They were often called aerial farms.
What was being harvested there?

Are there any large ones left now?

Anthorn, another site near Blackpool. Skelton might have more than
the rather tall VLF mast.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 08:56:05 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

That's their problem, not ours. They only get paid for the
electricity
that people want when it's sunny, or they've stored and can push
through an inverter.

AISB, these "providers" should be expected to provide a constant level
of output 24 x 7. The level, that is, that they boast about. If they
fall short then it should be *their* responsibility to make up the
shortfall.

I don't have a problem with them storing energy from sunlight and
only selling to the market when the price is right, this al least
makes them dispatchable to some extent. However they shouldn't be
allowed to buy from the grid and be fined if the grid wants energy
but they haven't got it. Which I guess is a variation on them making
up the shortfall, ie the fine pays for an OCGT or WHY to fire up.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 27 Sep 2017 16:39:33 GMT, Huge wrote:

Isn't that why some courses are now 4 years, so the Uni can spend the
first year teaching the students what they already knew when they
arrived, in years gone by?

After four years you end up with a MPhys rather than Bsc, something
that sits between BSc and MSc I think rather than a real Masters. Lad
is in the process of deciding where he want's to go next year for
Physics, last heard was St Andrews, Durham, Manchester possibly
Warwick/Birmingham but Oxford hadn't been totally crossed of the list
but they don't like being anything other than 1st choice and have all
manner of hoops to jump through.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 17:53:42 +0100, charles wrote:

in years goneby, our second year course in one particular subject began
with words" Since you've all got A-Level Chemistry, I'll start from
there."

Well that's a bit better than the opening words of my A Level
Chemistry. "What ever they taught you at O Level forget it, its
wrong".

--
Cheers
Dave.

Dave Liquorice wrote:

I don't have a problem with them storing energy from sunlight and
only selling to the market when the price is right, this al least
makes them dispatchable to some extent. However they shouldn't be
allowed to buy from the grid and be fined if the grid wants energy
but they haven't got it. Which I guess is a variation on them making
up the shortfall, ie the fine pays for an OCGT or WHY to fire up.

Beyond the normal demand/supply arrangements, the grid has a
twisty-turny maze of additional supply and demand reduction arrangements

http://www2.nationalgrid.com/uk/services/balancing-services

It feels like this farm wants its cake and eat it, being a normal power
supplier except when the grid needs some extra oomph, then it wants to
be treated as a "frequency response" supplier, which is presumably more
lucrative? To the extent that it's not currently using its much touted
batteries, as doing so would disqualify it from being seen as a "new"
storage supplier.

On 27/09/17 15:18, Tim Streater wrote:
You can't dumb down reality

Some might tell you that is the whole purpose of consciousness.


--
€œA leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader,
who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say,
€œWe did this ourselves.€�

ۥ Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

On Wednesday, 27 September 2017 17:30:59 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 September 2017 13:30:43 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 September 2017 20:48:07 UTC+1, Andy Burns wrote:
solar farm with its own battery storage and no FITs ...

http://anesco.co.uk/clayhill-uks-first-subsidy-free-solar-farm

At a rough calculation I estimate that 1% of the UK would need to be covered by these farms to generate enough for the 27 million households in the UK

Each household should have PV on the roof.
And commercial buildings.

I'll have one on mine oif someone is willing to pay for it.
The I can pay them back for teh amount of electricity it generates in the same way I'd pay my electricity supplier, so if they make me an offer.....

On Wednesday, 27 September 2017 21:24:21 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Brian Gaff wrote

For example, there is a lot to be said for
inductively charging mobile phones where
you put the phone down overnight etc.

But it might be better to have them
charging during the day via solar power.

Not viable for mobiles, only for much lower
powered devices like watches and calculators.

not currrently but there's prototypes that work.



They are slowing getting charging to work at a distance of a few
feet so you could have your phone being trickle charged all day.

Still inductive rather than with a cord plugged in.

No it's NOT inductive it;s more like using a radio frequency.
A bit like the 'magic' cystal radios where yuo could here the sounds and didnlt need a battery to power your circuit.
I think they use very high frequencies similar to what we are doing in our THz lab.


its going to be inductive and even if the hz is
raised to make it more efficient that has got to
have losses. All so we do not have a plug in psu??

So you dont have to plug the phone in every night.

or at any time.

I notice you can now get sofas with built in USB ports
so the next step is obviously wireless charging arms.

More likely the sofa side table.

No from the sofa, quite easy to do a search for them.

But too easy to knock it off the arm and smash it expensively.

They'll always be clumbsy idiots, that can knock phones off tables.
And yuo don;t have to put it on the arm either with a few metres of cable you can put it anywhere you like, even in yuor pocket because you might forget it by leaving it on a table.

On 28/09/17 13:52, Huge wrote:
On 2017-09-28, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 17:53:42 +0100, charles wrote:

in years goneby, our second year course in one particular subject began
with words" Since you've all got A-Level Chemistry, I'll start from
there."

Well that's a bit better than the opening words of my A Level
Chemistry. "What ever they taught you at O Level forget it, its
wrong".

"Wrong" is a little hyperbolic, but that happens at each stage of
education, until you get to post-Doc, at which point you get to
start looking into what's *actually* going on.


Well no, you don't. You just become familiar with the latest and
hopefully most accurate *model* of what is going on.


--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Brian Gaff wrote

For example, there is a lot to be said for
inductively charging mobile phones where
you put the phone down overnight etc.

But it might be better to have them
charging during the day via solar power.

Not viable for mobiles, only for much lower
powered devices like watches and calculators.

not currrently but there's prototypes that work.

Not for long enough to matter and they clearly
dont charge too well when in your ****ing pocket.

They are slowing getting charging to work at a distance of a few
feet so you could have your phone being trickle charged all day.

Still inductive rather than with a cord plugged in.

No it's NOT inductive it;s more like using a radio frequency.

Its either using RF or its not.

A bit like the 'magic' cystal radios where yuo could here
the sounds and didnlt need a battery to power your circuit.

Only when using headphones because
there isnt enough power to drive speakers.

I think they use very high frequencies similar
to what we are doing in our THz lab.

And so they are a microwave/cataract risk. No thanks.

its going to be inductive and even if the hz is
raised to make it more efficient that has got to
have losses. All so we do not have a plug in psu??

So you dont have to plug the phone in every night.

or at any time.

I notice you can now get sofas with built in USB ports
so the next step is obviously wireless charging arms.

More likely the sofa side table.

No from the sofa, quite easy to do a search for them.

But too easy to knock it off the arm and smash it expensively.

They'll always be clumbsy idiots, that can knock phones off tables.

Far more would knock them off the arm of the sofa.

On 28/09/2017 10:12, Huge wrote:
On 2017-09-28, Bill Wright wrote:

Sarah Millican? I think she's ****.

****. That's twice today you've posted something I agree with.

She's a younger version of Jo Brand. They both only have one very unfunny
"joke"; "I'm fat and men are ****".


+1
They only get exposure on so much TV in order to make up the quota for
unfunny fat women.

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

On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 13:25:07 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 20:48:03 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

solar farm with its own battery storage and no FITs ...

http://anesco.co.uk/clayhill-uks-first-subsidy-free-solar-farm


https://www.thegwpf.com/forget-this-spin-too-solar-pv-is-not-on-the-brink-of-being-subsidy-free/


Nice one. ;-)

I think this whole renewable's thing is like the double glazing thing
of years gone bye. Yes, you can reduce draughty windows and never have
to pain them (good thing IMHO) but you then get issues with damp,
mould, respiratory diseases and are forced to have a fixed trickle
vent to get the draught back ... ;-(

Take the total energy efficiency (loss) of PV + battery + up / down
conversion + transmission losses and the pollution created when
mining, smelting, manufacturing, installing, maintaining, replacing
and disposal of all this 'stuff' ... and I just hope it's at least net
neutral (if we are lucky). ;-(

It's like those who were convinced if I fitted a dynamo to my electric
car ...

Cheers, T i m

T i m wrote:

I think this whole renewable's thing is like the double glazing thing
of years gone bye. Yes, you can reduce draughty windows and never have
to pain them (good thing IMHO) but you then get issues with damp,
mould, respiratory diseases and are forced to have a fixed trickle
vent to get the draught back ... ;-(

Yes, it is a pity that whole house ventilation with heat
exchanger isn't a cost-efficient or practical retro-fit.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 08:45:58 +0100, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

T i m wrote:

I think this whole renewable's thing is like the double glazing thing
of years gone bye. Yes, you can reduce draughty windows and never have
to pain them (good thing IMHO) but you then get issues with damp,
mould, respiratory diseases and are forced to have a fixed trickle
vent to get the draught back ... ;-(

Yes, it is a pity that whole house ventilation with heat
exchanger isn't a cost-efficient or practical retro-fit.


I considered making something myself for the bathroom (the only part
of the house with a cavity wall where it might be worth doing such a
thing).

Extract the air though the ceiling, out though a baffle box of some
sort (big heatsinks bolted back to back in the in / out airways) and
then to a split or pair of vents etc?

I think I understand these things can be no more than 50% efficient
(would a heat pump make that better somehow) and you have to consider
any condensate and things getting blocked etc (so may warrant
cleaning).

I'm assuming there is a good reason that such solutions aren't std
practice still. Diminishing returns?

Cheers, T i m

In message , T i m
writes
On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 08:45:58 +0100, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

T i m wrote:

I think this whole renewable's thing is like the double glazing thing
of years gone bye. Yes, you can reduce draughty windows and never have
to pain them (good thing IMHO) but you then get issues with damp,
mould, respiratory diseases and are forced to have a fixed trickle
vent to get the draught back ... ;-(

Yes, it is a pity that whole house ventilation with heat
exchanger isn't a cost-efficient or practical retro-fit.


I considered making something myself for the bathroom (the only part
of the house with a cavity wall where it might be worth doing such a
thing).

They already exist. My wife had a rented out flat which was fine until a
very clean family moved in. Lots of showers and clothes drying led to
condensation mould near the top of the North facing walls.

Luckily the ducting already existed from the previous *off peak* heating
distribution.

Downsides are the background noise from the fan and the routine cleaning
maintenance.

You can get self contained wall mounted ones for bathroom extract
locations.

Extract the air though the ceiling, out though a baffle box of some
sort (big heatsinks bolted back to back in the in / out airways) and
then to a split or pair of vents etc?

I think I understand these things can be no more than 50% efficient
(would a heat pump make that better somehow) and you have to consider
any condensate and things getting blocked etc (so may warrant
cleaning).

I'm assuming there is a good reason that such solutions aren't std
practice still. Diminishing returns?

--
Tim Lamb

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 08:45:58 +0100, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

T i m wrote:

I think this whole renewable's thing is like the double glazing thing
of years gone bye. Yes, you can reduce draughty windows and never have
to pain them (good thing IMHO) but you then get issues with damp,
mould, respiratory diseases and are forced to have a fixed trickle
vent to get the draught back ... ;-(

Yes, it is a pity that whole house ventilation with heat
exchanger isn't a cost-efficient or practical retro-fit.


I considered making something myself for the bathroom (the only part
of the house with a cavity wall where it might be worth doing such a
thing).

Extract the air though the ceiling, out though a baffle box of some
sort (big heatsinks bolted back to back in the in / out airways) and
then to a split or pair of vents etc?

I think I understand these things can be no more than 50% efficient

Depends on how they are done.

(would a heat pump make that better somehow)

Yep, they can obviously pump the heat between the outgoing and incoming air.

and you have to consider any condensate

Yes, but that's not hard to deal with.

and things getting blocked etc (so may warrant cleaning).

Ditto.

I'm assuming there is a good reason that
such solutions aren't std practice still.

The usual reason, the commercial ones arent cheap.

That doesn't mean you can't diy one for a sensible cost tho.

Diminishing returns?

Nope.

T i m wrote:

On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 08:45:58 +0100, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

T i m wrote:

I think this whole renewable's thing is like the double glazing thing
of years gone bye. Yes, you can reduce draughty windows and never have
to pain them (good thing IMHO) but you then get issues with damp,
mould, respiratory diseases and are forced to have a fixed trickle
vent to get the draught back ... ;-(

Yes, it is a pity that whole house ventilation with heat
exchanger isn't a cost-efficient or practical retro-fit.


I considered making something myself for the bathroom (the only part
of the house with a cavity wall where it might be worth doing such a
thing).

Extract the air though the ceiling, out though a baffle box of some
sort (big heatsinks bolted back to back in the in / out airways) and
then to a split or pair of vents etc?

I think I understand these things can be no more than 50% efficient
(would a heat pump make that better somehow) and you have to consider
any condensate and things getting blocked etc (so may warrant
cleaning).

I'm assuming there is a good reason that such solutions aren't std
practice still. Diminishing returns?

Cheers, T i m

I've got a Ventaxia extractor fan with a heat exchanger for the incoming
air. Quite compact, though a little on the noisy side for background
ventilation. The 6" ones are probably better than the 4" ones in this
respect, and I would choose one of those in preference if starting
again.


--

Roger Hayter

On Thursday, 28 September 2017 21:17:58 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Brian Gaff wrote

For example, there is a lot to be said for
inductively charging mobile phones where
you put the phone down overnight etc.

But it might be better to have them
charging during the day via solar power.

Not viable for mobiles, only for much lower
powered devices like watches and calculators.

not currrently but there's prototypes that work.

Not for long enough to matter and they clearly
dont charge too well when in your ****ing pocket.

Yes they do.


They are slowing getting charging to work at a distance of a few
feet so you could have your phone being trickle charged all day.

Still inductive rather than with a cord plugged in.

No it's NOT inductive it;s more like using a radio frequency.

Its either using RF or its not.

It's not using RF any more than TV uses RF.



A bit like the 'magic' cystal radios where yuo could here
the sounds and didnlt need a battery to power your circuit.

Only when using headphones because
there isnt enough power to drive speakers.

Well done, power is the key and we've know for years power can be transfered from a radio station miles away to a set of ear plugs but there isn;t much power there but if yuo captured that power instaead of putting it into a speaker or headphones you could rectify it to DC and use it to charge up batteries.



I think they use very high frequencies similar
to what we are doing in our THz lab.

And so they are a microwave/cataract risk. No thanks.

Luckily it's not your decision.

They have line of sight of 1 watt charging at a distance of about 10ft last I heard.
But then again I never thought mobiles phone would catch on if they were the size of brief cases.


But too easy to knock it off the arm and smash it expensively.

They'll always be clumbsy idiots, that can knock phones off tables.

Far more would knock them off the arm of the sofa.

Not if the charging leads are short like the one I use on my table, if the phone falls it just dangles.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 28 September 2017 21:17:58 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Brian Gaff wrote

For example, there is a lot to be said for
inductively charging mobile phones where
you put the phone down overnight etc.

But it might be better to have them
charging during the day via solar power.

Not viable for mobiles, only for much lower
powered devices like watches and calculators.

not currrently but there's prototypes that work.

Not for long enough to matter and they clearly
dont charge too well when in your ****ing pocket.

Yes they do.

Not even possible with solar.

And since this mindless silly **** is the best you can manage,
here goes the chain on the rest of your even sillier ****, again.

On Monday, 2 October 2017 19:45:27 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 28 September 2017 21:17:58 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Brian Gaff wrote

For example, there is a lot to be said for
inductively charging mobile phones where
you put the phone down overnight etc.

But it might be better to have them
charging during the day via solar power.

Not viable for mobiles, only for much lower
powered devices like watches and calculators.

not currrently but there's prototypes that work.

Not for long enough to matter and they clearly
dont charge too well when in your ****ing pocket.

Yes they do.

Not even possible with solar.

We aren;t talking about solar, solar is also pretty useless in the home at night for charging phones did you not know that.


And since this mindless silly **** is the best you can manage,
here goes the chain on the rest of your even sillier ****, again.

yep, there goes your **** again.
Although coming out with so much so often you'll hardly miss it.

Why do you want to solar charge yuor phone at night anyway ?

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 2 October 2017 19:45:27 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 28 September 2017 21:17:58 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Brian Gaff wrote

For example, there is a lot to be said for
inductively charging mobile phones where
you put the phone down overnight etc.

But it might be better to have them
charging during the day via solar power.

Not viable for mobiles, only for much lower
powered devices like watches and calculators.

not currrently but there's prototypes that work.

Not for long enough to matter and they clearly
dont charge too well when in your ****ing pocket.

Yes they do.

Not even possible with solar.

We aren;t talking about solar

Even a terminal ****wit such as yourself should be able to find the
word solar in your mindless silly **** above, if someone was actually
stupid enough to lend you a seeing eye dog and a white cane.

And since this mindless silly **** is the best you can manage,
here goes the chain on the rest of your even sillier ****, again.

On Tuesday, 3 October 2017 19:22:21 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 2 October 2017 19:45:27 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 28 September 2017 21:17:58 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Brian Gaff wrote

For example, there is a lot to be said for
inductively charging mobile phones where
you put the phone down overnight etc.

But it might be better to have them
charging during the day via solar power.

Not viable for mobiles, only for much lower
powered devices like watches and calculators.

not currrently but there's prototypes that work.

Not for long enough to matter and they clearly
dont charge too well when in your ****ing pocket.

Yes they do.

Not even possible with solar.

We aren;t talking about solar

Even a terminal ****wit such as yourself should be able to find the
word solar in your mindless silly **** above,

I did I was the one suggesting charging phones via solar power But I know it wouldn't work at night.




For example, there is a lot to be said for
inductively charging mobile phones where
you put the phone down overnight etc.

So who puts there phone down and expects it to charge over night from solar..


if someone was actually
stupid enough to lend you a seeing eye dog and a white cane.

Even the white cane will be more inteligent than you.


And since this mindless silly **** is the best you can manage,
here goes the chain on the rest of your even sillier ****, again.

same **** as usual you lose the plot yet again.

Some drunken dunny cleaner desperately cowering behind
whisky-dave wrote just the **** you'd
expect from a desperately cowering drunken dunny cleaner.