Re: [OT] Sir Clive Sinclair

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

On 17 Sep 2021 at 09:10:13 BST, "Alan B"
<alanrich...@nospamgmail.com.here> wrote:

> RIP Clive, but am I one of the few people from his era who never bought any
> of his products, innovative as they were?
>
> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29985976>

Clive was absolutely formative for me, source of all my computery
origins. We had the ZX81, Speccy 16k and rapidly Speccy 48k with
Interface 2 and microdrives... Literal years of my life were spent on
those awful keyboards. (Good practice for the 2016-2019 MBPs!)

Bless him for the Sinclair Calculator, without the success of which the
ZX80/81/Spectrum/QL wouldn't have existed. Less impressed by his
extraordinary skinflintery, terrible business sense, backstabbery, and
being a pretty unpleasant person to interact with in general. Met him a
few times, less said the better.

In memoriam, I have ordered replacements for my long-lost Spectrum
manuals. Oddly I still have the Microdrive manual, as well as various
'teach yourself programming' books. And of course my original ZX81, two
Spectrums (one being my original 48k upgraded to a Plus) and a QL
(bought in the early 2000s for pennies).

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"People can be educated beyond their intelligence"
-- Marilyn vos Savant

[Jeff Gaines]

On 17/09/2021 in message

<si1ih5$5mf$1...@alanrichardbarker.eternal-september.org> Alan B wrote:

>RIP Clive, but am I one of the few people from his era who never bought any
>of his products, innovative as they were?
>
><https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29985976>

Yes indeed, RIP.

I didn't have any of his products, I went Vic 20 then BBC B and BBC master
but he was certainly influential.

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
Those are my principles – and if you don’t like them, well, I have
others.
(Groucho Marx)

[Chris]

Alan B <alanrich...@nospamgmail.com.here> wrote:
> RIP Clive, but am I one of the few people from his era who never bought any
> of his products, innovative as they were?
>
> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29985976>

I'm the same. My parents wouldn't get me a computer. By the time I was old
enough to buy my own, it was desktop PCs.

[Graham J]

Alan B wrote:
> RIP Clive, but am I one of the few people from his era who never bought any
> of his products, innovative as they were?
>
> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29985976>
>

No, I didn't buy anything of his.

I learnt on minicomputers like the Nova 800 and LSI-11, with well
thought-out instruction sets and sensible operating systems.

--
Graham J

[Stefen Carroll]

So he changed his story to posting about his business.

We're all sorry Just Wondering's a paranoid, narcissistic, delusional liar
but that's not gonna change anything ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. No one who isn't just using
you for wicked advantage sees you as anything remotely close to honorable.
You have no one but yourself to point to for that. Other than Just Wondering,
who doesn't know what I am doing?

You've proven that it is Just Wondering.


--
My Snoring Solution!
https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/C00166710/donors/2016
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22functionally+illiterate+fraud%22
Narcissistic Bigot Steve Carroll

[Martin S Taylor]

On Sep 17, 2021, Alan B wrote
(in article<si1ih5$5mf$1...@alanrichardbarker.eternal-september.org>):

> RIP Clive, but am I one of the few people from his era who never bought any
> of his products, innovative as they were?

I'm with you – straight from mainframes in the 1970s to a NorthStar at work
and a BBC B at home.

MST

[Andy Hewitt]

On 17/09/2021 12:45, Alan B wrote:

> I went for Ataris followed by a BBC B in my early home computing days.
> Work was a different matter!

Yes, I was close to buying a Spectrum, but ended up with an Atari 800XL,
then went Atari ST 520, then onto Macs (Performa 5200 was my first).

I remember the ridiculing he got with the C5, but look where we are now,
so many years later (OK, technology has caught up with the concept a bit
more of course).

--
Andy H

[Richard Tobin]

In article <si1ih5$5mf$1...@alanrichardbarker.eternal-september.org>,

Alan B <alanrich...@nospamgmail.com.here> wrote:
>RIP Clive, but am I one of the few people from his era who never bought any
>of his products, innovative as they were?

Nor did I, though I used an MK14 at school. It set the standard for
future Sinclair keyboards.

-- Richard

[Stefen Carroll]

I bet he thinks his life was perfect.
Gremlin Dustin Cook:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=gremlin+dustin+cook>
<https://www.bing.com/search?q=gremlin+dustin+cook>
<https://duckduckgo.com/?q=gremlin+dustin+cook>

Functionally Illiterate Fraud:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=functionally+illiterate+fraud>
<https://www.bing.com/search?q=functionally+illiterate+fraud>
<https://duckduckgo.com/?q=functionally+illiterate+fraud>

Steve Carroll Petruzzellis:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=steve+carroll+petruzzellis>
<https://www.bing.com/search?q=steve+carroll+petruzzellis>
<https://duckduckgo.com/?q=steve+carroll+petruzzellis>

Narcissistic Bigot:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=narcissistic+bigot>
<https://www.bing.com/search?q=narcissistic+bigot>
<https://duckduckgo.com/?q=narcissistic+bigot>
Total hogwash by an uninformed, fibbing, conniving, co-trolling birdbrain
who couldn't tell the truth even if you paid him to.

It is the same thing that happens in every group Snit sock Snot / Snit
visits. If Snit sock Snot / Snit calls getting his ass kicked hard time
and time again by everyone (and completely killing his name and any reason
for me to believe anything he has to say) successful 'trolling', then sure...
he is a first-class troll. I do not personally go along with that meaning,
I use another term. I call him a complete halfwit. Why would you want to
restrict any applications on Mint to what can be done on lower end systems?

--
What Every Entrepreneur Must Know
https://www.bing.com/search?q=Steve+Petruzzellis%3A+narcissistic+bigot
<https://www.truepeoplesearch.com/results?name=4234911448&Diesel&Gremlin&Dustin_Cook>
Dustin Cook: Functionally Illiterate Fraud

[Liz Tuddenham]

Alan B <alanrich...@nospamgmail.com.here> wrote:

> ... it was the influence of
> my late father that put me off buying any. He seemed to think his stuff was
> a bit gimmicky and probably didn’t work as advertised.

He was right. A school friend worked for C.S. for a while and the
stories he told me were appaling.

He was primarily a salesman with only a tenuous grasp of electronics or
the truth; to say his adverts were misleading would be a gross
understatement. Look back at some of his advertisments in the
electronics hobby magazines and you will be aghast at how he could have
ever got away with such claims.

The computers that brought him fame were left to others to design,
nearly all the projects that he was directly involved in turned into
fiascos.


--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Chris Ridd]

On 17/09/2021 20:50, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> Alan B <alanrich...@nospamgmail.com.here> wrote:
>
>> ... it was the influence of
>> my late father that put me off buying any. He seemed to think his stuff was

>> a bit gimmicky and probably didn’t work as advertised.

>
> He was right. A school friend worked for C.S. for a while and the
> stories he told me were appaling.
>
> He was primarily a salesman with only a tenuous grasp of electronics or
> the truth;

There's a slight parallel here with a certain Steve Jobs, isn't there?
Perhaps Jobs's sense of style gave him the edge.

--
Chris

[Martin S Taylor]

On Sep 17, 2021, Andy Hewitt wrote
(in article <si29lh$gb$1...@dont-email.me>):

> I remember the ridiculing he got with the C5, but look where we are now,
> so many years later (OK, technology has caught up with the concept a bit
> more of course).

Here's Richard Stilgoe and Peter Skellern taking the piss:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbHwX15E2is

MST

[Andy Hewitt]

Haha.

--
Andy H

[STALKING_TARGET_84]

You're like a palm tree in a pineapple patch. We all see you hiding there
and let you know. And you're so dumb you keep doing it.

Socks that Commander 'The Shill' Kinsey can't prove are Snit (a real advocate)'s.
Why would I, or anyone, use socks to expose what we all regularly say about
Commander 'The Shill' Kinsey?

What do you get out of lying? Did he think that was clever? I want Commander
'The Shill' Kinsey to support her doxing accusation. Let's see the message
ID Commander 'The Shill' Kinsey. When I accused Commander 'The Shill' Kinsey
of trolling as Snit (a real advocate) I actually supported it with evidence.



-
My Snoring Solution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NmOycD4yKU
https://www.google.com/search?q=Dustin+Cook%3A+functional+illiterate+fraud
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/6sfkup/what_desktop_tasks_does_linux_handle_better_than
Steve 'Narcissistic Bigot' Carroll

[Michael Phillips]

On 17 Sep 2021 at 09:10:13 IST, "Alan B"

<alanrich...@nospamgmail.com.here> wrote:

> RIP Clive, but am I one of the few people from his era who never bought any
> of his products, innovative as they were?

I had the matchbox radio, calculator, watch, ZX81 and Spectrum. Happy
days. Thanks Clive.

--
mhphillips at gmail dot com

[Phil Taylor]

On 17 Sep 2021 at 20:50:37 BST, "Liz Tuddenham" <Liz Tuddenham> wrote:

> Alan B <alanrich...@nospamgmail.com.here> wrote:
>
>> ... it was the influence of
>> my late father that put me off buying any. He seemed to think his stuff was

>> a bit gimmicky and probably didn’t work as advertised.

>
> He was right. A school friend worked for C.S. for a while and the
> stories he told me were appaling.
>
> He was primarily a salesman with only a tenuous grasp of electronics or
> the truth; to say his adverts were misleading would be a gross
> understatement. Look back at some of his advertisments in the
> electronics hobby magazines and you will be aghast at how he could have
> ever got away with such claims.

I think it's a bit unfair to say that he had a tenuous grip of electronics.
Long before he started producing electronic devices, he was known for writing
erudite articles in the amateur electronics magazines. I can remember in
particular a series of articles in Radio Constructor on the properties of
microalloy transistors (whatever happened to them?).

>
> The computers that brought him fame were left to others to design,
> nearly all the projects that he was directly involved in turned into
> fiascos.

There's a certain amount of truth in that. All of his projects were
technically ahead of the curve, but poorly designed and manufactured, and had
a tendency to be mechanically fragile, and soon stop working.

Phil Taylor

[Alan Ralph]

On 2021-09-17 at 9:10:13 am BST, "Alan B"

<alanrich...@nospamgmail.com.here> wrote:

> RIP Clive, but am I one of the few people from his era who never bought any
> of his products, innovative as they were?
>

> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29985976>

I had a second-hand ZX-81 for several years (with wobbly RAM-pack!) but never
did get much done with it due to its propensity to reset itself if you so much
as sneezed near it. :( After that I went through two Acorn Electrons (plus
peripherals) and then a BBC Master 128 (plus even more peripherals, including
the 6502 Co-Processor, the Music 500 and a 'whopping' 20MB hard disk!) before
eventually getting my first PC in the early 1990s.

[Flavio Matani]

My first was an Atari ST so I didn't live the 8 bit age. I do remember, still
living in Caracas, a friend who had been studying music here going back to Vz
and very excitedly demonstrating to me how he was making music on computers,
fancy that. A Spectrum, a cassette tape machine and a telly, the telly
scrolling two columns of numbers and the Spectrum producing some awful random
sounding beeps. But alas, the same friend a couple of years later showed me
his new Apple Macintosh (one of the very early ones) and then I thought hm,
maybe I'm interested in this... (but of course could not remotely afford a Mac
those days, hence the Atari)


--

guitar lessons (classical, electric, acoustic, bass)
ABRSM and Trinity grades up to and beyond grade 8
Theory of Music
https://www.flaviomataniguitar.com

[Martin S Taylor]

On Sep 18, 2021, Flavio Matani wrote
(in article <si57uq$t96$1...@dont-email.me>):

> A Spectrum, a cassette tape machine and a telly, the telly
> scrolling two columns of numbers and the Spectrum producing some awful random
> sounding beeps.

The Amstrad 8256 had only a buzzer for sound, but the game "Batman", via some
clever hacking, played a perfectly recognizable rendition of the Batman
theme.

(Pretty good game, actually; even though the 8256 had only a monochrome
screen, Batman used alternate pixels to simulate a half-tone.)

MST

[Martin S Taylor]

On Sep 17, 2021, Martin S Taylor wrote
(in article<0001HW.26F53FA700...@news.eternal-september.org>):

(That should, of course, be Sir Richard Stilgoe and Rev. Peter Skellern.)

MST

[Liz Tuddenham]

TimH <thn...@poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote:

> On 17 Sep 2021 at 8:50:37 pm BST, "Liz Tuddenham" <Liz Tuddenham> wrote:
>
> > The computers that brought him fame were left to others to design,
> > nearly all the projects that he was directly involved in turned into
> > fiascos.
>

> The obits I've seen don't mention any of the people behind the ZX81 and
> Spectrum; was there a Woz to his Jobs?

When I asked a question about memory addressing, the reply came from
Richard Altwasser.

[Liz Tuddenham]

Phil Taylor <not...@ail.invalid> wrote:

> On 17 Sep 2021 at 20:50:37 BST, "Liz Tuddenham" <Liz Tuddenham> wrote:
>
> > Alan B <alanrich...@nospamgmail.com.here> wrote:
> >
> >> ... it was the influence of
> >> my late father that put me off buying any. He seemed to think his stuff was
> >> a bit gimmicky and probably didn’t work as advertised.
> >
> > He was right. A school friend worked for C.S. for a while and the
> > stories he told me were appaling.
> >
> > He was primarily a salesman with only a tenuous grasp of electronics or
> > the truth; to say his adverts were misleading would be a gross
> > understatement. Look back at some of his advertisments in the
> > electronics hobby magazines and you will be aghast at how he could have
> > ever got away with such claims.
>
> I think it's a bit unfair to say that he had a tenuous grip of electronics.

Perhaps I should have said he had a tenuous grip on electronic
engineering - or general engineering principles. He did not seem to
understand that you could not base a design on every component working
beyond its limits, just because you had found one that would work that
way.

[Graham J]

Liz Tuddenham wrote:

[snip]

>>
>> I think it's a bit unfair to say that he had a tenuous grip of electronics.
>
> Perhaps I should have said he had a tenuous grip on electronic
> engineering - or general engineering principles. He did not seem to
> understand that you could not base a design on every component working
> beyond its limits, just because you had found one that would work that
> way.
>

At a job interview it became clear that the potential employer's USP was
that his designs exploited features of a component's performance that
were outside the guaranteed figures quoted by its manufacturer. I
pointed out that this was not a recipe for mass production of a reliable
product but my comments were not understood - nor even welcomed.

I lost interest in the interview after that ...


--
Graham J

[Calum]

On 19/09/2021 15:00, TimH wrote:

> On 17 Sep 2021 at 8:50:37 pm BST, "Liz Tuddenham" <Liz Tuddenham> wrote:
>
>> The computers that brought him fame were left to others to design,
>> nearly all the projects that he was directly involved in turned into
>> fiascos.
>

> The obits I've seen don't mention any of the people behind the ZX81 and
> Spectrum; was there a Woz to his Jobs?

Sinclair's chief engineer was Jim Westwood:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Westwood

[Calum]

On 21/09/2021 13:50, Calum wrote:

> Sinclair's chief engineer was Jim Westwood:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Westwood

Short interview with him here:
<http://rk.nvg.ntnu.no/sinclair/sinclair/westwood_su0682.htm>

[Calum]

On 17/09/2021 15:45, Andy Hewitt wrote:

> I remember the ridiculing he got with the C5, but look where we are now,
> so many years later (OK, technology has caught up with the concept a bit
> more of course).

Yep, he'd always envisaged proper car-sized electric vehicles, but the
response to the C5 pretty much ended any hope he had of ever getting to
that stage.

[Ann Glaser]

Snit sock Michael Glasser AKA Snit wants to hurt the whole group: If he can't
be the focus here then no one will.

Not only did Peeler's question not refer to the "distro", it has not a thing
to do with open source. Snit sock Michael Glasser AKA Snit should seek professional
help.

At one point, he said a legitimate denizen was "obsessing" over him, which
was shown to be merely him posting to himself.

NNTP protocol is only inexpensive if your time has no value.

Why would Peeler need socks? He is the one who supplies facts for his side
of the "fights".


--
My Snoring Solution
https://www.perkinscoie.com/en/professionals/michael-glaser.html
https://swisscows.com/web?query=%22FUNCTIONALLY%20ILLITERATE%20FRAUD%22
https://www.bing.com/search?q=dustin+cook%3A+functionally+illiterate+fraud
Steve Carroll the Narcissistic Bigot

[Graham J]

I know that battery technology has moved on a little, but there's no
reason why a proper car-sized electric vehicle could not have been made
at the time - indeed could have been made in about 1900 with quite
acceptable performance. At the time electricity was not widely
available, but that came soon afterwards. A real missed opportunity.

By contrast IC engines in cars have improved very significantly, and a
whole fuel distribution system has been put in place just for them!

--
Graham J

[nospam]

In article <sicugt$fvo$1...@dont-email.me>, Graham J

<nob...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:

>
> I know that battery technology has moved on a little, but there's no
> reason why a proper car-sized electric vehicle could not have been made
> at the time - indeed could have been made in about 1900 with quite
> acceptable performance. At the time electricity was not widely
> available, but that came soon afterwards. A real missed opportunity.

there were electric vehicles back then. quite a few.

<https://archive.curbed.com/2017/9/22/16346892/electric-car-history-frit
chle>
By 1900, electric cars were so popular that New York City had a
fleet of electric taxis, and electric cars accounted for a third of
all vehicles on the road. People liked them because in many ways
early electric cars outperformed their gas competitors. Electric cars
didnšt have the smell, noise, or vibration found in steam or gasoline
cars. They were easier to operate, lacked a manual crank to start,
and didnšt require the same difficult-to-change gear system as gas
cars.
...
When Henry Ford introduced the mass-produced and gas-powered
Model T in 1908, it symbolized a death blow to the electric car. By
1912, a gasoline car cost only $650 while the average electric
roadster sold for $1,750. In 1912 Charles Kettering also invented the
first electric automobile starer. Effectively eliminating the hand
crank, Ketteringšs invention made the gas-powered auto even more
attractive to the same drivers who had preferred electric cars.

> By contrast IC engines in cars have improved very significantly, and a
> whole fuel distribution system has been put in place just for them!

yep, and an electric distribution system is currently being put in
place and fuel stations are reducing in number.

[Graham J]

nospam wrote:
[snip]
>
> <https://archive.curbed.com/2017/9/22/16346892/electric-car-history-frit
> chle>

[snip]

Thank you. That reference does seem familiar...


--
Graham J

[Graham J]

Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> Alan B <alanrich...@nospamgmail.com.here> wrote:
>
>> ... it was the influence of
>> my late father that put me off buying any. He seemed to think his stuff was

>> a bit gimmicky and probably didn’t work as advertised.

>
> He was right. A school friend worked for C.S. for a while and the
> stories he told me were appaling.
>
> He was primarily a salesman with only a tenuous grasp of electronics or
> the truth; to say his adverts were misleading would be a gross
> understatement. Look back at some of his advertisments in the
> electronics hobby magazines and you will be aghast at how he could have
> ever got away with such claims.
>
> The computers that brought him fame were left to others to design,
> nearly all the projects that he was directly involved in turned into
> fiascos.

One of the trade mags called him "Clyde Sinkler" ...


--
Graham J

[Calum]

On 21/09/2021 16:42, Graham J wrote:

> I know that battery technology has moved on a little, but there's no
> reason why a proper car-sized electric vehicle could not have been made
> at the time - indeed could have been made in about 1900 with quite
> acceptable performance.

I don't doubt it, but for whatever reason his preferred approach was to
focus on personal electric vehicles first and scale up from there. He'd
already had one go with the C1 project, which was abandoned a few years
previously.

[Ian McCall]

On 22 Sep 2021, Calum wrote
(in article <sifb3a$o3i$1...@gioia.aioe.org>):

It was money. He didn’t want to release the C5 and regarded it as an
experiment along the way. His investors -did- want to release it to make
money, and that’s the results.

It did, however, lead to a glorious caption-winning (newspaper or magazine)
cartoon of two beautifully dressed Edwardian people, a man in full suit and a
woman in full flowing gowns perched perfectly atop an elegent chaise long but
preparing to stand, and the winning caption was:

“If you must know, I’m going for a spin in my Sinclair C5”.

I wish to -god- I could remember which publication had that, because I would
love to find and frame that cartoon. It was either a broadsheet or a serious
weekly, which just made it funnier.

Thanks,
Ian

[Andy Hewitt]

Exactly why I got an Atari too.

--
Andy H

[Andy Hewitt]

Although electric did precede petrol IC road vehicles, early
implementations weren’t as easy to make portable. Underground trains were
electrified early on, and of course there were electrified trams around,
but they all had centralised power supplies and fixed cabling etc.

Of course things like milk floats and fork lift trucks have been battery
powered for years, but lead acid power was heavy and lacks capacity for
decent range.

I work in a factory that had been using lead acid powered fork lifts until
recently (now onto a full fleet of Lithium power). The amount of batteries
disposed of, specialised handling gear, huge chargers, volumes of acid and
distilled water, were immense.

And don’t forget they do give off gasses as well, hydrogen in enclosed
spaces isn’t good (I’ve seen one or two car batteries explode, and nearly
lost my hair a couple of times when I worked in the car business).

If we’d gone battery power back in the day, it would have been no more
sustainable, and certainly less practical.

--
Andy H

[Bruce Horrocks]

On 22/09/2021 14:41, Ian McCall wrote:
> It did, however, lead to a glorious caption-winning (newspaper or magazine)
> cartoon of two beautifully dressed Edwardian people, a man in full suit and a
> woman in full flowing gowns perched perfectly atop an elegent chaise long but
> preparing to stand, and the winning caption was:
>
> “If you must know, I’m going for a spin in my Sinclair C5”.
>
> I wish to -god- I could remember which publication had that, because I would
> love to find and frame that cartoon. It was either a broadsheet or a serious
> weekly, which just made it funnier.

Sounds like the Freelance Informer - a trade mag for freelance IT people
back in the day, now long gone.

They used to run a caption competition on their cover in which they
reprinted a long out of copyright Edwardian cartoon and invited
suggestions for a new caption.

After a while they switched from the Edwardian cartoons to contemporary
news photos. One I particularly remember coincided with the notorious
IR35 change to the tax rules, which affected just about every IT
contractor in those days and was very contentious.

The picture was of David and Victoria Beckham soon after their marriage
and the winning entry was him saying "IR35?" with her replying "Nah
David, you ain't even 25."


--
Bruce Horrocks
Surrey, England

[Graham J]

Andy Hewitt wrote:

[snip]

>
> If we’d gone battery power back in the day, it would have been no more
> sustainable, and certainly less practical.

I suspect that if the same amount of ingenuity had been applied to
battery technology starting in about 1900 as was applied to IC engines,
we would have seen lithium batteries by about the 1930's. Is there
anthing about lithium for batteries that requires some other post-1970's
knowledge?

I see the issue about maintenance and consumables - but largely that is
traded against initial cost - lithium batteries being about 10x more
expensive for potentially 5x the specific energy. The chargers must be
rated according to the total power stored - so for a given set of
vehicles I would expect them to be similar between lead-acid and lithium
- unless there is a marked difference in storage efficiency

More worrying is that probably there isn't enough easily available
lithium to match the requirement for all vehicles to be battery driven.
Lithium could at least be recycled into new batteries and this may
already be competitive with the cost of extracting it from raw materials
such as seawater.

In the long term the same is true of oil - it will run out. But the
immediate problem is global warming from burning the oil.

So the only sensible resolution is to reduce the need for travel and
transport. Sorry, Clive - the C5 and its like were always going to be a
dead-end



--
Graham J

[Liz Tuddenham]

Graham J <nob...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:

[...]

> Lithium could at least be recycled into new batteries and this may
> already be competitive with the cost of extracting it from raw materials
> such as seawater.

I wonder what the environmental impact of the recycling will be?

[Dustic Cook the Fucntionally Illiterate Fraud]

Your system will crawl while downloading the mass of flood posts.

BTW, I've already pointed out that his use of "cult-like" to describe
honest people is name calling, since he's likening them to Mac users.

Bravo, Chris, you are now living rent-free inside Snit sock Meat's beady
little brain. LOL

Snit sock Meat says I'm not 'able' to call out their crap, and they aren't
going to pay the price for any prior nonsense they caused. Instead, I'm
expected to forget it all, and let them start from scratch so they can
just restart the nonsense all over again, while they accept no responsibility
for what they say and do in here towards myself?


--
Eight things to never feed your dog
https://www.google.com/search?q=Dustin+Cook+the+functional+illiterate+fraud
https://search.givewater.com/serp?q=Steve+Petruzzellis+%22NARCISSISTIC+BIGOT%22
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=steve+carroll+narcissistic+bigot
Narcissistic Bigot Steve Carroll

[Andy Hewitt]

Graham J <nob...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
> Andy Hewitt wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> If we’d gone battery power back in the day, it would have been no more
>> sustainable, and certainly less practical.
>
> I suspect that if the same amount of ingenuity had been applied to
> battery technology starting in about 1900 as was applied to IC engines,
> we would have seen lithium batteries by about the 1930's. Is there
> anthing about lithium for batteries that requires some other post-1970's
> knowledge?

Maybe, but I guess the same can be said for most things.

> I see the issue about maintenance and consumables - but largely that is
> traded against initial cost - lithium batteries being about 10x more
> expensive for potentially 5x the specific energy. The chargers must be
> rated according to the total power stored - so for a given set of
> vehicles I would expect them to be similar between lead-acid and lithium
> - unless there is a marked difference in storage efficiency

Not necessarily, it might also be down to the waveform too - I seem to
remember that was why you couldn’t use NiCd chargers on NiMh batteries. I’d
suspect the same reason probably exists for Lithium too. There’s also
usually an optimum charge rate depending on type too, lead/acid we’re best
charged at low rates (1A/hr was usual, 3A/hr was a high rate).

> More worrying is that probably there isn't enough easily available
> lithium to match the requirement for all vehicles to be battery driven.

Indeed, I’ve seen an article (last year I think), that suggest there simply
isn’t enough lithium available to provide a complete switch to EVs.

> Lithium could at least be recycled into new batteries and this may
> already be competitive with the cost of extracting it from raw materials
> such as seawater.

Lead could also be recycled, and earlier batteries had reusable casings.
Advancement has not always improved reusability

> In the long term the same is true of oil - it will run out. But the
> immediate problem is global warming from burning the oil.

Well, not just oil, but burning anything into the atmosphere, it doesn’t
need to be oil, anything that produces CO2 or methane is bad. Coal, wood
pellets, or household waste etc, if you don’t control the emissions, they
add to the problem too.

> So the only sensible resolution is to reduce the need for travel and
> transport. Sorry, Clive - the C5 and its like were always going to be a
> dead-end

Indeed so, I’ve always argued that we need to both reduce the need to
travel (work from home is a good start), or improve public transport to be
economical and convenient to the passengers, so they are encouraged to
ditch individual vehicles.

You would have thought the Internet would have sorted the first of those a
long time ago, but it still seems that people want to sit in an office
miles from home, to sit at a computer - even now!

--
Andy H

[Andy Hewitt]

Liz Tuddenham <l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Graham J <nob...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [...]
>> Lithium could at least be recycled into new batteries and this may
>> already be competitive with the cost of extracting it from raw materials
>> such as seawater.
>
> I wonder what the environmental impact of the recycling will be?

Indeed, that’s all too often a factor that’s forgotten about.

--
Andy H

[Graeme Wall]

Not everybody spends all their time behind a computer.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

[Andy Hewitt]

Graeme Wall <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 23/09/2021 17:38, Andy Hewitt wrote:
>> Graham J <nob...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Andy Hewitt wrote:
>>
>> You would have thought the Internet would have sorted the first of those a
>> long time ago, but it still seems that people want to sit in an office
>> miles from home, to sit at a computer - even now!
>>
>
> Not everybody spends all their time behind a computer.

I didn’t say ‘everybody’!

It was just an example of ways to reduce commuting.

--
Andy H

[Graham J]

Andy Hewitt wrote:

[snip]

>
>> In the long term the same is true of oil - it will run out. But the
>> immediate problem is global warming from burning the oil.
>
> Well, not just oil, but burning anything into the atmosphere, it doesn’t
> need to be oil, anything that produces CO2 or methane is bad. Coal, wood
> pellets, or household waste etc, if you don’t control the emissions, they
> add to the problem too.

Agreed about coal, in that it is a fossil fuel representing carbon
sequestered millions of years ago.

In principle burning wood ought to be carbon-neutral, in that the carbon
dioxide it generates is simply that sequestered while it was growing
quite recently, so neutral over a timescale of about 100 years. Of
course this is only true if more trees are planted to replace those
harvested.

At present we also have to plant sufficient trees to make up for all the
fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) already extracted from the ground.

Rather than being burnt, household and other forms of biological waste
would be better processed anaerobically to generate methane which could
then be stored and/or fed into the existing gas system. This could
include farm (animal manure) and industrial waste (wood, cardboard, &
paper packaging, etc.), as well as dead people (no need to waste gas by
fuelling crematoria). There's already a system for doing this; it is
sewage treatment plant. As with wood it is carbon-neutral over the
lifetime of the biological material. I've not seen any research that
shows how much methane could be produced this way; but I suspect it
could meet a good proportion of the domestic gas requirement for
heating, thereby removing the need to extract gas from north sea
oilfields. Methane is also a good industrial fuel for processes
requiring controlled heating.

Of course, nuclear energy is potentially the worst contributor to global
warming. In essence it converts a small amount of material directly to
a large amoung of heat, with electricity being an almost inconsequential
by-product - the process is about 30% efficient. It therefore adds
directly to global temperature rather than the "warm blanket" effect of
carbon dioxide which simply reduces loss into space.

By contrast electricity generated from solar and wind is thermally
neutral - existing energy from the sun is simply converted to another
form more useful to us humans. There's no nett increase in temperature.



--
Graham J

[Graham J]

Ray wrote:

> On 23 Sep 2021 at 17:38:40 BST, "Andy Hewitt" <thewil...@icloud.com> wrote:
>
>> Indeed so, I’ve always argued that we need to both reduce the need to
>> travel (work from home is a good start), or improve public transport to be
>> economical and convenient to the passengers, so they are encouraged to
>> ditch individual vehicles.
>

> I used to be in the freight business and people often couldn't understand why
> there were so many HGV's on the roads, when there are trains.
> The answer is always the same. Much freight is moved by rail but there are no
> train stations next door to supermarkets.
> Everything you buy in a shop got there by road transport.
> Same goes for public transport. Our requirements have changed over the years
> from living next door to the factory, and local shops having everything we
> need.


However, many train stations are in city centres, where (at least until
covid) many people either live or work, sometimes even within easy
walking distance. There's clearly an opportunity to build shopping
facilities in and around train stations, and to have a rail freight
system capable of handling multiple small consignments rather than
simply concentrating on whole trains of stuff such as aggregates or coal.

Potentially rail freight is much quicker - remember Red Star parcels? -
send something from one city and collect it in another in a matter of
hours ...

--
Graham J

[Liz Tuddenham]

Graham J <nob...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:

[...]
>

> By contrast electricity generated from solar and wind is thermally
> neutral - existing energy from the sun is simply converted to another
> form more useful to us humans. There's no nett increase in temperature.

The electricity is thermally neutral, but the environmental cost of
building the equipment to harvest it certainly isn't.

[Steve Petruzzellis - frelwizzen]

Can you get a little less dense? Everyone is vallor -- the oldest gag
in the book.

Pothead obviously has a LOT of wisdom to demonstrate and he apparently
wants to write tutorials. Regrettably this is I think the least appropriate
group for doing that because the majority of response is screaming, trickery,
and other bullshit. Why would Pothead need 'helpers'? He is the one who
provides facts for his side of the "debates". One guy reported him years
ago. As expected, it did not a thing to stop the chowderhead. Sadly this
is what results when acutely low self esteem takes over vallor's worldview.

So, in vallor's 'view', that a file has been made public is "confirmation"
that Pothead built it now?


--
What Every Entrepreneur Must Know!!
https://www.bing.com/search?q=%22FUNCTIONAL%20ILLITERATE%20FRAUD%22
Dustin Cook is a functionally illiterate fraud

[Stefen Carroll - frelwizzen]

On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 12:36:44 AM UTC-7, Graham J wrote:

For most I'd simply suggest the comment is suspicious. However, given
that it's Sockboy I would forget that doubt and go straight to 'drug-
induced delusion' because that's most of what Sockboy does. Meaning no
evidence is required to deem it dishonest. At times, fancy is more valuable
than facts. Do you have a Network+ certification?

The cult-like herd's developed an AI system with (I'd guess) Pseudo-
Context Free Grammar to produce posts which are not unlike those from
Steven Carroll's.

BTW, I've already shown that his use of "herd" to describe COLA denizens
is mud slinging, since he's likening them to pack of wolves.

--
My Snoring Solution
https://swisscows.com/web?query=%22narcissistic%20bigot%22
Dustin Cook: Functionally Illiterate Fraud

[Ian McCall]

On 24 Sep 2021, Liz Tuddenham wrote
(in article<1pg0b5v.ogf6adv4j8maN%l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>):

> Graham J <nob...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [...]
> >
> > By contrast electricity generated from solar and wind is thermally
> > neutral - existing energy from the sun is simply converted to another
> > form more useful to us humans. There's no nett increase in temperature.
>
> The electricity is thermally neutral, but the environmental cost of
> building the equipment to harvest it certainly isn’t.

Again, lifecycle studies long done on this. The payback time is currently
around 6-8 months on, e.g. a wind turbine.
<https://www.newscientist.com/lastword/mg24332461-400-what-is-the-carbon-
payback-period-for-a-wind-turbine/>

Cheers,
Ian

[Liz Tuddenham]

Curious. A few years ago a very large wind turbine was installed on the
Mendips near Nedge Hill. They had an open day, during which we ilicited
the fact that it would take 21 years to recover its costs, based on the
assumption that it would need no major repairs during that period and
that the government subsidy would double the following year (it didn't).

I could understand a minor improvement in that figure with cheaper
materials and the economies of scale, but a 300 x improvement seems a
bit unlikely.

[Ian McCall]

On 24 Sep 2021, Liz Tuddenham wrote

(in article<1pg0uev.eutdl11un66o0N%l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>):

> Ian McCall <i...@eruvia.org> wrote:
>
> > On 24 Sep 2021, Liz Tuddenham wrote
> > (in article<1pg0b5v.ogf6adv4j8maN%l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>):
> >
> > > Graham J <nob...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > By contrast electricity generated from solar and wind is thermally
> > > > neutral - existing energy from the sun is simply converted to another
> > > > form more useful to us humans. There's no nett increase in temperature.
> > >
> > > The electricity is thermally neutral, but the environmental cost of

> > > building the equipment to harvest it certainly isn’t.

> >
> > Again, lifecycle studies long done on this. The payback time is currently
> > around 6-8 months on, e.g. a wind turbine.
> > <https://www.newscientist.com/lastword/mg24332461-400-what-is-the-carbon-
> > payback-period-for-a-wind-turbine/>
>
> Curious. A few years ago a very large wind turbine was installed on the
> Mendips near Nedge Hill. They had an open day, during which we ilicited
> the fact that it would take 21 years to recover its costs, based on the
> assumption that it would need no major repairs during that period and
> that the government subsidy would double the following year (it didn't).
>
> I could understand a minor improvement in that figure with cheaper
> materials and the economies of scale, but a 300 x improvement seems a
> bit unlikely.

Ah - economic vs carbon. Lifecycle of carbon is what I was addressing.
Lifecycle of money is whatever market value someone dreams up at the time.

It’s down a lot then - about four years ago it used to be 70 years payback
economically.

Cheers,
Ian

[Richard Tobin]

In article <1pg0uev.eutdl11un66o0N%l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>,

Liz Tuddenham <l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:

>> Again, lifecycle studies long done on this. The payback time is currently
>> around 6-8 months on, e.g. a wind turbine.
>> <https://www.newscientist.com/lastword/mg24332461-400-what-is-the-carbon-
>> payback-period-for-a-wind-turbine/>

>Curious. A few years ago a very large wind turbine was installed on the
>Mendips near Nedge Hill. They had an open day, during which we ilicited
>the fact that it would take 21 years to recover its costs, based on the
>assumption that it would need no major repairs during that period and
>that the government subsidy would double the following year (it didn't).
>
>I could understand a minor improvement in that figure with cheaper
>materials and the economies of scale, but a 300 x improvement seems a
>bit unlikely.

21 years is not 300 times 6-8 months!

-- Richard

[STALKING_TARGET_28]

Carroll, 4/10/2015 4:04 PM:
-----
Cute trick... To the guy who hacked my Google account.
-----
No details. Seems to treat it as a joke.

Carroll, 4/10/2015 5:02 PM, <https://goo.gl/51rsmZ>:
-----
Email Hacking Is A Serious Crime
-----
No longer "cute"... now it is a serious crime. OK.

Carroll, 4/10/2015 5:07 PM:
By now he is posting more links to how serious this crime against him is.

Carroll, 4/10/2015 7:25 PM:
-----
I didn't write that.
-----
Now he is denying the posts from his own account. OK, he was "hacked".
Someone else posted this. Hard to hack a gmail account given how they use
two-step authentication and someone would need access to his phone or the
like... but at least POSSIBLE.

Even then, though, if someone tries to guess your password Google alerts
you and lets you know what IP address and other info. I know because someone
in a Denver internet cafe has tried mine on several occasions.

Google even forces you to change your password when this happens. Very
hard to hack these days.

So already Carroll's story is unlikely.

But let us accept it... someone somehow hacked his account bypassing the
two step verification. This person did not, however, change his password
and Carroll posted within an hour of the "hacker". Before that, unless he
is an idiot, he changed his password and the "hacker" was locked out. The
"hacker" got one post in.

But Carroll could not leave his story there.

Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:36 PM, <https://goo.gl/NJ2bMH>:
-----
Someone hacked my frelwizzen gmail acct so, for the time being,
don't trust anything from it.
-----
Wait. What? Even after Carroll figured out this "hacker" who was too stupid
to change his password had broken into his account and Carroll *surely*
must have changed his own password, he is saying the "hacker" might still
have access. Might be able to break Google's two-step verification process
*again*.

This is *very* unlikely... to the point of being unbelievable.

Even worse for him: he notes which of his accounts he is claiming was hacked
- but in the past he has denied even using the other accounts! LOL! He screwed
up and made it very clear he has multiple accounts and felt the need to
note which one. He made the same mistake in the next quote where he speaks
of WHICH of his gmail accounts he is claiming was hacked. Oops! If he only
posts with one there would be no need to specify which one!

He has completely screwed up in his game to pretend he posts with only
one gmail account. Completely idiotic of him, too!

Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:38 PM, <https://goo.gl/YA7gMO>:
-----
Some mentally deficient child hacked my 'frelwizzen' gmail account
so I may have to kill it. For the time being, don't assume
anything that's coming from it was written by me.
-----
He is still saying that he may have to kill the account instead of just
changing the password which anyone with half a brain would have already
done (and Google *forces* you to do when someone even tries to hack your
account... I know because someone in the Denver area has tried to hack mine
multiple times... likely Carroll but I have no proof of this). And he specifies
WHICH of his accounts! He is directly admitting he uses more than one account!
His claim of being "forged" with his second account is a lie. Proved.

Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:40 PM, <https://goo.gl/j6yCuV>:
-----
Looks like it's still being hacked despite me taking precautions,
I may have to kill the account.
-----
What makes it look like its still being hacked? And what precautions other
than changing the two-step verification options does he need? And how would
someone bypass this... is he really on the NSA watch list? Seems you would
need someone at that level to be doing this. He watches too much TV where
they computer hackers spend thirty seconds and bypass all security.

Just nonsense.

Carroll, 4/11/2015 12:05 PM: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.os.linux.advocacy/5QXJHXq8d1k/ujK_-
8ZYUnwJ
-----
Apparently Google is having issues with their accounts to the
point where they're ready to undertake some additional measures.
-----
But, of course, no evidence of this... and what measures? They already
alert users if someone else tries to guess your password and use two-step
authentication and even force you to make a new password if it seems someone
is trying to hack you.
-----
They're now involving several federal agencies in things they
didn't bother with previously in an effort to deal with people who
hack into accounts. They've asked me to leave the account open.
-----
So now Google is letting Carroll know how they are handling these things
- and asking him to leave a *hacked* account open... one someone can be
using to steal his identity. No. This does not pass the sniff test in any
way. Even if they were doing this for some bizarre sting operation, which
is in itself far fetched, they would have told Carroll to not make it public
information so the hacker would not know.

Just insanity. His own story is so idiotic and full of idiotic claims it
simply cannot be true. Carroll uses his secondary Google account - the one
he accesses via Tor and is referred to as his Tor account - to have plausible
deniability for things he says there. Now he is working to do the same thing
with his main account. Maybe Carroll read a report like this: <http://cnnmon.ie/111QeT8>
[money.com]. If so he missed the part where they note if you are *really*
hacked, which is rare, the hackers change your password and lock you out.
Why would they not?
-----
There's some new legislation that will help them deal with this
issue... which probably means more BS for us ;)
-----
Yes, new legislation to make sure Carroll does not have to deal with "hackers"
and "forgers" which do not even exist.

The funny part is, this happened shortly after someone in the Denver area,
likely Carroll, tried to guess *my* passwords and they did it from an Internet
café (Google tells you the IP and that can be used to trace back).

My guess: Carroll is the one who was working to guess my password and figured
this new lie of his was a good way to deny his own words even more than
he does with his Tor account *and* a way to make it so if I had talked about
him trying to hack my account he could say I was just copying his comments.
"Proving" I read his posts... which for now I am to see how absurd his lies
are. :)

Carroll, 4/11/2015 12:25 PM:
-----
The person who hacked into my Gmail acct. changed the wording on
this post. I've removed the others but Google asked me to leave
one standing for some odd reason.
-----
Here Carroll claims the hacker changed the wording on a post of his from
*before* he had even claimed he was hacked. So this hacker not only can
*post* for him but edit his old Usenet posts.

I call utter bullshit on this. Out and out lie from Carroll. And then Carroll
says Google asked him to not delete these "hacked" posts... this is nonsense.
Why would Google want him to leave forged posts in the public and why would
Google not just keep their own copy? Even Carroll notes it is for "some
odd reason" - yeah, because Carroll is telling stories that make *no* sense
at all.

Carroll is lying. Maybe there is some kernel of truth to his stories? Even
if so - and frankly it is unlikely he will ever show any evidence to back
his claims - the details he is posting are absurd.

Carroll, 4/11/2015 2:10 PM:
-----
And he's so high he thinks people still have to manually enter all
their passwords in whenever they want to use anything that's been
password protected ;)
-----
Nobody had suggested, hinted, implied, or said anything like what Carroll
says they did.

Maybe his story will be someone stole his laptop (or mobile device) and
he had his passwords saved? If so why not have the device deactivated remotely?
Why has he not said anything about this?

My guess: he realizes he screwed up when trying to guess my passwords and
is now building a story so he can say his computer was stolen and it was
not him. Or, LOL, maybe someone broke into his house and did it.

This unknown hacker knew he was obsessed with me and carried on acting
like him. Makes complete sense, eh?

Carroll, 4/12/2015 8:45 AM, <https://goo.gl/KMf4pa>:
-----
The first one, that has since been deleted. My bad for having such
a feeble password on this account.
-----
Now he suggests it was merely from someone guessing his password - which
contradicts his above insinuations that it could have been from a saved
password on a device he had.

His story changes with the telling.

But as noted, when someone tries to guess your password Google has ways
to deal with it. I know - Carroll or someone in his neck of the woods recently
tried it with me.

Carroll, 4/12/2015 9:29 AM:
-----
The account in question here is a gmail account. Contrary to
Snit's delusions, I have no idea what a TOR account looks like but
it's a good bet it doesn't bear much of a resemblance to a gmail
account.
-----
Here Carroll plays stupid and pretends that if when he or anyone uses the
Tor browser *Carroll* pointed to this somehow changes the way the gmail
interface looks. Um, no. Worse it might do is make Google think you are
in another country and you would have to set it back to English. But the
basic look stays the same.

He is playing stupid and pretending to not know how the Tor browser he
pointed to works. Just idiotic of him.
-----
That idiocy aside, I love how Snit has repeatedly, for years,
feigned ignorance about gmail accounts, yet, he keeps disclosing
info that proves he knows about them. Some fools do stuff like
this when they believe people are as stupid as the fool needs them
to be ;)
-----
I do not think Google would allow you to edit your Usenet / groups posts
but I do not use it much and do not know for sure. Seems absurd that they
would... and others have now said they do not. But given how I do not use
Google Groups for posting why would I know the details of their system for
certain?

Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:47 PM:
-----
Your obsession with me is insane. Working with Google I now have
proof you and ebot worked together to hack me. Clever. If I press
charges against you I have to also include her so you remain safe
for now.

Do not think this is over.
-----

No evidence of working with Google on this (and all out and out lies).
Carroll is making public threats based on lies.

Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:50 PM:
-----
I promised COLA your trolling days were over so you contacted ebot
and worked with her to hack my account. I might not be able to get
your ass handed to you in court over this but wait until your boss
at Yavapai College contacts you.

Maybe you should make that call first. Ask about your comments on
incest.

See if those can not be quoted.
-----

Direct lies and threats by Carroll.

Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:51 PM:
-----
You went too far this time Snit. We have trolled each other for
years but to contact ebot and get her to help you hack my account
was over a line.
-----

A complete and utter lie from Carroll.

Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:52 PM:
-----
The above post is Snit hacking my account.
-----
A complete and utter lie... more false accusations from him.

Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:53 PM:
-----
You edited those posts when you hacked my account. Do not trust
anything from my frelwizzen account now that Snit and ebot have
access to it.
-----
More unsupported claims and attacks by Carroll.

Carroll, 4/16/2015 8:56 PM:
-----
Working with Google I now have proof Snit and ebot hacked the
account. Many of the older posts were edited. You can see evidence
of this by Snit pointing to "old" posts which have been modified to
say I claimed I was his "personal newsgroup rapist", a phrase I
have never used.
-----

No evidence of Carroll working with Google. No evidence of any older posts
being edited.

--
"You'll notice how quickly he loses interest when everything is about him.
He clearly wants the attention"
Steve Carroll, making the dumbest comment ever uttered.

[Andy Hewitt]

On 24/09/2021 08:26, Graham J wrote:
> Andy Hewitt wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>>> In the long term the same is true of oil - it will run out.  But the
>>> immediate problem is global warming from burning the oil.
>>
>> Well, not just oil, but burning anything into the atmosphere, it doesn’t
>> need to be oil, anything that produces CO2 or methane is bad. Coal, wood
>> pellets, or household waste etc, if you don’t control the emissions, they
>> add to the problem too.
>
>
> Agreed about coal, in that it is a fossil fuel representing carbon
> sequestered millions of years ago.
>
> In principle burning wood ought to be carbon-neutral, in that the carbon
> dioxide it generates is simply that sequestered while it was growing
> quite recently, so neutral over a timescale of about 100 years.  Of
> course this is only true if more trees are planted to replace those
> harvested.

Maybe, although as I understand it now, trees are only carbon neutral
throughout their own lifecycle. All the planting does is add to the
filtering effect they have on air quality.

> At present we also have to plant sufficient trees to make up for all the
> fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) already extracted from the ground.

See above.

> Rather than being burnt, household and other forms of biological waste
> would be better processed anaerobically to generate methane which could
> then be stored and/or fed into the existing gas system.  This could
> include farm (animal manure) and industrial waste (wood, cardboard, &
> paper packaging, etc.), as well as dead people (no need to waste gas by
> fuelling crematoria).  There's already a system for doing this; it is
> sewage treatment plant.  As with wood it is carbon-neutral over the
> lifetime of the biological material.  I've not seen any research that
> shows how much methane could be produced this way; but I suspect it
> could meet a good proportion of the domestic gas requirement for
> heating, thereby removing the need to extract gas from north sea
> oilfields.  Methane is also a good industrial fuel for processes
> requiring controlled heating.

Yes indeed, I work in a large food factory where a lot of the by-product
is sent for anaerobic processing. Indeed, one of our other factories
actually runs itself off an anaerobic swamp they have available, and
with a wind turbine, has made itself carbon neutral.

> Of course, nuclear energy is potentially the worst contributor to global
> warming.  In essence it converts a small amount of material directly to
> a large amoung of heat, with electricity being an almost inconsequential
> by-product - the process is about 30% efficient.  It therefore adds
> directly to global temperature rather than the "warm blanket" effect of
> carbon dioxide which simply reduces loss into space.

Is that including the new power stations they're building? I suspect
they've probably found ways to capture more of the the loss by now.

I remember reading an article that suggests had steam trains been left
to develop properly, they could actually be more efficient than anything
else we have.

> By contrast electricity generated from solar and wind is thermally
> neutral - existing energy from the sun is simply converted to another
> form more useful to us humans.  There's no nett increase in temperature.

Are you sure about that? As I understand it, solar panels work from
light intensity, not heat capture, but do get very hot. Just a thought
of course, I don't actually know all the science involved.

But, one big thing that gets forgotten, is all the raw materials that
are used to manufacture all these other devices are often not accounted
for in arguments. Much of the precious metals and exotic materials are
excavated in third world countries that are either destroying habitat to
obtain them, and/or creating a lot of pollution using antiquated machinery.

I spoke to a guy years ago that saw the entire manufacturing process for
a catalytic converter for a car, and noted it takes 15 tonnes of earth
to find 1oz (25g) of precious metals used in them. To make matters
worse, that particular device is designed to convert gasses into more
CO2, and it never neutralises the pollution created during manufacturing.

All of the electrical devices that are supposed to be saving the planet
are perhaps not quite as good as expected. They'll all be going through
a similar manufacturing process, where the gold, silver, lithium,
copper, iron, silicon, and plastics still, etc., will have to be got
from somewhere, and transported halfway round the world to wherever
they're manufactured, then often component parts might be transported to
a final assembly plant, from where the products are transported again to
the consumer.

I'm not saying we should just continue using traditional methods, but I
don't believe we've found the ultimate solution yet either.

IMHO, we also need to be less wasteful. Do we need to upgrade/change our
phones, TVs, cars, as much as we do? Almost certainly not. Personally I
tend to run things to the end of their useful lifecycle, I generally buy
used phones. Indeed, I've just bought a 'refurbished' iPhone 8 to
replace an iPhone 6S that was flagging, my iMac is 8 years old and still
doing an OK job (although I have bought an iPad Pro to eventually
replace it, which I intend to keep as long as possible).

Is throwing away a perfectly functional item an efficient way to save
the planet? That item has already caused pollution in its manufacture,
does a newer, perhaps slightly 'greener' replacement, actually recover
the different there? Do we need new models of phones every damn year -
after all, the performance and feature 'improvements' are, in reality,
only incremental.

We need to find ways to consume less, in my lifetime the world
population has doubled, and is still set to grow by a few billion more
before the expected end of my life. I can only see that we're
tail-chasing, and society needs to change its attitude to consumer goods
dramatically.


--
Andy H

[Liz Tuddenham]

Whoops! Sorry, maths was never my strong point.

...but it's still a big difference.

[Jeff Gaines]

On 25/09/2021 in message
<1pg26q9.1kn7kr31r4nou6N%l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> Liz Tuddenham
wrote:

>>21 years is not 300 times 6-8 months!
>
>Whoops! Sorry, maths was never my strong point.
>
>...but it's still a big difference.

Counting 1, 2, lots is much easier than remembering all those pesky
numbers from 3 upwards :-)

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
The true meaning of life is to plant trees under whose shade you do not
expect to sit.

[Ian McCall]

On 23 Sep 2021, Andy Hewitt wrote
(in article <siiaih$9r6$2...@dont-email.me>):

(Seems I hit a posting error - my reply isn’t showing up here so in case
you see something from me on this multiple times it’s me that’s got the
issue, not anyone else)

It’s not forgotten about. It’s heavily studied and well understood. In
fact electric car batteries are lasting longer than the original predictions
and many recycling facilities are still waiting for any significant volume to
show up.

Here’s the most recent study:
<https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/07/electric-cars-have-much-lower-life-
cycle-emissions-new-study-confirms/>

...but there are many more, including a 2018 EU one. It’s well studied and
very much understood.

Cheers,
Ian

[Andy Hewitt]

On 25/09/2021 13:30, Ian McCall wrote:
> On 23 Sep 2021, Andy Hewitt wrote
> (in article <siiaih$9r6$2...@dont-email.me>):
>
>> Liz Tuddenham<l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:

>>> I wonder what the environmental impact of the recycling will be?
>>
>> Indeed, that’s all too often a factor that’s forgotten about.
>
> (Seems I hit a posting error - my reply isn’t showing up here so in case
> you see something from me on this multiple times it’s me that’s got the
> issue, not anyone else)

Nothing showing here.

> It’s not forgotten about. It’s heavily studied and well understood. In
> fact electric car batteries are lasting longer than the original predictions
> and many recycling facilities are still waiting for any significant volume to
> show up.
>
> Here’s the most recent study:
> <https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/07/electric-cars-have-much-lower-life-
> cycle-emissions-new-study-confirms/>
>
> ...but there are many more, including a 2018 EU one. It’s well studied and
> very much understood.

Interesting, thanks.

I suppose that also shows that there is still a fair bit of guesswork
involved too. Real world use doesn't always tally with the theoretical
stuff :-).

But, it still doesn't answer the issue of limited resources, it's only
relevant until supplies of the raw materials diminish.

We need to look at completely renewable/unlimited resources, and/or ways
to recover completely any that are recyclable that is practical and
economical.

I know from our waste/co-product management where I work that it's not
easy, or cheap, to dispose of unwanted produce. Even product that is
usable, only ends up being cost neutral at best (usually due to immense
haulage costs against waste product). It's also getting harder to find
anyone that wants any of it too.

--
Andy H

[Chris]

That's for a land-based one. Off-shore ones take a bit longer. Can't lay my
finger on the details at the moment.

[Ian McCall]

On 25 Sep 2021, Andy Hewitt wrote
(in article <sinlg8$k7u$1...@dont-email.me>):

> But, it still doesn't answer the issue of limited resources, it's only
> relevant until supplies of the raw materials diminish.

I mean...it does. The recycling levels for a battery are unprecedented, and
‘rare’ earth metals aren’t actually rare - just inconveniently
distributed. The heat death of the universe might eventually occur, but for a
really, really long time this -does- address the materials issue.

I think some of the more interesting stuff now is moving on to look at
what’s left. I like the vegan ‘leather’ movements for example, although
I’ not vegan myself. I like the progress on carbon-free steel production.
There are people starting to study the impact of particulate matter pollution
through tyre wear. The issue of an drive unit is now honestly a solved one,
but what’s the William Gibson quote? “The future has arrived — it’s
just not evenly distributed yet”.

I’ve been going through this recently - I’m hoping to be fully off fossil
stuff in about two to three years. Solar panels next, potentially with house
battery though not certain. Most difficult choice recently was a new fire -
I’ve been struggling with this one and it seems every answer is
questionable in some way. Electric...but as good as the top-end ones are
they’re still not quite the same, and heat output is low due to domestic
wiring limitations. Gas -seems- cleaner watt for watt than, say, wood but
only if you completely ignore all externalities about how the gas actually
got to you. If you take those into account, gas is suddenly a full order of
magnitude worse. So wood then - but aha, what about particulate matter
pollution?
”. In the end I’ve plumbed for an SIA-approved wood burner, which meets
all the 2022 restrictions to be vastly more efficient and clean than older
ones. This will still let me get off fossil fuels but...yeah, I accept the
lack of perfection available in any choice made here.

Cheers,
Ian

[Andy Hewitt]

On 26/09/2021 08:04, Ian McCall wrote:
> On 25 Sep 2021, Andy Hewitt wrote
> (in article <sinlg8$k7u$1...@dont-email.me>):
>
>> But, it still doesn't answer the issue of limited resources, it's only
>> relevant until supplies of the raw materials diminish.
>
> I mean...it does. The recycling levels for a battery are unprecedented, and
> ‘rare’ earth metals aren’t actually rare - just inconveniently
> distributed. The heat death of the universe might eventually occur, but for a
> really, really long time this -does- address the materials issue.

Hmm, yes, but I have a sceptical mindset. There are a lot of assumptions
in play. Like assuming that all batteries (or any recyclable product
come to that) will actually end up being recycled. Lots of stuff we
dispose of (and I don't just mean us here in the UK or 'first world'
countries, I mean globally) doesn't end up in the right places, and many
resources are simply removed for as much profit as possible.

> I think some of the more interesting stuff now is moving on to look at
> what’s left. I like the vegan ‘leather’ movements for example, although
> I’ not vegan myself. I like the progress on carbon-free steel production.
> There are people starting to study the impact of particulate matter pollution
> through tyre wear. The issue of an drive unit is now honestly a solved one,
> but what’s the William Gibson quote? “The future has arrived — it’s
> just not evenly distributed yet”.

Historically that's always been the case, wealth and technology has
never been evenly distributed in all of history. Personally I don't hold
much hope that we'll ever get to a Gene Roddenberry ideal world.

There's still too much to achieve, and too seemingly too little time to
achieve much of it.

Of course we're making some inroads in some areas, but generally, we
still appear to be pumping more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere
than ever.

> I’ve been going through this recently - I’m hoping to be fully off fossil
> stuff in about two to three years. Solar panels next, potentially with house
> battery though not certain. Most difficult choice recently was a new fire -
> I’ve been struggling with this one and it seems every answer is
> questionable in some way. Electric...but as good as the top-end ones are
> they’re still not quite the same, and heat output is low due to domestic
> wiring limitations. Gas -seems- cleaner watt for watt than, say, wood but
> only if you completely ignore all externalities about how the gas actually
> got to you. If you take those into account, gas is suddenly a full order of
> magnitude worse. So wood then - but aha, what about particulate matter
> pollution?
> ”. In the end I’ve plumbed for an SIA-approved wood burner, which meets
> all the 2022 restrictions to be vastly more efficient and clean than older
> ones. This will still let me get off fossil fuels but...yeah, I accept the
> lack of perfection available in any choice made here.

I suppose it depends on your priorities and opinions. Particulates tend
to be more localised pollutants, and gasses go out into the general
atmosphere to add to the global problem.

In all cases we're consuming and expelling waste somewhere. While we're
manufacturing and using products, and using energy, as we are, something
is being used up, and something has to be disposed of.

For sure, it's being reduced in specific areas, but the global signs are
showing that overall we're doing nowhere near enough.

However, we have 7 billion (or has it got to 8 now?) people to
re-educate and provide with alternative ways of living. The wealthiest
and most powerful few of those have the greatest influence and the power
to actually fix things, but also have the most to lose if they start
sacrificing to get there. Until we can find a way to stop greed for
wealth and power, then we'll only ever be 'peeing into the wind'.

--
Andy H

[Graham J]

Ian McCall wrote:

[snip]

> ”. In the end I’ve plumbed for an SIA-approved wood burner, which meets
> all the 2022 restrictions to be vastly more efficient and clean than older
> ones. This will still let me get off fossil fuels but...yeah, I accept the
> lack of perfection available in any choice made here.

The wood burner you plumped for, did you plumb it in?


--
Graham J

[Graham J]

Ray wrote:

[snip]

> Another domestic heating solution is heat pumps.
> Don't ask me how they work, but my plumber has one in his house, together with
> solar panels for the electrical supply.
> Initial outlay is high and depending on your age and willingness to stay in
> the property, will you ever recoop the cost.
> He's feeding surplus electricity back to the grid and has plentiful supplies
> of hot water.
> The irony is he is Gas Safe Registered, installed our central heating, and
> services the gas boiler every year.

He's also developed a skill in installing such products which should
help his business.

---

I looked at converting my existing oil heating to a heat pump. The oil
boiler is in an outbuilding, so could be replaced by a heat pump; and I
could continue to use the exisitng radiators and pipework.

Whether it is economical depends on the Coefficient of Performance.
Ideal figures are about 3. My current oil bill is about £850 per year,
and with CoP=3 the electricity cost of a heat pump could be as low as
£750.

But in reality the more appropriate figure is Seasonal Coefficient of
Performance (so averaged over the heating season) which is typically 1.5
- which leads to an electricity cost of £1,500.

If my (relatively small, built in 1970) bungalow were rebuilt with a
warm-air system incorporating heat recovery and an integrated heat pump
it might be possible to achieve a SCoP above 3. But the work involved
would be unrealistically expensive. A rebuild could also allow
incorporation of a solar collector and heat storage.

The carbon cost of building a house is largely in the manufacture of the
bricks and cement. Demolishing and rebuilding totally wastes this
investment; so modification of an existing property would always be
better from a carbon perspective. But the scale of modification
required to make a useful improvement to the heating efficiency would be
very disruptive - it would probably mean renting somewhere else to live
for 6 months.

I might have to consider replacing my oil boiler with a wood boiler in
the same outbuilding. But the usual advantage of a wood burner is that
the stove itself provides useful heat to the room in which it is
installed - so locating it in an outbuilding isn't very sensible

The bungalow was also equipped with an open fireplace when it was built,
and we converted that to a wood-burning stove. But it only heats the
one room, so is not a realistic solution to heating the whole house and
the domestic hot water. We use it only on very cold winter days.
Further, for such occasional use the wood fuel is virtually free - I
collect it locally and cut it up myself.

Re-arranging the pipework and replacing the perfectly good stove with
one designed to heat water would be a significant building project -
which would allow for the stove to be fed its combustion air directly
via a duct from outside, removing the problem of cold draughts at ankle
level.

A wood-burner intended for year-round use, maximum efficiency, and some
degree of automation requires processed wood pellet fuel. I imagine
this is actually manufactured from wood waste at present, but any
increase in demand would entail harvesting trees specifically to feed
the manufacturing process. That and transport adds to the carbon cost.

--
Graham J

[Ian McCall]

On 26 Sep 2021, Graham J wrote
(in article <sipa6j$3sf$1...@dont-email.me>):

I hang my head in shame.

Cheers,
Ian

[Ian McCall]

On 26 Sep 2021, Graham J wrote

(in article <sipch1$l51$1...@dont-email.me>):

> If my (relatively small, built in 1970) bungalow were rebuilt with a
> warm-air system incorporating heat recovery and an integrated heat pump
> it might be possible to achieve a SCoP above 3. But the work involved
> would be unrealistically expensive. A rebuild could also allow
> incorporation of a solar collector and heat storage.

This is similar to the conclusion I came to two or three years ago when I
looked into it for mine - required too much reconstruction of the house to
work out even vaguely economically. Figures change all the time though, so
I’ll look again before deciding vs solar.

Be a couple of years yet though - operation “get kids through university”
is in full swing, in conjunction with operation “get rid of the non-working
gas fire, renovate your once-really-nice-but-now-atrocious furniture, get the
room painted and for god’s sake put a new floor down”. Large scale
expenditure not happening until all that is sorted.

Cheers,
Ian