 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What THE HELL is actually in Oxo cubes? Seriously, WTF are those things
actually made of? Clearly there's corn flour and salt in them, but
what's the rest of it?
Ditto Bisto.
Actually, Marmite too. And Worcester Sauce. And Cola! Hmm... dark brown
liquids with inexplicable flavours...
What does "101" actually mean? (Besides being the 26th prime number,
anyway.) What do people actually mean when they say "bird watching 101"?
Why do overhead cables never flap around in the wind? Come to think of
it, why doesn't rain short out power cables?
Steelworks. They have furnaces hot enough to melt steel, right? So what
THE HELL is the furnace itself made of?!
Poisonous berries. Now, let's think about this for a moment. The purpose
of fruit is to be eaten, thus dispercing the seeds it contains. So...
WHY WOULD YOU MAKE IT POISONOUS?! That defies the object of the exercise!
Why do some people like the X-Files?
Why is John Smith such a popular name?
Are mushrooms poisonous on purpose, or by accident?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
> What does "101" actually mean? (Besides being the 26th prime number,
> anyway.)
it's also a palindrome. ;)
> Steelworks. They have furnaces hot enough to melt steel, right? So what
> THE HELL is the furnace itself made of?!
That has always intrigued me ever since as well. I can only hope they
are made of adamantium. ;)
> Why do some people like the X-Files?
Because it's cool. The whole UFO "I want to believe" mantra as well as
the "Trust no one" conspiracionist theories were all around in the 90s...
> Are mushrooms poisonous on purpose, or by accident?
On purpose. They know you'd eat them otherwise.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:48:54 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> What does "101" actually mean? (Besides being the 26th prime number,
> anyway.) What do people actually mean when they say "bird watching 101"?
Comes from university systems (at least in the US). A course number like
CS101 is essentially "Computer Science for noobs". PS101 is "Physical
Science for noobs".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:48:54 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> Steelworks. They have furnaces hot enough to melt steel, right? So what
> THE HELL is the furnace itself made of?!
Something with a higher melting point than steel. :-)
> Poisonous berries. Now, let's think about this for a moment. The purpose
> of fruit is to be eaten, thus dispercing the seeds it contains. So...
> WHY WOULD YOU MAKE IT POISONOUS?! That defies the object of the
> exercise!
Poisonous to whom?
> Why do some people like the X-Files?
Because it's a fun show at times, even though the general story arcs had
no continuity. That was part of the fun.
> Are mushrooms poisonous on purpose, or by accident?
That implies a will behind their creation. And not all mushrooms are
poisonous. Take the ones that I had on my hamburger last night..... ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> What THE HELL is actually in Oxo cubes? Seriously, WTF are those things
> actually made of? Clearly there's corn flour and salt in them, but
> what's the rest of it?
Dunno what that is ...
> Ditto Bisto.
Dunno...
> Actually, Marmite too. And Worcester Sauce. And Cola! Hmm... dark brown
> liquids with inexplicable flavours...
Worcestershire sauce is ... fermented anchovies.
Cola is flavored with lots of stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cola
> What does "101" actually mean? (Besides being the 26th prime number,
> anyway.) What do people actually mean when they say "bird watching 101"?
Introductory level. Traditionally freshman college classes follow this
form with class numbers, though I've only seen 4-digit numbers, like
Bilogy 1301 would be a freshman level biology class.
> Why do overhead cables never flap around in the wind? Come to think of
> it, why doesn't rain short out power cables?
Those cables are pulled rather tight, also take a close look at high
tension wires, they'll have some funny looking thing hanging off of
them that looks like some sort of paddle, This also helps with the wind.
And they're too far apart to short out in the rain. Fresh water is
actually not a great conductor, and air is even a worse conductor.
Submerge them in salt water, and they'll short for sure.
> Steelworks. They have furnaces hot enough to melt steel, right? So what
> THE HELL is the furnace itself made of?!
They're lined with ceramic bricks. ;)
> Poisonous berries. Now, let's think about this for a moment. The purpose
> of fruit is to be eaten, thus dispercing the seeds it contains. So...
> WHY WOULD YOU MAKE IT POISONOUS?! That defies the object of the exercise!
They may be toxic to mammals, but birds might be immune to the toxin.
It's a protective measure. Many mammals can digest the seeds, Birds, on
the other hand pass the seeds right through. Same reason hot peppers are
hot.
> Why do some people like the X-Files?
It was an enjoyable show!
> Are mushrooms poisonous on purpose, or by accident?
Probably on purpose. Obviously not all are toxic.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 11:06:08 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:
> Bilogy 1301
That made me laugh. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 11:06:08 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:
>
>> Bilogy 1301
>
> That made me laugh. :-)
>
> Jim
ooops.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 11:11:25 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 11:06:08 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:
>>
>>> Bilogy 1301
>>
>> That made me laugh. :-)
>>
>> Jim
>
> ooops.
...Largely because my stepson was pursuing a degree in Biology. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Why do overhead cables never flap around in the wind?
They do, so of course they're designed to minimize that. Tension will increase
the natural frequency of the cable, hopefully well above the vortex shedding
frequency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_induced_vibration
> Why is John Smith such a popular name?
I wouldn't expect an even distribution of names, so if John Smith weren't
popular, something else would be. Also, if John Smith has a lot of kids, then
then you'd expect a lot of Smiths, some of them named John. Looks like it's in
decline around here though. Your results may differ.
http://www.behindthename.com/top/search.php?terms=john&code=us&gender=
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> What does "101" actually mean? (Besides being the 26th prime number,
> anyway.) What do people actually mean when they say "bird watching 101"?
101 - first year, first class. 201 - second year, first class. 102 - first
year second class.
> Why do overhead cables never flap around in the wind?
They do, but they're heavy and stiff and thin, so not much.
> Come to think of it, why doesn't rain short out power cables?
Because power system engineers aren't stupid enough to put them close enough
together a raindrop will bridge them.
> Steelworks. They have furnaces hot enough to melt steel, right? So what
> THE HELL is the furnace itself made of?!
Stone-like substances, generally. Clay, brick, etc.
> Poisonous berries. Now, let's think about this for a moment. The purpose
> of fruit is to be eaten, thus dispercing the seeds it contains. So...
> WHY WOULD YOU MAKE IT POISONOUS?!
To prevent them from being eaten by those creatures for whom it is
poisonous. You don't think chili peppers are hot to *every* creature, do you?
> Why is John Smith such a popular name?
John is a popular name from the bible, and smith was a popular occupation.
> Are mushrooms poisonous on purpose, or by accident?
Depends on the mushroom.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Come to think of it, why doesn't rain short out power cables?
I don't even understand this question. Why should it?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2 Sep 2009 14:16:50 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Come to think of it, why doesn't rain short out power cables?
>
> I don't even understand this question. Why should it?
Because when no one tells Andrew to come in out of the rain he gets wet and when
he gets wet he would conduct electricity. ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/02/09 11:00, nemesis wrote:
> Because it's cool. The whole UFO "I want to believe" mantra as well as
> the "Trust no one" conspiracionist theories were all around in the 90s...
Actually, the only episodes I enjoyed were the ones that weren't about
UFO's and aliens.
--
Quantum Mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/02/09 11:04, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:48:54 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>> What does "101" actually mean? (Besides being the 26th prime number,
>> anyway.) What do people actually mean when they say "bird watching 101"?
>
> Comes from university systems (at least in the US). A course number like
> CS101 is essentially "Computer Science for noobs". PS101 is "Physical
> Science for noobs".
Yes, but why 101? Why not 100? (I've occasionally seen a 100 course,
but 101 is much more common).
--
Quantum Mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Yes, but why 101? Why not 100? (I've occasionally seen a 100 course,
> but 101 is much more common).
Because most normal people start counting at one?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:31:30 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 09/02/09 11:04, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:48:54 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>> What does "101" actually mean? (Besides being the 26th prime number,
>>> anyway.) What do people actually mean when they say "bird watching
>>> 101"?
>>
>> Comes from university systems (at least in the US). A course number
>> like CS101 is essentially "Computer Science for noobs". PS101 is
>> "Physical Science for noobs".
>
> Yes, but why 101? Why not 100? (I've occasionally seen a 100
course,
> but 101 is much more common).
Maybe the first unis that did this figured people were Pascal-based
rather than C-based. (Pascal, IIRC, starts arrays at '1', C starts at
'0').
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 09/02/09 11:00, nemesis wrote:
>> Because it's cool. The whole UFO "I want to believe" mantra as well as
>> the "Trust no one" conspiracionist theories were all around in the 90s...
>
> Actually, the only episodes I enjoyed were the ones that weren't
> about UFO's and aliens.
That would be most of the episodes, I guess. The so-called
"monster-of-the-week" episodes. They are still fillers.
I also enjoyed immensely the meta episodes poking fun at the series itself.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
> That would be most of the episodes, I guess. The so-called
> "monster-of-the-week" episodes. They are still fillers.
>
> I also enjoyed immensely the meta episodes poking fun at the series itself.
Couldn't agree more. And I feel better now. It comes on in about 40 minutes!
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> Yes, but why 101? Why not 100? (I've occasionally seen a 100
>> course, but 101 is much more common).
>
> Because most normal people start counting at one?
>
Also by convention, 100 is the last (if available) of the remedial
courses for a topic.
101 isn't usually the "for noobs" section, but rather the "first course
appropriate for college" level.
If you've failed to master high school material, then you'll probably
have to go through 60, 70, 80, 90, and occasionally a 100 course to make
sure you can handle the college courses.
At least, that's the theory. In reality they often get weird numbers
(like 126 being the first course in a series, or 110 the first of another).
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Why do overhead cables never flap around in the wind?
Actually they do, it's just it's usually very fast and very low amplitude
flapping. Imagine holding out a stretched violin string in the wind, it's
not really going to flap is it?
Anyway, take 200 metres of this stuff (which I make weighs 10 tons):
http://www.csunitec.com/saws/new-river-band-saw.html
pull it *very* tightly between two points (I estimate you're going to need
at least 60 tons of tension in the cable), and then put it in the wind, I
can't see it flapping about too much personally. Some of the really long
cables have dampers on them to get rid of the main resonant frequency, a bit
like what they put on the Millennium Bridge in London to stop it resonating
at the frequency people walked at.
> Come to think of it, why doesn't rain short out power cables?
Because air with rain in it is still an insulator?
> Steelworks. They have furnaces hot enough to melt steel, right? So what
> THE HELL is the furnace itself made of?!
Lots of things have higher melting points than most steels. Ceramics for
instance.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Maybe the first unis that did this figured people were Pascal-based
> rather than C-based. (Pascal, IIRC, starts arrays at '1', C starts at
> '0').
As *I* remember, Pascal arrays start at whatever index you tell them to
start at. (E.g, you can make the first index be 17 if you want...)
VAR stuff : ARRAY [17..21] OF INT;
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Are mushrooms poisonous on purpose, or by accident?
>
> That implies a will behind their creation. And not all mushrooms are
> poisonous. Take the ones that I had on my hamburger last night..... ;-)
No it doesn't.
Did mushrooms evolve to be poisonous because that's advantageous
somehow? Or do they just happen to be poisonous to animals because of
their unusual chemistry?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Why do overhead cables never flap around in the wind? Come to think of
>> it, why doesn't rain short out power cables?
>
> Those cables are pulled rather tight, also take a close look at high
> tension wires, they'll have some funny looking thing hanging off of them
> that looks like some sort of paddle, This also helps with the wind. And
> they're too far apart to short out in the rain. Fresh water is actually
> not a great conductor, and air is even a worse conductor. Submerge them
> in salt water, and they'll short for sure.
Rain water isn't chemically pure. (Depending on pollution levels.) Once
the pylon gets wet, it's entire surface is covered in a continuous sheet
of water, which also covers all of the cables. So why don't they short out?
>> Poisonous berries. Now, let's think about this for a moment. The
>> purpose of fruit is to be eaten, thus dispercing the seeds it
>> contains. So... WHY WOULD YOU MAKE IT POISONOUS?! That defies the
>> object of the exercise!
>
> They may be toxic to mammals, but birds might be immune to the toxin.
> It's a protective measure. Many mammals can digest the seeds, Birds, on
> the other hand pass the seeds right through. Same reason hot peppers are
> hot.
[Actually, apparently peppers are hot due to an antifungal toxin...]
Seems plausible, I guess...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Did mushrooms evolve to be poisonous because that's advantageous
> somehow? Or do they just happen to be poisonous to animals because of
> their unusual chemistry?
Both.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
triple_r wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Why do overhead cables never flap around in the wind?
>
> They do, so of course they're designed to minimize that. Tension will increase
> the natural frequency of the cable, hopefully well above the vortex shedding
> frequency.
Vortex shedding frequency?
WIN!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>> Come to think of it, why doesn't rain short out power cables?
>
> Because power system engineers aren't stupid enough to put them close
> enough together a raindrop will bridge them.
I was thinking more of when everything has been covered in a continuous
layer of water...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Why do some people like the X-Files?
>
> Because it's cool. The whole UFO "I want to believe" mantra as well as
> the "Trust no one" conspiracionist theories were all around in the 90s...
I just don't see the point.
Each episode, something happens which makes absolutely no sense. It's
not that it's "mysterious", it's just nonsensical. Molder and Scully
investigate. A series of utterly incomprehensible events occur. It turns
out that the conspiracy was actually a conspiracy to create a conspiracy
that would make people think the conspiracy was actually a conspiracy
about a conspiracy to create a conspiracy. But then that turns out to be
wrong too. And after about an hour of abject failure to make any kind of
weakly comprehendable sense, the show ends.
WTF?
I mean, seriously. Any moron can write a bunch of gibberish that doesn't
make sense. But where's the entertainment in that?!
>> Are mushrooms poisonous on purpose, or by accident?
>
> On purpose. They know you'd eat them otherwise.
I see...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>
> I was thinking more of when everything has been covered in a continuous
> layer of water...
How pure the rainwater even is? Pure water (H2O) doesn't lead
electricity (at least not very well), the usual water you get from tap
ain't pure, it has all kinds of particels within it, including metal
ones. I'd *guess* the rainwater hasn't got as much metal particels as
the water already on the ground and doesn't lead electricity as well.
Anyway, the smart people have calculated that the space between electric
wires is enough, even on hard storms. :-)
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
> How pure the rainwater even is?
Depends on the local pollution levels. (Ever hear of acid rain?)
> Pure water (H2O) doesn't lead electricity (at least not very well)
In our lab, we measure water purity by electrical conductivity. The
higher the resistence, the purer the water...
...which is kinda silly really, given that the impurities that affect
resistence are the least relevant to the work we do.
> the usual water you get from tap
> ain't pure, it has all kinds of particels within it, including metal
> ones. I'd *guess* the rainwater hasn't got as much metal particels as
> the water already on the ground and doesn't lead electricity as well.
I would suggest that the ionic compounds disolved in tap water have a
*much* more significant effect than any hypothetical "metal particles"
it may contain...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > Come to think of it, why doesn't rain short out power cables?
> Because air with rain in it is still an insulator?
Ok, there's definitely something here I'm seriously not understanding.
What does rain or water have *anything* to do shorting out power cables?
I don't get it.
Heck, there are power cables at the bottom of the sea. So what? What does
that have to do with anything?
It feels like everybody is writing like power cables were bare metal wires
with nothing covering them. Why?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I was thinking more of when everything has been covered in a continuous
> layer of water...
Are you sure that every part between the pylon structure and the cable can
get wet to form a continuous path? It seems to me like part of the design
of the insulator is to keep other parts dry:
http://en.wikivisual.com/images/3/33/Pylon.detail.arp.750pix.jpg
Even if it does *all* get wet, it's going to be a really thin layer of
water, and even non-pure water is not a particularly good conductor, if you
do the math the resistance probably comes out pretty huge.
BTW, that photo also shows the dampers attached on the cables either side of
the fixing point.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 09:14:41 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>Rain water isn't chemically pure. (Depending on pollution levels.) Once
>the pylon gets wet, it's entire surface is covered in a continuous sheet
>of water, which also covers all of the cables. So why don't they short out?
There are insulators between the cables and pylons so there is no path for the
electricity to flow there. The conductors are spaced far enough apart so that
the electricity cannot jump between them. This is called engineering. ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I mean, seriously. Any moron can write a bunch of gibberish that doesn't
> make sense. But where's the entertainment in that?!
I don't think everybody can write scripts of that quality. It requires
expertise and talent.
And some people like fiction for entertainment. If you don't like it,
that doesn't mean nobody else souldn't like it either.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3 Sep 2009 04:41:30 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> It feels like everybody is writing like power cables were bare metal wires
>with nothing covering them. Why?
Because they are uninsulated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
> Because they are uninsulated.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission
I don't get it. Is that rubber around the cables a non-insulator?
I don't see bare copper here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electric_transmission_lines.jpg
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It feels like everybody is writing like power cables were bare metal
> wires
> with nothing covering them.
That's how they are actually:
"While overhead lines are usually bare conductors, rarely overhead insulated
cables are used, usually for short distances (less than a kilometer)."
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overhead_power_line
Insulating them for longer runs just needlessly reduces the amount of
current they can take without overheating.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Rain water isn't chemically pure. (Depending on pollution levels.) Once
>> the pylon gets wet, it's entire surface is covered in a continuous sheet
>> of water, which also covers all of the cables. So why don't they short out?
>
> There are insulators between the cables and pylons so there is no path for the
> electricity to flow there.
Indeed. This is why it works when they're dry.
However, when those insulators are covered with a continuous layer of
water...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3 Sep 2009 04:56:16 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> Because they are uninsulated.
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission
>
> I don't get it. Is that rubber around the cables a non-insulator?
>I don't see bare copper here:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electric_transmission_lines.jpg
You won't see copper as aluminium is used. KISS I assume that rubber or a man
made insulator would deteriate over time in such exposed conditions. Also as
Scott said the cables are under a lot of tension that would add to the cost of
connecting them without dammaging the insulation.
I have worked on underwater equipment (not power transmission) and I can tell
you that it is not easy to keep water out of things. So it is much simplier and
cheaper for overhead cables to be left bare and make sure that there is a lot of
space between them.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 10:06:46 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> Rain water isn't chemically pure. (Depending on pollution levels.) Once
>>> the pylon gets wet, it's entire surface is covered in a continuous sheet
>>> of water, which also covers all of the cables. So why don't they short out?
>>
>> There are insulators between the cables and pylons so there is no path for the
>> electricity to flow there.
>
>Indeed. This is why it works when they're dry.
>
>However, when those insulators are covered with a continuous layer of
>water...
Look at the insulators, they are a strange shape. That shape ensures that they
are not covered with a continuous layer of water. Magic, isn't it :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > It feels like everybody is writing like power cables were bare metal
> > wires
> > with nothing covering them.
> That's how they are actually:
> "While overhead lines are usually bare conductors, rarely overhead insulated
> cables are used, usually for short distances (less than a kilometer)."
Ok, maybe it's just different here (and basically everywhere else I have
been), or they are really good at making it *look* like the cables are
covered in black rubber. I certainly was fooled.
Do they paint them like that?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> I was thinking more of when everything has been covered in a
>> continuous layer of water...
>
> Are you sure that every part between the pylon structure and the cable
> can get wet to form a continuous path? It seems to me like part of the
> design of the insulator is to keep other parts dry:
>
> http://en.wikivisual.com/images/3/33/Pylon.detail.arp.750pix.jpg
How do you figure that?
> Even if it does *all* get wet, it's going to be a really thin layer of
> water, and even non-pure water is not a particularly good conductor, if
> you do the math the resistance probably comes out pretty huge.
You're aware that those cables are carrying several *million* volts?
Still, perhaps all that current would just vapourise the water - and
then it wouldn't be there any more...
> BTW, that photo also shows the dampers attached on the cables either
> side of the fixing point.
Well, this stuff clearly works - it's just a mystery to me *why* it
works. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Ok, maybe it's just different here (and basically everywhere else I have
> been), or they are really good at making it *look* like the cables are
> covered in black rubber. I certainly was fooled.
>
> Do they paint them like that?
It's just the dull grey of aluminium oxide you are seeing on the outer
surface. If you looked close and polished them a bit you'd see nice shiny
aluminium :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I mean, seriously. Any moron can write a bunch of gibberish that doesn't
>> make sense. But where's the entertainment in that?!
>
> I don't think everybody can write scripts of that quality. It requires
> expertise and talent.
It takes expertise and talent to write scripts which *make sense* and
are *interesting*. The X-Files lacks both of these qualities in spades.
[OK, you can argue about whether or not something is "interesting". But
whether something makes sense or not is pretty objective. It's hard to
find something interesting when it's unintelligable gibberish.]
> And some people like fiction for entertainment. If you don't like it,
> that doesn't mean nobody else souldn't like it either.
Sure, fair enough. I'm just puzzled as to why such a low-quality show
was so absurdly popular.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Are you sure that every part between the pylon structure and the cable
>> can get wet to form a continuous path? It seems to me like part of the
>> design of the insulator is to keep other parts dry:
>>
>> http://en.wikivisual.com/images/3/33/Pylon.detail.arp.750pix.jpg
>
> How do you figure that?
Well they're like mushrooms stacked on top of each other, so presumably the
narrow bit right up inside the mushroom "cap" stays pretty dry, unless the
rain is going upwards.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It takes expertise and talent to write scripts which *make sense* and
> are *interesting*. The X-Files lacks both of these qualities in spades.
>
> [OK, you can argue about whether or not something is "interesting". But
> whether something makes sense or not is pretty objective. It's hard to
> find something interesting when it's unintelligable gibberish.]
Did you consider that maybe some people *can* understand it?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > Ok, maybe it's just different here (and basically everywhere else I have
> > been), or they are really good at making it *look* like the cables are
> > covered in black rubber. I certainly was fooled.
> >
> > Do they paint them like that?
>
> It's just the dull grey of aluminium oxide you are seeing on the outer
> surface. If you looked close and polished them a bit you'd see nice shiny
> aluminium :-)
I think if you look at anything against a bright sky it will look matte black,
even if it's mirror-polished.
And isn't alumina pretty much transparent at the thicknesses it's likely to
reach in ambient conditions?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> It takes expertise and talent to write scripts which *make sense* and
>> are *interesting*. The X-Files lacks both of these qualities in spades.
>>
>> [OK, you can argue about whether or not something is "interesting".
>> But whether something makes sense or not is pretty objective. It's
>> hard to find something interesting when it's unintelligable gibberish.]
>
> Did you consider that maybe some people *can* understand it?
Some tiny minority of the population, perhaps. But that wouldn't explain
it being so popular.
[Alternatively, I am drastically more stupid that the vast majority of
the human population - an unlikely but plausible hypothesis.]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> And isn't alumina pretty much transparent at the thicknesses it's likely
> to
> reach in ambient conditions?
Having had a car with bare aluminium panels, I can tell you that it quickly
goes dull grey if you don't polish it :-) I have no idea what the thickness
is, but it certainly is visibly very different.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> I mean, seriously. Any moron can write a bunch of gibberish that doesn't
> >> make sense. But where's the entertainment in that?!
> >
> > I don't think everybody can write scripts of that quality. It requires
> > expertise and talent.
> It takes expertise and talent to write scripts which *make sense* and
> are *interesting*. The X-Files lacks both of these qualities in spades.
You are now confusing two things:
What you are talking about is "coming up with an interesting idea for a
story" (or what you consider being an interesting idea) versus writing a
good script for a TV series episode.
Even if someone has a wonderfully ingenious idea for a script, that doesn't
mean he has the knowledge, expertise and talent to write a script that can
actually be used to film an interesting episode.
A script requires more than just an idea. You need a lot more around it.
You need dialogue, you need events to progress through the story, you need
to describe the settings so that the people making the episode can stage
the scenes... Just having a good idea is certainly not enough to write a
good script.
On the other hand, even a mediocre idea can be turned into a good script
in expert hands. Moreover, just writing a script good enough to be filmed
in the first place requires expertise. Not everybody is able to do that.
Most people could perhaps *learn* to do that with time and hard work, but
most people are certainly not born with the innate ability.
> [OK, you can argue about whether or not something is "interesting". But
> whether something makes sense or not is pretty objective. It's hard to
> find something interesting when it's unintelligable gibberish.]
Just because you find it "unintelligable" (sic) gibberish doesn't mean
that everyone else does.
Knowing that to you all C programs and all regular expressions are
unintelligible gibberish, I'm kind of not surprised.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Some tiny minority of the population, perhaps. But that wouldn't explain
> it being so popular.
Actually there's a contradiction there.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
