On 4 Sep 2009 12:41:02 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 17:00:06 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 4 Sep 2009 10:45:51 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>Just need one thing - a plane ticket. :-)
>> 
>> :)
>
>Well, and the money for a plane ticket. ;-)
>

What! More begging letters ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 22:36:10 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>Well, and the money for a plane ticket. ;-)
>>
> What! More begging letters ;)

Oh, no, I wouldn't do that. ;-)  Of course, if someone were to make a 
donation, that would certainly speed things up. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4 Sep 2009 17:39:47 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 22:36:10 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>Well, and the money for a plane ticket. ;-)
>>>
>> What! More begging letters ;)
>
>Oh, no, I wouldn't do that. ;-)  Of course, if someone were to make a 
>donation, that would certainly speed things up. ;-)
>

I left my donation buried in the field, marked with a stick with a handkerchief
tied round it.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 05:54:39 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 4 Sep 2009 17:39:47 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 22:36:10 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>>Well, and the money for a plane ticket. ;-)
>>>>
>>> What! More begging letters ;)
>>
>>Oh, no, I wouldn't do that. ;-)  Of course, if someone were to make a
>>donation, that would certainly speed things up. ;-)
>>
>>
> I left my donation buried in the field, marked with a stick with a
> handkerchief tied round it.

LOL, I may hold you to that.  Unless it's a non-monetary donation. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 5 Sep 2009 00:59:05 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 05:54:39 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 4 Sep 2009 17:39:47 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 
>>>On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 22:36:10 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Well, and the money for a plane ticket. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>> What! More begging letters ;)
>>>
>>>Oh, no, I wouldn't do that. ;-)  Of course, if someone were to make a
>>>donation, that would certainly speed things up. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> I left my donation buried in the field, marked with a stick with a
>> handkerchief tied round it.
>
>LOL, I may hold you to that.  Unless it's a non-monetary donation. ;-)
>

No, it is a traditional crock of gold.

You just have to find it ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 06:02:38 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>LOL, I may hold you to that.  Unless it's a non-monetary donation. ;-)
>>
>>
> No, it is a traditional crock of gold.
> 
> You just have to find it ;)

You wouldn't want to give me a clue, would you? ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 5 Sep 2009 01:33:27 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 06:02:38 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>LOL, I may hold you to that.  Unless it's a non-monetary donation. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> No, it is a traditional crock of gold.
>> 
>> You just have to find it ;)
>
>You wouldn't want to give me a clue, would you? ;-)
>

I marked it with a handkerchief tied to a stick.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 07:04:39 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 5 Sep 2009 01:33:27 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 06:02:38 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>>LOL, I may hold you to that.  Unless it's a non-monetary donation. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No, it is a traditional crock of gold.
>>> 
>>> You just have to find it ;)
>>
>>You wouldn't want to give me a clue, would you? ;-)
>>
>>
> I marked it with a handkerchief tied to a stick.

No other clue, then? ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 5 Sep 2009 13:58:05 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 07:04:39 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 5 Sep 2009 01:33:27 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 
>>>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 06:02:38 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>>>LOL, I may hold you to that.  Unless it's a non-monetary donation. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> No, it is a traditional crock of gold.
>>>> 
>>>> You just have to find it ;)
>>>
>>>You wouldn't want to give me a clue, would you? ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> I marked it with a handkerchief tied to a stick.
>
>No other clue, then? ;-)
>
No and you better hurry before Sabrina takes her $10 worth.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 19:18:46 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>> I marked it with a handkerchief tied to a stick.
>>
>>No other clue, then? ;-)
>>
> No and you better hurry before Sabrina takes her $10 worth.

Is that all that's in the pot? ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 5 Sep 2009 14:38:14 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 19:18:46 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>> I marked it with a handkerchief tied to a stick.
>>>
>>>No other clue, then? ;-)
>>>
>> No and you better hurry before Sabrina takes her $10 worth.
>
>Is that all that's in the pot? ;-)
>

I can't remember.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 19:49:45 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 5 Sep 2009 14:38:14 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 19:18:46 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>>> I marked it with a handkerchief tied to a stick.
>>>>
>>>>No other clue, then? ;-)
>>>>
>>> No and you better hurry before Sabrina takes her $10 worth.
>>
>>Is that all that's in the pot? ;-)
>>
>>
> I can't remember.

How long ago did you place it? ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 5 Sep 2009 15:49:28 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 19:49:45 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 5 Sep 2009 14:38:14 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 
>>>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 19:18:46 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> I marked it with a handkerchief tied to a stick.
>>>>>
>>>>>No other clue, then? ;-)
>>>>>
>>>> No and you better hurry before Sabrina takes her $10 worth.
>>>
>>>Is that all that's in the pot? ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> I can't remember.
>
>How long ago did you place it? ;-)
>
About 6 o'clock this morning.

I'm not really cruel. I just can't remember the name of the fairy tale where the
hero tricked a pixie out of the crock of gold at the bottom of the rainbow. He
then buried it in a field marked with a handkerchief tied to a stick. When he
came back to recover it the whole field was planted with sticks which had
handkerchiefs tied to them.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:11:57 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 5 Sep 2009 15:49:28 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 19:49:45 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 5 Sep 2009 14:38:14 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 19:18:46 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> I marked it with a handkerchief tied to a stick.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No other clue, then? ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>> No and you better hurry before Sabrina takes her $10 worth.
>>>>
>>>>Is that all that's in the pot? ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I can't remember.
>>
>>How long ago did you place it? ;-)
>>
> About 6 o'clock this morning.

Hmmm, so that would be......Aldwych? <gd&rvvf>

> I'm not really cruel. I just can't remember the name of the fairy tale
> where the hero tricked a pixie out of the crock of gold at the bottom of
> the rainbow. He then buried it in a field marked with a handkerchief
> tied to a stick. When he came back to recover it the whole field was
> planted with sticks which had handkerchiefs tied to them.

LOL

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 5 Sep 2009 16:17:11 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>Hmmm, so that would be......Aldwych? <gd&rvvf>

Buzz - Repetition ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> One thing I haven't figured out is why poisonous prey animals (frogs, 
>> butterflies, etc) wind up being brightly colored.
> 
>   AFAIK the bright colors work as a warning signal. Predators learn to
> distinguish the poisonous prey by their color.
> 
>   It would make little sense to just have poison but otherwise look edible.
> Both predator and prey get killed. With a warning color both live.
> 
>   (By this logic it would follow that some species mimic the color of
> poisonous species. I wonder if there are examples of this.)
> 

Another way to look at it is that poisonous animals can be any color 
they want. They already have a defense system (the poison) and don't 
require a second one. Non-poisonous animals lack this defense system, so 
they need to be doubly careful. What they need is their own, *different* 
defense system (the blending in part) so *they* don't get eaten.

Also, as far as the color-as-warning-system goes, it's not like the prey 
animals decided one day that they wanted to be bright yellow or bright 
red. Rather, the predator animal needed help distinguishing poisonous 
animals from non-poisonous ones in order for *it* to survive. Predators 
who didn't learn to distinguish them died and failed to pass on their 
genes, resulting in future generations with a better ability to make the 
color distinctions. Since these future generations are better able to 
distinguish by color, a *second* result is that fewer bright-colored 
poisonous prey animals get eaten. Thus, there's a kind of feedback loop, 
and the behavior of the predator animal (the behavior of the prey animal 
is generally irrelevant) influences the evolution of the prey animal 
along two separate axes.

Finally, only animals that are poisonous *when eaten* (or maybe, low on 
the food chain) tend to be brightly-colored. Animals that use poison to 
*kill their prey* (or, high on the food chain) are not brightly-colored.

-Mike

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Yeah, but it still would want to go to ground, and the water doesn't 
> provide a grounding influence that's stronger than staying with the wire.
> 
> Jim

You win the thread! There's less resistance along the current path (the 
wire) then the sheet of water.

-Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>>
>> You're aware that those cables are carrying several *million* volts?
>>
> 
> At most about 500kV. Typically 250kV. ;) Not millions.
> 
>>
>> Well, this stuff clearly works - it's just a mystery to me *why* it 
>> works. ;-)
> 
> Physics is why it works ;)
> 

Does voltage even matter in this case? Isn't amperage the important bit?

-Mike

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 17:47:55 -0400, SharkD <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

>Mike Raiford wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>>
>>> You're aware that those cables are carrying several *million* volts?
>>>
>> 
>> At most about 500kV. Typically 250kV. ;) Not millions.
>> 
>>>
>>> Well, this stuff clearly works - it's just a mystery to me *why* it 
>>> works. ;-)
>> 
>> Physics is why it works ;)
>> 
>
>Does voltage even matter in this case? Isn't amperage the important bit?
>
Yesss and Nooo ;)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:33:01 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 5 Sep 2009 16:17:11 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>Hmmm, so that would be......Aldwych? <gd&rvvf>
> 
> Buzz - Repetition ;)

Dammit! ;-)

Victoria, then. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Chambers schrieb:
>> Only if you assume 'char' to be a text character, rather than an 8 bit 
>> byte (which is what it really is, just as 'int' isn't really a true 
>> integer, but rather a register-sized word on whatever machine you're 
>> compiling for).
> 
> I really must object here for nitpicking's sake:

I have been pwned :)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> I always assumed the cables themselves were insulated.
>>
>> Seriously, are we running uninsulated wires above our roadways?!?!? :o
> 
> Yes, just look for "hit power line" on YouTube and you'll see plenty of 
> random stuff (mostly trees) touching power lines and sparking or 
> creating fires.
> 
> 

But trees encroach on power lines all the time.  I can look out my 
window and see half a dozen...

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

SharkD wrote:
> Another way to look at it is that poisonous animals 

[snip]

Yes, now *that* makes sense. I knew there had to be a reasonable progression 
of changes.  I hadn't really integrated the idea of the predators evolving 
in step with the prey.

> Finally, only animals that are poisonous *when eaten* (or maybe, low on 
> the food chain) tend to be brightly-colored. Animals that use poison to 
> *kill their prey* (or, high on the food chain) are not brightly-colored.

That I'd noticed, yes.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> I don't recall the monolith being on the moon... Then again, I have 
> slept a few times since seeing the movie, so maybe I'm wrong.

That was actually the whole point of the section between the Apes and 
Discovery.

There Russians on the Pan-Am flight were asking Floyd about the 
possibility of a viral outbreak on the moon-base, because the Americans 
had closed their base to all visitors.  When he gets to the moon, it's 
revealed that the virus was a cover story to hide the fact that they had 
found a monolith on the moon.

The monolith then sent a radio transmission (remember the astronauts 
holding their ears in pain? the transmission was picked up on their 
headsets) to Jupiter.  This directly led to the Discovery mission, which 
was really supposed to study the Monolith (and HAL was instructed to lie 
to the Discovery crew about it).

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> I don't recall the monolith being on the moon... Then again, I have 
>> slept a few times since seeing the movie, so maybe I'm wrong.
> 
> That was actually the whole point of the section between the Apes and 
> Discovery.
> 
> There Russians on the Pan-Am flight were asking Floyd about the 
> possibility of a viral outbreak on the moon-base, because the Americans 
> had closed their base to all visitors.  When he gets to the moon, it's 
> revealed that the virus was a cover story to hide the fact that they had 
> found a monolith on the moon.
> 
> The monolith then sent a radio transmission (remember the astronauts 
> holding their ears in pain? the transmission was picked up on their 
> headsets) to Jupiter.  This directly led to the Discovery mission, which 
> was really supposed to study the Monolith (and HAL was instructed to lie 
> to the Discovery crew about it).

The Discovery mission predated the discovery of the monolith, though, 
which is why they were able to lie about the mission's true intent in 
the first place and get away with it.  In the book, the signal was sent 
to Saturn, later retconned in 2010 etc to Jupiter to match with the 
movie.  A lot of stuff in the movie, particularly at the end, only makes 
sense if you read the book.


--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> The monolith then sent a radio transmission (remember the astronauts 
> holding their ears in pain? the transmission was picked up on their 
> headsets) to Jupiter. 

Indeed, the monolith sent the radio transmission when sunlight hit it for 
the first time after it was buried back in pre-history. (And according to 
the book, it was found due to a "magnetic anomoly" which was presumedly the 
circulating currents holding the energy for the transmission, altho I don't 
remember if that was mentioned in the movie.)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

SharkD wrote:
> 
> Does voltage even matter in this case? Isn't amperage the important bit?

Yes it does. It's voltage that smashes through the insulation and jumps
over air. Current is what heats the wire up (thus possibly melting the
insulation and making it easier for the voltage to jump, but that
demands a high current in too small cable) and kills people.

> -Mike

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

On 5 Sep 2009 20:10:22 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:33:01 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 5 Sep 2009 16:17:11 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 
>>>Hmmm, so that would be......Aldwych? <gd&rvvf>
>> 
>> Buzz - Repetition ;)
>
>Dammit! ;-)
>
>Victoria, then. ;-)
>
>

Off Air :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 10:06:39 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 5 Sep 2009 20:10:22 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:33:01 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 5 Sep 2009 16:17:11 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>Hmmm, so that would be......Aldwych? <gd&rvvf>
>>> 
>>> Buzz - Repetition ;)
>>
>>Dammit! ;-)
>>
>>Victoria, then. ;-)
>>
>>
>>
> Off Air :)

Underwater? ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 6 Sep 2009 12:18:07 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 10:06:39 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 5 Sep 2009 20:10:22 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 
>>>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:33:01 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5 Sep 2009 16:17:11 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>Hmmm, so that would be......Aldwych? <gd&rvvf>
>>>> 
>>>> Buzz - Repetition ;)
>>>
>>>Dammit! ;-)
>>>
>>>Victoria, then. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Off Air :)
>
>Underwater? ;-)
>

Possibly the Navy Lark.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 17:28:07 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>> Off Air :)
>>
>>Underwater? ;-)
>>
>>
> Possibly the Navy Lark.

I think that's next after we finish The Goon Show.  Just started series 7.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 6 Sep 2009 12:36:14 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>I think that's next after we finish The Goon Show.  Just started series 7.

I'm listening to "Hamish And Dougal" again. I just set up my wife's internet
radio and it's connected to my laptop.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 19:04:50 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 6 Sep 2009 12:36:14 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>I think that's next after we finish The Goon Show.  Just started series
>>7.
> 
> I'm listening to "Hamish And Dougal" again. I just set up my wife's
> internet radio and it's connected to my laptop.

Cool, we might add that back to the list after Navy Lark.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 6 Sep 2009 16:18:58 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 19:04:50 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 6 Sep 2009 12:36:14 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 
>>>I think that's next after we finish The Goon Show.  Just started series
>>>7.
>> 
>> I'm listening to "Hamish And Dougal" again. I just set up my wife's
>> internet radio and it's connected to my laptop.
>
>Cool, we might add that back to the list after Navy Lark.
>

The Navy Lark goes back quite a few years and there is a lot of it, some of the
quality is very poor. :(
I've got quite a few recordings if you need any.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 21:44:04 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 6 Sep 2009 16:18:58 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 19:04:50 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 6 Sep 2009 12:36:14 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>I think that's next after we finish The Goon Show.  Just started
>>>>series 7.
>>> 
>>> I'm listening to "Hamish And Dougal" again. I just set up my wife's
>>> internet radio and it's connected to my laptop.
>>
>>Cool, we might add that back to the list after Navy Lark.
>>
>>
> The Navy Lark goes back quite a few years and there is a lot of it, some
> of the quality is very poor. :(
> I've got quite a few recordings if you need any.

Thanks for that - will let you know if I find myself missing any. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> But trees encroach on power lines all the time.  I can look out my window 
> and see half a dozen...

You have one of these outside your window? o_O

http://www.idonohoe.com/biking/gallery/pylon.jpg

If you mean the low voltage cables on wooden poles that are much closer to 
the ground, then maybe those ones are insulated (we don't have many of those 
here, the cables mostly go underground once they come off the pylons)?  They 
don't have to go long distances so the extra cost is probably justified by 
the high risk of stuff hitting them.

Post a reply to this message

> You win the thread! There's less resistance along the current path (the 
> wire) then the sheet of water.

Ermm, I don't know if you're joking here or not.  But for the sake of 
everyone else, this is not how electricity works!  It does NOT "choose" the 
lowest resistance path and ignore anything else, it follows Ohm's law (V=IR) 
for every part of the circuit.

Because the voltage is so high on power lines, even a HUGE resistance (like 
a human body, or a wet tree, for example) will make a pretty large current 
flow, certainly enough to kill you or catch the tree on fire.

As a quick calculation, put a 10 MOhm resistance (millions of times higher 
than the resistance along the current path) between a 400 kV power line and 
ground, whilst the *current* through the resistor will "only" be 40 mA, the 
power that needs to be dissipated by the resistor will be 16 kW, enough to 
fry most things pretty quickly :-)

Also, I suspect the electricity company would be *really* interested if they 
were losing 16 kW at each connection point along their power line!

Post a reply to this message

> Does voltage even matter in this case? Isn't amperage the important bit?

The current (amperage) in the cable is pretty meaningless if we're talking 
about accidents when someone or something touches the cable.  Whether there 
is zero or ten million amps going along the cable, when you (or some object) 
touches it, it is the voltage of the cable that will determine the severity 
of the outcome.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> But trees encroach on power lines all the time.  I can look out my 
>> window and see half a dozen...
> 
> You have one of these outside your window? o_O
> 
> http://www.idonohoe.com/biking/gallery/pylon.jpg

Ah, no, although I know of some within a few miles of here.

No, I mean the stuff that runs down your street and branches to every house.

> If you mean the low voltage cables on wooden poles that are much closer 
> to the ground, then maybe those ones are insulated (we don't have many 
> of those here, the cables mostly go underground once they come off the 
> pylons)?  They don't have to go long distances so the extra cost is 
> probably justified by the high risk of stuff hitting them.

OK, so the local stuff is probably insulated due to risk, while the high 
voltage stuff used for long-distance transmission is left uninsulated. 
That makes sense.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

> No, I mean the stuff that runs down your street and branches to every 
> house.

Ah ok, yes that would need to be insulated!  I don't think we have cables 
like that anywhere here (or if we do it's really uncommon), it's all 
underground apart from the high voltage long distance stuff.  I remember 
when I visited Japan they had crazy amounts of cable in the air, with 
transformers at the top of poles etc, I'd never seen anything like it:

http://img1.photographersdirect.com/img/11943/wm/pd540134.jpg

I guess once you start putting power and telephone above-ground, things get 
very messy very quickly in heavily populated areas.  Underground I suspect 
you have the same, it's just hidden from sight!

Post a reply to this message

On 09/07/09 02:24, scott wrote:
>> Does voltage even matter in this case? Isn't amperage the important bit?
>
> The current (amperage) in the cable is pretty meaningless if we're
> talking about accidents when someone or something touches the cable.
> Whether there is zero or ten million amps going along the cable, when
> you (or some object) touches it, it is the voltage of the cable that
> will determine the severity of the outcome.

	Not really. It's also the amount of available charge. If you get a 10 
kV shock, but the supply had very few Coulombs in it, you'll barely feel it.

	But if you get a 100 V shock with an almost limitless supply of 
Coulombs, you certainly will feel it, and in rare occasions, die because 
of it.

	Current *is* a factor. Certainly: Voltage will dictate an upper bound 
on the current. However, if there's not enough charge to maintain that 
upper bound, then voltage becomes irrelevant because it can't sustain 
that current.

-- 
"I find you guilty!", said the judge with conviction.

Post a reply to this message

> Not really. It's also the amount of available charge. If you get a 10 kV 
> shock, but the supply had very few Coulombs in it, you'll barely feel it.

I was kind of assuming that the power station grid could spare the extra 100 
mA or so needed to kill you :-)  But yes, if you find a 10 kV supply with 
very limited current sourcing capability (like the ones used in small CCFLs 
in old LCDs) it's difficult to kill yourself because of the very limited 
current sourcing capability.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> http://img1.photographersdirect.com/img/11943/wm/pd540134.jpg

A lot of that is phone wires, yes.

> I guess once you start putting power and telephone above-ground, things 
> get very messy very quickly in heavily populated areas.  

Only when it's poorly planned. You can have nice above-ground stuff that 
just has one set of power cables and one set of phone cables running down 
the street and branching once for each house.


-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Only when it's poorly planned. You can have nice above-ground stuff that 
> just has one set of power cables and one set of phone cables running 
> down the street and branching once for each house.
> 
> 

As with almost all things, a lack of planning can lead to "ugly", or 
poor functionality.

Post a reply to this message

Mr. Art wrote:
> As with almost all things, a lack of planning can lead to "ugly", or 
> poor functionality.

Of course, planning well can be difficult when you're trying to guess the 
best technology for 50 years in the future, or when you're trying to guess 
how many customers will be using your service in 30 years, or etc.  It's 
hard to blame the planners for this sometimes.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Mr. Art wrote:
>> As with almost all things, a lack of planning can lead to "ugly", or 
>> poor functionality.
> 
> Of course, planning well can be difficult when you're trying to guess 
> the best technology for 50 years in the future, or when you're trying to 
> guess how many customers will be using your service in 30 years, or 
> etc.  It's hard to blame the planners for this sometimes.
> 
Who said anything about blame?

Post a reply to this message

Mr. Art wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Mr. Art wrote:
>>> As with almost all things, a lack of planning can lead to "ugly", or 
>>> poor functionality.
>>
>> Of course, planning well can be difficult when you're trying to guess 
>> the best technology for 50 years in the future, or when you're trying 
>> to guess how many customers will be using your service in 30 years, or 
>> etc.  It's hard to blame the planners for this sometimes.
>>
> Who said anything about blame?

Me.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> I don't recall the monolith being on the moon... Then again, I have 
>> slept a few times since seeing the movie, so maybe I'm wrong.
> 
> That was actually the whole point of the section between the Apes and 
> Discovery.

Now I'll have to watch it again... agh.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> Mike Raiford wrote:
>>> I don't recall the monolith being on the moon... Then again, I have 
>>> slept a few times since seeing the movie, so maybe I'm wrong.
>>
>> That was actually the whole point of the section between the Apes and 
>> Discovery.
> 
> Now I'll have to watch it again... agh.
> 

Is that a bad thing? :)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> Chambers wrote:
>>> Mike Raiford wrote:
>>>> I don't recall the monolith being on the moon... Then again, I have 
>>>> slept a few times since seeing the movie, so maybe I'm wrong.
>>>
>>> That was actually the whole point of the section between the Apes and 
>>> Discovery.
>>
>> Now I'll have to watch it again... agh.
>>
> 
> Is that a bad thing? :)
> 
> ...Chambers

Not at all, but lamenting my failed memory...

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message