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