Power Generation/Distribution

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

Coby 1 wrote:
Listen guys (gals), petrolheads/gearheads have an important and unique responsibility in life and that is to;
"keep Police pursuit drivers in tip top form for when they have real criminals to chase".


Now get out there and give future generations the equipment to fulfill their responsibilities!

In the 1970's the saying was that the radio was faster than the car.

No such 'saying'. Radio, being light, is faster than a car.

James___ wrote:
In today's world why can't law enforcement fire a tracking beacon at a motor vehicle?

Damage to said vehicle, risk of hitting an innocent bystander, risk of injury of occupants in target vehicle, and unconstitutional.

James___ wrote:
And if they stop to remove it, the police catch them.

Removing a projectile from a car is not illegal. Indeed, said driver could sue the police.

James___ wrote:
And if they don't stop, the police track them.

Unconstitutional.

James___ wrote:
There is no need to risk innocent bystanders.

I have already outlined the risk to innocent bystanders.

James___ wrote:
If people die as the result of police pursuit then the police are responsible yet are blameless when it comes to the loss of life.

Because the person eluding the police is responsible.

Am clueless as to what you said. It's like we have a reservation because people are tooo stupid. What is tooo stupid?

James___ wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXoOndMA5u8

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

James___ wrote:

Coby 1 wrote:
Listen guys (gals), petrolheads/gearheads have an important and unique responsibility in life and that is to;
"keep Police pursuit drivers in tip top form for when they have real criminals to chase".


Now get out there and give future generations the equipment to fulfill their responsibilities!

In the 1970's the saying was that the radio was faster than the car. In today's world why can't law enforcement fire a tracking beacon at a motor vehicle? And if they stop to remove it, the police catch them.
And if they don't stop, the police track them. There is no need to risk innocent bystanders. If people die as the result of police pursuit then the police are responsible yet are blameless when it comes to the loss of life.

It's been tried, and failed... Difficult to get a tracker to stay on. The car's body has a variety of textures, materials, contours. Magnets don't work. Adhesives don't work, since most cars filthy, or freshly waxed. Something fired, that can embed in a car, can also embed in your skull... It's difficult hitting a moving target, from a moving vehicle, specially at high speed. They also need to be very close. Isn't it safer to focus on driving, than lining up a dream shot at the fleeing car?

If it's a stolen car, it'll be found abandoned soon enough. Most stolen vehicles, are usually a one night of fun deal anyway. It's grand theft, and the longer you keep it, the more likely you'll get caught.

But, don't despair. Cops don't have to fire anything, since tracking is already built-in to most new model, smart-cars... There has be sort of a 'blackbox' built-in for decades. The data recorded is mostly for diagnostics, but they also record your driving habits. Not sure how much 'sharing' goes on with law enforcement, and insurance companies. For a sufficient fee, anything can be accessed...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAqZb52sgpU

HarveyH55 wrote:

James___ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

James___ wrote:

Coby 1 wrote:
Listen guys (gals), petrolheads/gearheads have an important and unique responsibility in life and that is to;
"keep Police pursuit drivers in tip top form for when they have real criminals to chase".


Now get out there and give future generations the equipment to fulfill their responsibilities!

In the 1970's the saying was that the radio was faster than the car. In today's world why can't law enforcement fire a tracking beacon at a motor vehicle? And if they stop to remove it, the police catch them.
And if they don't stop, the police track them. There is no need to risk innocent bystanders. If people die as the result of police pursuit then the police are responsible yet are blameless when it comes to the loss of life.

It's been tried, and failed... Difficult to get a tracker to stay on. The car's body has a variety of textures, materials, contours. Magnets don't work. Adhesives don't work, since most cars filthy, or freshly waxed. Something fired, that can embed in a car, can also embed in your skull... It's difficult hitting a moving target, from a moving vehicle, specially at high speed. They also need to be very close. Isn't it safer to focus on driving, than lining up a dream shot at the fleeing car?

If it's a stolen car, it'll be found abandoned soon enough. Most stolen vehicles, are usually a one night of fun deal anyway. It's grand theft, and the longer you keep it, the more likely you'll get caught.

But, don't despair. Cops don't have to fire anything, since tracking is already built-in to most new model, smart-cars... There has be sort of a 'blackbox' built-in for decades. The data recorded is mostly for diagnostics, but they also record your driving habits. Not sure how much 'sharing' goes on with law enforcement, and insurance companies. For a sufficient fee, anything can be accessed...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAqZb52sgpU

I've mentioned it many times, but should go over it again... I use dial-up internet, which is good enough for most of what I use it for. I have a lot of problems with graphic-heavy pages. YouTube, videos take a long time, just to load the page, then even longer to load and play. When you just post a link, with no description, it's immediately ignored. I'm not going to waste 20-30 minutes, on some silly, irrelevant nonsense, that you found amusing. Or maybe, just getting me to waste the time, is the amusement...

Mostly, even if I had high-speed internet, I still probably wouldn't click the links. A 15 minute video, still takes 15 minutes to watch. With no description, why even bother starting the video, just to abort? Wonder how many people actually click your blind link videos...

Coby 1 wrote:
Hi All,

I hope you are all well.

Question (i):
Where would be an ideal location for a 'wind farm', when optimum turbine rotation and ambient temperature of distribution cabling are considered?

Question (ii):
Where would be the optimum location for 'solar panels' to be erected, when hours of sunlight and ambient temperature are considered?

Question (iii):
Where would be the optimum location for tidal power stations to be sited, when continuity of supply and the replacement of 'nuclear power' are considered?

duncan61 wrote:

Coby 1 wrote:
Hi All,

I hope you are all well.

Question (i):
Where would be an ideal location for a 'wind farm', when optimum turbine rotation and ambient temperature of distribution cabling are considered?

Question (ii):
Where would be the optimum location for 'solar panels' to be erected, when hours of sunlight and ambient temperature are considered?

Question (iii):
Where would be the optimum location for tidal power stations to be sited, when continuity of supply and the replacement of 'nuclear power' are considered?

It is already under construction in the Pilbara West Australia.Twiggy Forest of FMG has decided to build wind and solar on all his mining leases.There are virtually no people living in the area and it is sunny 350 days a year and the wind howls most of the year.It will generate enough power to supply most of South East Asia up to and including Hong Kong.I am not sure about the East coast of Australia but West Australia is carbon nuetral now.There is one coal fired power station in Collie at blue water that is surrounded by state forest and the rest of our power comes from gas turbines at refineries that are hooked in to the grid and can boost the supply instantly.Perths power demand doubles in the summer and the system can cope.Gas is cheap and in great supply so nearly all heating in winter is gas.I have tested the gas hotplate at my house and the best reading I could get without burning my hand was around 2000 ppm which is less than I breath out all day long.It is good that the rest of the world has managed to get CO2 up to 400ppm which is just the right amount for plants and trees.It has dropped slightly since I have had the CO2 meter

duncan61 wrote:

Coby 1 wrote:
Hi All,

I hope you are all well.

Question (i):
Where would be an ideal location for a 'wind farm', when optimum turbine rotation and ambient temperature of distribution cabling are considered?

Question (ii):
Where would be the optimum location for 'solar panels' to be erected, when hours of sunlight and ambient temperature are considered?

Question (iii):
Where would be the optimum location for tidal power stations to be sited, when continuity of supply and the replacement of 'nuclear power' are considered?

It is already under construction in the Pilbara West Australia.Twiggy Forest of FMG has decided to build wind and solar on all his mining leases.There are virtually no people living in the area and it is sunny 350 days a year and the wind howls most of the year.It will generate enough power to supply most of South East Asia up to and including Hong Kong.I am not sure about the East coast of Australia but West Australia is carbon nuetral now.There is one coal fired power station in Collie at blue water that is surrounded by state forest and the rest of our power comes from gas turbines at refineries that are hooked in to the grid and can boost the supply instantly.Perths power demand doubles in the summer and the system can cope.Gas is cheap and in great supply so nearly all heating in winter is gas.I have tested the gas hotplate at my house and the best reading I could get without burning my hand was around 2000 ppm which is less than I breath out all day long.It is good that the rest of the world has managed to get CO2 up to 400ppm which is just the right amount for plants and trees.It has dropped slightly since I have had the CO2 meter

HarveyH55 wrote:

duncan61 wrote:

Coby 1 wrote:
Hi All,

I hope you are all well.

Question (i):
Where would be an ideal location for a 'wind farm', when optimum turbine rotation and ambient temperature of distribution cabling are considered?

Question (ii):
Where would be the optimum location for 'solar panels' to be erected, when hours of sunlight and ambient temperature are considered?

Question (iii):
Where would be the optimum location for tidal power stations to be sited, when continuity of supply and the replacement of 'nuclear power' are considered?

It is already under construction in the Pilbara West Australia.Twiggy Forest of FMG has decided to build wind and solar on all his mining leases.There are virtually no people living in the area and it is sunny 350 days a year and the wind howls most of the year.It will generate enough power to supply most of South East Asia up to and including Hong Kong.I am not sure about the East coast of Australia but West Australia is carbon nuetral now.There is one coal fired power station in Collie at blue water that is surrounded by state forest and the rest of our power comes from gas turbines at refineries that are hooked in to the grid and can boost the supply instantly.Perths power demand doubles in the summer and the system can cope.Gas is cheap and in great supply so nearly all heating in winter is gas.I have tested the gas hotplate at my house and the best reading I could get without burning my hand was around 2000 ppm which is less than I breath out all day long.It is good that the rest of the world has managed to get CO2 up to 400ppm which is just the right amount for plants and trees.It has dropped slightly since I have had the CO2 meter

400 ppm isn't just right for plants. It's good enough to get by on. Plants do their best in the 800 ppm range. CO2 isn't consistent across the entire planet, it varies a great deal. Below 180 ppm plants are starving and dying... Think that plants would be happier with a global average around 600 ppm.

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

duncan61 wrote:

Coby 1 wrote:
Hi All,

I hope you are all well.

Question (i):
Where would be an ideal location for a 'wind farm', when optimum turbine rotation and ambient temperature of distribution cabling are considered?

Question (ii):
Where would be the optimum location for 'solar panels' to be erected, when hours of sunlight and ambient temperature are considered?

Question (iii):
Where would be the optimum location for tidal power stations to be sited, when continuity of supply and the replacement of 'nuclear power' are considered?

It is already under construction in the Pilbara West Australia.Twiggy Forest of FMG has decided to build wind and solar on all his mining leases.There are virtually no people living in the area and it is sunny 350 days a year and the wind howls most of the year.It will generate enough power to supply most of South East Asia up to and including Hong Kong.I am not sure about the East coast of Australia but West Australia is carbon nuetral now.There is one coal fired power station in Collie at blue water that is surrounded by state forest and the rest of our power comes from gas turbines at refineries that are hooked in to the grid and can boost the supply instantly.Perths power demand doubles in the summer and the system can cope.Gas is cheap and in great supply so nearly all heating in winter is gas.I have tested the gas hotplate at my house and the best reading I could get without burning my hand was around 2000 ppm which is less than I breath out all day long.It is good that the rest of the world has managed to get CO2 up to 400ppm which is just the right amount for plants and trees.It has dropped slightly since I have had the CO2 meter

400 ppm isn't just right for plants. It's good enough to get by on. Plants do their best in the 800 ppm range. CO2 isn't consistent across the entire planet, it varies a great deal. Below 180 ppm plants are starving and dying... Think that plants would be happier with a global average around 600 ppm.

Plants don't need oxygen. They need CO2 and water (but not soda water!) and light, primarily. They use this to produce the sugars (carbohydrates) used to feed the plant (and us!). Plants produce oxygen as a byproduct of this.

What color light? Primarily blue. (You can use blue LEDs for this purpose). Red lights are also part of plant lights because red helps with flower development and certain other properties in the plant besides just basic growth.

LED's are ideal because they are cool, and won't roast the plant you are trying to grow!

duncan61 wrote:

Coby 1 wrote:
Hi All,

I hope you are all well.

Question (i):
Where would be an ideal location for a 'wind farm', when optimum turbine rotation and ambient temperature of distribution cabling are considered?

Question (ii):
Where would be the optimum location for 'solar panels' to be erected, when hours of sunlight and ambient temperature are considered?

Question (iii):
Where would be the optimum location for tidal power stations to be sited, when continuity of supply and the replacement of 'nuclear power' are considered?

It is already under construction in the Pilbara West Australia.Twiggy Forest of FMG has decided to build wind and solar on all his mining leases.There are virtually no people living in the area and it is sunny 350 days a year and the wind howls most of the year.It will generate enough power to supply most of South East Asia up to and including Hong Kong.I am not sure about the East coast of Australia but West Australia is carbon nuetral now.There is one coal fired power station in Collie at blue water that is surrounded by state forest and the rest of our power comes from gas turbines at refineries that are hooked in to the grid and can boost the supply instantly.Perths power demand doubles in the summer and the system can cope.Gas is cheap and in great supply so nearly all heating in winter is gas.I have tested the gas hotplate at my house and the best reading I could get without burning my hand was around 2000 ppm which is less than I breath out all day long.It is good that the rest of the world has managed to get CO2 up to 400ppm which is just the right amount for plants and trees.It has dropped slightly since I have had the CO2 meter

HarveyH55 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

duncan61 wrote:

Coby 1 wrote:
Hi All,

I hope you are all well.

Question (i):
Where would be an ideal location for a 'wind farm', when optimum turbine rotation and ambient temperature of distribution cabling are considered?

Question (ii):
Where would be the optimum location for 'solar panels' to be erected, when hours of sunlight and ambient temperature are considered?

Question (iii):
Where would be the optimum location for tidal power stations to be sited, when continuity of supply and the replacement of 'nuclear power' are considered?

It is already under construction in the Pilbara West Australia.Twiggy Forest of FMG has decided to build wind and solar on all his mining leases.There are virtually no people living in the area and it is sunny 350 days a year and the wind howls most of the year.It will generate enough power to supply most of South East Asia up to and including Hong Kong.I am not sure about the East coast of Australia but West Australia is carbon nuetral now.There is one coal fired power station in Collie at blue water that is surrounded by state forest and the rest of our power comes from gas turbines at refineries that are hooked in to the grid and can boost the supply instantly.Perths power demand doubles in the summer and the system can cope.Gas is cheap and in great supply so nearly all heating in winter is gas.I have tested the gas hotplate at my house and the best reading I could get without burning my hand was around 2000 ppm which is less than I breath out all day long.It is good that the rest of the world has managed to get CO2 up to 400ppm which is just the right amount for plants and trees.It has dropped slightly since I have had the CO2 meter

400 ppm isn't just right for plants. It's good enough to get by on. Plants do their best in the 800 ppm range. CO2 isn't consistent across the entire planet, it varies a great deal. Below 180 ppm plants are starving and dying... Think that plants would be happier with a global average around 600 ppm.

Plants don't need oxygen. They need CO2 and water (but not soda water!) and light, primarily. They use this to produce the sugars (carbohydrates) used to feed the plant (and us!). Plants produce oxygen as a byproduct of this.

What color light? Primarily blue. (You can use blue LEDs for this purpose). Red lights are also part of plant lights because red helps with flower development and certain other properties in the plant besides just basic growth.

LED's are ideal because they are cool, and won't roast the plant you are trying to grow!

LEDs are more efficient, because you can be selective of the wavelength emitted.

HarveyH55 wrote:
They aren't exactly cool though.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The high wattage LEDs do get hot, and need heat-sinks, sometimes active cooling (fan).

HarveyH55 wrote:
The 3 watt and 5 watt LEDs I've worked with get warm in a few minutes, using heat-sinks salvaged, and intended for transistors.

HarveyH55 wrote:
For growing plants, I'd probably want to provide better.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I'm not over driving them either, about 80% of their rated current. Shouldn't cook plants, but they do need thermal management.

Coby 1 wrote:
You still don't seem to get the 'Global' nature of the problem:
.

Coby 1 wrote:
Quite a number of scientists have already defined the problem.

Coby 1 wrote:
If you have problems with your products don't come bleating to me.

Quit your bitching and remember what's at the end of the line!

GasGuzzler wrote:

Coby 1 wrote:
Quite a number of scientists have already defined the problem.

What problem have they defined?

gfm7175 wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Coby 1 wrote:
Quite a number of scientists have already defined the problem.

What problem have they defined?

Such a simple straightforward question, yet you'll never get a simple straightforward response to it...

Coby 1 wrote:
The choice is a simple picture of:

(i) Heaven (a Swiss watch ticking along for generations to come, supplying electricity to the entire population at nothing more than 'maintenance costs').

(ii) Hell (ever increasing temperatures, melting ice caps, land going under water ending with the last man on top of mount Everest with all of the money in the world).

Coby 1 wrote:
The choice is a simple picture of:

[Marxist Utopia]: (a Swiss watch ticking along for generations to come, supplying electricity to the entire population [for FREE!] at nothing more than 'maintenance costs').

[Capitalist Hell]: Climate Armageddon ... and we should panic! panic! panic! ... with greedy capitalists causing it all in their lustful pursuit of every dollar on the planet.

Coby 1 wrote:Quite a number of scientists have already defined the problem.

Coby 1 wrote:Can you breath petrol fumes?

Coby 1 wrote:Can you breath petrol fumes?

IBdaMann wrote:
I can, all day. I can practically drink the stuff.

IBdaMann wrote:
Give me fuel, give me fire, give that which I desire. I don't know if you realize this but fuel is pumping engines, burning hard, loose and clean. The way I burn, it churns my direction so I quench my thirst with gasoline.

It's pretty straightforward. Be careful about burning your face upon the chrome. If you take the corner you only join the crash, so give me fuel and give me fire. Notice that electric motors are entirely secondary and aren't even mentioned.

gfm7175 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Give me fuel, give me fire, give that which I desire. I don't know if you realize this but fuel is pumping engines, burning hard, loose and clean. The way I burn, it churns my direction so I quench my thirst with gasoline.

It's pretty straightforward. Be careful about burning your face upon the chrome. If you take the corner you only join the crash, so give me fuel and give me fire. Notice that electric motors are entirely secondary and aren't even mentioned.

I understood what you were referencing right away at the bolded.

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Give me fuel, give me fire, give that which I desire. I don't know if you realize this but fuel is pumping engines, burning hard, loose and clean. The way I burn, it churns my direction so I quench my thirst with gasoline.

It's pretty straightforward. Be careful about burning your face upon the chrome. If you take the corner you only join the crash, so give me fuel and give me fire. Notice that electric motors are entirely secondary and aren't even mentioned.

I understood what you were referencing right away at the bolded.

Now you have a little better insight into how my brain works/falters. I read the (stupid) question "Can you breathe petrol vapors?" and that is what immediately came to mind.

You might be interested to know that I opted to have some media streaming to that effect while I was writing the post ... you know, for good measure.

Coby 1 wrote:
You still don't seem to get the 'Global' nature of the problem:

Coby 1 wrote:
There are a finite amount of resources for the construction of wind turbines and solar panels.
Therefore each much be used to its' maximum potential.

Coby 1 wrote:
Wind turbines to the polar regions, where they can rotate freely and to their maximum output.

Coby 1 wrote:
Solar panels to the desert regions, where the sun always shines and they don't get rain and crap stuck all over them.

Coby 1 wrote:
Other regions of the world need to work out how to achieve 'continuity of supply' using tidal power alone, once the locations for the tidal power stations have been worked out, the output of each station can be calculated.

Coby 1 wrote:
Any other method of powering the planet will just prolong the need for fossil fuels

Coby 1 wrote:
or nuclear (which unfortunately appears to be the goal of the corrupt and the stupid).

Coby 1 wrote:
Australia is an island:

Tidal power around Australia would therefore provide continuity of supply + it has desert regions perfect for solar power to export.

No need for gas.

But it has bird life so wind power is not the sensible option - move the turbines to the south pole.
Best effort so far though.

Coby 1 wrote:
Have you guys decided global warming isn't going to come fast enough, so you're going to bore us all to death?

Coby 1 wrote:
If you have problems with your products don't come bleating to me.

Coby 1 wrote:
Quit your bitching and remember what's at the end of the line!

Coby 1 wrote:
Do you understand 'continuity of supply'?
Do you realize the moon goes around the earth and isn't going to stop?

Coby 1 wrote:
Quite a number of scientists have already defined the problem.

Coby 1 wrote:
Can you breath petrol fumes?

duncan61 wrote:

Coby 1 wrote:
If you have problems with your products don't come bleating to me.

Quit your bitching and remember what's at the end of the line!

Are you responding to my post or something else.Whats at the end of the line The planet has never been so clean and green.I have been to Gloucestershire its a beautiful part of the world.The latest data is showing the warming has ceased and is now going the other way.Oooops

Coby 1 wrote:
The choice is a simple picture of:

(i) Heaven (a Swiss watch ticking along for generations to come, supplying electricity to the entire population at nothing more than 'maintenance costs').

(ii) Hell (ever increasing temperatures, melting ice caps, land going under water ending with the last man on top of mount Everest with all of the money in the world).