Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 6 Feb 2007 09:54 In article <eq9tc9$8ss_006(a)s807.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: [.....] >I just read a book written by a woman whose business is to >provide nanny help to people who live inside the Beltway. > >None of those people have a grasp on reality. There is someone, lets call him Billy, who sees lots of giant spiders. He says that all the people who can't see giant spiders have no grasp on reality. How do you know that the threats you see aren't just your personal form of giant spiders. It would go a long way towards explaining why others can't see them. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 6 Feb 2007 10:07 In article <45C7F874.B3F5407(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Ken Smith wrote: > >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> > >> >The American people have an average IQ of 100, meaning >> >half the population has a lower than 100 IQ. >> >> Since 100 is defined based on the normal human, it is not surprising that >> the normal human scores about 100. > >What does trouble me is that although my IQ places me in the top few >percent, what >that says about those further down the scale given that I can do some >pretty dumb >things at times. You just haven't viewed it from the right angle. As creatures go, humans are very smart. Some of them are very very smart. Not all of what makes humans smart is tested in the standard IQ test. Humans are one of the few creatures that can understand that others know different things than them and will thus decide on different actions as a result. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: unsettled on 6 Feb 2007 10:18 Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > > >>Eeyore wrote: >> >>>unsettled wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Your receptacles themselves are not capable of safely carrying >>>>the current available to them. That's God awful design. If the >>>>plastic material of the receptacle carbonizes and begins to arc >>>>there's an awful lot of energy available to star a fire. >> >>>You're talking rubbish. They're a vast improvement over those bent bits of metal you >>>lot use. The only criticism I've ever seen of them is that they could be considered >>>to be over-engineered. >> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BS_1363 >> >>>Often considered the safest plug / socket system in the world btw. >> >>The only receptacles I saw were the older round prong variety, > > > 40 years ago ? > > > >>but no matter, even these are only rated for 13 amperes with >>30 amps available. > > > 15A actually. > > > >>Anyway that's only part of it. Any form of damage or contamination >>that allows the receptacle to become carbonized can easily lead >>to an electrical fire. > > > In order for anything to carbonise it has to get hot. The BS1363 plug only carries 13A > though a solid machined contact unlike the 15A you put through your bits of bent metal. > Ir doesn't get hot ! Contamination, such as getting wet, causes the demise of receptacles pronto. Nearby lightning strikes cause arcing at the oddest places, another source of carbonization. Let's talk a little about your "solid machined contact" in your receptacles. 1 spring action is required. stamped properly tempered metal is more than adequate 2 the price of machining is outrageous A standard 15 amp duplex receptacle is available in the USA with a low end price of well under 1 US$. High end decorative is around $35 which includes built in surge suppression. >>>>We have, at most, 20 amperes at 120 volts in general use >>>>receptacles, fed by wire that will carry that current forever >>>>without overheating. And we derate that wire to 80% normal >>>>(here's a new word for you) ampacity in those cases where >>>>the circuit will be used continuously for 3 hours or longer. >> >>>>UK uses a smaller wire for the ring circuit, counting on it >>>>being fed from two direction to each load. The wire, by US >>>>standards, is significantly undersized. Presuming a break >>>>anywhere in that loop means that the full 30 amperes is >>>>available to a terribly undersized wire which can then >>>>over heat to glowing inside the walls and ceilings without >>>>the protective overcurrent device disconnecting the load. >> >>>Why do you presume a break ? >> >>Because any time life safety is considered one *must* consider >>each possible failure to be likely. > I dare say it's been considered. And ignored. > Rules for ring circuits say that the cable rating must be no less than two thirds of the > rating of the protective device. This means that the risk of sustained overloading of the > cable can be considered minimal. In practice, however, it is extremely uncommon to > encounter a ring with a breaker other than 32 A and a cable size other than those > mentioned above. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_main You have a 15 ampere wire connected to a 30 ampere overload device. >>>The cable used is 2.5 mm^2 btw which is 14 AWG. It's comfortably rated. Do feel free >>>to calculate temp rise if you feel so inclined. >> >>Don't need to. Our electrical code considers 14 gage wire >>suitable for a 15 ampere intermittent load. > So does ours it would seem. >>>Your understanding of UK wiring is quite flawed. >>I saw it. I had my hands in it. I didn't like it one bit. >> >> >>>Electrical problems here are exceedingly rare unknown >> >>Nonsense. > It's a fact. If you know of some please post a link. >>>and it's unheard of for faulty electrics to cause house >>>fires. >>Sounds like propaganda. I'd have to see actual statistics on that. > It just doesn't happen unlike the conflagrations you guys get. US electrical fires have several primary causes. One is incompetent people messing about creating dangerous situations. Another is that for a brief period we allowed the use of aluminum wires. The third is user stupidity, such things as running an extension cord under a carpet and overloading it. The British system is simply far better engineered. LOL
From: Eeyore on 6 Feb 2007 10:51 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > > >>>> >There's a Cambridge Mass too. > >>>> > >>>> Son, that is a town; it is not a school. > >>> > >>>City actually. Same as ours. > >> > >> I think it's a town. I'd have to check what it's carter is. > >> I don't remember a mayor of Cambridge. > >>> > >>>Cambridge is a city in the Greater Boston area of Massachusetts, United > >> States. > >>>It was named in honor of Cambridge, England. > >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge%2C_Massachusetts > >>> > >>>The city of Cambridge is an old English university town and the > >> administrative centre of the county of Cambridgeshire. > >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge > >> > >> The difference between town and city is the style of government. > > > >Do you think this applies universally? > > Here, it does. > > The reason you three have hared off into some strange direction > in this thread is Eeyore's suggestion that the reference to > Cambridge might have been the Massachusetts town. It was not. > If the guy had gone to one of the schools in Cambridge, Mass., > he would not have written _at_ Cambridge; this is a unique > phrasing in England and not done in the US. The guy would > have acquired American phrasing and not British phrasing if > he had gone to MIT or Harvard. What a curious idea that someone's 'phrasing' as associated with the country they studied in. Graham
From: unsettled on 6 Feb 2007 11:03
Eeyore wrote: > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > >>"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>> >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>There's a Cambridge Mass too. >>>>>> >>>>>>Son, that is a town; it is not a school. >>>>> >>>>>City actually. Same as ours. >>>> >>>>I think it's a town. I'd have to check what it's carter is. >>>>I don't remember a mayor of Cambridge. >>>> >>>>>Cambridge is a city in the Greater Boston area of Massachusetts, United >>>> >>>>States. >>>> >>>>>It was named in honor of Cambridge, England. >>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge%2C_Massachusetts >>>>> >>>>>The city of Cambridge is an old English university town and the >>>> >>>>administrative centre of the county of Cambridgeshire. >>>> >>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge >>>> >>>>The difference between town and city is the style of government. >>> >>>Do you think this applies universally? >> >>Here, it does. >> >>The reason you three have hared off into some strange direction >>in this thread is Eeyore's suggestion that the reference to >>Cambridge might have been the Massachusetts town. It was not. >>If the guy had gone to one of the schools in Cambridge, Mass., >>he would not have written _at_ Cambridge; this is a unique >>phrasing in England and not done in the US. The guy would >>have acquired American phrasing and not British phrasing if >>he had gone to MIT or Harvard. > > > What a curious idea that someone's 'phrasing' as associated with the country > they studied in. Brooklyn is definitely a foreign country. |