On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 08:12:25 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


It is obvious that you have never given a moments intelligent thought to
this question. You are just following the flock. The waste from a nuclear
power station is in fact a great deal easier to dispose of safely than the
waste from a fossil fuel plant. The trouble lies entirely in the fact that
the shepherds who persistently lead the sheep astray on this matter have not
even the faintest understanding of the issues involved in comparing methods
of disposing of waste from power stations.

Does this include the shepherds from Sellafield, whose sheep glow in
the dark? :-)
--
Martin

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 21:35:11 +0100, martin wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 01:38:55 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Franz Heymann wrote:


As clear as daylight. The reason for the reduced area of Thermomax is that
it has twice the efficiency as the flat plate. *Not* that it has "twice the
efficiency per square foot".


Its because he didn't go t uni. He's very sensitive about it.

Perhaps, he didn't go to school. These aren't concepts taught at
university, they used to be taught to 15 year olds at school in the
nineteen fifties

Even in the seventies, Martin.



He sort of graps the concept that a square foot of one is better than a
square foot of another, but detailed explanatins of teh correct words to
use just pass hum by.

He's a humpty dumpty. Words mean what HE wants them to mean.

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 20:39:55 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"martin" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 01:38:55 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Franz Heymann wrote:


As clear as daylight. The reason for the reduced area of Thermomax is
that
it has twice the efficiency as the flat plate. *Not* that it has
"twice the
efficiency per square foot".


Its because he didn't go t uni. He's very sensitive about it.

Perhaps, he didn't go to school. These aren't concepts taught at
university, they used to be taught to 15 year olds at school in the
nineteen fifties

What concepts would you be on about, oh know-it-all one?

Haven't you been paying attention or what?
--
Martin

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
In message , Franz Heymann
writes

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Franz Heymann wrote:

Fusion power is going to turn out to be a great deal filthier than
fission
power.

I don't think so. The fisson products would all be relatively short
lived isoptopes, and teh main product is helieum. Non radioactve
helieum

Its only the vast amounts of radiation intereacting with the shielding
that would cause some radioactive compounds to be generated.

No. In the reactions which are presently considered, there will be a lot
of
tritium around. Tritium is a gas and it has a long half life. It scares
the pants off me.

Tritium isn't all that bad. Its half life of about 12 years is short
compared to millenia for fission waste. Tritium is a beta emitter with
18keV electron decay and there is quite a market in tritiated plastics
for permanent glow in the dark (and still some requirement for H-bomb
initiators). Emergency lighting in some applications is based on it.

I am quite happy about making sensible use of the tritium which one manages
to capture. My worry is the stuff which escapes into the atmosphere.
Remember it is a gas.


Fission power is the cleanest and least polluting energy source ever
produced on earth.

Yes, I tend to agree with you.

You have to get the whole life cycle right though. And they still
haven't an adequate solution for long term storage of high level waste.

Franz

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

The pollution of the atmosphere by fossil
fuel stations is vastly worse than
the pollution caused by nuclear power stations.

That is certainly true.

If all power stations were nuclear around
the world the waste would pile up
and be a huge problem in the future. Silly
idea and should be forgotten.

It is obvious that you have never given a
moments intelligent thought to
this question. You are just following the flock.

My God, he is the only with insight now.

I have some insight into the matter.
There are very many other folk who also have insight (more than me) about
waste disposal.

The waste from a nuclear
power station is in fact a great deal easier
to dispose of safely than the
waste from a fossil fuel plant.

But is isn't!! It is dumped at the bottom of the ocean in casks that
might
last 100 years, then they will slowly leak their toxic contents into the
ocean and into the food chain. This is a very sill idea. As people in
the
20th century cursed the Victorian legacy of piled up dangerous slag heaps
and other filth, future generations will think the same of us.

You have behaved exactly as I expected a member of the non-nuclear lobby to
behave. You trotted oout the received wisdom before you even knew what my
case was based on.
I am not speaking about dumping anything anywhere.

I have spent all my working life in particle accelerator laboratories.
(Atom smashers to you).
I know that practically any element which is exposed to a sufficiently large
does of high energy particles will be converted into a *short* lived
radioactive element. In particular, all the material which is said to be
difficult to store (spuriously so) can be transmuted into short lived
radioactive materials. ( Stuff which is typically rendered safe within days
or less). The suggestion was originally made a few years ago by a Nobel
prize winning physicist, Carlo Rubbia and has been analysed in great detail
by a group of high energy particle physicists, The process has been shown to
be entirely feasible.
It has even been shown that the energy in the heat produced in the process
of transmuting the waste elements is within a hair's breadth enough to make
the whole process self-sufficient in energy requirements.

The only reason as far as I can see that no government has so far acted
on the suggestion is that they are either all dead scared of the
anti-nuclear lobbies, or they don't understand the very innovative
suggestion..

The waste can be dumped down deep disused mines and then the seams
concreted
up. In 1000 years time some one will probably tunnel into it. Of course
they will make a record, which will be lost. There are 4, 5 or 6 (no one
quite knows) underground store of TNT under Belgium fields. No one quite
knows where they are. These were the largest non-nuclear bombs ever made.
The British would tunnel under the German trenches, fill with TNT and
detonate, killing 10,000 men in one explosion from one bomb. The disused
bombs were not used because the British trenches had moved forwards over
them. One of these bombs went off by accident in 1955. Luckily no one was
killed. It is a matter of time before the others explode. Records of
where the bombs are? Some, but not all.

You have simply regurgitated all the standard anti-nuclear lobby
scaremongering arguments.
What you omitted to say is that fossil fuel plants don't even try to deal
with their waste. They simply pour it into the atmosphere and contribute
grossly to the greenhouse effect which is harming the planet NOW, not in the
1000 years from now scenario which you dutifully trot out.

If every powerstatio in the world was nuclear, where would all the waste
go?

I have indicated one totally acceptable method of coping: Convert all into
short lived radioactive nucleids and wait a few days before advertising it
for sale or burying it under the road.

Privately owned stations would cheaply dump the waste (illegal dumping of
chemicals in all countries is common),

I am not in favour of a privatised nuclear industry, but it would be no
great shakes to set up a suitable inspectorate.

insead of down expensive deep mines
and sealing up with concrete. It is the human error aspect that is the
flaw. When it goes wrong the effects last for 100s of years after.

You have said this before. I have pointed out that with the scheme I
favour, it is all irrelevant.

Also, cases of leukaemia are far greater around nuclear facilities.

(1) You have not ever studied the evidence for that The statistical
significance of the evidence is quite poor.
(2) There are also (stronger?) pockets of leukaemia in areas which have
nothing to do with nuclear power stations.

Just
co-incidence the nuclear people say. ********!!!

No not ********. The statistical evidence is in fact quite weak.

The trouble lies entirely in the fact that
the shepherds who persistently lead
the sheep astray on this matter have not
even the faintest understanding of the
issues involved in comparing methods
of disposing of waste from power stations.

They have a lot of common sense, that is clear.

No, it is not at all clear. They are simply grinding axes most of the time.

Dependency on fossil fuel
power can be vastly reduced by use of insulation, passive solar, superior
town planning eliminating cars, CHP, more efficient engines, etc, etc.

Not "vastly", as you said. The correct adjective is "somewhat"

And, by the way, there are arguments to counter what you call flaws in your
own regurgitated suggestions for dumping, but I won't bother, since dumping
is not essential at all.

Franz

"martin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 08:12:25 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


It is obvious that you have never given a moments intelligent thought to
this question. You are just following the flock. The waste from a
nuclear
power station is in fact a great deal easier to dispose of safely than
the
waste from a fossil fuel plant. The trouble lies entirely in the fact
that
the shepherds who persistently lead the sheep astray on this matter have
not
even the faintest understanding of the issues involved in comparing
methods
of disposing of waste from power stations.

Does this include the shepherds from Sellafield, whose sheep glow in
the dark? :-)

{:-))

Franz

"martin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 07:55:12 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Rod Hewitt" wrote in message
.. .
"IMM" wrote in
:

A car has no insulation, as they produce so much waste heat the
engines can provide enough even in the coldest conditions. Adding
insulation, bonded to the cars sheet metal around the cabin, would
improve matters. The drive motors and batteries produce heat, so
this
must be available for use.

And also add to the cost and weight...

Insulation should not add that much weight. Cost? Mass production
will
bring that down.

I doubt that any heat would be available from motors if they are
fitted
into the wheel hubs.

If they are. Most electric cars have one motor.

There may be problems supplying enough electrical power for the
demisters,
seat heaters (oops, well I have a Saab), and other things (maybe
needing
a
heater for the screen/headlamp wash and other currently
unnecessary/rarely
fitted devices).

Cars are full of unnecessary crap which add cost and weight affecting
fuel
consumption, such as rev counters.

Please have a feeling for quantitative matters. Your car is capable of
producing more than 10^5 watts and you are mithering about an instrument
which uses at most 5 watts to produce data which is very valuable for
enabling you to use the engine effectively?

Perhaps you can explain
a) why Nissan puts a rev.counter in a Nissan Micra *Automatic*? :-)

I drive an automatic with a rev counter. There are two circumstances where
I find it useful:
On some mountain roads, the automatic gear keeps changing gear continuously.
In such cases I use the gear lever effectively as a manual controller. I
then find the rev. counter useful.
Ditto on descending a pass. I often lock the gear into a low value and use
the rev counter to judge when I need to use a bit of brake.

b) Why it's electrostatic powder clutch has died after 20,00 miles

No idea.

c) what an electrostatic powder clutch is and why.

No idea.


Why does anyone need to know how much
the engine is revving in a normal road car?

Beats me. I know when it is
revving, I hear and feel it.

I find it a very useful device for helping me to decide on when to change
gear. It is more quantitarive than just "having a feel for it"

Real drivers do it by ear :-)

{:-))



If it is revved too much the management system
cuts it out. An electric window on the drivers side is unnecessary
too,
as
are electric sunroofs, which are a British fascination. The French
don't
want to know them.

At last we are in agreement about something

Why isn't the a/c an absorption system using waste engine heat, instead
of
taking power off the crank, reducing mpg?

Nissan aircos don't seem to increase fuel consumption noticeably.

And neither does mine.

Franz

martin wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 01:38:55 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


Franz Heymann wrote:



As clear as daylight. The reason for the reduced area of Thermomax is that
it has twice the efficiency as the flat plate. *Not* that it has "twice the
efficiency per square foot".


Its because he didn't go t uni. He's very sensitive about it.


Perhaps, he didn't go to school. These aren't concepts taught at
university, they used to be taught to 15 year olds at school in the
nineteen fifties



Yes, but today you only get to learn them at snotty unis.

Its called 'Progress and equality in educayshun'

The basic idea is to wreck teh snotty unis and teh grammare schools to
appeas teh Laber Votahs who think that not being stupid is some kind of
clarss privilege.

Whilst most of the Laber MP's send their kids to private schools (on tax
payers money)a nd went to them themselves, or at least snotty grammar
schools, before going free to univesrity (on taxpayers money).

Its normal 'animal farm' stuff. Everybody is equally miserable, stupid
and badly educated, except for the Party Elite, who simply become teh
new aristocracy, just like in the Soviet Union.

One wouldn't mind, except they are so BAD at it.





He sort of graps the concept that a square foot of one is better than a
square foot of another, but detailed explanatins of teh correct words to
use just pass hum by.

He's a humpty dumpty. Words mean what HE wants them to mean.

IMM wrote:

"martin" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 01:38:55 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


Franz Heymann wrote:



As clear as daylight. The reason for the reduced area of Thermomax is

that

it has twice the efficiency as the flat plate. *Not* that it has

"twice the

efficiency per square foot".


Its because he didn't go t uni. He's very sensitive about it.

Perhaps, he didn't go to school. These aren't concepts taught at
university, they used to be taught to 15 year olds at school in the
nineteen fifties


What concepts would you be on about, oh know-it-all one?


He sort of graps the concept that a square foot of one is better than a
square foot of another, but detailed explanatins of teh correct words to
use just pass hum by.


You are a man of limited intelligence.



We are all men of limited intelligence, some however, are more limited
than others.

Franz Heymann wrote:

In particular, all the material which is said to be
difficult to store (spuriously so) can be transmuted into short lived
radioactive materials. ( Stuff which is typically rendered safe within days
or less). The suggestion was originally made a few years ago by a Nobel
prize winning physicist, Carlo Rubbia and has been analysed in great detail
by a group of high energy particle physicists, The process has been shown to
be entirely feasible.

I would be intensely interested in any material on the web that you
could direct my attention to, concerning this.

If it is true, it needs serious evaluation.

What you aretalking about is essentially ';sterilisation' of long lived
isotopes by blasting them in and around a recator into presumably
somewhat 'hotter' but less enduring isotopes, that could be stuck
somewhere for ten years, and then be 'cold' enough to dispose of in more
normal ways?

martin wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 01:38:55 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


Franz Heymann wrote:



As clear as daylight. The reason for the reduced area of Thermomax is that
it has twice the efficiency as the flat plate. *Not* that it has "twice the
efficiency per square foot".


Its because he didn't go t uni. He's very sensitive about it.


Perhaps, he didn't go to school. These aren't concepts taught at
university, they used to be taught to 15 year olds at school in the
nineteen fifties



Yes, but today you only get to learn them at snotty unis.

Its called 'Progress and equality in educayshun'

The basic idea is to wreck teh snotty unis and teh grammare schools to
appeas teh Laber Votahs who think that not being stupid is some kind of
clarss privilege.

Whilst most of the Laber MP's send their kids to private schools (on tax
payers money)a nd went to them themselves, or at least snotty grammar
schools, before going free to univesrity (on taxpayers money).

Its normal 'animal farm' stuff. Everybody is equally miserable, stupid
and badly educated, except for the Party Elite, who simply become teh
new aristocracy, just like in the Soviet Union.

One wouldn't mind, except they are so BAD at it.





He sort of graps the concept that a square foot of one is better than a
square foot of another, but detailed explanatins of teh correct words to
use just pass hum by.

He's a humpty dumpty. Words mean what HE wants them to mean.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

We are all men of limited intelligence, some however, are more limited
than others.

You are....so true.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004

IMM wrote:

"martin" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 01:38:55 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


Franz Heymann wrote:



As clear as daylight. The reason for the reduced area of Thermomax is

that

it has twice the efficiency as the flat plate. *Not* that it has

"twice the

efficiency per square foot".


Its because he didn't go t uni. He's very sensitive about it.

Perhaps, he didn't go to school. These aren't concepts taught at
university, they used to be taught to 15 year olds at school in the
nineteen fifties


What concepts would you be on about, oh know-it-all one?


He sort of graps the concept that a square foot of one is better than a
square foot of another, but detailed explanatins of teh correct words to
use just pass hum by.


You are a man of limited intelligence.



We are all men of limited intelligence, some however, are more limited
than others.

martin wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 01:38:55 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


Franz Heymann wrote:



As clear as daylight. The reason for the reduced area of Thermomax is that
it has twice the efficiency as the flat plate. *Not* that it has "twice the
efficiency per square foot".


Its because he didn't go t uni. He's very sensitive about it.


Perhaps, he didn't go to school. These aren't concepts taught at
university, they used to be taught to 15 year olds at school in the
nineteen fifties



Yes, but today you only get to learn them at snotty unis.

Its called 'Progress and equality in educayshun'

The basic idea is to wreck teh snotty unis and teh grammare schools to
appeas teh Laber Votahs who think that not being stupid is some kind of
clarss privilege.

Whilst most of the Laber MP's send their kids to private schools (on tax
payers money)a nd went to them themselves, or at least snotty grammar
schools, before going free to univesrity (on taxpayers money).

Its normal 'animal farm' stuff. Everybody is equally miserable, stupid
and badly educated, except for the Party Elite, who simply become teh
new aristocracy, just like in the Soviet Union.

One wouldn't mind, except they are so BAD at it.





He sort of graps the concept that a square foot of one is better than a
square foot of another, but detailed explanatins of teh correct words to
use just pass hum by.

He's a humpty dumpty. Words mean what HE wants them to mean.

Franz Heymann wrote:

In particular, all the material which is said to be
difficult to store (spuriously so) can be transmuted into short lived
radioactive materials. ( Stuff which is typically rendered safe within days
or less). The suggestion was originally made a few years ago by a Nobel
prize winning physicist, Carlo Rubbia and has been analysed in great detail
by a group of high energy particle physicists, The process has been shown to
be entirely feasible.

I would be intensely interested in any material on the web that you
could direct my attention to, concerning this.

If it is true, it needs serious evaluation.

What you aretalking about is essentially ';sterilisation' of long lived
isotopes by blasting them in and around a recator into presumably
somewhat 'hotter' but less enduring isotopes, that could be stuck
somewhere for ten years, and then be 'cold' enough to dispose of in more
normal ways?