Tim+ <tim.downie@gmail.com> wrote in
news:850530377.716245339.913503.tim.downie-gmail.com@news.individual.net:

> Nicholas D. Richards <nicholas@salmiron.com> wrote:
>> In article <g281gitq5tufvgaokuova8sq8fad2jq8f1@4ax.com>,
>> hubops@ccanoemail.com on Tue, 12 Sep 2023 at 13:35:39 awoke Nicholas
>> from his slumbers and wrote
>>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 17:45:10 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
>>> <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 08:01:35 -0400
>>>> hubops@ccanoemail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Don't fret over design dates ... here in Ontario
>>>>> < and across most of the world ? >
>>>>> we're keeping all our aged nuclear plants running
>>>>> far beyond the orininal best-before dates ...
>>>>> .. what could possibly go wrong .. ?
>>>>
>>>> They're probably still working on the decommissioning plans - it
>>>> can't be easy to knock one down safely.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Now don't get ahead of yourself ! .. they won't get to working on
>>> the de-commissioning plans until after the issue of
>>> long-term nuclear waste storage is addressed ..
>>> .. they're still storing it all in the huge "temporary"
>>> swimming pools at the nuclear plant sites.
>>> John T.
>>>
>> And the climate catastrophe people are agitating for more and more of
>> these devices. They are even talking about thousand of small ones. The
>> catastrophe that awaits with nuclear technology is threatening to human
>> life over the next millennium.
>
> Whilst climbing CO2 levels threaten us all in the very much shorter term.
>
>> AIVI there never will be a solution to
>> nuclear waste.
>
> There are plenty of solutions to nuclear waste. Unfortunately far fewer
> solutions to people’s fear of the nuclear bogeyman.

This.

--
Peter
-----

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 01:09:32 +0100
Tone <tone@email.com> wrote:

> On 12/09/2023 23:35, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
> >>> And the climate catastrophe people are agitating for more and more of
> >>> these devices. They are even talking about thousand of small ones. The
> >>> catastrophe that awaits with nuclear technology is threatening to human
> >>> life over the next millennium. AIVI there never will be a solution to
> >>> nuclear waste. There of them that there are around the more there will
> >>> be unknown, unknown disasters.
> >> bore into a plate hat is slipping into the magma and deposit it there,
> >> where it will become assimilated into the earth's core.
> >>
> > Drill into what? With what? Magma has a nasty habit of spewing itself
> > into the environment. You want to make it even more radio-active.
> >
> > Wonder why it has not been tried?
> >
> > California is unlikely to agree to the dumping of radioactive rods into
> > their faults.
>
> The human race is hell bent on self annihilation.
>
> Mostly the cause is the greed of the rich and the compliance of the stupid.
>
> I see no way of stopping it. It is as it always has been, this time around.
>
> But the Earth will recover without us, and maybe by the time another
> 'intelligent' life-form evolves or is given, the atmosphere and nuclear
> waste will have become less toxic. It's just a question of time. Lots of it.
>
> Hopefully they will then discover us and what we did to the planet, and
> they will resolve not to make the same mistakes again.
>
> Hopefully they will have shedds in which their wise reside and lead.
>
> Hopefully they will still play rugby and brew beer.
>

I don't forsee beetles being into that kind of stuff. </unhopeful>

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

RustyHinge said:
> On 12/09/2023 20:55, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
>> hubops@ccanoemail.com on Tue, 12 Sep 2023 at 13:35:39 awoke Nicholas
>>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 17:45:10 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
>>>> hubops@ccanoemail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Don't fret over design dates ... here in Ontario
>>>>> < and across most of the world ? >
>>>>> we're keeping all our aged nuclear plants running
>>>>> far beyond the orininal best-before dates ...
>>>>> .. what could possibly go wrong .. ?
>>>>
>>>> They're probably still working on the decommissioning plans - it
>>>> can't be easy to knock one down safely.
>>>
>>> Now don't get ahead of yourself ! .. they won't get to working on
>>> the de-commissioning plans until after the issue of
>>> long-term nuclear waste storage is addressed ..
>>> .. they're still storing it all in the huge "temporary"
>>> swimming pools at the nuclear plant sites.
>>>
>> And the climate catastrophe people are agitating for more and more of
>> these devices. They are even talking about thousand of small ones. The
>> catastrophe that awaits with nuclear technology is threatening to human
>> life over the next millennium. AIVI there never will be a solution to
>> nuclear waste. There of them that there are around the more there will
>> be unknown, unknown disasters.
>
> bore into a plate hat is slipping into the magma and deposit it there,
> where it will become assimilated into the earth's core.

Is this being done ?

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 09:04:42 -0000 (UTC)
Peter <myshed@prune.org.uk> wrote:

> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in
> news:20230913035144.b8de2ca9d3f10a2429fb681f@eircom.net:
>
> > On 12 Sep 2023 21:05:09 GMT
> > Tim+ <tim.downie@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Whilst climbing CO2 levels threaten us all in the very much shorter
> >> term.
> >
> > Maybe, but the theory of anthropic global warming is supported by
>
> ..simple chemistry,

Er no! The absorption of infrared radiation by CO2 does not involve
any chemical reactions nor does the movement of heat through the atmosphere
involve any chemical reactions.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Host: Beautiful Theory meet Inconvenient Fact
Obit: Beautiful Theory died today of factual inconsistency

John Williamson said:
>
> Summat that amuses me is that there is a belief that the Victorians were
> good builders, making stuff to last for ever. Due to the way that all
> the cheap and nasty stuff they built fell down a Century or more ago,
> what we see today is the good stuff,

Back-to-backs ?

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

In article <udrnfg$20uf6$2@dont-email.me>, nev young <newsforpasiphae195
3@yahoo.co.uk> on Wed, 13 Sep 2023 at 08:13:52 awoke Nicholas from his
slumbers and wrote
>On 12/09/2023 23:29, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
>> In article <850530377.716245339.913503.tim.downie-gmail.com@news.individ
>
>>>> AIVI there never will be a solution to
>>>> nuclear waste.
>>>
>>> There are plenty of solutions to nuclear waste.
>>
>> Name a few, that do not involve endangering our descendants.
>The simplest is just leave it to decay. Shouldn't take too long.
>Less time than it takes the sun to burn out but longer than it takes
>current lifeforms to become extinct.

ROFL

So you advocate accelerating the process.
>>
>>> Unfortunately far fewer
>>> solutions to people’s fear of the nuclear bogeyman.
>>>
>Promble is people want solutions within their lifetime.
>(I groove) that's not gonna happen (within mine at least).
>

Meanwhile the problem is to be increased at an exponential rate.

--
0sterc@tcher -

"Où sont les neiges d'antan?"

On 13/09/2023 12:17, Richard Robinson wrote:
> John Williamson said:
>>
>> Summat that amuses me is that there is a belief that the Victorians were
>> good builders, making stuff to last for ever. Due to the way that all
>> the cheap and nasty stuff they built fell down a Century or more ago,
>> what we see today is the good stuff,
>
> Back-to-backs ?
>
>
Die to tightfisted landlords, they survived long enough to become
"interesting" and were preserved by careful maintenance over a couple of
centuries, and some have now been restored at great expense. They did,
admittedly, last longer than their replacements have.

They were and are better built than many of the inner city terraces though.

On tour a few years ago, we net t5wo musicians who had each bought a
castle. The 12th Century one was originally so damp it rained indoors
every night due to the condensation, but once it was (very slowly, as it
was sandstone) dried out, hasn't needed a penny spending on structural
repairs since the guy moved in about 20 years before we met him, and his
annual heating bills were a bit less than the average 1930s semi. The
plumbing for the central heating was, apparently a swine to put in, as
even the interior walls were a couple of feet thick and solid stone.

The other guy bought a large Victorian mansion, and it was a constant
battle to overcome the botches that had been made during construction,
mainly in the roof area. Others who I have met who did the same have
made the same comments.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

8On 12/09/2023 23:35, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
>> bore into a plate hat is slipping into the magma and deposit it there,
>> where it will become assimilated into the earth's core.
>>
> Drill into what? With what? Magma has a nasty habit of spewing itself
> into the environment. You want to make it even more radio-active.

Read my li^h^h^h^h^h^what I tryped: drill into *a plate*

> Wonder why it has not been tried?

I wonder too - but it may have been, on the quiet...

> California is unlikely to agree to the dumping of radioactive rods into
> their faults.
> -- 0

Who mentioned California?

--
Rusty Hinge
To err is human. To really foul things up requires a computer and the BOFH.

On 13/09/2023 01:09, Tone wrote:

> Hopefully they will have shedds in which their wise reside and lead.
>
> Hopefully they will still play rugby and brew beer.

I goove we might pass on the Rugby - we have enough addled-brains
running the whirled as it is.

--
Rusty Hinge
To err is human. To really foul things up requires a computer and the BOFH.

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in
news:20230913105049.c785face9f93822a7ae5cf1c@eircom.net:

> On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 09:04:42 -0000 (UTC)
> Peter <myshed@prune.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in
>> news:20230913035144.b8de2ca9d3f10a2429fb681f@eircom.net:
>>
>> > On 12 Sep 2023 21:05:09 GMT
>> > Tim+ <tim.downie@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Whilst climbing CO2 levels threaten us all in the very much
>> >> shorter term.
>> >
>> > Maybe, but the theory of anthropic global warming is supported
>> > by
>>
>> ..simple chemistry,
>
> Er no! The absorption of infrared radiation by CO2 does not
> involve
> any chemical reactions nor does the movement of heat through the
> atmosphere involve any chemical reactions.

I think you are splitting hairs. CO2 is a chemical and its EM absorbtion is
a consequence of the four vibrational modes of the C=O bonds. I, being a
chemical oceanographer by trade, would call that a chemical property, though
Tyndall, who discovered that atmospheric CO2 absorbed IR, was a physicist.
It hardly matters whether it is physics or chemistry, and it certainly
doesn't require complex models.

Tyndall was not the first to realise that the atmosphere was heated by the
absorbtion of solar radiation but he was probably the first to link it to
CO2. That was in 1859 - there were not many supercomputers around at that
time, which is why I queried your original claim that theory of anthropic
global warming is supported by extremely complex models that are nonetheless
gross simplifications of the chaotic reality they model. The supercomputers
are there, but they are doing a different job. Here's a potted history.

In the early days of studying atmospheric CO2 the potential for warming was
recognised but concern was offset by the assumption that excess CO2 would be
absorbed by the oceans. Very clear and plausible mechanisms were postulated
for oceanic CO2 removal. Nevertheless, after Tyndall, a very close eye was
kept on global temperatures.

By the 1960s it was clear that CO2 levels were increasing, together with a
commenusurate increase in global temperatures. Oceanographic work was
commissioned to try to find out why (I was involved at the periphery). The
answer was found in 1970 - I recall the excitement in our institute when a
Discovery cruise arrived with clear evidence that, while the chemistry was
correct the physics had ovelooked the very slow rates of transfer of CO2
across both the air-sea boundary and the haloclyne. This means that the
ocean is simply not capable of absorbing the CO2 fast enough to keep up with
anthropogenic emissions.

No problem. All we needed to do was cut back on CO2 emmissions. But we'd
forgotten the oblody politicians and their obeiance to the fossil fuel
industry. Since that time we have had two Royal Commission reports on the
science and the Stern report on the economics. The goverment of the day has
accepted each report in turn and promised to act, and not acted.

We have, though, seen sustainable energy growing. Here the growth is slower
than in others because our gummint is still giving far more financial
assistance to the fossil fuel industry than to renewables, so we'll need the
odd nuke or two to tide us over, which is regrettable but we are where we
are.

Now I need to darn my cardi. In the excitment I forgot about the nail.
--
Peter
-----

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 09:54:24 -0000 (UTC)
Richard Robinson <richard@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:

> RustyHinge said:
> > On 12/09/2023 20:55, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
> >> hubops@ccanoemail.com on Tue, 12 Sep 2023 at 13:35:39 awoke Nicholas
> >>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 17:45:10 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
> >>>> hubops@ccanoemail.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Don't fret over design dates ... here in Ontario
> >>>>> < and across most of the world ? >
> >>>>> we're keeping all our aged nuclear plants running
> >>>>> far beyond the orininal best-before dates ...
> >>>>> .. what could possibly go wrong .. ?
> >>>>
> >>>> They're probably still working on the decommissioning plans - it
> >>>> can't be easy to knock one down safely.
> >>>
> >>> Now don't get ahead of yourself ! .. they won't get to working on
> >>> the de-commissioning plans until after the issue of
> >>> long-term nuclear waste storage is addressed ..
> >>> .. they're still storing it all in the huge "temporary"
> >>> swimming pools at the nuclear plant sites.
> >>>
> >> And the climate catastrophe people are agitating for more and more of
> >> these devices. They are even talking about thousand of small ones. The
> >> catastrophe that awaits with nuclear technology is threatening to human
> >> life over the next millennium. AIVI there never will be a solution to
> >> nuclear waste. There of them that there are around the more there will
> >> be unknown, unknown disasters.
> >
> > bore into a plate hat is slipping into the magma and deposit it there,
> > where it will become assimilated into the earth's core.
>
> Is this being done ?
>
>
A hazard with this is that a) you need a subducting plate
interface; these are normally found as "trenches" at the deepest
parts of oceans, where a spill would not be a good thing.
b) we've barely been able to send rovers that far down, let alone
industrial containers; c) you've got to ship the stuff safely to those
remote spots in the first place.

Other objections might be available, that's just my top-of-the-head
assessment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_subducted_slabs_USGS.png

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On 13/09/2023 16:24, Peter wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in
> news:20230913105049.c785face9f93822a7ae5cf1c@eircom.net:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 09:04:42 -0000 (UTC)
>> Peter <myshed@prune.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in
>>> news:20230913035144.b8de2ca9d3f10a2429fb681f@eircom.net:
>>>
>>>> On 12 Sep 2023 21:05:09 GMT
>>>> Tim+ <tim.downie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Whilst climbing CO2 levels threaten us all in the very much
>>>>> shorter term.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe, but the theory of anthropic global warming is supported
>>>> by
>>>
>>> ..simple chemistry,
>>
>> Er no! The absorption of infrared radiation by CO2 does not
>> involve
>> any chemical reactions nor does the movement of heat through the
>> atmosphere involve any chemical reactions.
>
> I think you are splitting hairs. CO2 is a chemical and its EM absorbtion is
> a consequence of the four vibrational modes of the C=O bonds. I, being a
> chemical oceanographer by trade, would call that a chemical property, though
> Tyndall, who discovered that atmospheric CO2 absorbed IR, was a physicist.
> It hardly matters whether it is physics or chemistry, and it certainly
> doesn't require complex models.
>
> Tyndall was not the first to realise that the atmosphere was heated by the
> absorbtion of solar radiation but he was probably the first to link it to
> CO2. That was in 1859 - there were not many supercomputers around at that
> time, which is why I queried your original claim that theory of anthropic
> global warming is supported by extremely complex models that are nonetheless
> gross simplifications of the chaotic reality they model. The supercomputers
> are there, but they are doing a different job. Here's a potted history.
>
> In the early days of studying atmospheric CO2 the potential for warming was
> recognised but concern was offset by the assumption that excess CO2 would be
> absorbed by the oceans. Very clear and plausible mechanisms were postulated
> for oceanic CO2 removal. Nevertheless, after Tyndall, a very close eye was
> kept on global temperatures.
>
> By the 1960s it was clear that CO2 levels were increasing, together with a
> commenusurate increase in global temperatures. Oceanographic work was
> commissioned to try to find out why (I was involved at the periphery). The
> answer was found in 1970 - I recall the excitement in our institute when a
> Discovery cruise arrived with clear evidence that, while the chemistry was
> correct the physics had ovelooked the very slow rates of transfer of CO2
> across both the air-sea boundary and the haloclyne. This means that the
> ocean is simply not capable of absorbing the CO2 fast enough to keep up with
> anthropogenic emissions.
>
> No problem. All we needed to do was cut back on CO2 emmissions. But we'd
> forgotten the oblody politicians and their obeiance to the fossil fuel
> industry. Since that time we have had two Royal Commission reports on the
> science and the Stern report on the economics. The goverment of the day has
> accepted each report in turn and promised to act, and not acted.
>
> We have, though, seen sustainable energy growing. Here the growth is slower
> than in others because our gummint is still giving far more financial
> assistance to the fossil fuel industry than to renewables, so we'll need the
> odd nuke or two to tide us over, which is regrettable but we are where we
> are.
>
> Now I need to darn my cardi. In the excitment I forgot about the nail.

Thanks for that Peter. Copied, pasted and filed for future reference.

cheers

Tone

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 15:24:06 -0000 (UTC)
Peter <myshed@prune.org.uk> wrote:

> I think you are splitting hairs. CO2 is a chemical and its EM absorbtion
> is a consequence of the four vibrational modes of the C=O bonds. I, being

Yes it is, that is not where the complexity lies.

> a chemical oceanographer by trade, would call that a chemical property,
> though Tyndall, who discovered that atmospheric CO2 absorbed IR, was a
> physicist. It hardly matters whether it is physics or chemistry, and it
> certainly doesn't require complex models.

That CO2 absorbs infrared is a simple matter - the relationship
between that effect and climate is not partly because climate is a chaotic
system (in the mathematical sense) with numerous feedback loops. Life is
involved directly in those feedback loops, the only reason there's free
oxygen in the atmosphere is photosynthesis outstripping oxidation. Our
current fossil fuel reserves were mostly laid down during a period of high
CO2 levels that resulted in a peak in plant growth known as the
carboniferous era.

Another example of the complexity is the solubility of CO2 in salt
water which has a negative correlation with temperature but because of the
thermal inertia of the oceans there is a phase shift of several hundred
years involved (clearly visible in the graphs Al Gore publicised that show
the temperature curve *leading* CO2 not following it) - does it produce a
feedback loop ? Oscillations ?.

Then there are all the arguments about saturation (there's a neat
experiment that seems to show that atmospheric CO2 absorbs all the infrared
it can absorb in a very short distance) and re-radiation.

A more complex issue is how temperature changes affect cloud cover
and whether that results in less energy reaching us due to increased albedo
or more due to the insulating effect of clouds. I've sat in on discussions
about that among PhD students (mathematical physicists) in the Cavendish
labs many decades ago, they didn't come to any conclusions.

There are also a myriad of other factors affecting the climate
and their interaction is complex.

Short term trends can be deceptive too - if you look at the period
1940-1970 you will see a negative correlation between CO2 level and global
temperature.

A great deal of work has been done on the very complex climate
models used currently, some of the early ones had cloud cover as a
parameter! Others were carefully tuned to predict the present based on the
past. None of them have (or can) be tested outside of conditions seen to
date.

Climate modelling is not simple.

My point however is that even if anthropic global warming could be
disproved completely, or proven to be exactly as currently thought by
the IPCC or be shown to be the only thing preventing us from being five
miles under ice in a couple of centuries we still need stop burning fossil
fuels because it is unsustainable and waiting until they run out will kill
us.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
Host: Beautiful Theory meet Inconvenient Fact
Obit: Beautiful Theory died today of factual inconsistency

On 12/09/2023 23:27, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
> In article <g14MM.15639$dS08.209@fx05.ams1>, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com>
> on Tue, 12 Sep 2023 at 21:40:42 awoke Nicholas from his slumbers and
> wrote
>> On 12/09/2023 17:10, maus wrote:
>>> On 2023-09-12, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12/09/2023 13:01, hubops@ccanoemail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Summat that amuses me is that there is a belief that the Victorians were
>>>> good builders, making stuff to last for ever. Due to the way that all
>>>> the cheap and nasty stuff they built fell down a Century or more ago,
>>>> what we see today is the good stuff, and when you look closely at that
>>>> it is scary. I recently got involved with trying to buy a shop built in
>>>> the 1830s, and to be honest, I was amazed so much of it was still
>>>> original. They had good wood in those days.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The cathederals built in the middle ages we see now are the ones that
>>> are still standing. It would be hard to build a pyramid that would just
>>> collapse.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bent_Pyramid
>>
>> HTH HAND
> And Salisbury Cathedral. A cut and paste o a paragraph from Wikipedia:
>
> "Although the spire is the cathedral's most impressive feature, it has
> proved troublesome. Together with the tower, it added 6,397 tons (6,500
> tonnes) to the weight of the building. Without the addition of
> buttresses, bracing arches and anchor irons over the succeeding
> centuries, it would have suffered the fate of spires on other great
> ecclesiastical buildings
<snip>
I'm much impressed with that "6,397 tons".
Was that calculated, do you think?
Or did someone have the wbo of weighing every single block of stone &
beam of timber as it went up?

On 13/09/2023 12:17, Richard Robinson wrote:
> John Williamson said:
>>
>> Summat that amuses me is that there is a belief that the Victorians were
>> good builders, making stuff to last for ever. Due to the way that all
>> the cheap and nasty stuff they built fell down a Century or more ago,
>> what we see today is the good stuff,
>
> Back-to-backs ?

Belly to belly
I don't give a d@mn
'cos I'm done dead already

Sorry, this isn't the Zombie Jamboree thread is it?

On 13/09/2023 10:54, Richard Robinson wrote:
> RustyHinge said:
>> On 12/09/2023 20:55, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
>>> hubops@ccanoemail.com on Tue, 12 Sep 2023 at 13:35:39 awoke Nicholas
>>>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 17:45:10 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
>>>>> hubops@ccanoemail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't fret over design dates ... here in Ontario
>>>>>> < and across most of the world ? >
>>>>>> we're keeping all our aged nuclear plants running
>>>>>> far beyond the orininal best-before dates ...
>>>>>> .. what could possibly go wrong .. ?
>>>>>
>>>>> They're probably still working on the decommissioning plans - it
>>>>> can't be easy to knock one down safely.
>>>>
>>>> Now don't get ahead of yourself ! .. they won't get to working on
>>>> the de-commissioning plans until after the issue of
>>>> long-term nuclear waste storage is addressed ..
>>>> .. they're still storing it all in the huge "temporary"
>>>> swimming pools at the nuclear plant sites.
>>>>
>>> And the climate catastrophe people are agitating for more and more of
>>> these devices. They are even talking about thousand of small ones. The
>>> catastrophe that awaits with nuclear technology is threatening to human
>>> life over the next millennium. AIVI there never will be a solution to
>>> nuclear waste. There of them that there are around the more there will
>>> be unknown, unknown disasters.
>>
>> bore into a plate hat is slipping into the magma and deposit it there,
>> where it will become assimilated into the earth's core.
>
> Is this being done ?

If you _could_ drill down far enough to approach molten magma[1], you
are no longer 'drilling' since there is nothing solid to drill through.
However that molten magma is presumably under such great pressure, so it
would be jolly keen to shoot up your borehole (Ooh-err Missus) with
great force.
The question then remains: Does it shoot out and make a mini volcano of
you drilling site, or does it just cool on the way up and undo all your
efforts in drilling the hole in the first place?

[1] Can't unforget the deepest hole ever drilled, but I'm pretty sure it
was nowhere near deep enough for this wbo.

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 21:17:45 +0100
Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:

> On 13/09/2023 10:54, Richard Robinson wrote:
> > RustyHinge said:
> >> On 12/09/2023 20:55, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
> >>> hubops@ccanoemail.com on Tue, 12 Sep 2023 at 13:35:39 awoke Nicholas
> >>>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 17:45:10 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
> >>>>> hubops@ccanoemail.com wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Don't fret over design dates ... here in Ontario
> >>>>>> < and across most of the world ? >
> >>>>>> we're keeping all our aged nuclear plants running
> >>>>>> far beyond the orininal best-before dates ...
> >>>>>> .. what could possibly go wrong .. ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> They're probably still working on the decommissioning plans - it
> >>>>> can't be easy to knock one down safely.
> >>>>
> >>>> Now don't get ahead of yourself ! .. they won't get to working on
> >>>> the de-commissioning plans until after the issue of
> >>>> long-term nuclear waste storage is addressed ..
> >>>> .. they're still storing it all in the huge "temporary"
> >>>> swimming pools at the nuclear plant sites.
> >>>>
> >>> And the climate catastrophe people are agitating for more and more of
> >>> these devices. They are even talking about thousand of small ones. The
> >>> catastrophe that awaits with nuclear technology is threatening to human
> >>> life over the next millennium. AIVI there never will be a solution to
> >>> nuclear waste. There of them that there are around the more there will
> >>> be unknown, unknown disasters.
> >>
> >> bore into a plate hat is slipping into the magma and deposit it there,
> >> where it will become assimilated into the earth's core.
> >
> > Is this being done ?
>
> If you _could_ drill down far enough to approach molten magma[1], you
> are no longer 'drilling' since there is nothing solid to drill through.
> However that molten magma is presumably under such great pressure, so it
> would be jolly keen to shoot up your borehole (Ooh-err Missus) with
> great force.
> The question then remains: Does it shoot out and make a mini volcano of
> you drilling site, or does it just cool on the way up and undo all your
> efforts in drilling the hole in the first place?
>
> [1] Can't unforget the deepest hole ever drilled, but I'm pretty sure it
> was nowhere near deep enough for this wbo.
>
Abandoned Engineering, a repeat will be coming back around anytime soon.
Anyhow:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

In article <5ooMM.212$AfZe.194@fx45.iad>, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> on
Wed, 13 Sep 2023 at 20:50:24 awoke Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
>On 12/09/2023 23:27, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
>> And Salisbury Cathedral. A cut and paste o a paragraph from Wikipedia:
>>
>> "Although the spire is the cathedral's most impressive feature, it has
>> proved troublesome. Together with the tower, it added 6,397 tons (6,500
>> tonnes) to the weight of the building. Without the addition of
>> buttresses, bracing arches and anchor irons over the succeeding
>> centuries, it would have suffered the fate of spires on other great
>> ecclesiastical buildings
><snip>
>I'm much impressed with that "6,397 tons".
>Was that calculated, do you think?
>Or did someone have the wbo of weighing every single block of stone &
>beam of timber as it went up?
>
Just a suggestion, I do not know.

It is quite possible that someone was being paid by the ton to haul the
stone and timber. If the accounts (financial) have survived then Bobs
your Uncle. A great deal of information about the 1415 campaign of
Henry V is known because the accounts survive.

Alternatively modern surveying tools can quite possibly give volume of
stone and wood.

OTOH it may be guesstimate, in which case estimates should not be that
precise.

OTOH I have a problem, I only have to arms and therefore only two hands.
--
0sterc@tcher -

"Où sont les neiges d'antan?"

In article <KNoMM.214$AfZe.18@fx45.iad>, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> on
Wed, 13 Sep 2023 at 21:17:45 awoke Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
>On 13/09/2023 10:54, Richard Robinson wrote:
>> RustyHinge said:
>>> On 12/09/2023 20:55, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
>>>> hubops@ccanoemail.com on Tue, 12 Sep 2023 at 13:35:39 awoke Nicholas
>>>>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 17:45:10 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
>>>>>> hubops@ccanoemail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't fret over design dates ... here in Ontario
>>>>>>> < and across most of the world ? >
>>>>>>> we're keeping all our aged nuclear plants running
>>>>>>> far beyond the orininal best-before dates ...
>>>>>>> .. what could possibly go wrong .. ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They're probably still working on the decommissioning plans - it
>>>>>> can't be easy to knock one down safely.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now don't get ahead of yourself ! .. they won't get to working on
>>>>> the de-commissioning plans until after the issue of
>>>>> long-term nuclear waste storage is addressed ..
>>>>> .. they're still storing it all in the huge "temporary"
>>>>> swimming pools at the nuclear plant sites.
>>>>>
>>>> And the climate catastrophe people are agitating for more and more of
>>>> these devices. They are even talking about thousand of small ones. The
>>>> catastrophe that awaits with nuclear technology is threatening to human
>>>> life over the next millennium. AIVI there never will be a solution to
>>>> nuclear waste. There of them that there are around the more there will
>>>> be unknown, unknown disasters.
>>>
>>> bore into a plate hat is slipping into the magma and deposit it there,
>>> where it will become assimilated into the earth's core.
>>
>> Is this being done ?
>
>If you _could_ drill down far enough to approach molten magma[1], you
>are no longer 'drilling' since there is nothing solid to drill through.
>However that molten magma is presumably under such great pressure, so it
>would be jolly keen to shoot up your borehole (Ooh-err Missus) with
>great force.
>The question then remains: Does it shoot out and make a mini volcano of
>you drilling site, or does it just cool on the way up and undo all your
>efforts in drilling the hole in the first place?
>
>[1] Can't unforget the deepest hole ever drilled, but I'm pretty sure it
>was nowhere near deep enough for this wbo.
>
The Kola Superdeep Borehole was such an attempt. I cannot remember the
details now but the attempt was abandoned.
--
0sterc@tcher -

"Où sont les neiges d'antan?"

On 13/09/2023 23:57, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
> In article <5ooMM.212$AfZe.194@fx45.iad>, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> on
> Wed, 13 Sep 2023 at 20:50:24 awoke Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
>> On 12/09/2023 23:27, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
>>> And Salisbury Cathedral. A cut and paste o a paragraph from Wikipedia:
>>>
>>> "Although the spire is the cathedral's most impressive feature, it has
>>> proved troublesome. Together with the tower, it added 6,397 tons (6,500
>>> tonnes) to the weight of the building. Without the addition of
>>> buttresses, bracing arches and anchor irons over the succeeding
>>> centuries, it would have suffered the fate of spires on other great
>>> ecclesiastical buildings
>> <snip>
>> I'm much impressed with that "6,397 tons".
>> Was that calculated, do you think?
>> Or did someone have the wbo of weighing every single block of stone &
>> beam of timber as it went up?
>>
> Just a suggestion, I do not know.
>
> It is quite possible that someone was being paid by the ton to haul the
> stone and timber. If the accounts (financial) have survived then Bobs
> your Uncle. A great deal of information about the 1415 campaign of
> Henry V is known because the accounts survive.
>
> Alternatively modern surveying tools can quite possibly give volume of
> stone and wood.
>
> OTOH it may be guesstimate, in which case estimates should not be that
> precise.
>
> OTOH I have a problem, I only have to arms and therefore only two hands.
>
My guess is that the guesstimate is the 6,500 metric Tonnes, converted
to 6,397 imperial tons for the Americans among the readers which leads
me to wonder whether it is British long tons or American short ones.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Sam Plusnet said:
> On 13/09/2023 12:17, Richard Robinson wrote:
>> John Williamson said:
>>>
>>> Summat that amuses me is that there is a belief that the Victorians were
>>> good builders, making stuff to last for ever. Due to the way that all
>>> the cheap and nasty stuff they built fell down a Century or more ago,
>>> what we see today is the good stuff,
>>
>> Back-to-backs ?
>
> Belly to belly
> I don't give a d@mn
> 'cos I'm done dead already
>
> Sorry, this isn't the Zombie Jamboree thread is it?

It wasn't ...

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

John Williamson said:
> On 13/09/2023 12:17, Richard Robinson wrote:
>> John Williamson said:
>>>
>>> Summat that amuses me is that there is a belief that the Victorians were
>>> good builders, making stuff to last for ever. Due to the way that all
>>> the cheap and nasty stuff they built fell down a Century or more ago,
>>> what we see today is the good stuff,
>>
>> Back-to-backs ?
>>
>>
> Die to tightfisted landlords, they survived long enough to become
> "interesting" and were preserved by careful maintenance over a couple of
> centuries, and some have now been restored at great expense. They did,
> admittedly, last longer than their replacements have.

They're not all in the past tense. I lived in one until '97; at the time
it was rented on a yearly license while the Cynaavat Qrcnegzrag made up
its mind what to do about the area ... 25 years later Moogle Gaps tells me
it's still there, in use, and considerably prettier than it was then, so
I'm guessing it must have decided they're still viable in their long
term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-to-back_house

Like someone said, they had good wood; plus stone/brick, plus they
didn't ærate their concrete ...

> They were and are better built than many of the inner city terraces though.

I don't know anything about what was shoddier than what the backtoback
jerrybuilders came up with when pesky nannystate redtape wasn't enforced. I
suppose there'd be some Heritage Experiences somewhere ?

> On tour a few years ago, we net t5wo musicians who had each bought a
> castle. The 12th Century one was originally so damp it rained indoors
> every night due to the condensation, but once it was (very slowly, as it
> was sandstone) dried out, hasn't needed a penny spending on structural
> repairs since the guy moved in about 20 years before we met him, and his
> annual heating bills were a bit less than the average 1930s semi. The
> plumbing for the central heating was, apparently a swine to put in, as
> even the interior walls were a couple of feet thick and solid stone.
>
> The other guy bought a large Victorian mansion, and it was a constant
> battle to overcome the botches that had been made during construction,
> mainly in the roof area. Others who I have met who did the same have
> made the same comments.
>

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

In article <kmfs3nF9jn5U1@mid.individual.net>, John Williamson
<johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> on Thu, 14 Sep 2023 at 08:47:02 awoke
Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
>On 13/09/2023 23:57, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
>> In article <5ooMM.212$AfZe.194@fx45.iad>, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> on
>> Wed, 13 Sep 2023 at 20:50:24 awoke Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
>>> On 12/09/2023 23:27, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
>>>> And Salisbury Cathedral. A cut and paste o a paragraph from Wikipedia:
>>>>
>>>> "Although the spire is the cathedral's most impressive feature, it has
>>>> proved troublesome. Together with the tower, it added 6,397 tons (6,500
>>>> tonnes) to the weight of the building. Without the addition of
>>>> buttresses, bracing arches and anchor irons over the succeeding
>>>> centuries, it would have suffered the fate of spires on other great
>>>> ecclesiastical buildings
>>> <snip>
>>> I'm much impressed with that "6,397 tons".
>>> Was that calculated, do you think?
>>> Or did someone have the wbo of weighing every single block of stone &
>>> beam of timber as it went up?
>>>
>> Just a suggestion, I do not know.
>>
>> It is quite possible that someone was being paid by the ton to haul the
>> stone and timber. If the accounts (financial) have survived then Bobs
>> your Uncle. A great deal of information about the 1415 campaign of
>> Henry V is known because the accounts survive.
>>
>> Alternatively modern surveying tools can quite possibly give volume of
>> stone and wood.
>>
>> OTOH it may be guesstimate, in which case estimates should not be that
>> precise.
>>
>> OTOH I have a problem, I only have to arms and therefore only two hands.
>>
>My guess is that the guesstimate is the 6,500 metric Tonnes, converted
>to 6,397 imperial tons for the Americans among the readers which leads
>me to wonder whether it is British long tons or American short ones.

Dunno, but my British armsis short and my handsis are even shorter than
that long American Gehzc's (fcvg)
--
0sterc@tcher -

"Où sont les neiges d'antan?"

Tone <tone@email.com> wrote in news:udsobc$27051$1@dont-email.me:

>
> Thanks for that Peter. Copied, pasted and filed for future reference.
>
> cheers
>
> Tone

You're welcome. I'm glad it was of interest.

--
Peter
-----

In article <udumie$2j8ul$1@dont-email.me>, Richard Robinson
<richard@qualmograph.org.uk> on Thu, 14 Sep 2023 at 10:16:46 awoke
Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
>John Williamson said:
>> On 13/09/2023 12:17, Richard Robinson wrote:
>>>
>>> Back-to-backs ?
>>>
>>>
>> Die to tightfisted landlords, they survived long enough to become
>> "interesting" and were preserved by careful maintenance over a couple of
>> centuries, and some have now been restored at great expense. They did,
>> admittedly, last longer than their replacements have.
>
>They're not all in the past tense. I lived in one until '97; at the time
>it was rented on a yearly license while the Cynaavat Qrcnegzrag made up
>its mind what to do about the area ... 25 years later Moogle Gaps tells me
>it's still there, in use, and considerably prettier than it was then, so
>I'm guessing it must have decided they're still viable in their long
>term.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-to-back_house
>
>Like someone said, they had good wood; plus stone/brick, plus they
>didn't ærate their concrete ...
>
>
>> They were and are better built than many of the inner city terraces though.
>
>I don't know anything about what was shoddier than what the backtoback
>jerrybuilders came up with when pesky nannystate redtape wasn't enforced. I
>suppose there'd be some Heritage Experiences somewhere ?
>

They have not really gone. I bought a ground floor bed sitter in a
purpose built 1960/70's block. The only windows and door were along one
wall. Two walls and were my neighbours and the back wall was to garages.
I lived there during the horrendous summer of '76. They were stiflingly
hot and unvetilated in the summer and bitterly cold in winter (only
heating was night storage and a 1 bar electric fire which I swear heated
the neighbouring flat.

In those days the standards for new build social housing wee higher than
for private housing.

I do not know if they were built of Aero or Ginger bread, I did not want
to find out if my home was like the house in Hensel and Gretl.
--
0sterc@tcher -

"Où sont les neiges d'antan?"