On 16/01/2024 18:29, Richard Robinson wrote:
> Mike Fleming said:
>> On 15/01/2024 14:20, chrisnd@privacy.net wrote:
>>> I spent a large part of my life involved in studying physics, adjacent
>>> to nuclear physics. The physics is sound. The people running it,
>>> managing and especially advocating it are(*).... well, think Post Office.
>>
>> I spent several years of my life at fpubby with someone who now works
>> for the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (in the higher echelons). This
>> fills me with dread.
>
> I used to know a rocket scientist ... I take "It's not rocket science"
> as a recommendation.
>
Most rocket science is basically just big engineering.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 18:32:52 +0000
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:

> Most rocket science is basically just big engineering.

Rocket science is Newton's third law and nasty chemistry (cf.
Ignition by John D. Clark). Rocket engineering is another matter altogether.

--
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

[some missives missing here, hope I've untangled the quoting properly]

soup wrote:

> Wind: In an average year, nobody would die. A death rate of 0.04
> deaths per terawatt-hour means every 25 years, a single person would
> die;
This page

<https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/29/forget-eagle-deaths-wind-turbines-kill-humans>

says that in England alone, 14 people were killed by wind turbines in
2011, I can't track down any sources for it and it seems to be parroted
across several other websites, so best to disregard, but the wind
industry reported 4 deaths that year

<https://www.hvnplus.co.uk/news/1500-accidents-and-incidents-on-uk-wind-farms-12-12-2011>

Tease'n'Seize said:
> [some missives missing here, hope I've untangled the quoting properly]
>
> soup wrote:
>
>> Wind: In an average year, nobody would die. A death rate of 0.04
>> deaths per terawatt-hour means every 25 years, a single person would
>> die;
> This page
>
><https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/29/forget-eagle-deaths-wind-turbines-kill-humans>
>
> says that in England alone, 14 people were killed by wind turbines in
> 2011, I can't track down any sources for it and it seems to be parroted
> across several other websites, so best to disregard, but the wind
> industry reported 4 deaths that year
>
><https://www.hvnplus.co.uk/news/1500-accidents-and-incidents-on-uk-wind-farms-12-12-2011>

Much safer than driving, then.

--
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, 17 Jan 2024 10:58:27 -0000 (UTC)
Richard Robinson <richard@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:

> > industry reported 4 deaths that year
> >
> ><https://www.hvnplus.co.uk/news/1500-accidents-and-incidents-on-uk-wind-farms-12-12-2011>
>
> Much safer than driving, then.

Which in turn is far safer than smoking or drinking. There was a
lot of fuss here about the number of road deaths having gone up last year
but few considered that smoking killed something like thirty times as many
people as the roads and drinking ten times as many as the roads.

--
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 Wed, 17 Jan 2024 10:21:32 +0000
Tease'n'Seize <tease-and-seize@invalid> wrote:

> [some missives missing here, hope I've untangled the quoting properly]
>
> soup wrote:
>
> > Wind: In an average year, nobody would die. A death rate of 0.04
> > deaths per terawatt-hour means every 25 years, a single person would
> > die;

Note that this is per 150,000 people, there are something like 450
times that many people in the UK which works out at 18 (450*0.04) people per
year for the UK if the UK were powered entirely by wind. The UK gets about
30% of its electricity from wind so we should expect around 5.5 wind energy
related deaths per year in the UK. The wind industry report seems consistent
with this.

--
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 16/01/2024 18:10, John Williamson wrote:
> On 16/01/2024 17:49, Tim+ wrote:
>> We’ve been breeding something that will be our undoing long before
>> nuclear.
> We’ve been breeding, that will be our undoing long before nuclear.
>
> There, I corrected that for you.
>
Sadly far too evidently true.
The more I watch archaeology programmes, the more I realise how in
earlier ages (iron age, stone age etc) how little life changed for the
handful of people on the planet for thousands of years. It's only since
we tried to 'develop' (when BC changed to AD?) that we've messed things
up so quickly.

Chris

On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 16:45:43 +0000
"chrisnd@privacy.net" <chrisnd@privacy.net> wrote:

> The more I watch archaeology programmes, the more I realise how in
> earlier ages (iron age, stone age etc) how little life changed for the
> handful of people on the planet for thousands of years. It's only since

Did you notice how short and nasty life was in those days ?

> we tried to 'develop' (when BC changed to AD?) that we've messed things

Probably since the development of agriculture three thousand years
or so earlier than that. The inventions of the wheel, flint axe and even
the club (antelope thighbone) changed things a lot when they happened. Our
entire (pre)history has been one of accelerating change.

> up so quickly.

I would not like to live in any time much before the present, we
live far better than anyone did in pre-industrial times and I expect things
to continue to get better as they have throughout my life. I recently
re-read Heinlein's 1950 article attempting to predict life in 2000,
contrary to his expectations we eat better today than we did in 1950 in
both quantity and quality - indeed more people eat too much than did then.
He didn't address it but there's far less pollution today than there was in
1950 too.

--
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 17-Jan-24 10:21, Tease'n'Seize wrote:
> [some missives missing here, hope I've untangled the quoting properly]
>
> soup wrote:
>
>> Wind: In an average year, nobody would die. A death rate of 0.04
>> deaths per terawatt-hour means every 25 years, a single person would die;
> This page
>
> <https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/29/forget-eagle-deaths-wind-turbines-kill-humans>
>
> says that in England alone, 14 people were killed by wind turbines in
> 2011, I can't track down any sources for it and it seems to be parroted
> across several other websites, so best to disregard, but the wind
> industry reported 4 deaths that year
>
> <https://www.hvnplus.co.uk/news/1500-accidents-and-incidents-on-uk-wind-farms-12-12-2011>

"He was gazing up at the wind turbine, complaining bitterly about the
this blight on the landscape - when a bull ran up and stomped him to death."

I wonder how that would get reported?

--
Sam Plusnet

On 17/01/2024 18:32, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 16:45:43 +0000
> "chrisnd@privacy.net" <chrisnd@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> The more I watch archaeology programmes, the more I realise how in
>> earlier ages (iron age, stone age etc) how little life changed for the
>> handful of people on the planet for thousands of years. It's only since
>
> Did you notice how short and nasty life was in those days ?
>
>> we tried to 'develop' (when BC changed to AD?) that we've messed things
>
> Probably since the development of agriculture three thousand years
> or so earlier than that. The inventions of the wheel, flint axe and even
> the club (antelope thighbone) changed things a lot when they happened. Our
> entire (pre)history has been one of accelerating change.
>
>> up so quickly.
>
> I would not like to live in any time much before the present, we
> live far better than anyone did in pre-industrial times and I expect things
> to continue to get better as they have throughout my life. I recently
> re-read Heinlein's 1950 article attempting to predict life in 2000,
> contrary to his expectations we eat better today than we did in 1950 in
> both quantity and quality - indeed more people eat too much than did then.
> He didn't address it but there's far less pollution today than there was in
> 1950 too.
>
"We're doomed Captain Mainwaring!"
:-)

Chris

On 17/01/2024 19:32, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 17-Jan-24 10:21, Tease'n'Seize wrote:
>> [some missives missing here, hope I've untangled the quoting properly]
>>
>> soup wrote:
>>
>>> Wind: In an average year, nobody would die. A death rate of 0.04
>>> deaths per terawatt-hour means every 25 years, a single person would
>>> die;
>> This page
>>
>> <https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/29/forget-eagle-deaths-wind-turbines-kill-humans>
>>
>> says that in England alone, 14 people were killed by wind turbines in
>> 2011, I can't track down any sources for it and it seems to be
>> parroted across several other websites, so best to disregard, but the
>> wind industry reported 4 deaths that year
>>
>> <https://www.hvnplus.co.uk/news/1500-accidents-and-incidents-on-uk-wind-farms-12-12-2011>
>
> "He was gazing up at the wind turbine, complaining bitterly about the
> this blight on the landscape - when a bull ran up and stomped him to
> death."
>
> I wonder how that would get reported?
>
I don't know but presumably the argument is that the bull was driven mad
by the turbine?
HTH

Chris

Sam Plusnet said:
> On 17-Jan-24 10:21, Tease'n'Seize wrote:
>> [some missives missing here, hope I've untangled the quoting properly]
>>
>> soup wrote:
>>
>>> Wind: In an average year, nobody would die. A death rate of 0.04
>>> deaths per terawatt-hour means every 25 years, a single person would die;
>> This page
>>
>> <https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/29/forget-eagle-deaths-wind-turbines-kill-humans>
>>
>> says that in England alone, 14 people were killed by wind turbines in
>> 2011, I can't track down any sources for it and it seems to be parroted
>> across several other websites, so best to disregard, but the wind
>> industry reported 4 deaths that year
>>
>> <https://www.hvnplus.co.uk/news/1500-accidents-and-incidents-on-uk-wind-farms-12-12-2011>
>
> "He was gazing up at the wind turbine, complaining bitterly about the
> this blight on the landscape - when a bull ran up and stomped him to death."
>
> I wonder how that would get reported?

How could you resist ?

--
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

chrisnd@privacy.net said:
> On 17/01/2024 18:32, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 16:45:43 +0000
>> "chrisnd@privacy.net" <chrisnd@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The more I watch archaeology programmes, the more I realise how in
>>> earlier ages (iron age, stone age etc) how little life changed for the
>>> handful of people on the planet for thousands of years. It's only since
>>
>> Did you notice how short and nasty life was in those days ?
>>
>>> we tried to 'develop' (when BC changed to AD?) that we've messed things
>>
>> Probably since the development of agriculture three thousand years
>> or so earlier than that. The inventions of the wheel, flint axe and even
>> the club (antelope thighbone) changed things a lot when they happened. Our
>> entire (pre)history has been one of accelerating change.
>>
>>> up so quickly.
>>
>> I would not like to live in any time much before the present, we
>> live far better than anyone did in pre-industrial times and I expect things
>> to continue to get better as they have throughout my life. I recently
>> re-read Heinlein's 1950 article attempting to predict life in 2000,
>> contrary to his expectations we eat better today than we did in 1950 in
>> both quantity and quality - indeed more people eat too much than did then.
>> He didn't address it but there's far less pollution today than there was in
>> 1950 too.
>>
> "We're doomed Captain Mainwaring!"
>:-)

But at least we have dental anaesthetics.

--
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

chrisnd@privacy.net <chrisnd@privacy.net> wrote:
> On 17/01/2024 18:32, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 16:45:43 +0000
>> "chrisnd@privacy.net" <chrisnd@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The more I watch archaeology programmes, the more I realise how in
>>> earlier ages (iron age, stone age etc) how little life changed for the
>>> handful of people on the planet for thousands of years. It's only since
>>
>> Did you notice how short and nasty life was in those days ?
>>
>>> we tried to 'develop' (when BC changed to AD?) that we've messed things
>>
>> Probably since the development of agriculture three thousand years
>> or so earlier than that. The inventions of the wheel, flint axe and even
>> the club (antelope thighbone) changed things a lot when they happened. Our
>> entire (pre)history has been one of accelerating change.
>>
>>> up so quickly.
>>
>> I would not like to live in any time much before the present, we
>> live far better than anyone did in pre-industrial times and I expect things
>> to continue to get better as they have throughout my life. I recently
>> re-read Heinlein's 1950 article attempting to predict life in 2000,
>> contrary to his expectations we eat better today than we did in 1950 in
>> both quantity and quality - indeed more people eat too much than did then.
>> He didn't address it but there's far less pollution today than there was in
>> 1950 too.
>>
> "We're doomed Captain Mainwaring!"
> :-)
>
I think you mean “doooooomed”.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

On 17-Jan-24 18:32, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

> I would not like to live in any time much before the present, we
> live far better than anyone did in pre-industrial times and I expect things
> to continue to get better as they have throughout my life. I recently
> re-read Heinlein's 1950 article attempting to predict life in 2000,
> contrary to his expectations we eat better today than we did in 1950 in
> both quantity and quality - indeed more people eat too much than did then.
> He didn't address it but there's far less pollution today than there was in
> 1950 too.
>

I have the feeling that individual things today are certainly less
polluting, but there are far far more 'things' around than in the 1950s.

In the 1950s we used to play in the street, and hardly ever had to move
'cos a motor vehicle wanted to intrude.
Now that same street is lined bumper to bumper with cars, and kids
couldn't find enough room to play there if they tried.

--
Sam Plusnet

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 19:14:18 +0000
Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:

> I have the feeling that individual things today are certainly less
> polluting, but there are far far more 'things' around than in the 1950s.

Millions of Coal fires, and not the modern smokeless varieties,
growing up in the 60s I thought the buildings were built grey-black, I was
quite shocked to see the pale colours when they started to get cleaned.
London pea-soupers where you couldn't see your feet. I recall announcements
about fish being seen steadily further up the Thames during the 1970s as
the river was cleaned.

Tetra-ethyl lead used to be in all petrol, now there is none.
Factory chimneys used to be simple tall tubes, now they have particle
scrubbers and emissions monitors. I read an article from a 1930 edition of
"The Industrial Chemist" about a device to reduce the unpleasant smell from
the "newly popular" motor car - it was an early catalytic converter -
catalytic converters didn't start getting fitted to cars until the late
1970s!

Diesel particulate filters (which remove 85-100% of the crud)
weren't required until this century, there are still vehicles on the road
old enough not to have them. Regulations on diesel sulphur content didn't
come in until very recently.

Individual things are a *lot* less polluting than they were in the
1950s when nobody cared how much poison was belched into the air.

> In the 1950s we used to play in the street, and hardly ever had to move
> 'cos a motor vehicle wanted to intrude.
> Now that same street is lined bumper to bumper with cars, and kids
> couldn't find enough room to play there if they tried.

Yet despite the increase in population and the much higher
percentage of car ownership the air in our cities and the water in our
rivers is cleaner than it was in the 1950s or even the 1900s. What's more it
is getting cleaner all the time as we worry about pollutants that used
to be a tiny fraction of the pollution and are now most of it.

--
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 18/01/2024 20:40, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 19:14:18 +0000
> Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>
>> I have the feeling that individual things today are certainly less
>> polluting, but there are far far more 'things' around than in the 1950s.
>
> Millions of Coal fires, and not the modern smokeless varieties,
> growing up in the 60s I thought the buildings were built grey-black, I was
> quite shocked to see the pale colours when they started to get cleaned.
> London pea-soupers where you couldn't see your feet. I recall announcements
> about fish being seen steadily further up the Thames during the 1970s as
> the river was cleaned.

+1

> Tetra-ethyl lead used to be in all petrol, now there is none.
> Factory chimneys used to be simple tall tubes, now they have particle
> scrubbers and emissions monitors. I read an article from a 1930 edition of
> "The Industrial Chemist" about a device to reduce the unpleasant smell from
> the "newly popular" motor car - it was an early catalytic converter -
> catalytic converters didn't start getting fitted to cars until the late
> 1970s!

And the earliest of those caused their own foul smells - which led to my
own personal Great Work... https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/10223/

> Diesel particulate filters (which remove 85-100% of the crud)
> weren't required until this century, there are still vehicles on the road
> old enough not to have them. Regulations on diesel sulphur content didn't
> come in until very recently.

Early (this century) DPFs also had their problems - because some
manufacturers didn't sufficiently recognise the need to have them *very*
close to the engine to work properly. Failing to do this resulted in
some producing *more* particulates rather than less. The solution to
this involved a large iron bar and a hammer - allegedly.

HTH

Chris D

On 17/01/2024 18:32, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
> I would not like to live in any time much before the present, we
> live far better than anyone did in pre-industrial times and I expect things
> to continue to get better as they have throughout my life. I recently
> re-read Heinlein's 1950 article attempting to predict life in 2000,
> contrary to his expectations we eat better today than we did in 1950 in
> both quantity and quality - indeed more people eat too much than did then.
> He didn't address it but there's far less pollution today than there was in
> 1950 too.

I'm definitely not convinced about far less pollution. Maybe at a quite
local level, but globally there's a lot more - the Great Pacific Garbage
Patch, other microplastics throughout the oceans, vast areas of airborne
pollution around a lot of Asian cities, huge clouds of smoke from forest
fires in Canada and North America, and in Britain there's shit in the
rivers and on the beaches (apparently this is "the will of the people").

Mike Fleming said:
> On 17/01/2024 18:32, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>
>> I would not like to live in any time much before the present, we
>> live far better than anyone did in pre-industrial times and I expect things
>> to continue to get better as they have throughout my life. I recently
>> re-read Heinlein's 1950 article attempting to predict life in 2000,
>> contrary to his expectations we eat better today than we did in 1950 in
>> both quantity and quality - indeed more people eat too much than did then.
>> He didn't address it but there's far less pollution today than there was in
>> 1950 too.
>
> I'm definitely not convinced about far less pollution. Maybe at a quite
> local level, but globally there's a lot more - the Great Pacific Garbage
> Patch, other microplastics throughout the oceans, vast areas of airborne
> pollution around a lot of Asian cities, huge clouds of smoke from forest
> fires in Canada and North America, and in Britain there's shit in the
> rivers and on the beaches (apparently this is "the will of the people").

Not to mention carbon dioxide ...

--
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 uk.rec.sheds, (John Williamson) wrote in
<l086e8FbcddU1@mid.individual.net>::

>On 10/01/2024 17:24, Peter wrote:
>> Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries are now appearing in cars. Longer life,
>> and can be charged repeatedly to 100%.
>>
>>
>Interesting. They now accept safety ahead of absolute maximum energy
>density, then?

We have a LiFePO4 battery for the trailer; it's 110Ah, and is around 1/3
the weight of the lead/acid one it replaced.
--
Marc Wilson

Cleopatra Consultants Limited - IT Consultants
Fernrhoyd, Chester Road, Alpraham, Tarporley, Cheshire CW6 9JE
Tel: (44/0) 1829 262696 Mobile: (44/0) 7973 359850
Mail: enquiries@cleopatra.co.uk Web: http://www.cleopatra.co.uk
Registered in England and Wales no: 2588943 VAT Reg: 561 1182 69
Registered office: c/o Beever & Struthers, One Express,
1 George Leigh Street, Ancoats, Manchester M4 5DL

https://plus.google.com/100816173414569062406

In uk.rec.sheds, (John Williamson) wrote in
<l08kj4Fdqc4U1@mid.individual.net>::

>As a percentage, electric and hybrid car fires are much more common than
>IC vehicle fires. About 1 in every 1,000 electric and hybrid vehicles
>registered in London burned in 2021. About 1 in every 3,500 fossil
>fuelled cars did the same. Don't forget, we have far more than a Century
>of practice at designing petrol cars so they don't self ignite.

That's slightly misleading, lumping hybrids with ICE.

https://insideevs.com/news/561549/study-evs-smallest-fire-risk/

Hybrids have the highest incidence, but EVs the lowest.
--
Marc Wilson

Cleopatra Consultants Limited - IT Consultants
Fernrhoyd, Chester Road, Alpraham, Tarporley, Cheshire CW6 9JE
Tel: (44/0) 1829 262696 Mobile: (44/0) 7973 359850
Mail: enquiries@cleopatra.co.uk Web: http://www.cleopatra.co.uk
Registered in England and Wales no: 2588943 VAT Reg: 561 1182 69
Registered office: c/o Beever & Struthers, One Express,
1 George Leigh Street, Ancoats, Manchester M4 5DL

https://plus.google.com/100816173414569062406

In uk.rec.sheds, (Ahem A Rivet's Shot) wrote in
<20240111164334.02ad030637e28df8f245ebf8@eircom.net>::

>On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 15:46:00 -0000 (UTC)
>Richard Robinson <richard@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> But it should still be possible to use them properly ?
>
> For the purposes of persuasion, deception or advertising ?
>
>Q: What is 2+2
>A Mathematician: 4
>A Physicist: 3.98 +/- 0.4
>A Statistician: What do you want people to believe it to be?

An accountant: did you have any particular number in mind?
--
Marc Wilson

Cleopatra Consultants Limited - IT Consultants
Fernrhoyd, Chester Road, Alpraham, Tarporley, Cheshire CW6 9JE
Tel: (44/0) 1829 262696 Mobile: (44/0) 7973 359850
Mail: enquiries@cleopatra.co.uk Web: http://www.cleopatra.co.uk
Registered in England and Wales no: 2588943 VAT Reg: 561 1182 69
Registered office: c/o Beever & Struthers, One Express,
1 George Leigh Street, Ancoats, Manchester M4 5DL

https://plus.google.com/100816173414569062406

In uk.rec.sheds, (chrisnd@privacy.net) wrote in
<l0i26lF6n5nU1@mid.individual.net>::

>
>> If only we could see beyond the 'perceived' dangers of Nuclear energy
>> and just consider it "another way to boil a kettle"(produce steam)
>>
>> <Mode off>
>
>Nuclear energy = good (usually)
>nuclear waste = bad*
>
>*That's really, really, inconceivably bad!

Of all the people who've died in the power industry due to radiation,
the vast majority were killed by fly ash from coal-burners. 99% or so.
--
Marc Wilson

Cleopatra Consultants Limited - IT Consultants
Fernrhoyd, Chester Road, Alpraham, Tarporley, Cheshire CW6 9JE
Tel: (44/0) 1829 262696 Mobile: (44/0) 7973 359850
Mail: enquiries@cleopatra.co.uk Web: http://www.cleopatra.co.uk
Registered in England and Wales no: 2588943 VAT Reg: 561 1182 69
Registered office: c/o Beever & Struthers, One Express,
1 George Leigh Street, Ancoats, Manchester M4 5DL

https://plus.google.com/100816173414569062406

In uk.rec.sheds, (Richard Robinson) wrote in
<uo6htq$1ibug$2@dont-email.me>::

>Mike Fleming said:
>> On 15/01/2024 14:20, chrisnd@privacy.net wrote:
>>> I spent a large part of my life involved in studying physics, adjacent
>>> to nuclear physics.  The physics is sound.  The people running it,
>>> managing and especially advocating it are(*).... well, think Post Office.
>>
>> I spent several years of my life at fpubby with someone who now works
>> for the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (in the higher echelons). This
>> fills me with dread.
>
>I used to know a rocket scientist ... I take "It's not rocket science"
>as a recommendation.

Rocket science is relatively straightforward. It's rocket *engineering*
that's difficult.
--
Marc Wilson

Cleopatra Consultants Limited - IT Consultants
Fernrhoyd, Chester Road, Alpraham, Tarporley, Cheshire CW6 9JE
Tel: (44/0) 1829 262696 Mobile: (44/0) 7973 359850
Mail: enquiries@cleopatra.co.uk Web: http://www.cleopatra.co.uk
Registered in England and Wales no: 2588943 VAT Reg: 561 1182 69
Registered office: c/o Beever & Struthers, One Express,
1 George Leigh Street, Ancoats, Manchester M4 5DL

https://plus.google.com/100816173414569062406

On 24-Jan-24 0:43, Znep wrote:

> We have a LiFePO4 battery for the trailer; it's 110Ah, and is around 1/3
> the weight of the lead/acid one it replaced.

Did you have to change the charger when replacing the lead/acid one?

How much greater than the cost of a 110AH lead/acid was the total cost?

Asking since the leisure battery in the caravan is getting on in years,
& learning from someone else's practical experience is always a good thing.

--
Sam Plusnet