On 23/03/2023 10:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Interestingly people in the USA are stupid enough to believe that water
> that is used to generate electricity cannot then be used for irrigation.

Bit of a generalisation there! All people? Some people?

Besides that, I have no idea whether there's any conflict between
optimising for power generation or irrigation?

>

On 23/03/2023 10:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 23/03/2023 07:39, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> In message <tvfkvk$ok62$1@dont-email.me>, GB
>> <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> writes
>>> On 22/03/2023 18:49, Andrew wrote:
>>>
>>>> According to Brian Cox, when a Saturn V moonrocket lifted off, the
>>>> five F1 engines generated enough power to run the whole of the UK
>>>> electrical demand.
>>>
>>> That tallies with the NASA info, which says "85 Hoover Dams".
>>>
>> I bet that caused a fair bit of global warming!
>
> Why would it?
>
> It's just adding water to a saturated atmosphere. It will just rain.
>

Ahem, they used kerosene as fuel, so not just water.

On 23/03/2023 10:40, GB wrote:
> On 23/03/2023 10:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Interestingly people in the USA are stupid enough to believe that
>> water that is used to generate electricity cannot then be used for
>> irrigation.
>
> Bit of a generalisation there! All people? Some people?
>
> Besides that, I have no idea whether there's any conflict between
> optimising for power generation or irrigation?
>
>
So you are one of them too!

--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

On 23/03/2023 10:43, GB wrote:
> On 23/03/2023 10:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 23/03/2023 07:39, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> In message <tvfkvk$ok62$1@dont-email.me>, GB
>>> <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> writes
>>>> On 22/03/2023 18:49, Andrew wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> According to Brian Cox, when a Saturn V moonrocket lifted off, the
>>>>> five F1 engines generated enough power to run the whole of the UK
>>>>> electrical demand.
>>>>
>>>> That tallies with the NASA info, which says "85 Hoover Dams".
>>>>
>>> I bet that caused a fair bit of global warming!
>>
>> Why would it?
>>
>> It's just adding water to a saturated atmosphere. It will just rain.
>>
>
> Ahem, they used kerosene as fuel, so not just water.

Oh, so they did. I was thinking of the apollo missions with liquid hydrogen.

Anyway we all know that CO2 at current levels has almost no impact on
the climate anyway.

--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

On 23/03/2023 11:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 23/03/2023 10:40, GB wrote:
>> On 23/03/2023 10:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> Interestingly people in the USA are stupid enough to believe that
>>> water that is used to generate electricity cannot then be used for
>>> irrigation.
>>
>> Bit of a generalisation there! All people? Some people?
>>
>> Besides that, I have no idea whether there's any conflict between
>> optimising for power generation or irrigation?
>>
>>
> So you are one of them too!

Am I? Suppose the need for electricity is in winter, so then they would
need to release the dammed water during the winter, when there's no need
for irrigation.

They have a lot of air con, so peak demand for electricity may, in fact,
be in the summer.

That's why I said that I have no idea whether there's a conflict. Do
try to keep up.

>
>
>

On 23/03/2023 11:40, GB wrote:
> On 23/03/2023 11:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 23/03/2023 10:40, GB wrote:
>>> On 23/03/2023 10:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> Interestingly people in the USA are stupid enough to believe that
>>>> water that is used to generate electricity cannot then be used for
>>>> irrigation.
>>>
>>> Bit of a generalisation there! All people? Some people?
>>>
>>> Besides that, I have no idea whether there's any conflict between
>>> optimising for power generation or irrigation?
>>>
>>>
>> So you are one of them too!
>
>
> Am I? Suppose the need for electricity is in winter, so then they would
> need to release the dammed water during the winter, when there's no need
> for irrigation.
>
> They have a lot of air con, so peak demand for electricity may, in fact,
> be in the summer.
>
> That's why I said that I have no idea whether there's a conflict.  Do
> try to keep up.
>
And where dies that 'released' water go, in the case of the colorado river?
To the irrigation dams further downstream

Do keep up

>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>

--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

On 23/03/2023 11:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 23/03/2023 11:40, GB wrote:
>> On 23/03/2023 11:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 23/03/2023 10:40, GB wrote:
>>>> On 23/03/2023 10:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Interestingly people in the USA are stupid enough to believe that
>>>>> water that is used to generate electricity cannot then be used for
>>>>> irrigation.
>>>>
>>>> Bit of a generalisation there! All people? Some people?
>>>>
>>>> Besides that, I have no idea whether there's any conflict between
>>>> optimising for power generation or irrigation?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> So you are one of them too!
>>
>>
>> Am I? Suppose the need for electricity is in winter, so then they
>> would need to release the dammed water during the winter, when there's
>> no need for irrigation.
>>
>> They have a lot of air con, so peak demand for electricity may, in
>> fact, be in the summer.
>>
>> That's why I said that I have no idea whether there's a conflict.  Do
>> try to keep up.
>>
> And where dies that 'released' water go, in the case of the colorado river?
> To the irrigation dams further downstream
>
> Do keep up

So, what you are saying is that optimisation is not a problem. At least,
only when the downstream dams are full. Which I gather is rarely.

If only the rest of us were as clever as you...

>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
> On 23/03/2023 10:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Interestingly people in the USA are stupid enough to believe that water
>> that is used to generate electricity cannot then be used for irrigation.
>
> Bit of a generalisation there! All people? Some people?
>
> Besides that, I have no idea whether there's any conflict between
> optimising for power generation or irrigation?
>

Well there is if the water for irrigation is being extracted upstream of
the dam.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

On 3/23/2023 7:28 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 23/03/2023 10:43, GB wrote:
>> On 23/03/2023 10:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 23/03/2023 07:39, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>> In message <tvfkvk$ok62$1@dont-email.me>, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> writes
>>>>> On 22/03/2023 18:49, Andrew wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> According to Brian Cox, when a Saturn V moonrocket lifted off, the
>>>>>> five F1 engines generated enough power to run the whole of the UK
>>>>>> electrical demand.
>>>>>
>>>>> That tallies with the NASA info, which says "85 Hoover Dams".
>>>>>
>>>> I bet that caused a fair bit of global warming!
>>>
>>> Why would it?
>>>
>>> It's just adding water to a saturated atmosphere. It will just rain.
>>>
>>
>> Ahem, they used kerosene as fuel, so not just water.
>
> Oh, so they did. I was thinking of the apollo missions with liquid hydrogen.
>
> Anyway we all know that CO2 at current levels has almost no impact on the climate anyway.

Of the fuels currently being bandied about, one
concern is CO2, the other concern is
"soot particles at high altitudes".

There might be regulations some day, pushing for hydrolox.

There is kerolox and methalox. Some are better for reusable
engines than others (you can soot up an engine too).

"Unlike some other fuels, methalox does not "coke" the engines - so
it is a good choice for reusable engines.
"

Yesterday, a methalox tried to reach orbit, but didn't succeed.
Main engines were fine, second stage didn't light properly.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/03/relativity-space-has-a-successful-failure-with-the-debut-of-terran-1/

Paul

On 23/03/2023 18:42, Paul wrote:
> On 3/23/2023 7:28 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 23/03/2023 10:43, GB wrote:
>>> On 23/03/2023 10:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 23/03/2023 07:39, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>> In message <tvfkvk$ok62$1@dont-email.me>, GB
>>>>> <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> writes
>>>>>> On 22/03/2023 18:49, Andrew wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> According to Brian Cox, when a Saturn V moonrocket lifted off, the
>>>>>>> five F1 engines generated enough power to run the whole of the UK
>>>>>>> electrical demand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That tallies with the NASA info, which says "85 Hoover Dams".
>>>>>>
>>>>> I bet that caused a fair bit of global warming!
>>>>
>>>> Why would it?
>>>>
>>>> It's just adding water to a saturated atmosphere. It will just rain.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ahem, they used kerosene as fuel, so not just water.
>>
>> Oh, so they did. I was thinking of the apollo missions with liquid
>> hydrogen.
>>
>> Anyway we all know that CO2 at current levels has almost no impact on
>> the climate anyway.
>
> Of the fuels currently being bandied about, one
> concern is CO2, the other concern is
> "soot particles at high altitudes".
>
Oh, the ones produced by volcanoes, forest fires, and the constant rain
of micrometeorites? That are naff all to do with humans?

> There might be regulations some day, pushing for hydrolox.
>
> There is kerolox and methalox. Some are better for reusable
> engines than others (you can soot up an engine too).
>
>    "Unlike some other fuels, methalox does not "coke" the engines - so
>     it is a good choice for reusable engines.
>    "
>
> Yesterday, a methalox tried to reach orbit, but didn't succeed.
> Main engines were fine, second stage didn't light properly.
>
> https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/03/relativity-space-has-a-successful-failure-with-the-debut-of-terran-1/
>
>    Paul
Well best abandon space flight altogether and cower in your safe space.

--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 21:28:40 +0000
SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:

> On 22/03/2023 19:47, Andy Burns wrote:
> > GB wrote:
> >
> >> Andrew wrote:
> >>
> >>> According to Brian Cox, when a Saturn V moonrocket lifted off, the
> >>> five F1 engines generated enough power to run the whole of the UK
> >>> electrical demand.
> >>
> >> That tallies with the NASA info, which says "85 Hoover Dams".
> >
> > But how many elephant•wales per cubic fortnight is that?
>
> Back in school days we had physics text book (published by Mills &
> Boon no less!) that had a section on a real production process. I
> can't remember the details (presumably about a certain torque being
> applied to give a certain rate of production), but it had the
> wonderful unit of a foot-pound-per-pennyweight-fortnight.
>

My thermodynamics lecturer preferred the furlong-firkin-fortnight system
of units.

--
Davey.

Andy Burns wrote:

> GB wrote:
>
>> Andrew wrote:
>>
>>> According to Brian Cox, when a Saturn V moonrocket lifted off, the
>>> five F1 engines generated enough power to run the whole of the UK
>>> electrical demand.
>>
>> That tallies with the NASA info, which says "85 Hoover Dams".
>
> But how many elephant•wales per cubic fortnight is that?

I finally got bored enough to work it out ...

taking an average elephant as 4500 kg
the area of wales as 20779 m^2
and a cubic fortnight as 1209600 s^3

one elephant wales per cubic fortnight is 77.30 watts
so a Saturn V is 1.55 giga elephant wales per cubic fortnight

On Sat, 25 Mar 2023 08:43:33 +0000, Davey <davey@example.invalid>
wrote:

>On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 21:28:40 +0000
>SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 22/03/2023 19:47, Andy Burns wrote:
>> > GB wrote:
>> >
>> >> Andrew wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> According to Brian Cox, when a Saturn V moonrocket lifted off, the
>> >>> five F1 engines generated enough power to run the whole of the UK
>> >>> electrical demand.
>> >>
>> >> That tallies with the NASA info, which says "85 Hoover Dams".
>> >
>> > But how many elephant•wales per cubic fortnight is that?
>>
>> Back in school days we had physics text book (published by Mills &
>> Boon no less!) that had a section on a real production process. I
>> can't remember the details (presumably about a certain torque being
>> applied to give a certain rate of production), but it had the
>> wonderful unit of a foot-pound-per-pennyweight-fortnight.
>>
>
>My thermodynamics lecturer preferred the furlong-firkin-fortnight system
>of units.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FFF_system#Furlongs_per_fortnight
more at
http://wiki.c2.com/?WhimsicalUnitsOfMeasurement

--
Chris

Andy Burns wrote:

> taking an average elephant as 4500 kg
> the area of wales as 20779 m^2

grrr try km^2 instead of m^2

> and a cubic fortnight as 1209600 s^3
>
> one elephant wales per cubic fortnight is 77.30 watts

77.3 MW

> so a Saturn V is 1.55 giga elephant wales per cubic fortnight

1.55 kew/f^3

On Sat, 25 Mar 2023 09:20:18 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:

>Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> taking an average elephant as 4500 kg
>> the area of wales as 20779 m^2
>
>grrr try km^2 instead of m^2
>
>> and a cubic fortnight as 1209600 s^3
>>
>> one elephant wales per cubic fortnight is 77.30 watts
>
>77.3 MW
>
>> so a Saturn V is 1.55 giga elephant wales per cubic fortnight
>
>1.55 kew/f^3

Have you done a dimensional analysis on that? :-)

--
Chris

Chris Hogg wrote:

> Have you done a dimensional analysis on that? :-)

Of course

<https://google.com/search?q=((4500+kg+*+20779+square+kilometres)+%2F+(14*24*60*60+seconds+*+seconds+*+seconds))>

On 25/03/2023 09:20, Andy Burns wrote:
> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> taking an average elephant as 4500 kg
>> the area of wales as 20779 m^2
>
> grrr try km^2 instead of m^2
>
>> and a cubic fortnight as 1209600 s^3
>>
>> one elephant wales per cubic fortnight is 77.30 watts
>
> 77.3 MW
>
>> so a Saturn V is 1.55 giga elephant wales per cubic fortnight
>
> 1.55 kew/f^3
>

So how long to transport all of Wales into space?

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 25 Mar 2023 at 09:20:18 GMT, Andy Burns wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> taking an average elephant as 4500 kg
>> the area of wales as 20779 m^2
>
> grrr try km^2 instead of m^2
>
>> and a cubic fortnight as 1209600 s^3
>>
>> one elephant wales per cubic fortnight is 77.30 watts
>
> 77.3 MW
>
>> so a Saturn V is 1.55 giga elephant wales per cubic fortnight
>
> 1.55 kew/f^3

Not that I've any idea what you're talking about - treid it out on ChatGPT4,
and It thinks:

--
I'm sorry, but it's still unclear what you're trying to calculate.

The power or thrust of a rocket is typically measured in units of force, such
as pounds-force or newtons, or in units of power, such as horsepower or
kilowatts. It's not clear how this relates to the weight of elephants or the
area of Wales.

If you could provide more information or context about what you're trying to
calculate or what the units "elephant weights" and "area of Wales" represent,
I may be able to help you further.
--

:-)
--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

On 25/03/2023 10:21, alan_m wrote:
> On 25/03/2023 09:20, Andy Burns wrote:
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> taking an average elephant as 4500 kg
>>> the area of wales as 20779 m^2
>>
>> grrr try km^2 instead of m^2
>>
>>> and a cubic fortnight as 1209600 s^3
>>>
>>> one elephant wales per cubic fortnight is 77.30 watts
>>
>> 77.3 MW
>>
>>> so a Saturn V is 1.55 giga elephant wales per cubic fortnight
>>
>> 1.55 kew/f^3
>>
>
> So how long to transport all of Wales into space?
>
Most of it is already there.

--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

ChatGPT wrote:

> The power or thrust of a rocket is typically measured in [...] units
> of power, such [...] kilowatts. It's not clear how this relates to
> the weight of elephants or the area of Wales.
The dimensions of power are mass x length squared / time cubed
even google knows that; if ChatGPT can't work in units of elephants,
double-decker buses and size of wales, what hope has it got of taking
over the world?

On 25 Mar 2023 at 09:09:24 GMT, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

> the area of wales as 20779 m^2

Did you mean km^2 ??

--
If socialism helps the poor, why are the poor in socialist countries so much poorer than the poor in capitalist countries?

Mark

On 25 Mar 2023 at 10:11:31 GMT, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

> Chris Hogg wrote:
>
>> Have you done a dimensional analysis on that? :-)
>
> Of course
>
> <https://google.com/search?q=((4500+kg+*+20779+square+kilometres)+%2F+(14*24*60*60+seconds+*+seconds+*+seconds))>

That's not what he's asking.

--
Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.

Terry Pratchett

On 25 Mar 2023 at 10:37:54 GMT, "RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:

> On 25 Mar 2023 at 09:20:18 GMT, Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> taking an average elephant as 4500 kg
>>> the area of wales as 20779 m^2
>>
>> grrr try km^2 instead of m^2
>>
>>> and a cubic fortnight as 1209600 s^3
>>>
>>> one elephant wales per cubic fortnight is 77.30 watts
>>
>> 77.3 MW
>>
>>> so a Saturn V is 1.55 giga elephant wales per cubic fortnight
>>
>> 1.55 kew/f^3
>
> Not that I've any idea what you're talking about - treid it out on ChatGPT4,
> and It thinks:
>
> --
> I'm sorry, but it's still unclear what you're trying to calculate.
>
> The power or thrust of a rocket is typically measured in units of force, such
> as pounds-force or newtons, or in units of power, such as horsepower or
> kilowatts. It's not clear how this relates to the weight of elephants or the
> area of Wales.
>
> If you could provide more information or context about what you're trying to
> calculate or what the units "elephant weights" and "area of Wales" represent,
> I may be able to help you further.

IOW, it's asking you to verify by dimensional analysis that the stated units -
kew/f^3 - represent a unit of power.

--
HAL 9000: Dave. Put down those Windows disks. Dave. DAVE!

On 25 Mar 2023 12:38:33 GMT, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
wrote:

>On 25 Mar 2023 at 10:11:31 GMT, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>
>> Chris Hogg wrote:
>>
>>> Have you done a dimensional analysis on that? :-)
>>
>> Of course
>>
>> <https://google.com/search?q=((4500+kg+*+20779+square+kilometres)+%2F+(14*24*60*60+seconds+*+seconds+*+seconds))>
>
>That's not what he's asking.

I was thinking along the lines of what we were taught at school, many
years ago, which involved reducing everything to fundamental units of
LMT. I never did grasp it, and if on the odd occasion I tried to do
it, it came out wrong I never knew if it was the way I'd done the
analysis or the formula I was trying to analyse.

--
Chris

On 25 Mar 2023 at 12:46:29 GMT, "Chris Hogg" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

> On 25 Mar 2023 12:38:33 GMT, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 25 Mar 2023 at 10:11:31 GMT, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Chris Hogg wrote:
>>>
>>>> Have you done a dimensional analysis on that? :-)
>>>
>>> Of course
>>>
>>> <https://google.com/search?q=((4500+kg+*+20779+square+kilometres)+%2F+(14*24*60*60+seconds+*+seconds+*+seconds))>
>>
>> That's not what he's asking.
>
> I was thinking along the lines of what we were taught at school, many
> years ago, which involved reducing everything to fundamental units of
> LMT. I never did grasp it, and if on the odd occasion I tried to do
> it, it came out wrong I never knew if it was the way I'd done the
> analysis or the formula I was trying to analyse.

D A tells you whether the answer you've got could be right, as in. do the
units make sense. It doesn't tell you whether the answer actually is correct.

So, f'rinstance, speed is distance in a given time, so has dimensions of L/T.
If you calculate a speed and it comes out as 20 tons (a mass with dimensions
M) then you better try again.

--
What you must understand is that, for today's left intellectuals, education is useful only to the extent that it endorses their prejudices. Beyond that, they refuse to go.

Roger Scruton