Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Past hour
  2. Reddit, UK news media comments. Can only hope it is only an expression. Mainly just curious/annoyed enough that I wanted to look at what it would plausibly be like.
  3. Seen no news or suggestion of it here in the UK news sites or gossip.
  4. If electricity is more expensive than natural gas, what is the economic incentive of moving to hydrogen, even at a 20% mix? Hydrogen isn't going to be cheaper than the electricity that generates it. How is your electricity generated?
  5. Remark of UK becoming a US State has come up way too often elsewhere and made me want to sit down and figure out the scenarios for a British State or States in the US. Numbers are only rough figures based on public data and tools, but feel they are reasonably representative. Republic and Territory The Monarchy Abdicates or is Abolished Republic of Britain is briefly created Republic requests annexation by the United States Annexation bill passes North East Territory is created. Assumed: North Ireland chooses to remain a territory or chooses to separate Statehood Scenario A - Upon successful application, Britain is admitted into the Union as a single State Senators: 2 Representatives: 76 Notes: The State of Britain is the largest State in the Union. While representation for lower population states remains largely unchanged, almost all other States have lost Representatives. Scenario B - Each former country is admitted as a State simultaneously but independent of one another The State of England Senators: 2 Representatives: 65 The State of Scotland Senators: 2 Representatives: 6 The State of Wales Senators: 2 Representatives: 4 Notes: Very similar situation to Britain joining as a single State, however new States have (counted together) additional seats in the Senate. Scenario C - One is admitted, others retain Territory Status or depart The State of England Senators: 2 Representatives: 67 Notes: Very similar situation to Britain joining as a single State. OR The State of Scotland Senators: 2 Representatives: 8 Notes: Some higher population states lose Representatives, but little change overall. OR The State of Wales Senators: 2 Representatives: 4 Notes: Few states have lost Representatives, minimal change. Scenario D - Admission as three regions of roughly equal population Red State Senators: 2 Representatives: 24 Blue State Senators: 2 Representatives: 24 Green State Senators: 2 Representatives: 24 Notes: Similar widespread losses however California and Texas retain top spots. New States have gained additional Senators in total again. References: https://apportionment.app/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_population https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/92ej3q/great_britain_split_in_to_3_areas_of_equal/
  6. We have them, too. I've been admonished for mentioning this threat in a global context, so I won't, but as local threats go, it's quite bad enough. https://www.nationalobserver.com/2021/09/19/analysis/shocking-anti-vaccine-protests-plagued-canadas-election-spawned-resurgent-far Meanwhile, the most conservative and permissive administration in the country, the premier who has been loudly "open for business" as the Delta variant rampaged through his province, finally backed down - just a couple of months too late. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/kenney-military-alberta-health-care-1.6181646 And the idjit is trying to cut nurses' salaries! What he actually wants is to privatize the provincial health care system - which was built up with public funds. They're everywhere! PS It's difficult for anyone with even the most tenuous hold on reality to reconcile the picture on that big flag with this picture.
  7. Seem a bit disoriented (spatially and temporally) with all the re-elect Trump banners and such.
  8. Today
  9. What's a normal Australian?
  10. Indeed +1 Hydrogen may not be the perfect solution, but it is a solution; we can generate far more hydrogen, however inefficiently, than we can lithium.
  11. The irony is, they did it legally. Society/people both blame's the poor and feeds off them, billionaire's are people too; if we want them to change, we all have to change. When gambling was illegal, no-one was forced to say "gamble responsibly" and society didn't have to pay for a clinic.
  12. Hmm. I am more interested in what we can actually do, here and now, given the infrastructure we have inherited, than in revisiting what we might or might not have done differently years ago. Climate change can't wait for perfect solutions. And in my opinion (not being a man of the left) I think it would be a mistake to expect governments to pick winners. I think it is better for them to encourage different technologies, allow them to compete and over time we will see which ones turn out to have the most scope for optimisation. What I mean by optimisation, in this context, is not merely what is technically best, but all the things in society that enable a solution to gain traction. Then again, we may find it is better to diversify and use more than one route than to put all our eggs in one basket. Other contributors have spoken of hydrogen being "hyped". I must say I am not aware of any noticeable hype around hydrogen. Almost everything I read seems to be about the electric car issue. Not many people are talking about HGVs and those that are starting to talk in the media about domestic heating seem preoccupied with heat pumps, even those these cost 5 times as much as a gas boiler and put out heat at only 50C max, instead of the 65C for which most central heating system are designed. So there are huge issues to overcome to make heat pumps realistic for most householders. On a personal note, I have been thinking of getting a heat pump for my large Victorian house. This will cost me a bit, and will never pay back, given that electricity costs 3-4 times as much as gas, per kWh. However I do draw the line at ripping up all the floorboards as well, to install the underfloor heating pipes required to make the low-grade heat from the pump sufficient to warm the house. Millions of others will face this issue. This is one of the reasons why I can see the logic in converting the gas network to hydrogen, either fully or at 20% dose rate as a medium term measure.
  13. Your comment on the carbon burn up is reflected elsewhere also (Treasurenet post). From the video and taking some measurements outside, I estimate the fireball object object (term used in the very literal sense!) was travelling ~8 mph by the time it was in our frame. That's also corroborated by the timestamp on the other CCTV footage which was 0.1 miles away assuming both our timestamps are/were set from the internet (22:09:52 & 22:10:35). Something from an industrial accident I'd consider and did a search, but as mentioned, companies may not report them, or at least it may not make the news / be available online. I don't live 'near' anything that industrial, but Birmingham is very industrial - without giving away too much about where I live, the attached image would be my estimated 'corridor'. I'll scour the maps and do some research! https://i.imgur.com/JmWyib0.jpg Do you have a link to a video?
  14. LOL! All of this because of your misunderstanding of what Jello is. Well done! 😅
  15. Yesterday
  16. You'll take a cut in celery for re-using a vegetable, but you've bean a good sprout, so we won't beet your gourd or squash your melon. Dads are rad! Or rad-ish....
  17. Only a dad could come up with a joke like that! 😆
  18. That's also true. I didn't say it was a majority of corporations that see the need for change. But some are beginning to. (I've been reading a book.) Capitalism on the 20th century predatory and profligate model is obviously unsustainable, just like the world it feeds on. Some top executives and shareholders are smart enough to see that and take steps toward 21st century self-preservation. The author , who seems to know whereof he writes, doesn't give them terrific odds of succeeding: about 12% probability, as compared to 60+% of catastrophic collapse or decline and fall.
  19. ...and many more find that creating the illusion of it instead...is better for the bottom line
  20. Well thank you. It took some doing to fix my bbtex mistakes on the phone with autorendering
  21. ! Moderator Note Moved to politics
  22. That's a somewhat spectacular return ydoaPs +1
  23. It's good that you asked in Linear Algebra And Group Theory, because we're going to need some algebra you likely have never seen (unless you went to college) to answer it. Multiplication isn't one thing. What multiplication is depends on what you're multiplying. Algebra is how we define this. In Algebra, there are a handful of different kinds of structures. Here, we're interested in Groups, Rings, and Fields. Rings and Fields are kind of made of Groups, so we'll start there. Say we have a set (the lay concept of set will work fine for our purposes), and we'll call it S. On this set, we need to define a rule called a "binary relation" that takes any two things in the set and gives some output. We want this set to be closed under this relation, so the relation can only give us things that are already in the set. For this combination of set and relation (for now, we'll use ? to denote the relation) to be a Group, they need to have the following properties: 1) Associativity: for any three things a, b, and c in the set, the relation doesn't care about where the parentheses go. a?(b?c)=(a?b)?c 2) Identity: there is a special thing in the set (traditionally denoted by e when talking abstractly) where, for any other thing a in the set, a?e=e?a=a 3) Invertability: for any thing a in the set, there is another thing in the set a* where a?a*=e=a* That's enough to be a Group. But we want a special kind of Group, called an Abelian Group. That's just a regular Group that has an extra property: 4) Commutativity: for any two things a and b in the set, a?b=b?a Tradition dictates that for Abelian Groups, + is used in place of ? and 0 is used in place of e and -a in place of a*. If a Group is not Abelian, we often use × (or nothing at all) in place of ? and 1 in place of e and 1/a in place of a*. If S is the set, we write (S, +) or (S, ×) for the group, but we often just write S if it is clear from the context that we're talking about a group. This is enough to let us build a Ring. With Rings, we still have a set S, but we have two relations. (S, +) is an Abelian Group, but × is a bit more lax. × only has to satisfy two properties: 1) Identity, and 2) Distributivity: for any three things a, b, and c in S, a×(b+c)=(a×b)+(a×c) Like how (S, ?) is a Group, (S, +, ×) is a Ring. If a Ring is commutative and has inverses for each relation, then the Ring is called a Field. There are four particularly important facts mentioned above that are important to why a negative times a negative is a positive: 1) a+(-a)=0, 2) a+0=a, 3) a×0=0 (not mentioned above, but still important), and 4) a×(b+c)=(a×b)+(a×c) Proof -a×-b = a×b: Let a and b be positive numbers in our field (S, +, ×). 0=b+(-b)=a(b+(-b)) -a×-b = (-a×-b) + a(b+(-b)) = -a×-b + a×b + a×-b = -a×-b + a×-b + a×b = -b×a + -b×-a +a×b = -b(a+(-a)) + a×b = a×b TL;DR: It's because Fields are commutative, have identities, and are distributive
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.