Queen Mary 2 sails under the GG Bridge

Neil Ellwood wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 07:42:11 -0600
Jer wrote:

I've not used incandescents in years, all lights here are LED. For
those interested in this particular issue...

http://www.onebillionbulbs.com

If your lights are all LED's why do you point to a site about low
energy CF lamps?

Because the site is about considering low energy alternatives, and Ron
commented on his changes predicated on efficiency, particularly for
using CFL and LED lamps. When it comes to lightbulbs, there's more than
one alternative. My presumption is that most still following this
thread use AC power, hence that site is mostly relevant to them. I,
OTOH, use DC power for lighting due to the solar panels, I don't like
wasting it, so LED lamps are the better choice here. One can use CFL
with solar cells, but CFLs require AC power, which means using an
inverter, and one does not maximize efficiency with that choice. I
didn't offer that link to buttress my position, I offered that link to
help people understand something they may not know about.


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Bill Funk wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 07:45:46 -0600, Jer wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:19:20 -0600, Jer wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 19:35:19 -0600, Jer wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 02:46:30 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

There is,
however, a visible pall of diesel smoke in the air behind the ships,
which is, I believe, largely avoidable.
Nuclear power!

How 'bout no power? Is that trip really necessary?
Necessary?
How many *things* are necessary?
Using "necessary" as a criteria is absurd.
Are *you* really necessary?

Someone has to educate the clueless.
And yet, you've managed to **** off more people than you've converted.
On the whole, you're doing more damage than good.


What's the matter Bill, do the hard questions **** you off? I'm not
sure is you're ****ed off more at me or more at yourself. I guess only
you know. Regardless, stop wasting your time being ****ed and do
something about it.

It's certainly not the questios, it's you.
Are you really too dumb to reads that? I specifically said, "And yet,
you've managed to **** off more people than you've converted."
That's *you*, personally.
Do something? Like you did? Move myself back several generations, and
mooch off others?

What you call mooching, we call neighbor helping neighbor.

I, unlike you, like terchnology, and what it can do for me.

Oh, I get it, just because you can, you do.


I, also unlike you, am able to read and understand what's going on,
instead of simply seeing the extremist alarmist pronouncements of
those who see their funding threatened unless they make dire
predictions of future calamties (see Al Gore's predictions of up to 20
feet(!) of rise in sea levels).

Kids are great aren't they? They say something that seems exaggerated
and you turn against them. Excellent strategy.

Is pollution a problem? Of course, and you have not seen me say
anything else.

You're Al Gore comment above is proof enough of your attitude.

Yet, you take criticism of your tactics as a rejection of your basic
message. It's not so.


Then heal thyself, grasshopper, I am not your enemy.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Rich wrote:
On Feb 6, 9:35 pm, Jer wrote:
Cynicor wrote:
Rich wrote:
On Feb 5, 2:55 pm, Jer wrote:
Jim Weaver wrote:
http://www.pbase.com/logear/image/73998405
It's hard to imagine the oil slick behind a beast like this. A shame
these monsters destroy the very thing they're selling.
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Envirnomentalists are vermin and pathological liars.
Polluters, on the other hand, tell it like it is.
Oh, it's okay that he feels the way he does. He'll likely continue
feeling that way until his drinking water gets laced with MTBE and his
nuts shrivel to the size of an English pea, and his future progeny has a
third leg growing out of it's pretty pink face. Of course, by then,
it'll be too late for him to give a **** about his own situation, so the
larger question will be does he give a **** about anybody else?


I'm sure that "theory" will go the same way as the idea aluminum
causes alzheimers.

What theory are you mumbling about?

Don't envirokooks EVER give up playing scientist, particular since
most of them can only boast (at most)
having BA degress in English literature?

Is this some sort of strawman attempt to make yourself fell superior?
If so, we're all shaking in our boots down here in your virtual dungeon.


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

J. Clarke wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 19:34:46 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 02:46:30 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:
There is,
however, a visible pall of diesel smoke in the air behind the ships,
which is, I believe, largely avoidable.

Nuclear power!

I think he meant cleaner diesel engines (particle filters, catalysers, etc.)
or maybe gas turbines.

Oh, can you imagine the hue and cry should a company suggest a nuclear
cruise ship? Grin.

Actually, it's sort of been done, the ship worked fine,

If you go to Google Earth and look at 37deg08'20.69"N,76deg38'36.98"W you
will see the NS Savannah, the world's first nuclear powered merchant
ship, which while she was primarily a cargo carrier had limited
passenger accomodations. Not quite a cruise ship.

Actually, it has been done twice. I think the German ship Otto Hahn was
primarily intended to be used for passengers (but it also had cargo space):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Hahn_%28ship%29

I have a book written in the 70s (parts might have been written in the
60s) about the sea, and the comments in there about nuclear civil ships
are quite curious in retrospective. The ships were commercial failures
(the writer compared the Otto Hahn to the Great Eastern which also sailed
mostly empty), but at the time it was expected that, in the future,
the public and the harbour authorities would not pay more attention to
a nuclear ship than to a normal ship

Anyway there was a technical problem: at the time it was calculated that a
nuclear ship would only be competitive if the power needed exceeded 50000HP.
But even a super oil tanker doesn't need that much power.

Maybe it they had appeared in the 50s, they would have had a brighter future
(pun intended). Of course 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl made "nuclear" a very
dirty word.

More recently,
http://www.cruisingholidays.co.uk/arctic/icebreaker-yamal-1.htm is
offering cruises aboard a for real Russian nuclear powered icebreaker.

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94

I wrote this in Mar 9, but my news server didn't propagate it:

J. Clarke wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 19:34:46 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 02:46:30 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:
There is,
however, a visible pall of diesel smoke in the air behind the ships,
which is, I believe, largely avoidable.

Nuclear power!

I think he meant cleaner diesel engines (particle filters, catalysers, etc.)
or maybe gas turbines.

Oh, can you imagine the hue and cry should a company suggest a nuclear
cruise ship? Grin.

Actually, it's sort of been done, the ship worked fine,

If you go to Google Earth and look at 37deg08'20.69"N,76deg38'36.98"W you
will see the NS Savannah, the world's first nuclear powered merchant
ship, which while she was primarily a cargo carrier had limited
passenger accomodations. Not quite a cruise ship.

Actually, it has been done twice. I think the German ship Otto Hahn was
primarily intended to be used for passengers (but it also had cargo space):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Hahn_%28ship%29

I have a book written in the 70s (parts might have been written in the
60s) about the sea, and the comments in there about nuclear civil ships
are quite curious in retrospective. The ships were commercial failures
(the writer compared the Otto Hahn to the Great Eastern which also sailed
mostly empty), but at the time it was expected that, in the future,
the public and the harbour authorities would not pay more attention to
a nuclear ship than to a normal ship

Anyway there was a technical problem: at the time it was calculated that a
nuclear ship would only be competitive if the power needed exceeded 50000HP.
But even a super oil tanker doesn't need that much power.

Maybe it they had appeared in the 50s, they would have had a brighter future
(pun intended). Of course 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl made "nuclear" a very
dirty word.

More recently,
http://www.cruisingholidays.co.uk/arctic/icebreaker-yamal-1.htm is
offering cruises aboard a for real Russian nuclear powered icebreaker.

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94

Here's one of my shots of QM2 sailing under the GG bridge;

http://www.pbase.com/logear/image/73998405

Jim


"Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro" wrote in message
...
J. Clarke wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 19:34:46 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 02:46:30 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:
There is,
however, a visible pall of diesel smoke in the air behind the ships,
which is, I believe, largely avoidable.

Nuclear power!

I think he meant cleaner diesel engines (particle filters, catalysers,
etc.)
or maybe gas turbines.

Oh, can you imagine the hue and cry should a company suggest a nuclear
cruise ship? Grin.

Actually, it's sort of been done, the ship worked fine,

If you go to Google Earth and look at 37deg08'20.69"N,76deg38'36.98"W you
will see the NS Savannah, the world's first nuclear powered merchant
ship, which while she was primarily a cargo carrier had limited
passenger accomodations. Not quite a cruise ship.

Actually, it has been done twice. I think the German ship Otto Hahn was
primarily intended to be used for passengers (but it also had cargo
space):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Hahn_%28ship%29

I have a book written in the 70s (parts might have been written in the
60s) about the sea, and the comments in there about nuclear civil ships
are quite curious in retrospective. The ships were commercial failures
(the writer compared the Otto Hahn to the Great Eastern which also sailed
mostly empty), but at the time it was expected that, in the future,
the public and the harbour authorities would not pay more attention to
a nuclear ship than to a normal ship

Anyway there was a technical problem: at the time it was calculated that a
nuclear ship would only be competitive if the power needed exceeded
50000HP.
But even a super oil tanker doesn't need that much power.

Maybe it they had appeared in the 50s, they would have had a brighter
future
(pun intended). Of course 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl made "nuclear" a
very
dirty word.

More recently,
http://www.cruisingholidays.co.uk/arctic/icebreaker-yamal-1.htm is
offering cruises aboard a for real Russian nuclear powered icebreaker.

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

.pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94