Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you

First.Aspect

pinno said:

First.Aspect said:

pinno said:

First.Aspect said:

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

pangolin said:

morstar said:

But the thought process I’m exploring is what are the unforeseen consequences as there will always be some.

The article on solar already makes an interesting case.

I think the scale is just too far off though. If you put a big waterwheel in a stream and use that to generate power, you are going to have an affect on that stream. But when it comes to the sun, it's more like sticking 1 waterwheel in the ocean and worrying that it's going to affect the tides.

With solar, wave and wind, I’m inclined to agree.

Ground source heat pumps?

You generally only use those when the building is already super-insulated and needs relatively little heat input. They do locally cool the ground by a degree or two, but again the numbers are miniscule compared with the amount of solar heat energy absorbed by the ground.

What about p!saying in the ocean? Does that bleach coral?

FWIW, I get that you’re mocking me.

I’m a little bit surprised that as a professed scientist and logical thinker, you see no discussion points worth exploring. I like to question stuff.

I guarantee there will be some surprises along the way.

Gently teasing.

The effect of volcanos on climate is interesting. Nothing new of course, but it does create short term variations in both directions, depending on what gets spat out. Think there's a more or less on this.

Bill Gates' idea is also worth mulling over. He tends not to suggest things that aren't actually possible. But it could be early signs of decline. I don't know enough about it.

Care to elaborate?

They scatter talcum powder in the clouds in certain parts of North America to induce rain and in so doing, avoid the formation of hail stones which have historically in these locations, been big and destroy crops.

Totally different concept. (a) global, not local (b) light scattering, not nucleation (c) stratosphere, not atmosphere (though stratosphere might not be the right term... much higher up anyway).

Don't get me wrong. If Lakagigar could cause a temporary ice age, the principle is sound. I just don't know whether it is as technologically feasible as nuclear fusion powered personal spacecraft, or as simple as launching a satellite or ten full of soot.

Has that Laka wotist got anything to do with the cold northerly we're having at the minute 'cos i'm damn fed up of cycling in it?

No, I think Lakagigar itself was fairly warm.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

pangolin said:

morstar said:

But the thought process I’m exploring is what are the unforeseen consequences as there will always be some.

The article on solar already makes an interesting case.

I think the scale is just too far off though. If you put a big waterwheel in a stream and use that to generate power, you are going to have an affect on that stream. But when it comes to the sun, it's more like sticking 1 waterwheel in the ocean and worrying that it's going to affect the tides.

With solar, wave and wind, I’m inclined to agree.

Ground source heat pumps?

You generally only use those when the building is already super-insulated and needs relatively little heat input. They do locally cool the ground by a degree or two, but again the numbers are miniscule compared with the amount of solar heat energy absorbed by the ground.

But this where we’re supposedly going for heating.
London would absorb a lot of heat.

But heck it’s just conjecture.

London is not going for ground source heat pumps. I think you are confusing them with air source heat pumps.

They can be built downwards, so it's possible they could be used in London notwithstanding the genral underground mess of London.

Even for that option you need some external space with nothing underneath it and access for a piling rig. Not impossible but a long way down the list of options for the vast majority of buildings.

I'm not suggesting retrofitting is going to happen, but new developments could include communal ones.

Yes installing as part of a new build makes more sense, but at 2 to 3 times the installation cost of an ASHP (£20-40k per house), there are cheaper options. They're a useful alternative to have, but better suited to rural locations where the cost of excavation is minimised.

focuszing723

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0h-SROL_pE

I'm not sure what I think about it, will it encourage other people to try it and would he have taken up an NHS bed if it all went pear-shaped?

The blokes got some guts though.

shirley_basso

focuszing723 said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0h-SROL_pE

I'm not sure what I think about it, will it encourage other people to try it and would he have taken up an NHS bed if it all went pear-shaped?

The blokes got some guts though.

Like any dangerous activity?

DIY accidents are the biggest filler of A&E waiting rooms.

elbowloh

Was just behind what appeared to be a 2019 A6 4 litre diesel saloon and it just got me thinking why you would need such a car.

If you were interested in speed, you wouldn't go for a diesel. If it was about fuel economy, then why a 4 litre. Emissions would be off the scale. It's a saloon with no towbar, so no big loads and no towing of anything. It's not 4x4 and doing off-road. I imagine for refinement, a petrol would probably also be better.

From a manufacturers point of view, they obviously have to satisfy demand, but it seems irresponsible in an era of climate change and low emission zones in cities to provide these cars

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

pangolin said:

morstar said:

But the thought process I’m exploring is what are the unforeseen consequences as there will always be some.

The article on solar already makes an interesting case.

I think the scale is just too far off though. If you put a big waterwheel in a stream and use that to generate power, you are going to have an affect on that stream. But when it comes to the sun, it's more like sticking 1 waterwheel in the ocean and worrying that it's going to affect the tides.

With solar, wave and wind, I’m inclined to agree.

Ground source heat pumps?

You generally only use those when the building is already super-insulated and needs relatively little heat input. They do locally cool the ground by a degree or two, but again the numbers are miniscule compared with the amount of solar heat energy absorbed by the ground.

But this where we’re supposedly going for heating.
London would absorb a lot of heat.

But heck it’s just conjecture.

London does absorb a huge amount of heat in the built fabric and paved surfaces. That's why frosts are so rare from about Zone 3 inwards. It's a real problem as it means the cooling load on buildings in summer is that much higher.

https://www.cibse.org/getattachment/Networks/Groups/Resilient-Cities/Past-Events-and-Presentations/presentation3-Kolokotroni.pdf.aspx

Now we are talking, when I lived in Hammersmith the temp would drop 2 degrees to New Malden on the A3 then another 2 to the M25. In winter on the commute home going into RP was like going in the fridge aisle at the supermarket, going over the little brook was like going in the freezer aisle.

Epsom gets far more frosts than Surbiton, I assume because it is not part of the continuous urban sprawl.

monkimark

You cycled down the A3 to the M25 on your commute?

Richmond park and Epsom/Ashtead common both have a winter microclimate that can be a shock to the system and pretty much bookended my commute until Hammersmith bridge shut - especially RP, where I'm just warming up as the sun rises and then suddenly the temperature drops by 4 degrees and I'm freezing again.

First.Aspect

It is snowing where I live. Stop with the "microclimate" nonsense.

elbowloh said:

Was just behind what appeared to be a 2019 A6 4 litre diesel saloon and it just got me thinking why you would need such a car.

If you were interested in speed, you wouldn't go for a diesel. If it was about fuel economy, then why a 4 litre. Emissions would be off the scale. It's a saloon with no towbar, so no big loads and no towing of anything. It's not 4x4 and doing off-road. I imagine for refinement, a petrol would probably also be better.

From a manufacturers point of view, they obviously have to satisfy demand, but it seems irresponsible in an era of climate change and low emission zones in cities to provide these cars

On long journey it will be quite efficient, and 90% of the time you wouldn't notice its a diesel. But still have some go if you wish to drive in a spirited manner. I've got a petrol 3L that goes like stink, but if I did any kind of mileage it would be ruinous.

As for configuration - wasn't so long ago that a large saloon was what you went for if you wanted something bigger than a small saloon. It is a recent trend to instead go for a large SUV that isn't any bigger inside than a small saloon.

surrey_commuter

monkimark said:

You cycled down the A3 to the M25 on your commute?

Richmond park and Epsom/Ashtead common both have a winter microclimate that can be a shock to the system and pretty much bookended my commute until Hammersmith bridge shut - especially RP, where I'm just warming up as the sun rises and then suddenly the temperature drops by 4 degrees and I'm freezing again.

Just my poor use of the English language.

I ONCE rode on the A3 between Kingston Hill and Roehampton Vale.

Starting to wonder if I carried on to the roundabout and down to Putney but that might be a recurring nightmare.

briantrumpet

First.Aspect said:

It is snowing where I live. Stop with the "microclimate" nonsense.

elbowloh said:

Was just behind what appeared to be a 2019 A6 4 litre diesel saloon and it just got me thinking why you would need such a car.

If you were interested in speed, you wouldn't go for a diesel. If it was about fuel economy, then why a 4 litre. Emissions would be off the scale. It's a saloon with no towbar, so no big loads and no towing of anything. It's not 4x4 and doing off-road. I imagine for refinement, a petrol would probably also be better.

From a manufacturers point of view, they obviously have to satisfy demand, but it seems irresponsible in an era of climate change and low emission zones in cities to provide these cars

On long journey it will be quite efficient, and 90% of the time you wouldn't notice its a diesel. But still have some go if you wish to drive in a spirited manner. I've got a petrol 3L that goes like stink, but if I did any kind of mileage it would be ruinous.

As for configuration - wasn't so long ago that a large saloon was what you went for if you wanted something bigger than a small saloon. It is a recent trend to instead go for a large SUV that isn't any bigger inside than a small saloon.

It still amuses me that a current Mini Cooper has a longer wheelbase than a Mk1 Range Rover (IIRC).

First.Aspect

I walked right into an original mini recently. I thought it was much further away.

pblakeney

elbowloh said:

Was just behind what appeared to be a 2019 A6 4 litre diesel saloon and it just got me thinking why you would need such a car.

If you were interested in speed, you wouldn't go for a diesel. If it was about fuel economy, then why a 4 litre. Emissions would be off the scale. It's a saloon with no towbar, so no big loads and no towing of anything. It's not 4x4 and doing off-road. I imagine for refinement, a petrol would probably also be better.

From a manufacturers point of view, they obviously have to satisfy demand, but it seems irresponsible in an era of climate change and low emission zones in cities to provide these cars

Plush motorway cruising.

shirley_basso

I get that in a 2.0L Skoda Superb - and acres of bootspace.

Still want a range rover because, well....because its a range rover.

pangolin

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

pangolin said:

morstar said:

But the thought process I’m exploring is what are the unforeseen consequences as there will always be some.

The article on solar already makes an interesting case.

I think the scale is just too far off though. If you put a big waterwheel in a stream and use that to generate power, you are going to have an affect on that stream. But when it comes to the sun, it's more like sticking 1 waterwheel in the ocean and worrying that it's going to affect the tides.

With solar, wave and wind, I’m inclined to agree.

Ground source heat pumps?

You generally only use those when the building is already super-insulated and needs relatively little heat input. They do locally cool the ground by a degree or two, but again the numbers are miniscule compared with the amount of solar heat energy absorbed by the ground.

But this where we’re supposedly going for heating.
London would absorb a lot of heat.

But heck it’s just conjecture.

London does absorb a huge amount of heat in the built fabric and paved surfaces. That's why frosts are so rare from about Zone 3 inwards. It's a real problem as it means the cooling load on buildings in summer is that much higher.

https://www.cibse.org/getattachment/Networks/Groups/Resilient-Cities/Past-Events-and-Presentations/presentation3-Kolokotroni.pdf.aspx

Now we are talking, when I lived in Hammersmith the temp would drop 2 degrees to New Malden on the A3 then another 2 to the M25. In winter on the commute home going into RP was like going in the fridge aisle at the supermarket, going over the little brook was like going in the freezer aisle.

Epsom gets far more frosts than Surbiton, I assume because it is not part of the continuous urban sprawl.

Going down Priory Lane and into Richmond park was always quite a shock in winter.

morstar

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-56979118

Why this is even news and why the female angle?

If you choose to pursue a career in a sport that doesn’t have a well paying professional structure, you are either in it for love or confident you can be one of the ones who will get some money for being the very best.

Personally, I’m all for cutting right back on the lottery funding for elite sport too and putting it into grass roots sport.

We proved what could be done with the investment and also had many toxic medal factories. There’s enough money in sport to let the markets pay the athletes where there is an audience.

rick_chasey

Oh come on have a bit of imagination. A fair number of people in a sport are going to not compete anymore for various reasons.

If you report on sport that's worth reporting on, isn't it?

pblakeney

Those reasons are not new though. The vast majority of people who decide to compete in sport to make money are going to be very, very disappointed.

morstar

rick_chasey said:

Oh come on have a bit of imagination. A fair number of people in a sport are going to not compete anymore for various reasons.

If you report on sport that's worth reporting on, isn't it?

Why the female angle though?
It’s trying to bring in the disparity angle which dilutes the actual story that may or may not be worth reporting.

To me it is a non-story. All sports have high attrition rates. If anything, fringe ones where there is less strength in depth have lower attrition rates as any half decent proponent can compete at a high level for much longer.

shirley_basso

Re: Funding - it's got to be somewhere to drive the other.

Investing in elite creates the best facilities, coaches etc. that everyone can benefit from and makes it a worthwile pathway if someone can aspire to be world class.

Investing in grass roots is a bit pointless if there is no setup for when you reach the top.

Agree it can also be viewed the other way around - not sure what the right answer is.

rick_chasey

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

Oh come on have a bit of imagination. A fair number of people in a sport are going to not compete anymore for various reasons.

If you report on sport that's worth reporting on, isn't it?

Why the female angle though?
It’s trying to bring in the disparity angle which dilutes the actual story that may or may not be worth reporting.

To me it is a non-story. All sports have high attrition rates. If anything, fringe ones where there is less strength in depth have lower attrition rates as any half decent proponent can compete at a high level for much longer.

Because they're reporting on the women's game, and not the men's?

I mean, the answer, as ever, is in the article

Dr Ali Bowes, senior lecturer in sociology of sport at Nottingham Trent University, said: "It's one year on from lockdown and it's really obvious where the inequalities exist."

Her research, looking at the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on elite women's sport, found women struggled to access equipment, a gender "play" gap where men's sport returned faster and financial difficulties for women who were unable to play.

"There are absolutely concerns that women will walk away and we've seen that already with some examples in a number of sports where it's been too difficult for them to continue," she said.

First.Aspect

morstar said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-56979118

Why this is even news and why the female angle?

If you choose to pursue a career in a sport that doesn’t have a well paying professional structure, you are either in it for love or confident you can be one of the ones who will get some money for being the very best.

Personally, I’m all for cutting right back on the lottery funding for elite sport too and putting it into grass roots sport.

We proved what could be done with the investment and also had many toxic medal factories. There’s enough money in sport to let the markets pay the athletes where there is an audience.

Because female amateur sports is under paid in comparison to male amateur sport?

pblakeney

shirley_basso said:

Re: Funding - it's got to be somewhere to drive the other.

Investing in elite creates the best facilities, coaches etc. that everyone can benefit from and makes it a worthwile pathway if someone can aspire to be world class.

Investing in grass roots is a bit pointless if there is no setup for when you reach the top.

Agree it can also be viewed the other way around - not sure what the right answer is.

It might just be the places that I visit but when abroad I cannot help but notice sporting facilities are much more common, and of a better quality, even in small villages. Start them young and success breeds success, maybe?

Has the general health of the population as an aspect too.

Pross

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

Oh come on have a bit of imagination. A fair number of people in a sport are going to not compete anymore for various reasons.

If you report on sport that's worth reporting on, isn't it?

Why the female angle though?
It’s trying to bring in the disparity angle which dilutes the actual story that may or may not be worth reporting.

To me it is a non-story. All sports have high attrition rates. If anything, fringe ones where there is less strength in depth have lower attrition rates as any half decent proponent can compete at a high level for much longer.

Possibly because the male Welsh rugby internationals will be earning six figure salaries and having everything provided whilst the female internationals are, as I understand it from briefly catching the local news on TV this morning, effectively paying to play.

That said, their performance in the Six Nations suggests they are still very much at an amateur level, even watching the top 2 teams France and England the other week it was poor. It's the same story as with many female sports (regularly debated regarding women's cycling in Pro Race) in that the product isn't attracting the money needed to improve the product.

morstar

Pross said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

Oh come on have a bit of imagination. A fair number of people in a sport are going to not compete anymore for various reasons.

If you report on sport that's worth reporting on, isn't it?

Why the female angle though?
It’s trying to bring in the disparity angle which dilutes the actual story that may or may not be worth reporting.

To me it is a non-story. All sports have high attrition rates. If anything, fringe ones where there is less strength in depth have lower attrition rates as any half decent proponent can compete at a high level for much longer.

Possibly because the male Welsh rugby internationals will be earning six figure salaries and having everything provided whilst the female internationals are, as I understand it from briefly catching the local news on TV this morning, effectively paying to play.

That said, their performance in the Six Nations suggests they are still very much at an amateur level, even watching the top 2 teams France and England the other week it was poor. It's the same story as with many female sports (regularly debated regarding women's cycling in Pro Race) in that the product isn't attracting the money needed to improve the product.

Exactly, I don’t accept the parity argument and think it’s a lazy default.

Fully support parity in athletics and tennis and their ilk where there is comparable competition.

And I’m not coming at this from a sexist angle. I actually think equality isn’t based on women just doing all the same sports as men with comparable coverage. True equality is the activities that have high female participation and competition getting exposure.
Women’s rugby and football aren’t high quality.

rjsterry

morstar said:

Pross said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

Oh come on have a bit of imagination. A fair number of people in a sport are going to not compete anymore for various reasons.

If you report on sport that's worth reporting on, isn't it?

Why the female angle though?
It’s trying to bring in the disparity angle which dilutes the actual story that may or may not be worth reporting.

To me it is a non-story. All sports have high attrition rates. If anything, fringe ones where there is less strength in depth have lower attrition rates as any half decent proponent can compete at a high level for much longer.

Possibly because the male Welsh rugby internationals will be earning six figure salaries and having everything provided whilst the female internationals are, as I understand it from briefly catching the local news on TV this morning, effectively paying to play.

That said, their performance in the Six Nations suggests they are still very much at an amateur level, even watching the top 2 teams France and England the other week it was poor. It's the same story as with many female sports (regularly debated regarding women's cycling in Pro Race) in that the product isn't attracting the money needed to improve the product.

Exactly, I don’t accept the parity argument and think it’s a lazy default.

Fully support parity in athletics and tennis and their ilk where there is comparable competition.

And I’m not coming at this from a sexist angle. I actually think equality isn’t based on women just doing all the same sports as men with comparable coverage. True equality is the activities that have high female participation and competition getting exposure.
Women’s rugby and football aren’t high quality.

You don't think that that might partly be because the players have to train and play in their spare time. I appreciate that it's a slightly circular argument, but not wanting to fund a professional sport because it looks like amateur sport is guaranteed to maintain the status quo.

Then there's also the question of whether sport's only value should be as entertainment.

rick_chasey

morstar said:

True equality is the activities that have high female participation and competition getting exposure.

So why the complaint about the story?

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

You don't think that that might partly be because the players have to train and play in their spare time. I appreciate that it's a slightly circular argument, but not wanting to fund a professional sport because it looks like amateur sport is guaranteed to maintain the status quo.

Then there's also the question of whether sport's only value should be as entertainment.

The counter argument is that rugby and Olympics attracted crowds and TV when amateur. It was those crowds that attracted the money.

If sport isn't entertaining people stop watching and the money walks.

surrey_commuter

Mr market economy here chipping in to say that he really does not understand why a commercial organisation should be made to pay the same in sponsorship for an inferior product.

Should the shirt sponsors of Division 3 football teams pay the same as premier league ones?

surrey_commuter

surrey_commuter said:

Mr market economy here chipping in to say that he really does not understand why a commercial organisation should be made to pay the same in sponsorship for an inferior product.

Should the shirt sponsors of Division 3 football teams pay the same as premier league ones?

And conversely if I was putting on a tennis tournament I would pay the Williams sisters more to turn up than I would a bloke ranked 20+

morstar

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

Pross said:

morstar said:

rick_chasey said:

Oh come on have a bit of imagination. A fair number of people in a sport are going to not compete anymore for various reasons.

If you report on sport that's worth reporting on, isn't it?

Why the female angle though?
It’s trying to bring in the disparity angle which dilutes the actual story that may or may not be worth reporting.

To me it is a non-story. All sports have high attrition rates. If anything, fringe ones where there is less strength in depth have lower attrition rates as any half decent proponent can compete at a high level for much longer.

Possibly because the male Welsh rugby internationals will be earning six figure salaries and having everything provided whilst the female internationals are, as I understand it from briefly catching the local news on TV this morning, effectively paying to play.

That said, their performance in the Six Nations suggests they are still very much at an amateur level, even watching the top 2 teams France and England the other week it was poor. It's the same story as with many female sports (regularly debated regarding women's cycling in Pro Race) in that the product isn't attracting the money needed to improve the product.

Exactly, I don’t accept the parity argument and think it’s a lazy default.

Fully support parity in athletics and tennis and their ilk where there is comparable competition.

And I’m not coming at this from a sexist angle. I actually think equality isn’t based on women just doing all the same sports as men with comparable coverage. True equality is the activities that have high female participation and competition getting exposure.
Women’s rugby and football aren’t high quality.

You don't think that that might partly be because the players have to train and play in their spare time. I appreciate that it's a slightly circular argument, but not wanting to fund a professional sport because it looks like amateur sport is guaranteed to maintain the status quo.

Then there's also the question of whether sport's only value should be as entertainment.

I agree it is circular. But for me, the foundations of a robust professional sport is a strong grass roots.

Yes, grass roots benefits from exposure and aspiration but they last when they happen organically. Shoehorning pro sports in typically doesn’t work without a grass roots. See NFL Europe as just one of many examples.