Street furniture, footpath furniture

[Colin Blackburn]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 07:27:38 +0100 someone who may be John Wright
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>
>>>What I meant was simply that the site took in more electricity than it
>>>contributed to the grid.
>>
>>But you didn't say that in so many words. The same can be said of any
>>nuclear power station and probably wind farms as well.
>
>
> Leaving aside nuclear power stations, how would a wind farm take in
> electricity and what would this do?

How do you think they keep the rotors turning the 70% of the time when
there's no wind!?

Colin

 

[Dave Larrington]

David Hansen wrote:

> Leaving aside nuclear power stations, how would a wind farm take in
> electricity and what would this do?

Generate wind, obv. Why d'you think they're sometimes called "windmills"?

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Dead pigs make perfect, if heavy, earrings.

 

[Trevor Barton]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:41:16 +0100, Colin Blackburn wrote:
> David Hansen wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 07:27:38 +0100 someone who may be John Wright
>> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>>
>>
>>>>What I meant was simply that the site took in more electricity than it
>>>>contributed to the grid.
>>>
>>>But you didn't say that in so many words. The same can be said of any
>>>nuclear power station and probably wind farms as well.
>>
>>
>> Leaving aside nuclear power stations, how would a wind farm take in
>> electricity and what would this do?
>
> How do you think they keep the rotors turning the 70% of the time when
> there's no wind!?

They turn some of them round and use them to blow air onto
others in the same farm. The others generate electricity to
power the blowers ...

--
Trevor Barton

 

[Tony Raven]

Alan Braggins wrote:
>
> There are companies that attempt to get employees to sign away rights to
> "Any other invention" as well as those done in the course of work, even
> if it has nothing at all to do with the company's normal area of business.
>

Patent law says nothing about it being invented in company hours or on
topics relevant to the normal business of the company. It just says
that if you are an employee paid to do things that might lead to
inventions, any invention is the employers.

Tony

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven wrote:
>Alan Braggins wrote:
>>
>> There are companies that attempt to get employees to sign away rights to
>> "Any other invention" as well as those done in the course of work, even
>> if it has nothing at all to do with the company's normal area of business.
>
>Patent law says nothing about it being invented in company hours or on
>topics relevant to the normal business of the company. It just says
>that if you are an employee paid to do things that might lead to
>inventions, any invention is the employers.

Not according to the quote you yourself posted:
"(ii) Any other invention made by an employee shall, as between him and
his employer, be taken for those purposes to belong to the employee."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

(Things led to by the things you are paid to do will indeed fall under the
cases in (i) and belong to the employer, but that isn't "any invention".)

Assume for example that I am paid to write software (something that
might lead to an invention), and while cycling home I come up with an
idea for an improved bicycle trailer hitch.

Do you really believe that, in the absence of any contract clause
saying otherwise, that invention would belong to my employer?
The contract clause I was talking about would have made it do so,
although the company didn't make bicycles, or trailers, and had
never asked me to think about either.

 

[Clive Coleman]

In message <[email protected]>, Alan Braggins
<[email protected]> writes
>But if it falls over, then it isn't stationary. So a perfectly
>stationary bike must, by definition, be in equilibrium, unstable or
>not. This is completely irrelevent to real life of course, but you
>started the evasion.
Thank you, this is what I was saying, a bike can't be balanced and
stationary.
--
Clive.

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Clive Coleman wrote:
>In message <[email protected]>, Alan Braggins
><[email protected]> writes
>>But if it falls over, then it isn't stationary. So a perfectly
>>stationary bike must, by definition, be in equilibrium, unstable or
>>not.

>Thank you, this is what I was saying, a bike can't be balanced and
>stationary.

Which half of that sentence did you mean, since "this is what I was saying"
and "a bike can't be balanced and stationary" directly contradict each other?

 

[Clive Coleman]

In message <[email protected]>, Alan Braggins
<[email protected]> writes
> "a bike can't be balanced and stationary"
With a rider, not putting his feet on the ground.
--
Clive.

 

[LSMike]

"Clive Coleman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> In message <[email protected]>, Alan Braggins
> <[email protected]> writes
>>But if it falls over, then it isn't stationary. So a perfectly stationary
>>bike must, by definition, be in equilibrium, unstable or not. This is
>>completely irrelevent to real life of course, but you started the evasion.
> Thank you, this is what I was saying, a bike can't be balanced and
> stationary.
> --
> Clive.

Shirley it's time to stop clutching at straws and just admit you're wrong?

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Clive Coleman wrote:
>In message <[email protected]>, Alan Braggins
><[email protected]> writes
>> "a bike can't be balanced and stationary"
>With a rider, not putting his feet on the ground.

It's true that my bike is currently stationary, balanced leaning against
(and locked to) a bike stand. I could go and sit on it with my feet off
the ground, but that's not really riding, and it certainly isn't relevent
to the thread so far.
But I really can't be bothered with your tedious evasions any more.

 

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:21:41 +0100 someone who may be John Wright
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>>Leaving aside nuclear power stations, how would a wind farm take in
>>electricity and what would this do?
>
>It takes electricity to manufacture them.

Nice try, but this thread has already been pointed to
http://www.bwea.com/ref/faq.html#payback

=====================================================

How long does it take for a turbine to 'pay back' the energy used to
manufacture it?

The comparison of energy used in manufacture with the energy
produced by a power station is known as the 'energy balance'. It can
be expressed in terms of energy 'pay back' time, i.e. as the time
needed to generate the equivalent amount of energy used in
manufacturing the wind turbine or power station.

The average wind farm in the UK will pay back the energy used in its
manufacture within three to five months, this compares favourably
with coal or nuclear power stations, which take about six months.

=====================================================



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Jon Senior]

John Wright wrote:
> And we all know what disgruntled employees do, don't we.

Jack sh*t in general. As long as the wages keep being paid. Unless you
can guarantee another job outside the company, kicking up a fuss is
_not_ an option.

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

JLB wrote:
> Fair enough. Perhaps the piece of paper I remember was doing no more
> than spelling it out, for the avoidance of any misunderstanding. There
> was certainly a document about this that each of us employees signed,
> and the law you have quoted above seems familiar.

The distinction comes with inventions made outside of the workplace. By
my contract (Although I have an exemption for a certain field of work),
_any_ invention of mine created while I am employed (But not necessarily
at work) is the property of the company. Check your contract, you may
find that it's similar.

Jon

 

[Dave Larrington]

John Wright wrote:

> And we all know what disgruntled employees do, don't we.

They turn up as songs on "The Deathray Tapes" by Mick Farren & Jack
Lancaster?

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
uck Wa