Street furniture, footpath furniture

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by [email protected], Mar 12, 2005.

  1. In message <BE81B49B.E154%[email protected]>, David Martin
    <[email protected]> writes
    >> Stationary, to me means stopped. Not moving. Stalled. Standstill.
    >> Halted. Not virtually, but actually.

    >
    >At what level? If you really want everything to stop then you will need
    >to decide whether you count diffusion of volatiles from the body or
    >atomic motion in the criteria for defining stopped. And then there are
    >many scales in between.

    My comments apply to the bike and rider, not some esoteric rubbish, to
    get you around the fact that you can't admit to not being able to
    balance a "BIKE" whilst stopped.
    --
    Clive.
     


  2. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    Clive Coleman wrote:
    > In message <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
    > <[email protected]> writes
    >
    >> What point are you trying to make. Balancing a stationary bike is a
    >> relatively easy skill. However if your argument is the bike is not
    >> perfectly stationary when you do so as there are tiny side to side and
    >> back to front movements on the spot then that is a completely
    >> different point. Which one are you trying to make?

    >
    > Stationary, to me means stopped. Not moving. Stalled. Standstill.
    > Halted. Not virtually, but actually.


    In which case nothing is ever stationary even though its Brownian motion
    might be extremely small. But within the usual excepted tolerances of
    stationary it is possible to balance a stationary bike.

    Tony
     
  3. In article <[email protected]>, Clive Coleman wrote:
    >In message <[email protected]>, Alan Braggins
    >>Does your newsreader not follow References: ?

    >Either you can balance a stationary bike, or you can't. Reference's
    >don't enter into it my lad. I maintain you can't.


    I've never maintained I can. I've seen trackstands done though, which were
    the subject under discussion in the context of the limiting factor on hills
    being how slowly you can go and still balance. As you would know if you had
    read the thread, which is where the References come in. As you would know
    if you had a clue.
    So, while it's true that being stuck in a tramline will cause problems to
    someone doing a trackstand, that's got bugger all relevence unless you
    actually know of a hill with tramlines. (In the UK, given the Newsgroups;
    cycling up a cable car route in San Francisco could indeed be troublesome,
    if you count cable cars as trams.)
     
  4. dkahn400

    dkahn400 Guest

    Clive Coleman wrote:

    > My comments apply to the bike and rider, not some esoteric
    > rubbish, to get you around the fact that you can't admit to not
    > being able to balance a "BIKE" whilst stopped.


    Stopped as in wheels not rotating - no problem. Stopped as in no
    discernable movement at all - not so easy. So what?

    --
    Dave...
     
  5. In message <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
    <[email protected]> writes
    >In which case nothing is ever stationary even though its Brownian
    >motion might be extremely small. But within the usual excepted
    >tolerances of stationary it is possible to balance a stationary bike.

    Wriggle, wriggle little ton, do you know how to say non?
    --
    Clive.
     
  6. In message <[email protected]>, Alan Braggins
    <[email protected]> writes
    >cycling up a cable car route in San Francisco could indeed be
    >troublesome

    Especially as they're so steep. I was only making a simple point that
    movement is required to maintain balance, but your efforts to evade a
    simple no make you sound like son of Doug.
    --
    Clive.
     
  7. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    Clive Coleman wrote:
    > In message <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
    > <[email protected]> writes
    >
    >> In which case nothing is ever stationary even though its Brownian
    >> motion might be extremely small. But within the usual excepted
    >> tolerances of stationary it is possible to balance a stationary bike.

    >
    > Wriggle, wriggle little ton, do you know how to say non?


    Non. It is you that wishes to hair split over whether a bike is
    stationary if there is the slightest movement or wobble. By most
    people's standards balancing a stationary bicycle is possible, by your
    hair splitting standards it is not but then by the same standards cars
    are never stationary either, despite whatever BMW may say about
    balancing coins on the bonnet. I think we just have to agree to differ.

    Tony
     
  8. wafflycat

    wafflycat Guest

    "Derek *" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 20:09:27 +0100, "wafflycat"
    > <wafflesATv21netDOTcoDOTuk> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>It was Sellafield when I went round it IIRC, but I am of the generation
    >>that
    >>grew up knowing it as Windscale. and yes, it put me off nuclear power for
    >>life.

    >
    > What was it about it that did that?
    >


    The bad state of repair of much of it, especially the cracks in the concrete
    around one reactor and the vibrating fuel rod. The member of visiting party
    getting a dose of radiation and having to be "cleaned".

    > IME It's just like any big factory/chemical works, such as ICI
    > Billingham on Tees. I've worked both there and Sellafield and at every
    > nuclear power station in the country except Hartlepool.
    >
    > Have you read the reports on NYPRO at Flixborough, or Coalite at
    > Bolsover?


    Yes

    >
    > Does your kushty, sheltered life have no need of Nylon or Agricultural
    > chemicals (which equate to plentiful food for ordinary people)?
    >


    Radioactive nylon. Ah yes, nighties that glow in the dark.


    > Or do you suppose you are in a position to be confident that in this
    > case only lower forms of human life (IE plant operatives like me)
    > were/are at risk.
    >
    > "Waffles"
    >
    > DG


    Cheers, helen s
     
  9. wafflycat

    wafflycat Guest

    "David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > I tend to avoid this sort of discussion, but will make an exception.
    > My experience inside the works is very limited, though I changed
    > into the pretty red and white socks and stepped over the barrier at
    > Sellafield in the mid-1980s. This was only part of a three day visit
    > though, I have never worked there. However, the experience was
    > useful in explaining to colleagues the basics of a number of
    > (sometimes dormant) installations in later years. I have never been
    > to the exhibition.


    I've never been to the exhibition. When I went it was before the exhibition
    and we got a special tour round the whole facility. That's what put me off
    nuclear for life.

    Cheers, helen s
     
  10. In message <[email protected]>, John Wright
    <[email protected]> writes
    > Chapelcross will close I think in 2006.

    According to our local news Chapelcross has been shut for some time and
    is in the process of decommissioning, there has also been the start of
    redundancies there. When Calder Hall last stopped for maintenance some
    pipes were either cracked or corroded beyond repair and the cost of
    dealing with the contamination would have been prohibitive, so the
    decision was made to shut it.
    --
    Clive.
     
  11. David Hansen

    David Hansen Guest

    On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:26:48 +0100 someone who may be John Wright
    <[email protected]> wrote this:-

    uniquely these and the Chapelcross units are owned by
    BNFL not British Energy who own all the other nuclear power
    stations.

    >I think that proves you don't read what other people post


    Your thoughts are wrong then.

    >since I said that


    I was simply explaining why, uniquely these and the Chapelcross
    units are owned by BNFL not British Energy.

    >Chapelcross will close I think in 2006.


    As Clive and I have said, Chapelcross is closed (at least as far as
    producing electricity is concerned).


    --
    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.
     
  12. David Hansen

    David Hansen Guest

    On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:06:21 +0100 someone who may be "wafflycat"
    <wafflesATv21netDOTcoDOTuk> wrote this:-

    >I've never been to the exhibition. When I went it was before the exhibition
    >and we got a special tour round the whole facility. That's what put me off
    >nuclear for life.


    What was it about the tour that put you off? Where did you go?


    --
    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.
     
  13. Adrian

    Adrian Guest

    David Hansen ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
    much like they were saying :

    >>I've never been to the exhibition. When I went it was before the
    >>exhibition and we got a special tour round the whole facility. That's
    >>what put me off nuclear for life.


    > What was it about the tour that put you off? Where did you go?


    I did the tour of one of the Nuclear power stations (I forget exactly which
    - Severn Estuary? Which would be Oldbury? Could have been) when I was doing
    A-level physics, and I found it absolutely fascinating.
     
  14. McTavish

    McTavish Guest

    Clive Coleman wrote:

    > I was only making a simple point that movement is
    > required to maintain balance, but your efforts to
    > evade a simple no make you sound like son of
    > Doug.


    Except that it isn't.

    Logic 1 - 0 Colehole

    --
    McTavish the Unmentionable
     
  15. In message <[email protected]>,
    Adrian <[email protected]> writes
    >I did the tour of one of the Nuclear power stations (I forget exactly
    >which - Severn Estuary? Which would be Oldbury? Could have been) when I
    >was doing A-level physics, and I found it absolutely fascinating.

    I went around Oldbury a few years ago, it was spotless, you could have
    eaten your dinner off of the top of the reactors so to speak.
    --
    Clive.
     
  16. David Hansen

    David Hansen Guest

    On 13 Apr 2005 10:52:17 GMT someone who may be Adrian
    <[email protected]> wrote this:-

    >I did the tour of one of the Nuclear power stations (I forget exactly which
    >- Severn Estuary? Which would be Oldbury? Could have been)


    Or Berkeley or Hinkley Point.

    >when I was doing
    >A-level physics, and I found it absolutely fascinating.


    Did it have a reactor in a central building, with gas pipes coming
    out of the building to about six separate heat exchangers spaced
    around the reactor? These pipes were carried on light gantries and
    if the pipes were damaged leaked primary cooling gas.


    --
    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.
     
  17. Adrian

    Adrian Guest

    David Hansen ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
    much like they were saying :

    >>I did the tour of one of the Nuclear power stations (I forget exactly
    >>which - Severn Estuary? Which would be Oldbury? Could have been)


    >>when I was doing A-level physics


    18 years ago. <thinks> Shit, I'm not THAT old am I?

    > Did it have a reactor in a central building, with gas pipes coming
    > out of the building to about six separate heat exchangers spaced
    > around the reactor?


    Like I said. I *think* it was on the Severn Estuary...
     
  18. In message <[email protected]>, David Hansen
    <[email protected]> writes
    >Did it have a reactor in a central building, with gas pipes coming out
    >of the building to about six separate heat exchangers spaced around the
    >reactor? These pipes were carried on light gantries and if the pipes
    >were damaged leaked primary cooling gas.

    Come on, Berkeley's been shut now for several years.
    --
    Clive.
     
  19. David Hansen

    David Hansen Guest

    On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:41:59 +0100 someone who may be Clive Coleman
    <[email protected]> wrote this:-

    >>Did it have a reactor in a central building, with gas pipes coming out
    >>of the building to about six separate heat exchangers spaced around the
    >>reactor? These pipes were carried on light gantries and if the pipes
    >>were damaged leaked primary cooling gas.

    >
    >Come on, Berkeley's been shut now for several years.


    Has it been shut for eighteen years though?


    --
    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.
     
Loading...
Loading...