mistermack

I'm not interested in the person, I just don't find it productive to engage, when he starts with sweeping unsupported statements and figures, and ignores you if you get specific, when you check and find out they are wildly wrong. That's not debating. I answered his specific points, he's ignored mine.

I've stopped taking your posting seriously. You post false facts, make up stuff at will and never show where it comes from. And as you just ignore it, when errors are pointed out, I'm not wasting any more time on your posts. I don't mind disagreement, but just throwing out junk and not responding to specific points makes it not worthwhile engaging.

I don't like most of them, especially ones that cause fear, shame or embarrassment. But some of them are quite funny. One I liked was the guy who somehow carried a load of old car tyres up to the top of Mt. Edgecumbe, a dormant volcano overlooking Sitka in Alaska. He set fire to them on April 1, making it look like there was a live eruption. I don't think it caused a scare, but the people were agog. Who wouldn't be ? And another one was years ago, the Panorama BBC documentary makers, did a whole episode about the "spaghetti harvest" in Switzerland, with filming of workers trimming the spaghetti from the spaghetti bushes. An amazing number of people bought it, and it was harmless and very funny.

I agree, the risks might be minimal. But why take a minimal risk, when stainless steel is such a nice material? I would say that the riskiest cooking with aluminium ware would be cooking acidic fruits for jam etc. I would definitely use stainless for that. Also, using steel wool to clean aluminium ware is reckoned to cause a release. But as a general rule, I just avoid aluminium when there's an alternative. It's probably overkill but it doesn't cost anything.

If you don't show your working in detail, then you're just asking to accept your guesswork. It's a pointless exercise. On the other hand, I've pointed to the real-life experimental unit in Hawaii that pumped cold deep ocean water continuously for six years, generating electricity from it, as linked by TheVat. And the new project, for a unit massively increased in size and capacity. If the economics of pumping for that project are not prohibitive, then I'm saying it's safe to assume that what I'm suggesting isn't out of the question either. In Hawaii, the only benefit they derive is electrical power and possibly some fresh water. I'm saying you can perform exactly the same process, and create a brand new fishery, and take carbon out of the system for hundreds of years. As well as creating electricity. And you can also make fresh water as a bi-product of that, using one of the methods. See the links. The big question is how long does the fertilisation of the surface water persist? If it's decades, then it's a no brainer. If it's several years, then probably its well worth it. If it's months, then maybe not. You would have to perform a trial, to get some real idea. Or maybe you could track the effect of natural upwellings by satellite etc. and model it. Not curious enough to try to defend your hand-waved claims with links and numbers.

I believe that only kicks in for filtered coffee that's kept hot. Like I said at the beginning, I make about 10 cups at a time and keep it in the door of the fridge in a plastic milk bottle. I can't detect any change in taste from the first cup to the last. I just do it because it reduces the fiddling with filter and spent grounds by a factor of ten. I just pour and warm clean filtered coffee. Microwave or saucepan are both as good as each other. That's what I use for my filter. I just put a square of T Shirt material in it and pour through. Filters absolutely fine.

An old West Country tip on how to improve the crop of walnuts from your tree. You gather together on a certain day, and ceremonially "beat the bark" of all of the walnut trees. It's supposed to dramatically increase the yield of walnuts. I believe it still goes on today. The old saying goes : " A woman, a dog, and a walnut tree, the more you beat them, the better they be." Of course, this bit of wisdom is rather dated now, as these days, beating dogs is considered cruel.

Yes. Wan't it the same person who has described part of their own post as " a bit of a nonsense. " It doesn't fill me with confidence. And that was the same person who has failed to substantiate their claim that "deep ocean seawater density is generally taken to be around 1050 kg/m3 as ooposed to the 1024 kg/m3 of surface waters ". I can tell you that what I linked wasn't the only refutation of that claim, it was typical of several. And in any case, the phrase "deep ocean seawater" has a very wide spread of meanings, so it was a meaningless claim in the first place. Here's another page on density, since you think you know better than the first one : Roger Williams UNI and from that site : In any case, you don't appear to have understood my point about the density of compressed water falling, as it rises in the tube, judging by the way you continue to bang on about compression raising the density. All in all, I have more faith in what Universities choose to display on the subject, than someone who describes some of his own "envelope" posting as nonsense, minutes after writing it. And the Hawaiian project is an experiment, you appear to have missed that as well.

I have to say, one of the best aids I ever bought was a simple basic shopping trolley on wheels. You know the ones that you see grannies wheeling their shopping home in. I have a big version of that. The one I have will happily carry thirty or forty pounds of shopping, and it makes all the difference because with that I can walk to the shops, instead of choosing to drive. I like to walk when I can for exercise, but lugging forty pounds of shopping on my back is out of the question. So it gives me much needed exercise, and saves a piddly bit of diesel money.

That's different to what you said. "can reach" is not "generally taken to be" . The depths under discussion here don't have anything approaching that kind of density. And in any case, any part of the raised density due to high pressure would be lost as the water rises up the tube. You haven't thought it through. Yes, there will be a slight density difference in the top 1000m due to temperature difference but below that, it's insignificant. https://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/density.html In any case, if you had followed the link given by TheVat, you would read about the OTEC experimental installation in Hawaii, there they ran a unit generating electricity by pumping up sea water from the deep, and the planned next phase here : https://nelha.hawaii.gov/ No mention of gigantic pumping costs there. Quote : " Three sets of pipelines deliver cold deep sea water from up to 3,000 ft. depth as well as warm pristine surface seawater. Current equipment and pipeline infrastructure is capable of pumping up to 100,000 gallons per minute of seawater throughout the 900-acre technology park. "

They're more expensive in the UK. My sister bought a Tassimo pod machine, she gave me a cup of coffee from it. I'm not a fussy eater/drinker, but I have to say, that was the worst cup of coffee I've ever had. A cup of instant would have been much better. I didn't finish it, and she ended up putting the machine in the bin. I've got one, had it for years. The coffee is ok, but I prefer stainless steel for everything now, since I read somewhere that the brains of Alzheimer patients show raised levels of aluminium. It might be irrelevant, but it just put me off.

Link?

It's cheaper than the deluxe model.

What I find is that most deserts are not featureless sand dunes, they have plants growing, but plants that are adapted to low rainfall. If you were trying out this method of increasing rainfall, you would naturally start in a suitable location, where more rain would naturally increase the density of the existing greenery. Most of Australia is technically desert, but not a lot of it is empty dunes. And in many other parts of the world, the deserts are kept less green than they would naturally be, by intensive grazing with goats.

This is another ballpoint tip, for people who like papermate pens. ( a rather specialised market for this one ). The only refills you can get for papermates are a ludicrous price. (between five to ten pounds each, just for one refill) I simply refuse to pay that, so what I would normally do is cut down a refill from a mass market pen and use that. But papermate are crafty. Their refills are thinner than all the others at the tip, about 1.8mm so others won't fit through the hole in the end of the pen. So what I did was get a 2.3mm drill bit (cobalt for stainless steel) and opened up the end. Now I can use cheapo refills in my favourite papermate. About 10p each. I know it's sad, but that's the lengths I will go to to avoid paying rip-off prices. It's not the money, it's the feeling of being taken for a mug.

Tried it. Had trouble with the last bit. My sister had one. Tasted foul. And it feels sexier, like it's someone else's hand . . . . . So I'm told ! 😆

Sounds nice. My method would lend itself to cold brew, so I'll give it a go. I'll just let the boiled water cool right down, before adding the coffee, and leave it standing overnight.

I might try that. At the moment, to make 10 cups, I boil the water in a stainless saucepan, allow it to cool a bit, and tip the coffee in and stir. Then it sits till it's cold, and I then take a kitchen sieve with a former T shirt cut piece in it, as a filter, and pour the coffee through it into another saucepan. Then I fill the milk bottle and put it in the fridge door till I want a cup. I have to say, I think it's been tasting better, since I started doing that, and the last cup tastes at least as good as the first.

Maybe this is a duplicate. I did do a search first but didn't find anything. Anyway, if not, why not post any money or labour saving tips you'd like to share? I'm sure everyone has something. Just to start it off, I have every kind of coffee maker going, but they all get on my nerves, emptying coffee grinds, cleaning and rinsing etc. So what I do now is make about ten cups, all in one go, and put the black coffee in a plastic milk bottle in the door of the fridge. So I do the same amount of fiddling for 10 cups, as I used to do for one. So when I want coffee, I just pour and heat, and that's it. Can't tell the difference in taste at all. It's far better than instant anyway. And a tip about ballpoints : Ever had a ballpoint refuse to write, even though it's got a full refill? Don't chuck it. Just get a jam jar, put about 5mm of methylated spirit in it. ( or rubbing alcohol or surgical spirit) Put the pen or refill in it, ball end down, and put the lid on. After a day, it should write fine. At the worst, a few days will do it.

I get confused. Is that a finite set, or an infinite set?

Yeh but, you have to be careful online. It might not be genuine. Sometimes it turns out that the picture is of the balls of some guy half their age !!

That's a good point. There's no reason why that couldn't be done. You might gain a bit of heat due to conduction through the walls of the tube as the water ascends, but you probably could calculate that pretty accurately from a simple lab experiment, and anyway, once you got the thing rolling, you could measure the temperature differences you were achieving. As with friction, the warming would be lower, in proportion to the diameter of the tube, so bigger would be better. But in principle, if you were pumping large volumes of cold water, then that's an awful lot of energy potential on tap. Potentially enough to self-power the pumping, which would be a hell of a selling point. The problems with this scheme that I can see would be firstly, legal and political ones. What sort of legal framework is there for exploiting oceans that don't belong to any one country? And how do you restrict the fishing rights so that you can put the profits back into running it? Also practical problems, like underwater pumping and electrical insulation. Although that's already been done with tidal power turbines, so the technology is there for that sort of thing. Also, what sort of problems ocean currents might pose to a 1,000 metre tube suspended in the water. But it's the sort of thing that modern engineering can do, if there is a payoff at the end of it.

Just to put the energy demand of such a system into perspective, pumping water upwards in such a tube would require no more power than pumping horizontally up on the surface, because the weight of the water is in balance. So for a depth of 1,000 metres, it's the energy equivalent of pumping through a 1km pipeline on level ground. That's not the energy guzzler that people have been making out. In fact, in the ocean, it would be more economic than on the surface, because you could use a much wider pipe for far less money. That's because the pipe could be made of thin flexible material, as it doesn't have to support it's own weight. Something akin to very heavy duty rubble sack material would probable do. So you could have a tube 10m in diameter for not much money. The wider the pipe, the less friction you would have to overcome per gallon pumped. A flexible pipe of that sort would be kept inflated by the pumping action. So there's no reason to assume prohibitive energy costs. There might well be practical problems, as there is with everything.

Oh right. No, I'd never heard anything. I'm watching an event right now, he finished talking about five minutes ago, and I just got the feeling his face looked frozen, so I thought I'd post it. I suppose nobody would care in America. But people made a big thing about Donald Trump's hair, so I thought they might do the same to Joe. Hair is a funny thing. If he wore a wig, he would get mercilessly ripped apart in the UK. Or even a hair weave or transplant. It seems to be the signal for open-season mockery in this country. But strangely, a wig is perfectly ok for women to wear, but not for men.

I'm watching Joe Biden give a speech right now, and his face is coming over as eerily immobile. I know he's elderly, and miles better than the alternative. I'm not knocking him as a politician, but I just wondered if other people get the same feeling about his face? Has he been banging in the Botox, or having nips and tucks done? His mouth moves, and his eyes blink, but the rest of the face seems like it's fixed. Not that there's anything wrong with it. I'd go for it myself, if I had the money to waste, and it didn't hurt, and never went wrong.