|
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 14:54:55 +0000, Paul Burridge
wrote: On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:42:11 +0000, Scott wrote: Huh? It's only 5:30AM here and I just got up but, the ONLY time you aren't consuming power is at the zero crossing of the voltage and current sine waves (assuming a purely resistive load where I and E are in phase). Since you are paying for power, which is P=I X E, during the negative half cycle, you have, for example, -168 Volts X -1 Amp = +168 Watts...try it on a calculator...negative times a negative is positive. Thanks, Scott. So you're basically agreeing with me. I owe the power co. for the positive cycles they send me; they owe *me* for the negative ones. Since they are equal and opposite, they cancel each other out. Overall, then, zero billing justified. We are being conned!!! --- EUREKA!!! The fallacy lies in your thinking that the power company bills you for what they send you, when in actuality what you're getting billed for is what you send back to them! Consider: they send you a bunch of positive and negative cycles, but as long as you don't turn a switch on anywhere, those cycles can't travel back to the power company, so you don't get billed for them. However, when you do turn on a switch you're providing a way for _their_ electricity to get back to _them_ and stop beating it's head against an open switch, so it seems to me that they should pay _you_ for doing them the courtesy of returning their electricity. -- John Fields |
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 12:15:44 -0600, John Fields
wrote: On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 14:54:55 +0000, Paul Burridge wrote: On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:42:11 +0000, Scott wrote: Huh? It's only 5:30AM here and I just got up but, the ONLY time you aren't consuming power is at the zero crossing of the voltage and current sine waves (assuming a purely resistive load where I and E are in phase). Since you are paying for power, which is P=I X E, during the negative half cycle, you have, for example, -168 Volts X -1 Amp = +168 Watts...try it on a calculator...negative times a negative is positive. Thanks, Scott. So you're basically agreeing with me. I owe the power co. for the positive cycles they send me; they owe *me* for the negative ones. Since they are equal and opposite, they cancel each other out. Overall, then, zero billing justified. We are being conned!!! --- EUREKA!!! The fallacy lies in your thinking that the power company bills you for what they send you, when in actuality what you're getting billed for is what you send back to them! Consider: they send you a bunch of positive and negative cycles, but as long as you don't turn a switch on anywhere, those cycles can't travel back to the power company, so you don't get billed for them. However, when you do turn on a switch you're providing a way for _their_ electricity to get back to _them_ and stop beating it's head ^^^^ Tsk, tsk, tsk... hangs head in shame _______/ against an open switch, so it seems to me that they should pay _you_ for doing them the courtesy of returning their electricity. -- John Fields |
Paul Burridge wrote:
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 16:27:45 +0000, Pooh Bear wrote: No European countries run on 230V to the best of my knowledge. British mains electricity used to be 240V, until the EU spit! 'harmonised' the level across EUrope to 230V. Unless of course, you know better.... I do. The UK is still 240. They didn't change the voltage, only what they said the voltage was. Its a Yes-Minister one. Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
Paul Burridge wrote:
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:42:11 +0000, Scott wrote: Huh? It's only 5:30AM here and I just got up but, the ONLY time you aren't consuming power is at the zero crossing of the voltage and current sine waves (assuming a purely resistive load where I and E are in phase). Since you are paying for power, which is P=I X E, during the negative half cycle, you have, for example, -168 Volts X -1 Amp = +168 Watts...try it on a calculator...negative times a negative is positive. Thanks, Scott. So you're basically agreeing with me. I owe the power co. for the positive cycles they send me; they owe *me* for the negative ones. Since they are equal and opposite, they cancel each other out. Overall, then, zero billing justified. We are being conned!!! Polarity is no more than direction of flow. They send you electrons on one lead, then electrons on the other lead, making twice the number of electrons, so you gvetting them for 1/2 price as they only count them the once:-) Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
Paul Burridge wrote: On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 16:27:45 +0000, Pooh Bear wrote: No European countries run on 230V to the best of my knowledge. British mains electricity used to be 240V, until the EU spit! 'harmonised' the level across EUrope to 230V. Unless of course, you know better.... The only thing that actually *changed* was a bit of paper. Graham |
Paul Burridge wrote: The power company run a line to my house. They supply me with electricity. This amounts to a 230V, 65A facility at the distribution board in a cupboard under the stairs. I run all my stuff from that board. The board contains several RCBOs that trip-out in the event of any leakage current being sensed. If current in = current out; they're happy and won't trip. Because they don't trip out, I conclude I don't use any current. No, you're simply not permitting it to go to ground. Neatness counts. The voltage supplied is 230VAC RMS. Since this is alternating between equal positive and negative half-cycles, the average level of this voltage supply is zero. Yup. It better be zero. I use no current and they effectively supply no voltage. Why do I get billed for electricity usage when I clearly can't have used any? Except you slowed down the electrons on their way through your appliances (made them do work). Speed them back up (do work on them) and you'll see a zero bill except for the minimum line-maintenance fees, of course. Mark L. Fergerson |
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message . .. Paul Burridge wrote: On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 16:27:45 +0000, Pooh Bear wrote: No European countries run on 230V to the best of my knowledge. British mains electricity used to be 240V, until the EU spit! 'harmonised' the level across EUrope to 230V. Unless of course, you know better.... I do. The UK is still 240. They didn't change the voltage, only what they said the voltage was. Its a Yes-Minister one. It has changed a _little_ in some places. The switch was from 240v, with tighter +/- margins, to 230v, with larger margins. The margin allowed, was large enough, to include a normally set up 240v, or 220v system in a country. However some areas of the network were outside these margins, and have gradually been replaced, and on new areas, the tap change voltages, are now designed to be closer to 230v, than 240v. If you have incoming power monitoring equipment, you will find that typically the voltage has fallen by a couple of volts over the last few years. Best Wishes |
"Paul Burridge" wrote in message ... On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 23:18:28 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer wrote: Please forgive my naivete, but this is a joke, right? It's a "thought-provoking metaphysical discussion." No, it's not. |
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 19:29:08 GMT, Kevin Aylward wrote:
Paul Burridge wrote: On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 16:27:45 +0000, Pooh Bear wrote: No European countries run on 230V to the best of my knowledge. British mains electricity used to be 240V, until the EU spit! 'harmonised' the level across EUrope to 230V. Unless of course, you know better.... I do. The UK is still 240. They didn't change the voltage, only what they said the voltage was. Its a Yes-Minister one. The mains here has come down a little, it used to average around 247 before "harmonisation", it's now averages 243. During sh**/shave/shower time it drops marginally under 240, and again during evening meal time. -- Duncan Munro http://www.duncanamps.com/ |
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 12:52:59 -0600, John Fields
wrote: However, when you do turn on a switch you're providing a way for _their_ electricity to get back to _them_ and stop beating it's head ^^^^ Tsk, tsk, tsk... hangs head in shame _______/ Yes, unusual for you. Watch out for Rich.. ;-) against an open switch, so it seems to me that they should pay _you_ for doing them the courtesy of returning their electricity. That's a pretty solid legal argument. I'll probably incorporate it somewhere into my Writ. -- "What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793. |
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 14:38:44 -0800, "Richard Henry"
wrote: "Paul Burridge" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 23:18:28 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer wrote: Please forgive my naivete, but this is a joke, right? It's a "thought-provoking metaphysical discussion." No, it's not. Audience: "Oh yes it is!" -- "What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793. |
However, when you do turn on a switch you're providing a way for
_their_ electricity to get back to _them_ and stop beating it's head against an open switch, so it seems to me that they should pay _you_ for doing them the courtesy of returning their electricity. AH, BUT, how do _they_ know for sure _they_ are getting back the same electrons _they_ sent out? Do the little suckers have tatoos? Maybe I have a generator (such as my $500 combination treadmill/generator. I run damn fast) that's feeding back MY OWN homemade electrons. As soon as I think of a way to identify my personal electrons I'm going to send them a bill. And since my electrons are of higher quality (not to mention organic) I'll charge more for them. |
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:42:19 +0000, Paul Burridge wrote:
The power company run a line to my house. They supply me with electricity. This amounts to a 230V, 65A facility at the distribution board in a cupboard under the stairs. I run all my stuff from that board. The board contains several RCBOs that trip-out in the event of any leakage current being sensed. If current in = current out; they're happy and won't trip. Because they don't trip out, I conclude I don't use any current. The voltage supplied is 230VAC RMS. Since this is alternating between equal positive and negative half-cycles, the average level of this voltage supply is zero. I use no current and they effectively supply no voltage. Why do I get billed for electricity usage when I clearly can't have used any? Well, if this isn't a gag, then you have to pay because of the effort required to shove all those electrons down the electron tube to your house, and scoop them all up from the ground when they come back. The guy that operates the crank refuses to work for free. Cheers! Rich |
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 08:21:49 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:09:35 +0000, Paul Burridge wrote: What you are charged for is the use of the current as it flows through your appliances etc. You are not charged for using it. You are charged for BORROWING it. This is not true either. You are charged for THE ENERGY REQUIRED TO SHOVE THEM THROUGH YOUR SYSTEM. The electrons are incidental, very much like the push rod that connects the piston to the crankshaft. Cheers! Rich |
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:39:56 +0000, Alf Beta wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.homebrew Roy Lewallen wrote: Ian Jackson wrote: On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:09:35 +0000, Paul Burridge wrote: What you are charged for is the use of the current as it flows through your appliances etc. You are not charged for using it. You are charged for BORROWING it. Ian. Yes, there's an extra fee if you keep any half cycles without returning them on the following half cycles. It's called the Semi-Unused Cycle Kinetic Electricity Return fee. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Be thankful that you have ac power coming to your home. Back in my days in the old country, I used to walk 5 miles through snow and sludge in the middle of winter to go to the next village to buy a couple of batteries so that my father can listen to his nightly stories on our wireless. :P They should have tied a string to you, that was looped around a spool, that turned a generator while you were walking. Dad could have listened while you walked! Cheers! RIch |
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:51:48 +0000, Scott wrote:
Well, you can look at it this way...It's basically a series circuit, from generator, through all customer houses, and back to the generator. You may be returning ALMOST all of the current coming into your house, minus resistive losses, but if you divert that voltage and current through one of your appliances, the voltage and current (hence power) will actually be doing some work. Electricity, while being USED in your house, is like an employee of YOURS...it is doing WORK, so legally you must pay the worker's wages for work performed. Just be glad you don't have to pay it's social security taxes, fed and state taxes, health insurance, worker's comp insurance premiums, 401K contributions, etc. Starts to make electricity (employee) sound cheap. Oh, you do, you can be quite assured of that! That's why electricity is so exorbitant! ;-) Cheers! Rich |
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 14:54:55 +0000, Paul Burridge wrote:
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:42:11 +0000, Scott wrote: Huh? It's only 5:30AM here and I just got up but, the ONLY time you aren't consuming power is at the zero crossing of the voltage and current sine waves (assuming a purely resistive load where I and E are in phase). Since you are paying for power, which is P=I X E, during the negative half cycle, you have, for example, -168 Volts X -1 Amp = +168 Watts...try it on a calculator...negative times a negative is positive. Thanks, Scott. So you're basically agreeing with me. I owe the power co. for the positive cycles they send me; they owe *me* for the negative ones. Since they are equal and opposite, they cancel each other out. Overall, then, zero billing justified. We are being conned!!! I would really believe this is a gag if you hadn't already shown that you have the mentality of a neocon. Thanks, Rich |
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 16:44:26 +0000, Paul Burridge wrote:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 23:18:28 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer wrote: Please forgive my naivete, but this is a joke, right? It's a "thought-provoking metaphysical discussion." Care to participate? ;-) Well, yeah, except that it's so simple to "explain away" by just saying that you're not paying for the electrons themselves that are just passing through, but the energy required to get them to do that passage. They've got the motor, you've got the wagon. The electrons are just a medium, conceptually indistinguishable from the way a V-belt transfers energy. I've said this in other FUs kinda ad nauseam, tonight. :-) Thanks, Rich |
Paul Burridge wrote:
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 14:38:44 -0800, "Richard Henry" wrote: "Paul Burridge" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 23:18:28 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer wrote: Please forgive my naivete, but this is a joke, right? It's a "thought-provoking metaphysical discussion." No, it's not. Audience: "Oh yes it is!" Audience: Oh no its not, you're either playing silly buggers or demonstrating a deep lack of understanding. Cheers Terry |
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 04:50:48 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
wrote: The electrons are incidental, very much like the push rod that connects the piston to the crankshaft. Thanks for the tip, Rich. I'll remove the push rods from my car engine and save a bit of weight. -- "What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793. |
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 04:59:46 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
wrote: I would really believe this is a gag if you hadn't already shown that you have the mentality of a neocon. ?? Example? -- "What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793. |
I guess I'm missing the logic of your argument. Why do you think you
owe them for the positive half of the cycle and they owe you for the negative half cycle? Both half cycles produce (positive) work in your appliances, so you owe for both halves of the cycles. I guess that if you feel that strongly about the issue, you can always disconnect from the mains and make your own power from solar panels, wind generators, methane digesters, fuel cells, wood and steam, gas generator, etc. I'm not sure where in the world you are, but here in the USA, you are not FORCED into being served by any electric utility. A great place to start on that issue is http://www.homepower.com and order their magazine. Tons of people use "renewable" energy sources to power their homes either in full or in part. I happen to work for a power utility and we are installing methane digesters on large farms in the area. Cow poop in equals electricity and fertilizer out. YOU can install your own digester, and if, for example, you live in a farming community with a good supply of manure, you could form an electric cooperative whereby the MEMBERS of the coop drop off manure, you shovel it into the digester, methane is produced through decomposition, collect the gas, use it to fire a generator set and sell or provide the electricity to the members...By the way, it takes about 750 cows to provide enough manure to have a continuous supply of gas to fire the generators and produce approximately 750 KW of power...enough to supply the needs for approximately 50 homes at full load in each house (240 Volts at 60 Amps). If each house is only using say 5 KW at any instance, 150 homes could be served from the above noted digester. You can form your own power plant if you desire (at least here in the USA)... Scott Paul Burridge wrote: On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:42:11 +0000, Scott wrote: Huh? It's only 5:30AM here and I just got up but, the ONLY time you aren't consuming power is at the zero crossing of the voltage and current sine waves (assuming a purely resistive load where I and E are in phase). Since you are paying for power, which is P=I X E, during the negative half cycle, you have, for example, -168 Volts X -1 Amp = +168 Watts...try it on a calculator...negative times a negative is positive. Thanks, Scott. So you're basically agreeing with me. I owe the power co. for the positive cycles they send me; they owe *me* for the negative ones. Since they are equal and opposite, they cancel each other out. Overall, then, zero billing justified. We are being conned!!! |
Sounds like Einstein's theory of relativity. It all depends on the
point of reference. The power company could be providing YOU the courtesy of having electrons piled up at your open switch and your appliances are just waiting for you to close the switch so that they can do some kind of work to give meaning to their lives. Scott John Fields wrote: However, when you do turn on a switch you're providing a way for _their_ electricity to get back to _them_ and stop beating it's head against an open switch, so it seems to me that they should pay _you_ for doing them the courtesy of returning their electricity. |
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 02:30:47 GMT, "Joel" wrote:
However, when you do turn on a switch you're providing a way for _their_ electricity to get back to _them_ and stop beating it's head against an open switch, so it seems to me that they should pay _you_ for doing them the courtesy of returning their electricity. AH, BUT, how do _they_ know for sure _they_ are getting back the same electrons _they_ sent out? --- They read the meter, which only lets out (with one exception, see below) the electrons they send it when you turn on a switch and turn them loose. --- Do the little suckers have tatoos? --- "Tattoos". No, but they don't have to, since the power company knows that since they were the only ones sending out the electrons, the ones they get back must have been theirs in the first place. (Note the exception below.) --- Maybe I have a generator (such as my $500 combination treadmill/generator. I run damn fast) that's feeding back MY OWN homemade electrons. As soon as I think of a way to identify my personal electrons I'm going to send them a bill. And since my electrons are of higher quality (not to mention organic) I'll charge more for them. --- That's already being done in lots of places, but the buying price for imported electrons is fixed by law (usually) so you don't get to arbitrarily determine how much you charge for your electrons if you want to sell them to the electric company. What you do is to run your electrons through the meter backwards, and then when the electric company reads your meter they'll know where the surplus of electrons (or fuel) at their facility came from and they'll pay you for them and then sell them to someone else. -- John Fields |
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 14:28:27 +0000, Scott
wrote: I guess I'm missing the logic of your argument. Why do you think you owe them for the positive half of the cycle and they owe you for the negative half cycle? Both half cycles produce (positive) work in your appliances, so you owe for both halves of the cycles. I guess that if you feel that strongly about the issue, you can always disconnect from the mains and make your own power from solar panels, wind generators, methane digesters, fuel cells, wood and steam, gas generator, etc. I'm not sure where in the world you are, but here in the USA, you are not FORCED into being served by any electric utility. A great place to start on that issue is http://www.homepower.com and order their magazine. Tons of people use "renewable" energy sources to power their homes either in full or in part. I happen to work for a power utility and we are installing methane digesters on large farms in the area. Cow poop in equals electricity and fertilizer out. YOU can install your own digester, and if, for example, you live in a farming community with a good supply of manure, you could form an electric cooperative whereby the MEMBERS of the coop drop off manure, you shovel it into the digester, methane is produced through decomposition, collect the gas, use it to fire a generator set and sell or provide the electricity to the members...By the way, it takes about 750 cows to provide enough manure to have a continuous supply of gas to fire the generators and produce approximately 750 KW of power...enough to supply the needs for approximately 50 homes at full load in each house (240 Volts at 60 Amps). If each house is only using say 5 KW at any instance, 150 homes could be served from the above noted digester. You can form your own power plant if you desire (at least here in the USA)... --- Paul's in the UK, but I think you've hit on a terrific idea in that if he installed a digester outfitted with a toilet seat he could, single-assedly, supply electricity (_and_ fertilizer, God knows,) for most of Europe!^) -- John Fields |
Paul Burridge wrote in message . ..
I use no current and they effectively supply no voltage. Why do I get billed for electricity usage when I clearly can't have used any? Because if you don't they'll turn off their non-voltage and non-current and you won't like the difference (even though there isn't any). |
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 11:25:52 -0600, John Fields
wrote: Paul's in the UK, but I think you've hit on a terrific idea in that if he installed a digester outfitted with a toilet seat he could, single-assedly, supply electricity (_and_ fertilizer, God knows,) for most of Europe!^) Hey, I was going to give the surplus hot air suggestion a try, but I couldn't afford to run a pipeline all the way to Austin. ;- -- "What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793. |
|
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 05:04:59 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
wrote: Well, yeah, except that it's so simple to "explain away" by just saying that you're not paying for the electrons themselves that are just passing through, but the energy required to get them to do that passage. Big deal. All they've got to do is pull some carbon rods out of a pile of radio-active crap and the job's done. How hard can that be? -- "What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793. |
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 22:38:36 +0000, Paul Burridge
wrote: On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 05:04:59 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer wrote: Well, yeah, except that it's so simple to "explain away" by just saying that you're not paying for the electrons themselves that are just passing through, but the energy required to get them to do that passage. Big deal. All they've got to do is pull some carbon rods out of a pile of radio-active crap and the job's done. How hard can that be? --- I think that's kinda what they thought at Chernobyl... -- John Fields |
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 13:38:09 +0000, Paul Burridge wrote:
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 04:59:46 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer I would really believe this is a gag if you hadn't already shown that you have the mentality of a neocon. ?? Example? I went on a quest. Sheesh. OK, you're showing the same mentality by your blockheadedness about the electricity. I came up with "neocon" because of election hangover, and probably confused names because of the frenzy. So, sorry if I got the wrong guy, but upon reviewing the thread, if it ain't a gag that you're really dragging out, in which case, either congratulations or you should be ashamed of yourself, but if not, then you're one of the most stubborn, blockheaded people I've ever encountered, republican _or_ democrat! Does this clear things up a bit? Thanks, Rich |
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 04:43:22 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer wrote:
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 13:38:09 +0000, Paul Burridge wrote: On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 04:59:46 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer I would really believe this is a gag if you hadn't already shown that you have the mentality of a neocon. ?? Example? I went on a quest. Sheesh. OK, you're showing the same mentality by your blockheadedness about the electricity. I came up with "neocon" because of election hangover, and probably confused names because of the frenzy. So, sorry if I got the wrong guy, but upon reviewing the thread, if it ain't a gag that you're really dragging out, in which case, either congratulations or you should be ashamed of yourself, but if not, then you're one of the most stubborn, blockheaded people I've ever encountered, republican _or_ democrat! Does this clear things up a bit? Maybe I can explain. Paul is basically a moron when it comes to electronics - real slow on the uptake, engineering math challenged, Jerry's kid. He probably OP'd this thread without thinking of the work required to move those f*cking electrons - the more you move in a given time, the more power you consume. Goes back to mechanics and horsepower. OTOH, he *is* a f*cking troll, basically, so you might just ignore him. I sometimes look at the responses to him because you never know when someone's gonna blast him (like you're getting close to doing) and sometimes (not this time) it's good for a chuckle. 'specially after a few good Long Islands :) -- Best Regards, Mike |
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 22:37:27 +0000, Paul Burridge wrote:
On 14 Nov 2004 12:35:00 -0800, (Mike Silva) wrote: Paul Burridge wrote in message . .. I use no current and they effectively supply no voltage. Why do I get billed for electricity usage when I clearly can't have used any? Because if you don't they'll turn off their non-voltage and non-current and you won't like the difference (even though there isn't any). You're probably right. Sigh... I still think I'm a dumbass sucker, though. But at least no one seems to agree with me on that. They do on the dumbass part. -- Best Regards, Mike |
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 04:43:22 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
wrote: I went on a quest. Sheesh. OK, you're showing the same mentality by your blockheadedness about the electricity. Er, you seriously didn't realise I was trolling?? How *stoopid* do you think I am? No, don't answer that. ;-) I came up with "neocon" because of election hangover, and probably confused names because of the frenzy. So, sorry if I got the wrong guy, but upon reviewing the thread, if it ain't a gag that you're really dragging out, in which case, either congratulations Thanks. or you should be ashamed of yourself, but if not, then you're one of the most stubborn, blockheaded people I've ever encountered, republican _or_ democrat! Does this clear things up a bit? Not really. I'm neither republican nor democrat. I'm a Britlander so those terms are inapplicable. My politics are actually quite middle-of-the-road and moderate, actually. Not that we should be discussing such things here, anyway. HTH. -- "What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793. |
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 04:43:22 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
wrote: I came up with "neocon" because of election hangover, and probably confused names because of the frenzy. --- "Neocon" as a ****raction for "neoconservative", or what? --- So, sorry if I got the wrong guy, but upon reviewing the thread, if it ain't a gag that you're really dragging out, in which case, either congratulations or you should be ashamed of yourself, but if not, then you're one of the most stubborn, blockheaded people I've ever encountered, republican _or_ democrat! --- Bwahahahahaha!!! IKYABWAI if I ever heard one!! Thanks for the larf! --- Does this clear things up a bit? --- A bunch! -- John Fields |
Paul Burridge wrote in message . ..
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 19:37:28 -0500, **THE-RFI-EMI-GUY** wrote: Paul; You could drive ground rods into opposite corners of your property and extract some of the power from the earth and run your house for nothing at all! In fact If you dig a deep enough trench in the middle, you could isolate the ground and get a bigger return current! Well, I don't see how that could work, but I had considered digging a trench around my boundary and thereby cutting off the return path for the other users' behind my house and demanding payment from the power co. to re-instate it. But then it's obvious the return current's only going to go deeper underground or around my property. It seems there's nothing I can do to make any dough out of this. :-( Not sure, but somehwere it has to be stated that electric company MUST provide an escape route for electrons they supllied to customers, otherwise they will blow up your house in an eyeblink (assume you try to steal their electrons). That's the only reason for the bill. |
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 02:53:32 -0500, Active8 wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 04:43:22 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer wrote: On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 13:38:09 +0000, Paul Burridge wrote: On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 04:59:46 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer I would really believe this is a gag if you hadn't already shown that you have the mentality of a neocon. ?? Example? I went on a quest. Sheesh. OK, you're showing the same mentality by your blockheadedness about the electricity. I came up with "neocon" because of election hangover, and probably confused names because of the frenzy. So, sorry if I got the wrong guy, but upon reviewing the thread, if it ain't a gag that you're really dragging out, in which case, either congratulations or you should be ashamed of yourself, but if not, then you're one of the most stubborn, blockheaded people I've ever encountered, republican _or_ democrat! Does this clear things up a bit? Maybe I can explain. Paul is basically a moron when it comes to electronics - real slow on the uptake, engineering math challenged, Jerry's kid. He probably OP'd this thread without thinking of the work required to move those f*cking electrons - the more you move in a given time, the more power you consume. Goes back to mechanics and horsepower. OTOH, he *is* a f*cking troll, basically, so you might just ignore him. I sometimes look at the responses to him because you never know when someone's gonna blast him (like you're getting close to doing) and sometimes (not this time) it's good for a chuckle. 'specially after a few good Long Islands :) Well, I admit I got kinda confused when I went to google groups and each time I spotted him chiming in on the election frenzy, he was on the opposite side from the last time. ;-) Cheers! Rich |
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:59:35 +0000, Paul Burridge wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 04:43:22 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer wrote: I went on a quest. Sheesh. OK, you're showing the same mentality by your blockheadedness about the electricity. Er, you seriously didn't realise I was trolling?? How *stoopid* do you think I am? No, don't answer that. ;-) I came up with "neocon" because of election hangover, and probably confused names because of the frenzy. So, sorry if I got the wrong guy, but upon reviewing the thread, if it ain't a gag that you're really dragging out, in which case, either congratulations Thanks. or you should be ashamed of yourself, but if not, then you're one of the most stubborn, blockheaded people I've ever encountered, republican _or_ democrat! Does this clear things up a bit? Not really. I'm neither republican nor democrat. I'm a Britlander so those terms are inapplicable. My politics are actually quite middle-of-the-road and moderate, actually. Not that we should be discussing such things here, anyway. HTH. ID. ;-) This also explains my confusion when, while going through google groups on author: Burridge I found way less political stuff from you than I had had the impression that I had seen. Like, one percent of what I had thought. :-) So, sorry if I broke your game. )-; Cheers! Rich |
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:30:13 -0600, John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 04:43:22 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer wrote: I came up with "neocon" because of election hangover, and probably confused names because of the frenzy. --- "Neocon" as a ****raction for "neoconservative", or what? No, a contraction. Thanks, Rich |
Rich The Philosophizer wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:30:13 -0600, John Fields wrote: On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 04:43:22 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer wrote: I came up with "neocon" because of election hangover, and probably confused names because of the frenzy. --- "Neocon" as a ****raction for "neoconservative", or what? No, a contraction. I think he meant the ****raction, just as in "Good evening, ****stable, I was not speeding at all." Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:52 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com