A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

Global positioning



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old February 17th 18, 05:28 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
David Woolley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 550
Default Global positioning

On 16/02/18 17:01, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Well, it would be similar insanity to assume all the electrons emerging
from your wall socket came from the company who send you the quarterly
bill, green or not. So this is a "depends what you mean by" argument


They all came from the socket and will go back there 10ms later!
(Unless you are using a fairly anti-social device, and wait long enough.)
Ads
  #42  
Old February 17th 18, 07:22 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,448
Default Global positioning

On 17/02/2018 08:42, charles wrote:

example: Sortly before Christmas, my not-quite-5-year-old grandson was
taken to a woodland park which had been "decorated" for Christmas. At one
point there was a hump in the ground with coloured smoke coming out of a
hole. A girl of similar age said "Ooh, do you think there's a dragon
living there?". My grandson said "No it's just a smoke machine and
coloured lights". He'll go far.

Poor little sod might end up working for the BBC!

Bill
  #43  
Old February 17th 18, 07:30 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,448
Default Global positioning

On 17/02/2018 14:47, Clive Page wrote:

Brexit-supporters
are mostly techno-phobes


Can you support that statement in any valid way?

Bill
  #44  
Old February 17th 18, 08:18 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Indy Jess John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,307
Default Global positioning

On 17/02/2018 15:59, Norman Wells wrote:

"The Saharan Desert is 9,064,958 square kilometers, or 18 times the
total required area to fuel the world."

I think that estimate assumes 100% conversion. We are a fair way short
of that with the current technology.

Jim

  #45  
Old February 17th 18, 08:24 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Indy Jess John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,307
Default Global positioning

On 17/02/2018 17:26, R. Mark Clayton wrote:

Once you get something a little more complex, like an 1103 Dram or a 4004 processor, show the internal components is totally impracticable, even if they maker will tell you what they even are.

That is the sort of reply I got from the magazine, see below

He replied that the modern microprocessor had many thousand on-board
components and it was neither practical to find the space to print such
a circuit nor to expect the typical magazine reader to work out the
paths through it.


BUT

He missed the point that the vast majority of the circuits had simpler
chips like Op Amps and 555_Timers and the like, and a series of "How
things work" for the most popular chips would have given a useful
insight into the magic performed by these ICs.


That is the level of complexity I was interested in.

I built a zero voltage switching thermostat out of basic components - if
I remember rightly it had 18 transistors and a fair number of passive
components. I could, at the time, have bought a single chip to do the
same thing, but where was the fun in that?

Jim
  #46  
Old February 17th 18, 08:29 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Brian-Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 576
Default Global positioning

Exactly besides the concept of the way it works does not need a detailed
insight at all. It is in the end using data and changing it according to
some rules or instructions based on the data itself.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
"Indy Jess John" wrote in message
...
On 17/02/2018 17:26, R. Mark Clayton wrote:

Once you get something a little more complex, like an 1103 Dram or a 4004
processor, show the internal components is totally impracticable, even if
they maker will tell you what they even are.

That is the sort of reply I got from the magazine, see below

He replied that the modern microprocessor had many thousand on-board
components and it was neither practical to find the space to print such
a circuit nor to expect the typical magazine reader to work out the
paths through it.


BUT

He missed the point that the vast majority of the circuits had simpler
chips like Op Amps and 555_Timers and the like, and a series of "How
things work" for the most popular chips would have given a useful
insight into the magic performed by these ICs.


That is the level of complexity I was interested in.

I built a zero voltage switching thermostat out of basic components - if I
remember rightly it had 18 transistors and a fair number of passive
components. I could, at the time, have bought a single chip to do the
same thing, but where was the fun in that?

Jim



  #47  
Old February 17th 18, 09:00 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Norman Wells[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 984
Default Global positioning

On 17/02/2018 21:18, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 17/02/2018 15:59, Norman Wells wrote:

"The Saharan Desert is 9,064,958 square kilometers, or 18 times the
total required area to fuel the world."

I think that estimate assumes 100% conversion.¬* We are a fair way short
of that with the current technology.


Well, it does say:

"By another measure, "the unpopulated area of the Sahara desert is over
9 million km², which if covered with solar panels would provide 630
terawatts total power. The Earth's current energy consumption rate is
around 13.5 TW at any given moment (including oil, gas, coal, nuclear,
and hydroelectric)." This measure arrives at a multiplier of 46 times
the area needed."


  #48  
Old February 17th 18, 10:08 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Java Jive[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,774
Default Global positioning

On 17/02/2018 18:08, Vir Campestris wrote:

On 16/02/2018 21:38, Java Jive wrote:

Strategically speaking, it's not viable for this country, because we
have no indigenous sources of fuel.¬* I suggest that you go and look up
how much demand and supply is projected for nuclear fissile material,
the former is expected to exceed the latter within a decade, and then
think about how much nuclear material is to to be found in this
country = none worth speaking of.¬* Then calculate how long the
supplies that we have already in the form of ex-warheads and spent
fuel will last if the HMG build all the nuclear power stations touted
in the last policy document of a decade or so back = from memory about
8 years.¬* Then think about the extra cost of reprocessing those
supplies to extract fuel that will last only 8 years.¬* Then consider
that even offshore wind is already cheaper than nuclear fuel, and is
likely to get cheaper, while nuclear is likely to get more expensive,
and that we still have under our feet 200+ years of coal, and lesser
quantities of other fossil fuels.


Do you have source for that data?


Supply and demand from the nuclear industry's, the World Nuclear
Association's, own website. Number of proposed UK nuclear generating
sites from a governmental energy review of about a decade ago which
AFAIK is still the latest. Relative cost of offshore wind and nuclear a
BBC news article in the last three or for months or so. Etc. Do some
searching online.

IMHO fission is horrible, messy, dangerous and practical. But nothing
else is practical in the medium term.


For us, without a source of fuel, it's a massively impractical white
elephant.

Certainly not solar or wind when we get one of those January nights with
the blocking high, no wind, and really low temperatures, which is just
when we really need the power.


We must concentrate on what we've got, which is lots of fossil fuels.
If we care about climate change from CO2 emissions from our fossil
fuels, then we must spend what we are wasting on nuclear power on carbon
capture.

  #49  
Old February 17th 18, 10:19 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
The Other John[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default Global positioning

On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 14:47:24 +0000, Clive Page wrote:

And our hospitals will have no way of getting fresh supplies of
radio-isotopes they continually need, but that's just a side issue.


I'm sure I read that these are not covered by Euratom so that's not even a
side issue, just remoaners trying to stoke the ashes of 'project fear'.
You lost, get over it.

--
TOJ.
  #50  
Old February 18th 18, 12:11 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Graham.[_12_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 472
Default Global positioning

Sigh, In fact the concept of all those things is explainable without going
into the detail.I don't think many teachers understand things enough to go
to the conceptual level on modern stuff.
Brian



Yeah, like the seven colours of the rainbow, and the two different
kinds of electricity.

How I wish my science teacher told me the truth, "We don't really
understand the nature of matter, but here's a useful analogy involving
nuclei and orbiting electrons".
--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright ©2004-2018 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.