| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390453 is a reply to message #390451] |
Thu, 16 January 2020 19:43   |
|
|
Originally posted by: Fred Smith
On 2020-01-16, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 1:14:50 PM UTC-7, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>> Aren???t Harry and Meagan the king and queen of Canada now?
>
> No, we still have to make do with a Governor-General who takes instructions from
> the Queen of England.
>
> John Savard
Ours (Oz) can dismiss a government without having to wake the queen up.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390454 is a reply to message #390452] |
Thu, 16 January 2020 20:19 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2020-01-16, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 2:30:08 PM UTC-7, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
>> I gather they just got told that they can't live there.
>
> What? Trudeau even confirmed that Canada would pay their security expenses
> rather than sending the bill to the UK.
Not surprising, now that he's declared deficits to be officially meaningless.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390455 is a reply to message #390453] |
Fri, 17 January 2020 00:22 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 5:43:36 PM UTC-7, Fred Smith wrote:
> On 2020-01-16, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> No, we still have to make do with a Governor-General who takes instructions from
>> the Queen of England.
> Ours (Oz) can dismiss a government without having to wake the queen up.
I'm rather sure ours can too.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390456 is a reply to message #390453] |
Fri, 17 January 2020 02:24 |
Andy Burns
Messages: 416
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Fred Smith wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>>> Aren???t Harry and Meagan the king and queen of Canada now?
>>
>> No, we still have to make do with a Governor-General who takes instructions from
>> the Queen of England.
>
> Ours (Oz) can dismiss a government without having to wake the queen up.
Even here, the sham is that it basically amounts to telling her, rather
than asking her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390458 is a reply to message #390313] |
Fri, 17 January 2020 17:47 |
Alan Bowler
Messages: 185
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2020-01-13 6:13 a.m., Quadibloc wrote:
> Ethyl alcohol has to be produced from stuff like corn, which is food.
>
> Methyl alcohol can be made from grass clippings and sawdust. Which people can't
> eat. Or, for that matter, corn husks.
Not entirely. Iogen produces ethanol from these sort of cellulose
sources.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390469 is a reply to message #390445] |
Tue, 21 January 2020 09:19 |
Jorgen Grahn
Messages: 606
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 2020-01-16, Peter Flass wrote:
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2020-01-15, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 15:03:36 -0700
>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > I find it ironic, after all the talk in the '80s about the "global
>>>> > village", that people are cramming themselves into the big cities more
>>>> > tightly than ever. Remember when technology was going to make that
>>>> > unnecessary?
>>>
>>> It is - but few seem to realise it.
>>
>> There are far too many middle managers who have no idea how to manage
>> remote staff; they want to see rows of heads bent over keyboards.
>>
>>>> Yup, live where you want and telecommute to your job.
>>>
>>> I do! I live in North Kerry, my dev box is a virtual machine in
>>> Seattle, the HR team is based in Cork, the rest of my team is spread
>>> between two or three US States, Russia, India and China (there's nobody else
>>> on the team in Ireland). Work's laptop, RSA keyfob and an internet
>>> connection puts me in the office - desk phone and all. This is the third
>>> employer I've worked from home with. For all practical purposes timezone
>>> difference is more of a barrier than distance, and that can be worked to
>>> advantage.
>>
>> Good, innit!?!?!? I worked from home for the 5 years before retiring. At
>> one point, my boss was in New York, my team in Mumbai and I was in my
>> back bedroom in Bedford, UK. Occasionally, I went into the office in
>> Canary Wharf; the biggest problem there was finding somewhere to plug the
>> laptop into the mains.
>>
>> Unfortunately, this only works if your "product" is something virtual; if
>> your job is to stand at a lathe and make widgets, you have to go into the
>> factory.
>>
>
> I used to like going to the office. Sure it was drudgery to have to get up
> every morning and leave the house at 7:00 every day, and in upstate NY
> winters the drive could be “interesting”, but my jobs provided the
> flexibility to come in late or leave early. Now that I’m retired I miss the
> face-to-face and the ability to bounce ideas or problems off someone else.
> I wouldn’t mind being in an office a couple of days a week, and wouldn’t
> want to work remotely lo the time. Of course YMMV.
I feel the same way. I like meeting my coworkers.
And also I find it much easier to cooperate with people when you're in
the same room. Even with people I know and have worked with well in
the past, if I don't meet them face to face there will be misunder-
standings and tension.
It's a shame, because I hate commuting.
/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390867 is a reply to message #390335] |
Wed, 12 February 2020 20:30 |
Walter Bushell
Messages: 1834
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <LP3TF.2582$xv4.1211@fx18.iad>,
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>
> It would have been helpful if you had added a link to the article.
>
> Note that to convert CO2 to CH4 you need to get the H from somewhere.
>
> There appear to be a number of iron-based catalysts being explored
> for this purpose
Have to add energy from *somewhere*, perhaps the hydrogen is the source
of the energy.
--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390875 is a reply to message #390335] |
Wed, 12 February 2020 22:30 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 12:47:56 PM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Note that to convert CO2 to CH4 you need to get the H from somewhere.
> There appear to be a number of iron-based catalysts being explored
> for this purpose.
A catalyst is a substance that causes a chemical reaction to go faster than it otherwise would without being consumed in so doing.
Hence, while an "iron-based catalyst" might make it easier to add hydrogen to
carbon dioxide in order to convert the carbon dioxide to methane - although,
given that both hydrogen and methane, but _not_ carbon dioxide, are fuels, I'd
be more inclined to describe the reaction as converting *hydrogen* into methane,
using CO2 as the supply of carbon - it clearly would not solve, or even address,
the problem of where to get the hydrogen from.
Oh, and here are links to articles on this:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/news/a27 412/catalyst-turn-co2-into-methane/
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/sun-shines-for-iron-cata lyst-to-convert-carbon-dioxide-to-methane/3007722.article
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anthracite coal, 1929 [message #390878 is a reply to message #390875] |
Thu, 13 February 2020 02:16 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 19:30:20 -0800 (PST)
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 12:47:56 PM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> Note that to convert CO2 to CH4 you need to get the H from somewhere.
>
>> There appear to be a number of iron-based catalysts being explored
>> for this purpose.
>
> A catalyst is a substance that causes a chemical reaction to go faster
> than it otherwise would without being consumed in so doing.
>
> Hence, while an "iron-based catalyst" might make it easier to add
> hydrogen to carbon dioxide in order to convert the carbon dioxide to
> methane - although, given that both hydrogen and methane, but _not_
> carbon dioxide, are fuels, I'd be more inclined to describe the reaction
> as converting *hydrogen* into methane, using CO2 as the supply of carbon
> - it clearly would not solve, or even address, the problem of where to
> get the hydrogen from.
>
> Oh, and here are links to articles on this:
>
> https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/news/a27 412/catalyst-turn-co2-into-methane/
>
> https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/sun-shines-for-iron-cata lyst-to-convert-carbon-dioxide-to-methane/3007722.article
From the second article it looks like the hydrogen is coming from
the acetonitrile and the energy is coming from light.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
