Don Quixote

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: neformore

We have a windmill visible from our town (on a hill overlooking the sea) it turns slowly so that it doesn't affect any birds, is totally silent, even in the strongest winds, and it makes its owners money pretty much for just the initial investment.

Just saying, Trump wouldn't know the truth if it impeached him.

Ok. One windmill . Count em .....one
What does the company do ?
What does the windmill do ?
How much energy (if that is what it does) does it manufacture .
I know of only one place that is totally green and off a power grid.
A datacenter out west (US) , yet it is solar.
But , there are a hades of a lot of solar panels just to do it.

So just because you say that the one windmill at one location , in a large world , is efficient does not make it so.
You have to put some facts in there.

Awhitu Wind Farm
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They have only got the one operational windmill there so far.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: sine.nomine

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: sine.nomine

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: sine.nomine

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: CitizenZero
I find his mistakes and gaffes refreshing because that's all the past presidents could do—talk. They were experts at speaking. But they've never built or led anything more than their political careers.

Trump invests in established real estate. That is different from an architect or builder.

The fact that he can't seem to design a simple and effective low cost wall might give you pause to think.

Why would the president personally design the wall? Like you said, he's not an architect. And it's already being built. The Dems are stonewalling him on funding so they can get more voters in from south of the border.

ETA: Wall Progress

No, he got the money enough for several years work, last year after the government shutdown. Still has hardly anything to show for it.

Amount built 93 miles. $11.8 billion dollars set aside for it. Trump has said his target is for 450-500 miles built by the end of next year. What do you think?

Meh, I hope he gets there. At least he's making some progress. At least he's actually trying to fulfill his campaign promises in whatever ways he can. It's hard to say the same for most past presidents regardless of political party

He's burning your cash.

Imagine that country A wanted to screw with country B. And country B is trying to be fair and even handed and so it allows all sorts of opinions to thrive.

So, country A sows just enough disruption into country B to cause it to fail in so many little things, but not big enough to cause a response.

Perhaps they flood the media with contradictory information and wild allegations?

Wouldn't the traitorous leader be surrounded by known agents of the other country?

Perhaps he'd be romantically involved with someone from the other country?

Perhaps he'd have big business contributors and sponsors that he'd strenuously deny?

Perhaps he'd not regard the laws and rules of his country too highly and would treat himself as if he were above their laws?

Nah, that could never happen.

Perhaps actual evidence of wrong doing would be in order.

And of all the ways the government burns our cash, I'd hardly consider border security one of them. Hell Hillary Clinton just "lost" $6 billion. Poof.

Trump just lost 11.8 billion. He wins!

He didn't lose it. He spent it on what the voters elected him for... I can't believe I had to spell that out for you.


And yes. Donald Trump does win. And will win again in 2020 because of people like you.

originally posted by: sine.nomine

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: sine.nomine

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: sine.nomine

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: CitizenZero
I find his mistakes and gaffes refreshing because that's all the past presidents could do—talk. They were experts at speaking. But they've never built or led anything more than their political careers.

Trump invests in established real estate. That is different from an architect or builder.

The fact that he can't seem to design a simple and effective low cost wall might give you pause to think.

Why would the president personally design the wall? Like you said, he's not an architect. And it's already being built. The Dems are stonewalling him on funding so they can get more voters in from south of the border.

ETA: Wall Progress

No, he got the money enough for several years work, last year after the government shutdown. Still has hardly anything to show for it.

Amount built 93 miles. $11.8 billion dollars set aside for it. Trump has said his target is for 450-500 miles built by the end of next year. What do you think?

Meh, I hope he gets there. At least he's making some progress. At least he's actually trying to fulfill his campaign promises in whatever ways he can. It's hard to say the same for most past presidents regardless of political party

He's burning your cash.

Imagine that country A wanted to screw with country B. And country B is trying to be fair and even handed and so it allows all sorts of opinions to thrive.

So, country A sows just enough disruption into country B to cause it to fail in so many little things, but not big enough to cause a response.

Perhaps they flood the media with contradictory information and wild allegations?

Wouldn't the traitorous leader be surrounded by known agents of the other country?

Perhaps he'd be romantically involved with someone from the other country?

Perhaps he'd have big business contributors and sponsors that he'd strenuously deny?

Perhaps he'd not regard the laws and rules of his country too highly and would treat himself as if he were above their laws?

Nah, that could never happen.

Perhaps actual evidence of wrong doing would be in order.

Trump's budget officials ordered the Pentagon to deny Ukraine aid 90 minutes after Ukraine call, new documents found - Business Insider

And of all the ways the government burns our cash, I'd hardly consider border security one of them. Hell Hillary Clinton just "lost" $6 billion. Poof.

Trump just lost 11.8 billion, he wins!

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: sine.nomine

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: sine.nomine

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: sine.nomine

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: CitizenZero
I find his mistakes and gaffes refreshing because that's all the past presidents could do—talk. They were experts at speaking. But they've never built or led anything more than their political careers.

Trump invests in established real estate. That is different from an architect or builder.

The fact that he can't seem to design a simple and effective low cost wall might give you pause to think.

Why would the president personally design the wall? Like you said, he's not an architect. And it's already being built. The Dems are stonewalling him on funding so they can get more voters in from south of the border.

ETA: Wall Progress

No, he got the money enough for several years work, last year after the government shutdown. Still has hardly anything to show for it.

Amount built 93 miles. $11.8 billion dollars set aside for it. Trump has said his target is for 450-500 miles built by the end of next year. What do you think?

Meh, I hope he gets there. At least he's making some progress. At least he's actually trying to fulfill his campaign promises in whatever ways he can. It's hard to say the same for most past presidents regardless of political party

He's burning your cash.

Imagine that country A wanted to screw with country B. And country B is trying to be fair and even handed and so it allows all sorts of opinions to thrive.

So, country A sows just enough disruption into country B to cause it to fail in so many little things, but not big enough to cause a response.

Perhaps they flood the media with contradictory information and wild allegations?

Wouldn't the traitorous leader be surrounded by known agents of the other country?

Perhaps he'd be romantically involved with someone from the other country?

Perhaps he'd have big business contributors and sponsors that he'd strenuously deny?

Perhaps he'd not regard the laws and rules of his country too highly and would treat himself as if he were above their laws?

Nah, that could never happen.

Perhaps actual evidence of wrong doing would be in order.

Trump's budget officials ordered the Pentagon to deny Ukraine aid 90 minutes after Ukraine call, new documents found - Business Insider

And of all the ways the government burns our cash, I'd hardly consider border security one of them. Hell Hillary Clinton just "lost" $6 billion. Poof.

Trump just lost 11.8 billion, he wins!

Jesus, you people are nuts. No quid pro quo. Literally everyone has backed that up except for people who claimed to have heard from people who heard from other people that used to be the roommate of other people that assumed whatever the hell it is you want to pin on him. Ad nauseum. You're shooting yourselves in the foot.

God damn I'm so glad I left the Democratic party at this point.

a reply to: chr0naut

Oh, and in case you forgot...
Not to mention Ukraine got the aid before any investigation happened...

For someone talking about burning tax dollars, you sure are harsh on not giving it to another country immediately.

a reply to: sine.nomine

Despite wind power on its best days....coal generators must be kept running idle when "not needed" due to the unpredictability of wind. Its not like coal power is eliminated. Just reduced.

Until we can actually store the power generated its only marginally better. At best

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: chr0naut

Oh, and in case you forgot...
Not to mention Ukraine got the aid before any investigation happened...

For someone talking about burning tax dollars, you sure are harsh on not giving it to another country immediately.

Why would Trump have cut the aid? He didn't explain to anyone a good reason for it. What was his reason to cut $400 million in military aid to an ally that was actively at war with the enemy of the US?

Perhaps Trump was intending to use it as leverage?

Which means there was quid pro quo intended.

Again, why would Trump have cut the aid?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: chr0naut

Oh, and in case you forgot...
Not to mention Ukraine got the aid before any investigation happened...

For someone talking about burning tax dollars, you sure are harsh on not giving it to another country immediately.

Why would Trump have cut the aid? He didn't explain to anyone a good reason for it. What was his reason to cut $400 million in military aid to an ally that was actively at war with the enemy of the US?

Perhaps Trump was intending to use it as leverage?

Which means there was quid pro quo intended.

Again, why would Trump have cut the aid?

Not knowing the answer doesn't mean we assume malintent. Maybe he was reviewing the details of the deal. Again, they still got the aid for nothing in return, and claim themselves there was no quid pro quo.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

A smarter decision is to regulate the gas plants. Most coal plants can not regulate the core load that fast. Even if they run on idle they need time to get back on temp. They have means to regulate but it is pure energy wasting.

It is better to take the gas plants, they have shorter hysteresis but there can be constellations where it is necessary to regulate a coal plant.

Coal plants can regulate around 3-10% per minute but not below 50%. Gas plants are used for shaping the peak load (what we talk about now)

a reply to: neformore

I applaud your efforts, but it's a lot like showing card tricks to a dog isn't i?

originally posted by: sine.nomine

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: chr0naut

Oh, and in case you forgot...
Not to mention Ukraine got the aid before any investigation happened...

For someone talking about burning tax dollars, you sure are harsh on not giving it to another country immediately.

Why would Trump have cut the aid? He didn't explain to anyone a good reason for it. What was his reason to cut $400 million in military aid to an ally that was actively at war with the enemy of the US?

Perhaps Trump was intending to use it as leverage?

Which means there was quid pro quo intended.

Again, why would Trump have cut the aid?

Not knowing the answer doesn't mean we assume malintent. Maybe he was reviewing the details of the deal. Again, they still got the aid for nothing in return, and claim themselves there was no quid pro quo.

So, either Trump did what he did because he was insane, and for no reason at all. Or he had premeditated intent.

Figure it out Sherlock.

Catch up with the rest of the world.

a reply to: chr0naut

Figure it out Sherlock. 

Catch up with the rest of the world.

You would have more success teaching a cat how to cook, the loyalists are way too far gone for any reasonable debate.

a reply to: chr0naut

Why would Trump have cut the aid? He didn't explain to anyone a good reason for it. What was his reason to cut $400 million in military aid to an ally that was actively at war with the enemy of the US?

Perhaps Trump was intending to use it as leverage?

Which means there was quid pro quo intended.

Again, why would Trump have cut the aid?

He didn’t cut the aid. So why would you ask why he did?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Ffs dont tell the Wright Brothers.

As aerodynamically designed wood and cloth seems to have held the likes of the Sopwith Camel aloft back around WW1 well enouth.

Granted we can do a hell of a lot better with the likes of plastics and other materials now but we were not always building windmills from anything other than canvas, wood, and bricks.

a reply to: andy06shake
The point is that the original writer who said that a windmill out of cloth, wood and bricks only is just as efficient as any other windmill, when it turns.

That is wrong and shows that the writer did not understand what efficiency really is.

That wooden windmill will have so much internal loads, breakaway momentum and stopping force that it can never be as efficient as a steel or oil beared one.

Efficiency determines what is left of your energy, once you converted it. The wind pushes on the wings, converts that energy into a sidewards motion. That energy is bundled in the drive shaft that now rotates.

You converted a one way force into rotational force. Then you mount magnets on the shaft and the rotation of the magnets introduce a fluctuating magnetic field in the copper windings around it. These fluctuations are what enables charge separation and this means you get a potential difference.

Imagine a heap of electrons being build up and a place where no electrons are. Those electrons want to even out, it is what we call Voltage or potential difference.

a reply to: BoscoMoney

Is this really an issue where you live? Turbine blades in the landfill?
Our biggest problem is plastic bags in the landfill.

a reply to: Oleandra88

Yeh, it says Electronic and Electrical Engineer on my degree as well.

Things are only ever as efficient as the materials we use to build them will allow.

Progress is what it is all the same.

Ile take a wind turbine at the bottom of my garden over a Coal/Gas power station any day of the week and twice on Tuesday, put it that way.

a reply to: andy06shake
I am not an engineer or have any higher degrees other than a specialized math degree from what you would call college. I just soak up what I can and if I do not know something, I look into it and learn it. If I wrote untrue things I ask you kind to correct me.

I would too rather have a alternative energy source (I do have, 29kWp with battery system), too than any coal or gas power station. It is just that the wind turbines turned out to be impractical and not reliable. Solar power (photovoltaic) is not either but at least you know when to expect power or not, you can calculate safely with it.

In my job we have tools that learn and calculate the next days solar radiation combined with local weather. Our curves give us a three day notify and they seldom derivate.

Wind, lol, we do not even bother to calculate anything. We let them run until anything has to be regulated then we kill those first. It is a horrible event when you have fluctuations in wind power, the sun comes out, your coal plants are already in 3/4ths loadand now what do you do.

We shut off the wind turbines because solar is more predictable, raise the output of the gas turbines and then regulate down by regulating solar power plants to 60%, cut the difference and let it ebb down until we can activate the wind turbines and the game restarts.

a reply to: Oleandra88

Mate i just fix computers and other associated peripherals.

That's about the extent of what i used my degree to achieve.

Ile take wind/wave/solar energy production over burning fossilized fuel through.

The real ticket and requirement where our energy demands lie is in the perfection of Nuclear Fusion power, as anything else simply won't meet our future energy demands.

I would rather have free energy if I'm honest but thermodynamics and entropy don't want to play that game.