On 15 May 2025 11:01:43 GMT
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wibbled:
<Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org> wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2025 21:57:41 +0100problem.
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wibbled:
On 14/05/2025 14:10, Tweed wrote:
Wind has managed 40% this month. It may well be that wind is currently >>>>> artificially constrained so we donrCOt have a repeat of the Spanish
Both wind and solar tend to be followers of grid frequency, ie their >>>>> electronics look at the frequency and match it. Conventional plant sustains
the frequency by virtue of the inertia of the generators. If you donrCOt >> keep
enough inertial generation the system trips out in the event of a fault and
a sudden dip of frequency. The renewables notice the dip, see it is out of
spec and turn off.
Another way to overcome this is to convert the AC from the turbines to >>>> DC when frequency does not pose a problem. This is done with the new
No reason the turbines couldn't produce DC directly,
Has technology moved on enough to allow brushless Dynamos for that sort of >> application?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Permanent-Brushless-Generator-48V60V800W1000W1100W1200W-Motor-1000w/dp/B0CNZ6CGQ8
On 15/07/2025 18:55, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
On 15 May 2025 11:01:43 GMTW-Motor-1000w/dp/B0CNZ6CGQ8
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wibbled:
<Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org> wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2025 21:57:41 +0100problem.
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wibbled:
On 14/05/2025 14:10, Tweed wrote:
Wind has managed 40% this month. It may well be that wind is currently >>>>>> artificially constrained so we donrCOt have a repeat of the Spanish
Both wind and solar tend to be followers of grid frequency, ie their >>>>>> electronics look at the frequency and match it. Conventional plant >sustains
the frequency by virtue of the inertia of the generators. If you donrCOt >>> keep
enough inertial generation the system trips out in the event of a fault >and
a sudden dip of frequency. The renewables notice the dip, see it is out >of
spec and turn off.
Another way to overcome this is to convert the AC from the turbines to >>>>> DC when frequency does not pose a problem. This is done with the new
No reason the turbines couldn't produce DC directly,
Has technology moved on enough to allow brushless Dynamos for that sort of >>> application?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Permanent-Brushless-Generator-48V60V800W1000W1100W1200
Mind you, that's a pretty special item. I quote from the above link:
Colour: 1000w
Engine type: 4 Stroke
Ignition system type: Magneto
Frequency: 50 Hz
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 08:51:11 +0100
Peter Able <stuck@home.com> wibbled:
On 15/07/2025 18:55, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
On 15 May 2025 11:01:43 GMTsustains
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wibbled:
<Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org> wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2025 21:57:41 +0100
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wibbled:
On 14/05/2025 14:10, Tweed wrote:
Wind has managed 40% this month. It may well be that wind is currently >>>>>>> artificially constrained so we donrCOt have a repeat of the Spanish >>>> problem.
Both wind and solar tend to be followers of grid frequency, ie their >>>>>>> electronics look at the frequency and match it. Conventional plant
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Permanent-Brushless-Generator-48V60V800W1000W1100W1200
keepthe frequency by virtue of the inertia of the generators. If you donrCOt
enough inertial generation the system trips out in the event of a fault >> and
No reason the turbines couldn't produce DC directly,a sudden dip of frequency. The renewables notice the dip, see it is out >> of
spec and turn off.
Another way to overcome this is to convert the AC from the turbines to >>>>>> DC when frequency does not pose a problem. This is done with the new >>>>>
Has technology moved on enough to allow brushless Dynamos for that sort of
application?
W-Motor-1000w/dp/B0CNZ6CGQ8
Mind you, that's a pretty special item. I quote from the above link:
Colour: 1000w
Engine type: 4 Stroke
Ignition system type: Magneto
Frequency: 50 Hz
Looks like someone fucked up the data. Probably wouldn't buy from them if they can't even get the basics correct.
Has technology moved on enough to allow brushless Dynamos for that sort of >>application?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Permanent-Brushless-Generator-48V60V800W1000W1100W1200W
-Motor-1000w/dp/B0CNZ6CGQ8
In message <10564ls$79i3$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:55:08 on Tue, 15 Jul
2025, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org remarked:
Has technology moved on enough to allow brushless Dynamos for that sort of >>> application?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Permanent-Brushless-Generator-48V60V800W1000W1100W1200W
-Motor-1000w/dp/B0CNZ6CGQ8
Oh look! A split URL :(
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10564ls$79i3$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:55:08 on Tue, 15 Jul
2025, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org remarked:
Has technology moved on enough to allow brushless Dynamos for that sort of
application?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Permanent-Brushless-Generator-48V60V800W1000W >>>1100W1200W
-Motor-1000w/dp/B0CNZ6CGQ8
Oh look! A split URL :(
Actually itrCOs not as presented by Amazon.
They encode the space before -Motor correctly with %20. The %20 is
perhaps a casualty of copy/paste.
<Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org> wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 15:46:30 GMTPut your distribution assets in the hands of monopoly private operators together with an ineffective regulator and you get this. Just like the
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wibbled:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/12/london-underground-power-cut-crippl
es-tube-delays/
4:27pm
More London Tube and rail lines affected by power outages
The effects of the power outage appear to be spreading across the Tube
network.
First heathrow now this. The power supply resilience in this country seems to
be somewhere between dreadful and non existent.
water industry. The Heathrow transformer that caught fire was 57 years old.
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
<Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org> wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 15:46:30 GMTPut your distribution assets in the hands of monopoly private operators
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wibbled:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/12/london-underground-power-cut-crippl
es-tube-delays/
4:27pm
More London Tube and rail lines affected by power outages
The effects of the power outage appear to be spreading across the Tube >>>> network.
First heathrow now this. The power supply resilience in this country seems to
be somewhere between dreadful and non existent.
together with an ineffective regulator and you get this. Just like the
water industry. The Heathrow transformer that caught fire was 57 years old.
Follow-up on the cost of the Heathrow shutdown:
Fire near Heathrow costs airport tens of millions of pounds
https://www.thetimes.com/article/3a5337e6-e4ea-45a2-bdd0-cdc1c2f79b74?shareToken=662168dea7ab6cb5c2be40be736a078b
ThatrCOs just the cost to the airport. I donrCOt suppose it includes the cost to the airlines, passengers and freight operators.
On 24/07/2025 09:11, Recliner wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
<Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org> wrote:Follow-up on the cost of the Heathrow shutdown:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 15:46:30 GMTPut your distribution assets in the hands of monopoly private operators
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wibbled:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/12/london-underground-power-cut-crippl
es-tube-delays/
4:27pm
More London Tube and rail lines affected by power outages
The effects of the power outage appear to be spreading across the Tube >>>>> network.
First heathrow now this. The power supply resilience in this country seems to
be somewhere between dreadful and non existent.
together with an ineffective regulator and you get this. Just like the
water industry. The Heathrow transformer that caught fire was 57 years old. >>
Fire near Heathrow costs airport tens of millions of pounds
https://www.thetimes.com/article/3a5337e6-e4ea-45a2-bdd0-cdc1c2f79b74?shareToken=662168dea7ab6cb5c2be40be736a078b
ThatrCOs just the cost to the airport. I donrCOt suppose it includes the cost
to the airlines, passengers and freight operators.
It's the airport's fault. They had three different supplies available
but chose to take the risk of not installing equipment fully utilise them.
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/05/2025 08:37, Sam Wilson wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 12/05/2025 21:40, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 12/05/2025 19:07, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
Wait until russian underwater mini subs start cutting the cables from the
windmills in the north sea once Millipede has closed down all our gas >>>>>>> fired
base load stations. Then the fun will start.
-aWould that be before or after the gas pipelines get fractured ?
The West does have a worrying dependency on offshore infrastructure
which is impractical to guard. The best we can hope for is to catch >>>>> and destroy a few submarines, but they are relatively cheap to replace >>>>> and Putin won't be crying over a few dead seamen.
They donrCOt need submarines to damage seabed cables, and probably not >>>> pipelines either. Just have some random rCyneutralrCO ship drag its anchor over
them.
I have a vague memory that areas where undersea telecoms cables come ashore >>> are prohibited for anchoring or trawling activity.
ItrCOs dated and Wired have started paywalling a lot of stuff so you may not
be able to read it, but this is a fascinating article
<https://www.wired.com/1996/12/ffglass/>.
Most off-sure windfarms are in shallow water and a long way from
shipping routes.
And a friend who used to work in the power industry tells me that, like undersea comms cables in shallow water, the power cables are mostly buried.
That mitigates the risk of accidental damage somewhat.
Sam
On 13/05/2025 09:18, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
One good thing this government has done is reduce the power of nimbies
to block pretty much everything. Inland windfarms are everywhere in
france and like pylons you barely notice them after a while.
Certainly notice the inland Eagle Slicers as well as the offshore ones.
They blight many views.
On Tue, 13 May 2025 22:15:15 +0100
Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wibbled:
On 13/05/2025 09:18, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 20:31:02 +0100
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wibbled:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 18:07:37 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org
wrote:
Wait until russian underwater mini subs start cutting the cables from the >>>>> windmills in the north sea once Millipede has closed down all our gas fired
base load stations. Then the fun will start.Maybe someone should tell the nimbies who object to inland windfarms
and coastal cables rather than overhead lines that they are helping
Uncle Vlad?
One good thing this government has done is reduce the power of nimbies to >>> block pretty much everything. Inland windfarms are everywhere in france and >>> like pylons you barely notice them after a while.
Pylons and overhead wires are cheaper to install than underground power
lines - but they are more susceptible to weather damage from the
increasingly severe storms that are an inevitable consequence of global
warming.**
OK, and?
Wind farms need wind and designed properly they could also operate in storms by dynamically feathering the prop but obviously that would cost more so
they probably don't bother.
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/05/2025 08:37, Sam Wilson wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 12/05/2025 21:40, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 12/05/2025 19:07, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:The West does have a worrying dependency on offshore infrastructure >>>>>> which is impractical to guard. The best we can hope for is to catch >>>>>> and destroy a few submarines, but they are relatively cheap to replace >>>>>> and Putin won't be crying over a few dead seamen.
Wait until russian underwater mini subs start cutting the cables from the
windmills in the north sea once Millipede has closed down all our gas >>>>>>>> fired
base load stations. Then the fun will start.
-aWould that be before or after the gas pipelines get fractured ? >>>>>>
They donrCOt need submarines to damage seabed cables, and probably not >>>>> pipelines either. Just have some random rCyneutralrCO ship drag its anchor over
them.
I have a vague memory that areas where undersea telecoms cables come ashore
are prohibited for anchoring or trawling activity.
ItrCOs dated and Wired have started paywalling a lot of stuff so you may not
be able to read it, but this is a fascinating article
<https://www.wired.com/1996/12/ffglass/>.
Most off-sure windfarms are in shallow water and a long way from
shipping routes.
And a friend who used to work in the power industry tells me that, like
undersea comms cables in shallow water, the power cables are mostly buried. >> That mitigates the risk of accidental damage somewhat.
Sam
Funny how the anti renewable lobby have suddenly become concerned about undersea power cables but have never raised a concern about all those gas
and oil pipelines in the North Sea. Half of our gas supplies come via undersea pipelines. Such pipelines are vulnerable, as has already been demonstrated in the Baltic.
The improve many more.
On 14/05/2025 08:26, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
Wind farms need wind and designed properly they could also operate in storms >> by dynamically feathering the prop but obviously that would cost more so
they probably don't bother.
That might improve, but only a little, on the UK average availability of >24.5% in 2023. Data unfortunately does not distinguish between off for
On 14/05/2025 12:14, Clank wrote:
The improve many more.
I have never seen anywhere where Eagle Slicers improve the view.
On Wed, 14 May 2025 12:24:06 +0100
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wibbled:
On 14/05/2025 08:26, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
Wind farms need wind and designed properly they could also operate in storms
by dynamically feathering the prop but obviously that would cost more so >>> they probably don't bother.
That might improve, but only a little, on the UK average availability of
24.5% in 2023. Data unfortunately does not distinguish between off for
As I write this is looks like 39% of the UKs leccy is coming from solar. Never seen it that high before, didn't think we had enough solar plants tbh. Wind 17%, and its reasonably windy today. Oh dear.
<Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org> wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2025 12:24:06 +0100
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wibbled:
On 14/05/2025 08:26, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
Wind farms need wind and designed properly they could also operate in storms
by dynamically feathering the prop but obviously that would cost more so >>>> they probably don't bother.
That might improve, but only a little, on the UK average availability of >>> 24.5% in 2023. Data unfortunately does not distinguish between off for
As I write this is looks like 39% of the UKs leccy is coming from solar.
Never seen it that high before, didn't think we had enough solar plants tbh. >> Wind 17%, and its reasonably windy today. Oh dear.
Well IrCOm contributing 3kW of that solar output!
Wind has managed 40% this month. It may well be that wind is currently artificially constrained so we donrCOt have a repeat of the Spanish problem.
On 14/05/2025 14:10, Tweed wrote:
<Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org> wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2025 12:24:06 +0100
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wibbled:
On 14/05/2025 08:26, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
Wind farms need wind and designed properly they could also operate in storms
by dynamically feathering the prop but obviously that would cost more so >>>>> they probably don't bother.
That might improve, but only a little, on the UK average availability of >>>> 24.5% in 2023. Data unfortunately does not distinguish between off for
As I write this is looks like 39% of the UKs leccy is coming from solar. >>> Never seen it that high before, didn't think we had enough solar plants tbh.
Wind 17%, and its reasonably windy today. Oh dear.
Well IrCOm contributing 3kW of that solar output!
Wind has managed 40% this month. It may well be that wind is currently
artificially constrained so we donrCOt have a repeat of the Spanish problem.
We are also importing 5GW, so wind is probably not constrained.
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/05/2025 08:37, Sam Wilson wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 12/05/2025 21:40, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 12/05/2025 19:07, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
Wait until russian underwater mini subs start cutting the cables from the
windmills in the north sea once Millipede has closed down all our gas >>>>>>> fired
base load stations. Then the fun will start.
-aWould that be before or after the gas pipelines get fractured ?
The West does have a worrying dependency on offshore infrastructure
which is impractical to guard. The best we can hope for is to catch >>>>> and destroy a few submarines, but they are relatively cheap to replace >>>>> and Putin won't be crying over a few dead seamen.
They donrCOt need submarines to damage seabed cables, and probably not >>>> pipelines either. Just have some random rCyneutralrCO ship drag its anchor over
them.
I have a vague memory that areas where undersea telecoms cables come ashore >>> are prohibited for anchoring or trawling activity.
ItrCOs dated and Wired have started paywalling a lot of stuff so you may not
be able to read it, but this is a fascinating article
<https://www.wired.com/1996/12/ffglass/>.
Most off-sure windfarms are in shallow water and a long way from
shipping routes.
And a friend who used to work in the power industry tells me that, like undersea comms cables in shallow water, the power cables are mostly buried.
That mitigates the risk of accidental damage somewhat.
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/05/2025 08:37, Sam Wilson wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 12/05/2025 21:40, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 12/05/2025 19:07, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:The West does have a worrying dependency on offshore infrastructure >>>>>> which is impractical to guard. The best we can hope for is to catch >>>>>> and destroy a few submarines, but they are relatively cheap to replace >>>>>> and Putin won't be crying over a few dead seamen.
Wait until russian underwater mini subs start cutting the cables from the
windmills in the north sea once Millipede has closed down all our gas >>>>>>>> fired
base load stations. Then the fun will start.
-aWould that be before or after the gas pipelines get fractured ? >>>>>>
They donrCOt need submarines to damage seabed cables, and probably not >>>>> pipelines either. Just have some random rCyneutralrCO ship drag its anchor over
them.
I have a vague memory that areas where undersea telecoms cables come ashore
are prohibited for anchoring or trawling activity.
ItrCOs dated and Wired have started paywalling a lot of stuff so you may not
be able to read it, but this is a fascinating article
<https://www.wired.com/1996/12/ffglass/>.
Most off-sure windfarms are in shallow water and a long way from
shipping routes.
And a friend who used to work in the power industry tells me that, like
undersea comms cables in shallow water, the power cables are mostly buried. >> That mitigates the risk of accidental damage somewhat.
Sam
Funny how the anti renewable lobby have suddenly become concerned about undersea power cables but have never raised a concern about all those gas
and oil pipelines in the North Sea. Half of our gas supplies come via undersea pipelines. Such pipelines are vulnerable, as has already been demonstrated in the Baltic.
On 14/05/2025 10:13, Tweed wrote:
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/05/2025 08:37, Sam Wilson wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 12/05/2025 21:40, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 12/05/2025 19:07, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:The West does have a worrying dependency on offshore infrastructure >>>>>>> which is impractical to guard. The best we can hope for is to catch >>>>>>> and destroy a few submarines, but they are relatively cheap to replace >>>>>>> and Putin won't be crying over a few dead seamen.
Wait until russian underwater mini subs start cutting the cables from the
windmills in the north sea once Millipede has closed down all our gas >>>>>>>>> fired
base load stations. Then the fun will start.
-aWould that be before or after the gas pipelines get fractured ? >>>>>>>
They donrCOt need submarines to damage seabed cables, and probably not >>>>>> pipelines either. Just have some random rCyneutralrCO ship drag its anchor over
them.
I have a vague memory that areas where undersea telecoms cables come ashore
are prohibited for anchoring or trawling activity.
ItrCOs dated and Wired have started paywalling a lot of stuff so you may not
be able to read it, but this is a fascinating article
<https://www.wired.com/1996/12/ffglass/>.
Most off-sure windfarms are in shallow water and a long way from
shipping routes.
And a friend who used to work in the power industry tells me that, like
undersea comms cables in shallow water, the power cables are mostly buried. >>> That mitigates the risk of accidental damage somewhat.
Sam
Funny how the anti renewable lobby have suddenly become concerned about
undersea power cables but have never raised a concern about all those gas
and oil pipelines in the North Sea. Half of our gas supplies come via
undersea pipelines. Such pipelines are vulnerable, as has already been
demonstrated in the Baltic.
I've not seen public concerns about any undersea structure until recently.
Personally speaking I think UK politicians should be taking steps to
ensure the UK has sufficient electrical generation capacity to be self sufficient.
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 14/05/2025 10:13, Tweed wrote:
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/05/2025 08:37, Sam Wilson wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 12/05/2025 21:40, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 12/05/2025 19:07, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:The West does have a worrying dependency on offshore infrastructure >>>>>>>> which is impractical to guard. The best we can hope for is to catch >>>>>>>> and destroy a few submarines, but they are relatively cheap to replace >>>>>>>> and Putin won't be crying over a few dead seamen.
Wait until russian underwater mini subs start cutting the cables from the
windmills in the north sea once Millipede has closed down all our gas
fired
base load stations. Then the fun will start.
-aWould that be before or after the gas pipelines get fractured ? >>>>>>>>
They donrCOt need submarines to damage seabed cables, and probably not >>>>>>> pipelines either. Just have some random rCyneutralrCO ship drag its anchor over
them.
I have a vague memory that areas where undersea telecoms cables come ashore
are prohibited for anchoring or trawling activity.
ItrCOs dated and Wired have started paywalling a lot of stuff so you may not
be able to read it, but this is a fascinating article
<https://www.wired.com/1996/12/ffglass/>.
Most off-sure windfarms are in shallow water and a long way from
shipping routes.
And a friend who used to work in the power industry tells me that, like >>>> undersea comms cables in shallow water, the power cables are mostly buried.
That mitigates the risk of accidental damage somewhat.
Sam
Funny how the anti renewable lobby have suddenly become concerned about
undersea power cables but have never raised a concern about all those gas >>> and oil pipelines in the North Sea. Half of our gas supplies come via
undersea pipelines. Such pipelines are vulnerable, as has already been
demonstrated in the Baltic.
I've not seen public concerns about any undersea structure until recently. >>
Personally speaking I think UK politicians should be taking steps to
ensure the UK has sufficient electrical generation capacity to be self
sufficient.
How do you generate this electricity if the North Sea gas pipelines are shutdown?
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 14/05/2025 10:13, Tweed wrote:
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/05/2025 08:37, Sam Wilson wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 12/05/2025 21:40, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 12/05/2025 19:07, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:The West does have a worrying dependency on offshore infrastructure >>>>>>>> which is impractical to guard. The best we can hope for is to catch >>>>>>>> and destroy a few submarines, but they are relatively cheap to replace >>>>>>>> and Putin won't be crying over a few dead seamen.
Wait until russian underwater mini subs start cutting the cables from the
windmills in the north sea once Millipede has closed down all our gas
fired
base load stations. Then the fun will start.
-aWould that be before or after the gas pipelines get fractured ? >>>>>>>>
They donrCOt need submarines to damage seabed cables, and probably not >>>>>>> pipelines either. Just have some random rCyneutralrCO ship drag its anchor over
them.
I have a vague memory that areas where undersea telecoms cables come ashore
are prohibited for anchoring or trawling activity.
ItrCOs dated and Wired have started paywalling a lot of stuff so you may not
be able to read it, but this is a fascinating article
<https://www.wired.com/1996/12/ffglass/>.
Most off-sure windfarms are in shallow water and a long way from
shipping routes.
And a friend who used to work in the power industry tells me that, like >>>> undersea comms cables in shallow water, the power cables are mostly buried.
That mitigates the risk of accidental damage somewhat.
Sam
Funny how the anti renewable lobby have suddenly become concerned about
undersea power cables but have never raised a concern about all those gas >>> and oil pipelines in the North Sea. Half of our gas supplies come via
undersea pipelines. Such pipelines are vulnerable, as has already been
demonstrated in the Baltic.
I've not seen public concerns about any undersea structure until recently. >>
Personally speaking I think UK politicians should be taking steps to
ensure the UK has sufficient electrical generation capacity to be self
sufficient.
How do you generate this electricity if the North Sea gas pipelines are shutdown?
On 14/05/2025 20:32, Tweed wrote:
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 14/05/2025 10:13, Tweed wrote:
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/05/2025 08:37, Sam Wilson wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 12/05/2025 21:40, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 12/05/2025 19:07, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:The West does have a worrying dependency on offshore infrastructure >>>>>>>>> which is impractical to guard. The best we can hope for is to catch >>>>>>>>> and destroy a few submarines, but they are relatively cheap to replace
Wait until russian underwater mini subs start cutting the cables from the
windmills in the north sea once Millipede has closed down all our gas
fired
base load stations. Then the fun will start.
-aWould that be before or after the gas pipelines get fractured ? >>>>>>>>>
and Putin won't be crying over a few dead seamen.
They donrCOt need submarines to damage seabed cables, and probably not >>>>>>>> pipelines either. Just have some random rCyneutralrCO ship drag its anchor over
them.
I have a vague memory that areas where undersea telecoms cables come ashore
are prohibited for anchoring or trawling activity.
ItrCOs dated and Wired have started paywalling a lot of stuff so you may not
be able to read it, but this is a fascinating article
<https://www.wired.com/1996/12/ffglass/>.
Most off-sure windfarms are in shallow water and a long way from
shipping routes.
And a friend who used to work in the power industry tells me that, like >>>>> undersea comms cables in shallow water, the power cables are mostly buried.
That mitigates the risk of accidental damage somewhat.
Sam
Funny how the anti renewable lobby have suddenly become concerned about >>>> undersea power cables but have never raised a concern about all those gas >>>> and oil pipelines in the North Sea. Half of our gas supplies come via
undersea pipelines. Such pipelines are vulnerable, as has already been >>>> demonstrated in the Baltic.
I've not seen public concerns about any undersea structure until recently. >>>
Personally speaking I think UK politicians should be taking steps to
ensure the UK has sufficient electrical generation capacity to be self
sufficient.
How do you generate this electricity if the North Sea gas pipelines are
shutdown?
Phase out using foreign gas for electricity generation and use a
different fuel.
<Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org> wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2025 12:24:06 +0100
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wibbled:
On 14/05/2025 08:26, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
Wind farms need wind and designed properly they could also operate in storms
by dynamically feathering the prop but obviously that would cost more so >>>> they probably don't bother.
That might improve, but only a little, on the UK average availability of >>> 24.5% in 2023. Data unfortunately does not distinguish between off for
As I write this is looks like 39% of the UKs leccy is coming from solar.
Never seen it that high before, didn't think we had enough solar plants tbh. >> Wind 17%, and its reasonably windy today. Oh dear.
Well IrCOm contributing 3kW of that solar output!
Wind has managed 40% this month. It may well be that wind is currently artificially constrained so we donrCOt have a repeat of the Spanish problem. Both wind and solar tend to be followers of grid frequency, ie their electronics look at the frequency and match it. Conventional plant sustains the frequency by virtue of the inertia of the generators. If you donrCOt keep enough inertial generation the system trips out in the event of a fault and
a sudden dip of frequency. The renewables notice the dip, see it is out of spec and turn off.
On 14/05/2025 20:32, Tweed wrote:
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 14/05/2025 10:13, Tweed wrote:
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/05/2025 08:37, Sam Wilson wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 12/05/2025 21:40, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 12/05/2025 19:07, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:The West does have a worrying dependency on offshore
Wait until russian underwater mini subs start cutting the >>>>>>>>>>> cables from the
windmills in the north sea once Millipede has closed down all >>>>>>>>>>> our gas
fired
base load stations. Then the fun will start.
-a-aWould that be before or after the gas pipelines get fractured ? >>>>>>>>>
infrastructure
which is impractical to guard.-a The best we can hope for is to >>>>>>>>> catch
and destroy a few submarines, but they are relatively cheap to >>>>>>>>> replace
and Putin won't be crying over a few dead seamen.
They donrCOt need submarines to damage seabed cables, and probably >>>>>>>> not
pipelines either. Just have some random rCyneutralrCO ship drag its >>>>>>>> anchor over
them.
I have a vague memory that areas where undersea telecoms cables >>>>>>> come ashore
are prohibited for anchoring or trawling activity.
ItrCOs dated and Wired have started paywalling a lot of stuff so >>>>>>> you may not
be able to read it, but this is a fascinating article
<https://www.wired.com/1996/12/ffglass/>.
Most off-sure windfarms are in shallow water and a long way from
shipping routes.
And a friend who used to work in the power industry tells me that,
like
undersea comms cables in shallow water, the power cables are mostly >>>>> buried.
That mitigates the risk of accidental damage somewhat.
Sam
Funny how the anti renewable lobby have suddenly become concerned about >>>> undersea power cables but have never raised a concern about all
those gas
and oil pipelines in the North Sea. Half of our gas supplies come via
undersea pipelines. Such pipelines are vulnerable, as has already been >>>> demonstrated in the Baltic.
I've not seen public concerns about any undersea structure until
recently.
Personally speaking I think UK politicians should be taking steps to
ensure the UK has sufficient electrical generation capacity to be self
sufficient.
How do you generate this electricity if the North Sea gas pipelines are
shutdown?
Phase out using foreign for electricity generation and use a different
fuel.
On 14/05/2025 20:46, Coffee wrote:
On 14/05/2025 20:32, Tweed wrote:
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 14/05/2025 10:13, Tweed wrote:
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/05/2025 08:37, Sam Wilson wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 12/05/2025 21:40, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 12/05/2025 19:07, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:The West does have a worrying dependency on offshore
Wait until russian underwater mini subs start cutting the >>>>>>>>>>>> cables from the
windmills in the north sea once Millipede has closed down all >>>>>>>>>>>> our gas
fired
base load stations. Then the fun will start.
-a-aWould that be before or after the gas pipelines get fractured ? >>>>>>>>>>
infrastructure
which is impractical to guard.-a The best we can hope for is to >>>>>>>>>> catch
and destroy a few submarines, but they are relatively cheap to >>>>>>>>>> replace
and Putin won't be crying over a few dead seamen.
They donrCOt need submarines to damage seabed cables, and probably >>>>>>>>> not
pipelines either. Just have some random rCyneutralrCO ship drag its >>>>>>>>> anchor over
them.
I have a vague memory that areas where undersea telecoms cables >>>>>>>> come ashore
are prohibited for anchoring or trawling activity.
ItrCOs dated and Wired have started paywalling a lot of stuff so >>>>>>>> you may not
be able to read it, but this is a fascinating article
<https://www.wired.com/1996/12/ffglass/>.
Most off-sure windfarms are in shallow water and a long way from >>>>>>> shipping routes.
And a friend who used to work in the power industry tells me that, >>>>>> like
undersea comms cables in shallow water, the power cables are mostly >>>>>> buried.
That mitigates the risk of accidental damage somewhat.
Sam
Funny how the anti renewable lobby have suddenly become concerned about >>>>> undersea power cables but have never raised a concern about all
those gas
and oil pipelines in the North Sea. Half of our gas supplies come via >>>>> undersea pipelines. Such pipelines are vulnerable, as has already been >>>>> demonstrated in the Baltic.
I've not seen public concerns about any undersea structure until
recently.
Personally speaking I think UK politicians should be taking steps to
ensure the UK has sufficient electrical generation capacity to be self >>>> sufficient.
How do you generate this electricity if the North Sea gas pipelines are
shutdown?
Phase out using foreign for electricity generation and use a different
fuel.
The whole point about the international interconnectors is that they
work both ways
On 14/05/2025 14:10, Tweed wrote:
Wind has managed 40% this month. It may well be that wind is currently
artificially constrained so we donrCOt have a repeat of the Spanish problem. >> Both wind and solar tend to be followers of grid frequency, ie their
electronics look at the frequency and match it. Conventional plant sustains >> the frequency by virtue of the inertia of the generators. If you donrCOt keep
enough inertial generation the system trips out in the event of a fault and >> a sudden dip of frequency. The renewables notice the dip, see it is out of >> spec and turn off.
Another way to overcome this is to convert the AC from the turbines to
DC when frequency does not pose a problem. This is done with the new
On 14/05/2025 10:13, Tweed wrote:
Funny how the anti renewable lobby have suddenly become concerned about
undersea power cables but have never raised a concern about all those gas
and oil pipelines in the North Sea. Half of our gas supplies come via
undersea pipelines. Such pipelines are vulnerable, as has already been
demonstrated in the Baltic.
I've not seen public concerns about any undersea structure until recently.
Personally speaking I think UK politicians should be taking steps to
ensure the UK has sufficient electrical generation capacity to be self >sufficient.
On Wed, 14 May 2025 21:57:41 +0100
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wibbled:
On 14/05/2025 14:10, Tweed wrote:
Wind has managed 40% this month. It may well be that wind is currently
artificially constrained so we donrCOt have a repeat of the Spanish problem.
Both wind and solar tend to be followers of grid frequency, ie their
electronics look at the frequency and match it. Conventional plant sustains >>> the frequency by virtue of the inertia of the generators. If you donrCOt keep
enough inertial generation the system trips out in the event of a fault and >>> a sudden dip of frequency. The renewables notice the dip, see it is out of >>> spec and turn off.
Another way to overcome this is to convert the AC from the turbines to
DC when frequency does not pose a problem. This is done with the new
No reason the turbines couldn't produce DC directly,
<Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org> wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2025 21:57:41 +0100
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wibbled:
On 14/05/2025 14:10, Tweed wrote:
Wind has managed 40% this month. It may well be that wind is currently >>>> artificially constrained so we donrCOt have a repeat of the Spanish problem.
Both wind and solar tend to be followers of grid frequency, ie their
electronics look at the frequency and match it. Conventional plant sustains
the frequency by virtue of the inertia of the generators. If you donrCOt keep
enough inertial generation the system trips out in the event of a fault and
a sudden dip of frequency. The renewables notice the dip, see it is out of >>>> spec and turn off.
Another way to overcome this is to convert the AC from the turbines to
DC when frequency does not pose a problem. This is done with the new
No reason the turbines couldn't produce DC directly,
Has technology moved on enough to allow brushless Dynamos for that sort of application?
Alternators have smooth slip rings for the brushes to bear on while collecting the current whereas the old style Dynamo has a commutator with
its segments that will cause brushwear faster and need more maintenance to prevent flashover . A common task on car dynamos (and lots of smaller brushed motors )to keep them working well was to polish the commutator
with some emery paper to keep the segment edges smooth and alleviate brush wear.
GH
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
<Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org> wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2025 21:57:41 +0100
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wibbled:
On 14/05/2025 14:10, Tweed wrote:
Wind has managed 40% this month. It may well be that wind is currently >>>>> artificially constrained so we donrCOt have a repeat of the Spanish problem.
Both wind and solar tend to be followers of grid frequency, ie their >>>>> electronics look at the frequency and match it. Conventional plant sustains
the frequency by virtue of the inertia of the generators. If you donrCOt keep
enough inertial generation the system trips out in the event of a fault and
a sudden dip of frequency. The renewables notice the dip, see it is out of
spec and turn off.
Another way to overcome this is to convert the AC from the turbines to >>>> DC when frequency does not pose a problem. This is done with the new
No reason the turbines couldn't produce DC directly,
Has technology moved on enough to allow brushless Dynamos for that sort of >> application?
Alternators have smooth slip rings for the brushes to bear on while
collecting the current whereas the old style Dynamo has a commutator with
its segments that will cause brushwear faster and need more maintenance to >> prevent flashover . A common task on car dynamos (and lots of smaller
brushed motors )to keep them working well was to polish the commutator
with some emery paper to keep the segment edges smooth and alleviate brush >> wear.
The turbines are mostly AC-DC-AC. They generate AC at a frequency in proportion to the blade speed. This gets converted to DC and then back to
AC synchronised to the grid frequency. This latter conversion could be done onshore, with the undersea segment transmitted at DC.
<Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org> wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2025 21:57:41 +0100
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wibbled:
On 14/05/2025 14:10, Tweed wrote:
Wind has managed 40% this month. It may well be that wind is currently >>>> artificially constrained so we donrCOt have a repeat of the Spanish >problem.
Both wind and solar tend to be followers of grid frequency, ie their
electronics look at the frequency and match it. Conventional plant sustains
the frequency by virtue of the inertia of the generators. If you donrCOt >keep
enough inertial generation the system trips out in the event of a fault and
a sudden dip of frequency. The renewables notice the dip, see it is out of >>>> spec and turn off.
Another way to overcome this is to convert the AC from the turbines to
DC when frequency does not pose a problem. This is done with the new
No reason the turbines couldn't produce DC directly,
Has technology moved on enough to allow brushless Dynamos for that sort of >application?
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 14/05/2025 12:14, Clank wrote:I think the vast wind farm just south of Glasgow is a majestic sight.
The improve many more.
I have never seen anywhere where Eagle Slicers improve the view.
On 14/05/2025 10:05, Sam Wilson wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/05/2025 08:37, Sam Wilson wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 12/05/2025 21:40, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 12/05/2025 19:07, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:The West does have a worrying dependency on offshore infrastructure >>>>>> which is impractical to guard. The best we can hope for is to catch >>>>>> and destroy a few submarines, but they are relatively cheap to replace >>>>>> and Putin won't be crying over a few dead seamen.
Wait until russian underwater mini subs start cutting the cables from the
windmills in the north sea once Millipede has closed down all our gas >>>>>>>> fired
base load stations. Then the fun will start.
-aWould that be before or after the gas pipelines get fractured ? >>>>>>
They donrCOt need submarines to damage seabed cables, and probably not >>>>> pipelines either. Just have some random rCyneutralrCO ship drag its anchor over
them.
I have a vague memory that areas where undersea telecoms cables come ashore
are prohibited for anchoring or trawling activity.
ItrCOs dated and Wired have started paywalling a lot of stuff so you may not
be able to read it, but this is a fascinating article
<https://www.wired.com/1996/12/ffglass/>.
Most off-sure windfarms are in shallow water and a long way from
shipping routes.
And a friend who used to work in the power industry tells me that, like
undersea comms cables in shallow water, the power cables are mostly buried. >> That mitigates the risk of accidental damage somewhat.
But not deliberate damage.
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 14/05/2025 10:05, Sam Wilson wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/05/2025 08:37, Sam Wilson wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 12/05/2025 21:40, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 12/05/2025 19:07, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:The West does have a worrying dependency on offshore infrastructure >>>>>>> which is impractical to guard. The best we can hope for is to catch >>>>>>> and destroy a few submarines, but they are relatively cheap to replace >>>>>>> and Putin won't be crying over a few dead seamen.
Wait until russian underwater mini subs start cutting the cables from the
windmills in the north sea once Millipede has closed down all our gas >>>>>>>>> fired
base load stations. Then the fun will start.
aWould that be before or after the gas pipelines get fractured ? >>>>>>>
They donAt need submarines to damage seabed cables, and probably not >>>>>> pipelines either. Just have some random aneutralA ship drag its anchor over
them.
I have a vague memory that areas where undersea telecoms cables come ashore
are prohibited for anchoring or trawling activity.
ItAs dated and Wired have started paywalling a lot of stuff so you may not
be able to read it, but this is a fascinating article
<https://www.wired.com/1996/12/ffglass/>.
Most off-sure windfarms are in shallow water and a long way from
shipping routes.
And a friend who used to work in the power industry tells me that, like
undersea comms cables in shallow water, the power cables are mostly buried. >>> That mitigates the risk of accidental damage somewhat.
But not deliberate damage.
Possibly not. I donAt know how deep the deliberate burying is, but if itAs >deeper than typical anchor or trawling damage then it would also mitigate >against deniable accidental-on-purpose damage.
On Sun, 18 May 2025 17:32:14 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:The cables aren't buried so deep that they cannot be pulled up for
On 14/05/2025 10:05, Sam Wilson wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/05/2025 08:37, Sam Wilson wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 12/05/2025 21:40, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 12/05/2025 19:07, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:The West does have a worrying dependency on offshore infrastructure >>>>>>>> which is impractical to guard. The best we can hope for is to catch >>>>>>>> and destroy a few submarines, but they are relatively cheap to replace >>>>>>>> and Putin won't be crying over a few dead seamen.
Wait until russian underwater mini subs start cutting the cables from the
windmills in the north sea once Millipede has closed down all our gas
fired
base load stations. Then the fun will start.
-aWould that be before or after the gas pipelines get fractured ? >>>>>>>>
They don-At need submarines to damage seabed cables, and probably not >>>>>>> pipelines either. Just have some random -aneutral-A ship drag its anchor over
them.
I have a vague memory that areas where undersea telecoms cables come ashore
are prohibited for anchoring or trawling activity.
It-As dated and Wired have started paywalling a lot of stuff so you may not
be able to read it, but this is a fascinating article
<https://www.wired.com/1996/12/ffglass/>.
Most off-sure windfarms are in shallow water and a long way from
shipping routes.
And a friend who used to work in the power industry tells me that, like >>>> undersea comms cables in shallow water, the power cables are mostly buried.
That mitigates the risk of accidental damage somewhat.
But not deliberate damage.
Possibly not. I don-At know how deep the deliberate burying is, but if it-As
deeper than typical anchor or trawling damage then it would also mitigate
against deniable accidental-on-purpose damage.
repairs so all that Vlad needs is roughly the same tool that cable
ships use but without worrying about being gentle.
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2025 17:32:14 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
<ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:The cables aren't buried so deep that they cannot be pulled up for
On 14/05/2025 10:05, Sam Wilson wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/05/2025 08:37, Sam Wilson wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 12/05/2025 21:40, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 12/05/2025 19:07, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:The West does have a worrying dependency on offshore infrastructure >>>>>>>>> which is impractical to guard. The best we can hope for is to catch >>>>>>>>> and destroy a few submarines, but they are relatively cheap to replace
Wait until russian underwater mini subs start cutting the cables from the
windmills in the north sea once Millipede has closed down all our gas
fired
base load stations. Then the fun will start.
aWould that be before or after the gas pipelines get fractured ? >>>>>>>>>
and Putin won't be crying over a few dead seamen.
They don?t need submarines to damage seabed cables, and probably not >>>>>>>> pipelines either. Just have some random ?neutral? ship drag its anchor over
them.
I have a vague memory that areas where undersea telecoms cables come ashore
are prohibited for anchoring or trawling activity.
It?s dated and Wired have started paywalling a lot of stuff so you may not
be able to read it, but this is a fascinating article
<https://www.wired.com/1996/12/ffglass/>.
Most off-sure windfarms are in shallow water and a long way from
shipping routes.
And a friend who used to work in the power industry tells me that, like >>>>> undersea comms cables in shallow water, the power cables are mostly buried.
That mitigates the risk of accidental damage somewhat.
But not deliberate damage.
Possibly not. I don?t know how deep the deliberate burying is, but if it?s >>> deeper than typical anchor or trawling damage then it would also mitigate >>> against deniable accidental-on-purpose damage.
repairs so all that Vlad needs is roughly the same tool that cable
ships use but without worrying about being gentle.
Yes, but if itAs deeper than would be vulnerable to damage with normal >equipment, then Vlad needs a fancy cutter he canAt claim it was an
accident.
On Wed, 21 May 2025 16:09:40 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:He would also need to hang around long enough to excavate the access
On Sun, 18 May 2025 17:32:14 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
<ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:The cables aren't buried so deep that they cannot be pulled up for
On 14/05/2025 10:05, Sam Wilson wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/05/2025 08:37, Sam Wilson wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 12/05/2025 21:40, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 12/05/2025 19:07, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:The West does have a worrying dependency on offshore infrastructure >>>>>>>>>> which is impractical to guard. The best we can hope for is to catch >>>>>>>>>> and destroy a few submarines, but they are relatively cheap to replace
Wait until russian underwater mini subs start cutting the cables from the
windmills in the north sea once Millipede has closed down all our gas
fired
base load stations. Then the fun will start.
-aWould that be before or after the gas pipelines get fractured ? >>>>>>>>>>
and Putin won't be crying over a few dead seamen.
They don?t need submarines to damage seabed cables, and probably not >>>>>>>>> pipelines either. Just have some random ?neutral? ship drag its anchor over
them.
I have a vague memory that areas where undersea telecoms cables come ashore
are prohibited for anchoring or trawling activity.
It?s dated and Wired have started paywalling a lot of stuff so you may not
be able to read it, but this is a fascinating article
<https://www.wired.com/1996/12/ffglass/>.
Most off-sure windfarms are in shallow water and a long way from >>>>>>> shipping routes.
And a friend who used to work in the power industry tells me that, like >>>>>> undersea comms cables in shallow water, the power cables are mostly buried.
That mitigates the risk of accidental damage somewhat.
But not deliberate damage.
Possibly not. I don?t know how deep the deliberate burying is, but if it?s
deeper than typical anchor or trawling damage then it would also mitigate >>>> against deniable accidental-on-purpose damage.
repairs so all that Vlad needs is roughly the same tool that cable
ships use but without worrying about being gentle.
Yes, but if itrCOs deeper than would be vulnerable to damage with normal
equipment, then Vlad needs a fancy cutter he canrCOt claim it was an
accident.
to it which would tend to be a bit more of a giveaway than just
dragging an anchor or cutter through it.
On 22/05/2025 06:21, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 16:09:40 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
<ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:He would also need to hang around long enough to excavate the access
On Sun, 18 May 2025 17:32:14 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
<ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:The cables aren't buried so deep that they cannot be pulled up for
On 14/05/2025 10:05, Sam Wilson wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/05/2025 08:37, Sam Wilson wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 12/05/2025 21:40, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 12/05/2025 19:07, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:The West does have a worrying dependency on offshore infrastructure >>>>>>>>>>> which is impractical to guard. The best we can hope for is to catch
Wait until russian underwater mini subs start cutting the cables from the
windmills in the north sea once Millipede has closed down all our gas
fired
base load stations. Then the fun will start.
aWould that be before or after the gas pipelines get fractured ? >>>>>>>>>>>
and destroy a few submarines, but they are relatively cheap to replace
and Putin won't be crying over a few dead seamen.
They don?t need submarines to damage seabed cables, and probably not >>>>>>>>>> pipelines either. Just have some random ?neutral? ship drag its anchor over
them.
I have a vague memory that areas where undersea telecoms cables come ashore
are prohibited for anchoring or trawling activity.
It?s dated and Wired have started paywalling a lot of stuff so you may not
be able to read it, but this is a fascinating article
<https://www.wired.com/1996/12/ffglass/>.
Most off-sure windfarms are in shallow water and a long way from >>>>>>>> shipping routes.
And a friend who used to work in the power industry tells me that, like >>>>>>> undersea comms cables in shallow water, the power cables are mostly buried.
That mitigates the risk of accidental damage somewhat.
But not deliberate damage.
Possibly not. I don?t know how deep the deliberate burying is, but if it?s
deeper than typical anchor or trawling damage then it would also mitigate >>>>> against deniable accidental-on-purpose damage.
repairs so all that Vlad needs is roughly the same tool that cable
ships use but without worrying about being gentle.
Yes, but if itAs deeper than would be vulnerable to damage with normal
equipment, then Vlad needs a fancy cutter he canAt claim it was an
accident.
to it which would tend to be a bit more of a giveaway than just
dragging an anchor or cutter through it.
I'm sure the Reds already have a variable depth plough for just that >purpose.
On Wed, 21 May 2025 16:09:40 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:He would also need to hang around long enough to excavate the access
On Sun, 18 May 2025 17:32:14 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
<ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:The cables aren't buried so deep that they cannot be pulled up for
On 14/05/2025 10:05, Sam Wilson wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/05/2025 08:37, Sam Wilson wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 12/05/2025 21:40, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 12/05/2025 19:07, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:The West does have a worrying dependency on offshore infrastructure >>>>>>>>>> which is impractical to guard. The best we can hope for is to catch >>>>>>>>>> and destroy a few submarines, but they are relatively cheap to replace
Wait until russian underwater mini subs start cutting the cables from the
windmills in the north sea once Millipede has closed down all our gas
fired
base load stations. Then the fun will start.
-aWould that be before or after the gas pipelines get fractured ? >>>>>>>>>>
and Putin won't be crying over a few dead seamen.
They don?t need submarines to damage seabed cables, and probably not >>>>>>>>> pipelines either. Just have some random ?neutral? ship drag its anchor over
them.
I have a vague memory that areas where undersea telecoms cables come ashore
are prohibited for anchoring or trawling activity.
It?s dated and Wired have started paywalling a lot of stuff so you may not
be able to read it, but this is a fascinating article
<https://www.wired.com/1996/12/ffglass/>.
Most off-sure windfarms are in shallow water and a long way from >>>>>>> shipping routes.
And a friend who used to work in the power industry tells me that, like >>>>>> undersea comms cables in shallow water, the power cables are mostly buried.
That mitigates the risk of accidental damage somewhat.
But not deliberate damage.
Possibly not. I don?t know how deep the deliberate burying is, but if it?s
deeper than typical anchor or trawling damage then it would also mitigate >>>> against deniable accidental-on-purpose damage.
repairs so all that Vlad needs is roughly the same tool that cable
ships use but without worrying about being gentle.
Yes, but if it-As deeper than would be vulnerable to damage with normal
equipment, then Vlad needs a fancy cutter he can-At claim it was an
accident.
to it which would tend to be a bit more of a giveaway than just
dragging an anchor or cutter through it.
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
He would also need to hang around long enough to excavate the access
to it which would tend to be a bit more of a giveaway than just
dragging an anchor or cutter through it.
In reality the Russians would just do their usual rCLIt was nothing to do >with us rCL statement knowing full well that that everyone knows it was but >unless we have reached the stage where we are actually at war nobody can >really do anything about it less it would take us to that stage.
On 23 May 2025 08:20:12 GMT
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wibbled:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
He would also need to hang around long enough to excavate the access
to it which would tend to be a bit more of a giveaway than just
dragging an anchor or cutter through it.
In reality the Russians would just do their usual rCLIt was nothing to do
with us rCL statement knowing full well that that everyone knows it was but >> unless we have reached the stage where we are actually at war nobody can
really do anything about it less it would take us to that stage.
One would hope that the west is doing similar things in russia that we don't hear about, but with Trumps indifference and the bunch of limp bed wetters
in charge in europe who'd be too scared to do it, I suspect its unlikely.
On Sat, 24 May 2025 08:49:53 +0100
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> gabbled:
On 22/05/2025 22:26, Charles Ellson wrote:
"Reds" in modern Russia ?
I use the term "red" to describe Russia and similarly minded
countries. I'll try to avoid it in future.
I think economically controlled capitalist dictatorship best describes russia these days. You can make money so long as you keep on the right
side of Dear
Leader.
On Sat, 24 May 2025 08:49:53 +0100
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> gabbled:
On 22/05/2025 22:26, Charles Ellson wrote:
"Reds" in modern Russia ?
I use the term "red" to describe Russia and similarly minded
countries. I'll try to avoid it in future.
I think economically controlled capitalist dictatorship best describes russia these days. You can make money so long as you keep on the right
side of Dear
Leader.
On 24/05/2025 10:08, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 08:49:53 +0100Alright then I'll use "reds" to mean "economically controlled capitalist dictatorships" in future posting which is not far for the accepted meaning.
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> gabbled:
On 22/05/2025 22:26, Charles Ellson wrote:
"Reds" in modern Russia ?
I use the term "red" to describe Russia and similarly minded
countries. I'll try to avoid it in future.
I think economically controlled capitalist dictatorship best describes
russia these days. You can make money so long as you keep on the right
side of Dear
Leader.
On Sat, 24 May 2025 08:49:53 +0100
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> gabbled:
On 22/05/2025 22:26, Charles Ellson wrote:
"Reds" in modern Russia ?
I use the term "red" to describe Russia and similarly minded countries.
I'll try to avoid it in future.
I think economically controlled capitalist dictatorship best describes russia
these days. You can make money so long as you keep on the right side of Dear Leader.
On 24/05/2025 10:08, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 08:49:53 +0100Alright then I'll use "reds" to mean "economically controlled capitalist >dictatorships" in future posting which is not far for the accepted meaning.
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> gabbled:
On 22/05/2025 22:26, Charles Ellson wrote:
"Reds" in modern Russia ?
I use the term "red" to describe Russia and similarly minded
countries. I'll try to avoid it in future.
I think economically controlled capitalist dictatorship best describes
russia these days. You can make money so long as you keep on the right
side of Dear
Leader.
<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 08:49:53 +0100
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> gabbled:
On 22/05/2025 22:26, Charles Ellson wrote:
"Reds" in modern Russia ?
I use the term "red" to describe Russia and similarly minded countries. >>> I'll try to avoid it in future.
I think economically controlled capitalist dictatorship best describes >russia
these days. You can make money so long as you keep on the right side of Dear >> Leader.
Too long ago to remember a name but around the era of Glasnost and then >Perestroika there was some American politician or maybe it was a
journalist who basically warned be careful what you wish for as the West >watched as the Soviet Union broke up with the warm feeling that Capitalism >had one over Communism. It was the inbuilt inefficiencies of the latter >which ensured the Soviet Union was never going to be a serious competitor
in economic terms. His warning was that unfettered by Communism Russia
could become a serious economic opponent and the people in charge may not >play nicely like those in Democracies in the Western Style that some
thought Russia and other parts of the Soviet Union may have chosen to
follow.
On Sat, 24 May 2025 12:37:47 +0100
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> gabbled:
On 24/05/2025 10:08, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 08:49:53 +0100Alright then I'll use "reds" to mean "economically controlled
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> gabbled:
On 22/05/2025 22:26, Charles Ellson wrote:
"Reds" in modern Russia ?
I use the term "red" to describe Russia and similarly minded
countries. I'll try to avoid it in future.
I think economically controlled capitalist dictatorship best
describes russia these days. You can make money so long as you keep
on the right side of Dear
Leader.
capitalist dictatorships" in future posting which is not far for the
accepted meaning.
Well not really. Money and profit are dirty words in a true communist
state.
Well not really. Money and profit are dirty words in a true communist
state.
On Sat, 24 May 2025 12:37:47 +0100
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> gabbled:
On 24/05/2025 10:08, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 08:49:53 +0100Alright then I'll use "reds" to mean "economically controlled
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> gabbled:
On 22/05/2025 22:26, Charles Ellson wrote:
"Reds" in modern Russia ?
I use the term "red" to describe Russia and similarly minded
countries. I'll try to avoid it in future.
I think economically controlled capitalist dictatorship best
describes russia these days. You can make money so long as you keep
on the right side of Dear
Leader.
capitalist dictatorships" in future posting which is not far for the
accepted meaning.
Well not really. Money and profit are dirty words in a true communist
state.
On 25/05/2025 08:41, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 12:37:47 +0100
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> gabbled:
On 24/05/2025 10:08, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 08:49:53 +0100Alright then I'll use "reds" to mean "economically controlled
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> gabbled:
On 22/05/2025 22:26, Charles Ellson wrote:
"Reds" in modern Russia ?
I use the term "red" to describe Russia and similarly minded
countries. I'll try to avoid it in future.
I think economically controlled capitalist dictatorship best
describes russia these days. You can make money so long as you keep
on the right side of Dear
Leader.
capitalist dictatorships" in future posting which is not far for the
accepted meaning.
Well not really. Money and profit are dirty words in a true communist
state.
Are there, or have there ever been, a true communist state? Certainly
not Russia / USSR (except maybe for the first couple of years) and not China. Maybe Vietnam (the northern state after France left).
On 25/05/2025 08:41, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 12:37:47 +0100I only-a use "reds" in the military sense so that is irrelevant anyway.
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> gabbled:
On 24/05/2025 10:08, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 08:49:53 +0100Alright then I'll use "reds" to mean "economically controlled
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> gabbled:
On 22/05/2025 22:26, Charles Ellson wrote:
"Reds" in modern Russia ?
I use the term "red" to describe Russia and similarly minded
countries. I'll try to avoid it in future.
I think economically controlled capitalist dictatorship best
describes russia these days. You can make money so long as you keep
on the right side of Dear
Leader.
capitalist dictatorships" in future posting which is not far for the
accepted meaning.
Well not really. Money and profit are dirty words in a true communist
state.
Certainly sabotaging cables and pipelines is a military style operation
and I feel justified using my terminology.
On 25/05/2025 12:11, Coffee wrote:
On 25/05/2025 08:41, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 12:37:47 +0100I only-a use "reds" in the military sense so that is irrelevant anyway.
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> gabbled:
On 24/05/2025 10:08, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 08:49:53 +0100Alright then I'll use "reds" to mean "economically controlled
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> gabbled:
On 22/05/2025 22:26, Charles Ellson wrote:
"Reds" in modern Russia ?
I use the term "red" to describe Russia and similarly minded
countries. I'll try to avoid it in future.
I think economically controlled capitalist dictatorship best
describes russia these days. You can make money so long as you keep >>>>> on the right side of Dear
Leader.
capitalist dictatorships" in future posting which is not far for the
accepted meaning.
Well not really. Money and profit are dirty words in a true communist
state.
Certainly sabotaging cables and pipelines is a military style
operation and I feel justified using my terminology.
The "reds" would be the Republican party, always confuses me!
Probably the nearest thing to a true communist state would be a Jewish Kibbutz.
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
<Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org> wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2025 21:57:41 +0100
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wibbled:
On 14/05/2025 14:10, Tweed wrote:
Wind has managed 40% this month. It may well be that wind is currently >>>>> artificially constrained so we donrCOt have a repeat of the Spanish problem.
Both wind and solar tend to be followers of grid frequency, ie their >>>>> electronics look at the frequency and match it. Conventional plant sustains
the frequency by virtue of the inertia of the generators. If you donrCOt keep
enough inertial generation the system trips out in the event of a fault and
a sudden dip of frequency. The renewables notice the dip, see it is out of
spec and turn off.
Another way to overcome this is to convert the AC from the turbines to >>>> DC when frequency does not pose a problem. This is done with the new
No reason the turbines couldn't produce DC directly,
Has technology moved on enough to allow brushless Dynamos for that sort of >> application?
Alternators have smooth slip rings for the brushes to bear on while
collecting the current whereas the old style Dynamo has a commutator with
its segments that will cause brushwear faster and need more maintenance to >> prevent flashover . A common task on car dynamos (and lots of smaller
brushed motors )to keep them working well was to polish the commutator
with some emery paper to keep the segment edges smooth and alleviate brush >> wear.
GH
The turbines are mostly AC-DC-AC. They generate AC at a frequency in proportion to the blade speed. This gets converted to DC and then back to
AC synchronised to the grid frequency. This latter conversion could be done onshore, with the undersea segment transmitted at DC.
<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 08:49:53 +0100
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> gabbled:
On 22/05/2025 22:26, Charles Ellson wrote:
"Reds" in modern Russia ?
I use the term "red" to describe Russia and similarly minded countries.
I'll try to avoid it in future.
I think economically controlled capitalist dictatorship best describes
russia
these days. You can make money so long as you keep on the right side of
Dear
Leader.
Too long ago to remember a name but around the era of Glasnost and then Perestroika there was some American politician or maybe it was a
journalist who basically warned be careful what you wish for as the West watched as the Soviet Union broke up with the warm feeling that
Capitalism
had one over Communism. It was the inbuilt inefficiencies of the latter which ensured the Soviet Union was never going to be a serious
competitor
in economic terms. His warning was that unfettered by Communism Russia
could become a serious economic opponent and the people in charge may
not
play nicely like those in Democracies in the Western Style that some
thought Russia and other parts of the Soviet Union may have chosen to
follow.
On Thu, 22 May 2025 14:01:06 +0100, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 22/05/2025 06:21, Charles Ellson wrote:"Reds" in modern Russia ?
On Wed, 21 May 2025 16:09:40 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
<ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:He would also need to hang around long enough to excavate the access
On Sun, 18 May 2025 17:32:14 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
<ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:The cables aren't buried so deep that they cannot be pulled up for
On 14/05/2025 10:05, Sam Wilson wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/05/2025 08:37, Sam Wilson wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 12/05/2025 21:40, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 12/05/2025 19:07, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Wait until russian underwater mini subs start cutting the cables from
the
windmills in the north sea once Millipede has closed down all our gas
fired
base load stations. Then the fun will start.
-aWould that be before or after the gas pipelines get fractured ?
The West does have a worrying dependency on offshore infrastructure
which is impractical to guard. The best we can hope for is to catch
and destroy a few submarines, but they are relatively cheap to replace
and Putin won't be crying over a few dead seamen.
They don?t need submarines to damage seabed cables, and probably not
pipelines either. Just have some random ?neutral? ship drag its anchor
over
them.
I have a vague memory that areas where undersea telecoms cables come >>>>>>>>>> ashore
are prohibited for anchoring or trawling activity.
It?s dated and Wired have started paywalling a lot of stuff so you may
not
be able to read it, but this is a fascinating article
<https://www.wired.com/1996/12/ffglass/>.
Most off-sure windfarms are in shallow water and a long way from >>>>>>>>> shipping routes.
And a friend who used to work in the power industry tells me that, like
undersea comms cables in shallow water, the power cables are mostly >>>>>>>> buried.
That mitigates the risk of accidental damage somewhat.
But not deliberate damage.
Possibly not. I don?t know how deep the deliberate burying is, but if >>>>>> it?s
deeper than typical anchor or trawling damage then it would also
mitigate
against deniable accidental-on-purpose damage.
repairs so all that Vlad needs is roughly the same tool that cable
ships use but without worrying about being gentle.
Yes, but if it-As deeper than would be vulnerable to damage with normal >>>> equipment, then Vlad needs a fancy cutter he can-At claim it was an
accident.
to it which would tend to be a bit more of a giveaway than just
dragging an anchor or cutter through it.
I'm sure the Reds already have a variable depth plough for just that >>purpose.
On 25/05/2025 08:41, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 12:37:47 +0100
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> gabbled:
On 24/05/2025 10:08, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 08:49:53 +0100Alright then I'll use "reds" to mean "economically controlled
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> gabbled:
On 22/05/2025 22:26, Charles Ellson wrote:
"Reds" in modern Russia ?
I use the term "red" to describe Russia and similarly minded
countries. I'll try to avoid it in future.
I think economically controlled capitalist dictatorship best
describes russia these days. You can make money so long as you keep
on the right side of Dear
Leader.
capitalist dictatorships" in future posting which is not far for the
accepted meaning.
Well not really. Money and profit are dirty words in a true communist
state.
Are there, or have there ever been, a true communist state? Certainly
not Russia / USSR (except maybe for the first couple of years)
and not
China. Maybe Vietnam (the northern state after France left).
On 25/05/2025 13:00, Graeme Wall wrote:
Probably the nearest thing to a true communist state would be a Jewish
Kibbutz.
There are probably other small scale operations that are close to true communism, think of St Kilda with the 'Parliament' that made collective decisions.
On Sat, 24 May 2025 17:16:17 +0000, Marland wrote:
<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 08:49:53 +0100
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> gabbled:
On 22/05/2025 22:26, Charles Ellson wrote:
"Reds" in modern Russia ?
I use the term "red" to describe Russia and similarly minded countries. >>>> I'll try to avoid it in future.
I think economically controlled capitalist dictatorship best describes
russia
these days. You can make money so long as you keep on the right side of
Dear
Leader.
Too long ago to remember a name but around the era of Glasnost and then
Perestroika there was some American politician or maybe it was a
journalist who basically warned be careful what you wish for as the West
watched as the Soviet Union broke up with the warm feeling that
Capitalism
had one over Communism. It was the inbuilt inefficiencies of the latter
which ensured the Soviet Union was never going to be a serious
competitor
in economic terms. His warning was that unfettered by Communism Russia
could become a serious economic opponent and the people in charge may
not
play nicely like those in Democracies in the Western Style that some
thought Russia and other parts of the Soviet Union may have chosen to
follow.
But the industrial competitor is PRC.
Ulf_Kutzner <Ulf.Kutzner@web.de> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 17:16:17 +0000, Marland wrote:
<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 08:49:53 +0100
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> gabbled:
On 22/05/2025 22:26, Charles Ellson wrote:
"Reds" in modern Russia ?
I use the term "red" to describe Russia and similarly minded countries. >>>>> I'll try to avoid it in future.
I think economically controlled capitalist dictatorship best describes >>>> russia
these days. You can make money so long as you keep on the right side of >>>> Dear
Leader.
Too long ago to remember a name but around the era of Glasnost and then
Perestroika there was some American politician or maybe it was a
journalist who basically warned be careful what you wish for as the West >>> watched as the Soviet Union broke up with the warm feeling that
Capitalism
had one over Communism. It was the inbuilt inefficiencies of the latter >>> which ensured the Soviet Union was never going to be a serious
competitor
in economic terms. His warning was that unfettered by Communism Russia
could become a serious economic opponent and the people in charge may
not
play nicely like those in Democracies in the Western Style that some
thought Russia and other parts of the Soviet Union may have chosen to
follow.
But the industrial competitor is PRC.
So far for manufactured goods on a large scale, but until the recent introductions of sanctions a
lot of material such as gas ,coal , oil and grain was being exported from Russia earning them revenue.
Technology wise Russians when not shackled by Communism have shown they are quite adept in some fields , go into many a western field sports shop and
you would find things like night vision sights most of which had components originating from Russia, another niche field was manufacturing things from titanium lightweight bicycle frames being an example..
You can bet that they are developing their own products to replace those
now not easily obtained due to sanctions whose effect on them will lessen all the time.
On Thu, 22 May 2025 21:26:47 +0000, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2025 14:01:06 +0100, Coffee
<martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 22/05/2025 06:21, Charles Ellson wrote:"Reds" in modern Russia ?
On Wed, 21 May 2025 16:09:40 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
<ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:He would also need to hang around long enough to excavate the access
On Sun, 18 May 2025 17:32:14 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
<ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:The cables aren't buried so deep that they cannot be pulled up for >>>>>> repairs so all that Vlad needs is roughly the same tool that cable >>>>>> ships use but without worrying about being gentle.
On 14/05/2025 10:05, Sam Wilson wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/05/2025 08:37, Sam Wilson wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 12/05/2025 21:40, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 12/05/2025 19:07, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Wait until russian underwater mini subs start cutting the cables from
the
windmills in the north sea once Millipede has closed down all our gas
fired
base load stations. Then the fun will start.
aWould that be before or after the gas pipelines get fractured ?
The West does have a worrying dependency on offshore infrastructure
which is impractical to guard. The best we can hope for is to catch
and destroy a few submarines, but they are relatively cheap to replace
and Putin won't be crying over a few dead seamen.
They don?t need submarines to damage seabed cables, and probably not
pipelines either. Just have some random ?neutral? ship drag its anchor
over
them.
I have a vague memory that areas where undersea telecoms cables come
ashore
are prohibited for anchoring or trawling activity.
It?s dated and Wired have started paywalling a lot of stuff so you may
not
be able to read it, but this is a fascinating article
<https://www.wired.com/1996/12/ffglass/>.
Most off-sure windfarms are in shallow water and a long way from >>>>>>>>>> shipping routes.
And a friend who used to work in the power industry tells me that, like
undersea comms cables in shallow water, the power cables are mostly >>>>>>>>> buried.
That mitigates the risk of accidental damage somewhat.
But not deliberate damage.
Possibly not. I don?t know how deep the deliberate burying is, but if >>>>>>> it?s
deeper than typical anchor or trawling damage then it would also >>>>>>> mitigate
against deniable accidental-on-purpose damage.
Yes, but if it?s deeper than would be vulnerable to damage with normal >>>>> equipment, then Vlad needs a fancy cutter he can?t claim it was an
accident.
to it which would tend to be a bit more of a giveaway than just
dragging an anchor or cutter through it.
I'm sure the Reds already have a variable depth plough for just that >>>purpose.
The ruling head of State used to be a communist.
Ulf_Kutzner <Ulf.Kutzner@web.de> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 17:16:17 +0000, Marland wrote:
<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 08:49:53 +0100
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> gabbled:
On 22/05/2025 22:26, Charles Ellson wrote:
"Reds" in modern Russia ?
I use the term "red" to describe Russia and similarly minded countries. >>>>> I'll try to avoid it in future.
I think economically controlled capitalist dictatorship best describes >>>> russia
these days. You can make money so long as you keep on the right side of >>>> Dear
Leader.
Too long ago to remember a name but around the era of Glasnost and then
Perestroika there was some American politician or maybe it was a
journalist who basically warned be careful what you wish for as the West >>> watched as the Soviet Union broke up with the warm feeling that
Capitalism
had one over Communism. It was the inbuilt inefficiencies of the latter >>> which ensured the Soviet Union was never going to be a serious
competitor
in economic terms. His warning was that unfettered by Communism Russia
could become a serious economic opponent and the people in charge may
not
play nicely like those in Democracies in the Western Style that some
thought Russia and other parts of the Soviet Union may have chosen to
follow.
But the industrial competitor is PRC.
So far for manufactured goods on a large scale, but until the recent introductions of sanctions a
lot of material such as gas ,coal , oil and grain was being exported
from
Russia earning them revenue.
<Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org> wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2025 21:57:41 +0100
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wibbled:
On 14/05/2025 14:10, Tweed wrote:
Wind has managed 40% this month. It may well be that wind is currently >>>> artificially constrained so we donrCOt have a repeat of the Spanish >problem.
Both wind and solar tend to be followers of grid frequency, ie their
electronics look at the frequency and match it. Conventional plant sustains
the frequency by virtue of the inertia of the generators. If you donrCOt >keep
enough inertial generation the system trips out in the event of a fault and
a sudden dip of frequency. The renewables notice the dip, see it is out of >>>> spec and turn off.
Another way to overcome this is to convert the AC from the turbines to
DC when frequency does not pose a problem. This is done with the new
No reason the turbines couldn't produce DC directly,
Has technology moved on enough to allow brushless Dynamos for that sort of >application?
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
<Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org> wrote:
No reason the turbines couldn't produce DC directly,
Has technology moved on enough to allow brushless Dynamos for that sort of >> application?
Alternators have smooth slip rings for the brushes to bear on while
collecting the current whereas the old style Dynamo has a commutator with
its segments that will cause brushwear faster and need more maintenance to >> prevent flashover . A common task on car dynamos (and lots of smaller
brushed motors )to keep them working well was to polish the commutator
with some emery paper to keep the segment edges smooth and alleviate brush >> wear.
GH
The turbines are mostly AC-DC-AC. They generate AC at a frequency in >proportion to the blade speed. This gets converted to DC and then back to
AC synchronised to the grid frequency. This latter conversion could be done >onshore, with the undersea segment transmitted at DC.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 03:33:07 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
264 files (913M bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,444 |