Saturday, September 02, 2006

IMG_1636Sorry for belated blogging; bit busy.

Firstly something which appeared in the Guardian a while ago:
Coal still rules but we visit China's biggest wind farm in Huiteng Xile, where - on a gusty day - the 94 turbines can send 68,000kw of electricity per hour to Beijing.

A. It's kW. B. Sorry, how many kW an hour? Hang on, Watts per hour? But isn't a Watt a rate of energy transfer of one Joule per second. So that would mean Beijing is getting 68,000,000 Joules/second/hour. And an hour is 3,600 seconds, so it would be 68,000,000 W / 3,600 s, which is... reaches for a calculator, remembers Google... 18 888.8889 m^2 kg / s^4.

Only now I've got to figure out what Google's done to the units (but I always get confused by what to do with Z in A X/Y/Z (I want it to be XZ/Y, but I think it's X/YZ, and I know that whichever I choose I always get it wrong, and helpfully it's not the type of thing I can make Google answer, as I don't know the right question to ask).

1 W = 1 J/s (I know technically it should be J.s^-1 or similar, but that's too fiddly to type).
1 J = kg.m^2/s^2 (which mirrors E=mc^2)
So 68 MW/s = 68 x 10^6 kg.m^2/s^2.s.s = 68 x 10^6 kg.m^2/s^4

So not only was Google right, but it becomes obvious that the Guardian's quote must be nonsense. If m/s is speed, m/s^2 is change of speed and so acceleration, m/s^3 must be the change in acceleration, m/s^4 is the change of change of change of speed.

Er, I didn't mean it to reach this level, but once I tried showing the stupidity of the Guardian I then had to do enough calculations to overcome mine. Anyway the Guardian reckon you can divide a rate by time. I'm guessing what they actually saw was the production stats for some period, which was expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh) which they assumed must be kilowatts per hour (kW/h).

The UN claim there 68.5 megawatts worth of turbines at the site. So in the Guardian's terms on a gusty day - the 94 turbines can send 68,000kw of electricity to Beijing.

Oh, and I hope it's not a gusty day, because then the load will be very uneven, and it might be enough to cause the turbines to feather, furl or stall to protect themselves and so shut down. But if the turbines are geared for the peaks of gusts then they're not going to be producing very much in between.

I know it's naive to expect sense from the Guardian, and yet I still do.

Moving on, literally. I've forgotten where I found a flight simulator that relies on Google Maps, but you can change the start point, and so I've very kindly prepared a tour of the Top Gear test track (ok, so I don't know where they start or finish, or which way they go, but other than that...). It's already set up, so just click Start.

And while... I haven't done the Notting Hill Carnival write up yet. Not sure what there is to say. It can be a bit underwhelming. And just a bit deafening (endless lorries trapped in a traffic jam, each slamming the next with their sound systems, all while enclosed in an urban canyon). But I like steeldrums, even if they seemed to spend most of their time tuning up (what's to tune?). Took some pictures, wandered for a bit, went home, managing to chose the judging area as the best route out of the area, discovered Trellick Tower, eventually got down to the canal and walked back (until we discovered the towpath locked after one tunnel), cutting up across the base of Buttercup Hill, then because we were tired having a race to the top (guess who won that and was on the second chocolate chip cookie by the time the other reached the top), a cool damp chat overlooking the city (in typical August clothing of jumper and shorts), then running down the hill again, losing control, slaloming between people, hitting wet ground and just about managing not to lose it only by losing my ability to steer. And then back home. Said there wasn't much to say. Anyway, photographs on Flickr, of variable quality.

Anyway, while adding text to images I snowcloned 'have X, will Y', and then realised I don't know the original. Y is usually travel, but I've no idea what the X is meant to be. Googling comes up with:
Have games, will travel. Have children, will travel. Have kid, will travel. Have dice, will travel. Have browser, will travel. Have ipod, will travel. Have balloon, will travel. Have feet, will travel. Have Gun, Will Travel. Have trunk, will travel. Have spaceplane, will travel. Have blog, will travel. Have transgenes, will travel. Have rocket, will travel. Have Santa, will travel. Have data, will travel. Have music, will travel. Have horse, will travel. Have truck, will travel. Have website, will travel. Have golf, will travel. Have paws, will travel. Have Pilot, will travel. Have fries, will travel. Have BBQ, will travel. Have laptop, will travel. Have dummy, will travel. Have kiln, will travel. Have life, will travel. Have toys, will travel. Have EIS, will travel. Have bag, will travel. Have shorts, will travel. Have story, will travel. Have wheels, will travel. Have cottage, will travel. Have sitar, will travel. Have passport, will travel. Have mini, will travel. Have GPS, will travel.

And that's just the first 50 results. Apparently "will travel" is the dominant version. The first five non-travel snowclones are: Have money, will vlog. Have trumpet, will excite. Have guns, will haggle. Have wastes, will privatise. Have gun, will unravel.

Honourable mention goes to have stake, will slay.

I'm guessing the 1957 US television might had influence on its popularity (but God knows how it got over here; but the phrase might have predated the series).

But it's late and this is going nowhere, so I'd better go to bed. I'll try and come up with something better if I have time, but neither is very likely.


1957? "Have stake, will slay" sounds very 2002/Buffy the Vampire Slayer to me.
The linked Have Gun, Will Travel was from 1957. Do try to keep up.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?