Now that we know windmill noise causes Cancer

The lower paid got proportionally more of their salaries, and there was some subjective adjustment based on performance and need and retention. This was the FY end bonus, late March. The Christmas bonuses were all equal in dollars.

In today's competitive market, we have to consider retention. So highly in-demand people must be compensated, because we need them. We over-pay production people because we like them.

Sounds like your company didn't do much with the tax break in the way of raises or bonuses. That is the epitome of lameness.

The Fed corporate tax cut will mostly affect small, all-domestic businesses and their US employees. That will take some years to really get rolling.

The giant multinational corps like Apple and Google had multiple tax dodges already, and are incentivized to create jobs and earnings in other countries. The tax cut was brilliant.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics

wrote:>>

's right about killing prope rty values and birds. Burning windmillscould cause cancer, but that's a min or effect.https://www.google.com/search?q=burning+windmill&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjy876xq7nhAhXYo54KHdt3CmEQ_AUIDigB&biw=153

6&bih=687-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inclunatic fringe el ectronics

This what happens when you have ordinary overhead water sprinkler fire supp ression in a generator room running at "medium voltage"- or about 6600V. Ca n we say flash, bang, pop?

x.html

Apparently the windmill needs to be somewhat balanced, otherwise it sets up oscillations that stress the tower material and cause it to fail- due to too much displacement/ repeated flexure.

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Sounds like they need to install some tower length laser sensors and beams to detect torsional events. With that info, they could easily discern where balancing weight needs to be placed.

They do, about 1000x more, which is not to say wind turbine deaths are not considerable, because they are. The lethality of wind turbines is much more complicated than birds flying into the blades. The accompanying infrastruc ture of towers and lines kill many more than blade collisions. And the siti ng of the wind farm is critical: "When it comes to wind energy, siting is everything. The risks are, of cour se, much greater when wind turbines are placed in areas attracting large co ncentrations of birds and bats12. When wind energy projects are located in or near major migratory routes, stopover sites, or key breeding or foraging areas, the losses are expected to be great."

The American Bird Conservatory is the leading authority on collecting the s cientific data and advocating for legislation to prevent bird deaths.

Bird deaths due to collisions with building glass:

They sell an invisible tape you can apply to windows at home if bird collis ions are a problem:

The product has been scientifically verified to be effective in bird flight tunnel experiments. It works iow.

/

rty-values

Strain gauge strips would probably enough. Dunno what they can do about it when it gets out of hand though- maybe put a call into the fire department for the flaming generator that will arrive on the ground shortly.

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

The imbalance would not be a sudden propagation.

They would balance the thing upon assembly, and check and refine it over time. It is not like a bird carcass stuck at the blade crotch is gonna throw the thing off.

Same pressure as it takes to pump it that far out of the ground, AlwaysWrong.

And when that runs out? The heat source isn't going away, though log ago you proved that you know nothing about heat.

Not to mention how loony the Dem^h^h^hCommunist party has gotten.

And they still are.

No doubt. More heads will explode.

snipped-for-privacy@notreal.com wrote in news:t1mqaelqq91gqkmla2cipce69faa3oq4v7@

4ax.com:

No I did not.

I argued that the settled temperature would be lower because of various losses. And that is still true.

The heater is 100% efficient at it's job of heating.

The light bulb is 100% efficient at its job of putting out light.

Since you are 100% unaware of where the losses occur, you are obviously 100% unaware of how the system functions.

You lose before you even start, child.

"put out more heat"? No. I did not make that claim. My claim was that the heat it puts out heats more efficiently.

You lost also because you have reading comprehension issues.

You're AlwaysWrong, too.

As does the light bulb, AlwaysWrong.

*ALWAYS* Wrong.

I'm 100% aware that you're *ALWAYS* wrong, AlwaysWrong.

Always

Wrong.

How *do* you do it? Always!

I'm puzzled that anyone believes that.

not possible

NT

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news:1b1ab121-adb4-4b7d-bc09- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

I did not say the thing operates 100% efficiently. I SAID that the job we designed it to do, it does100%. The kast design feature was the internal coating.

That is STILL not a claim that an incandescent bulb is 100% efficient at converting electrical current to light.

I never made that claim.

Your presumption though... ANYONE could have predicted that erroneous, retarded shit.

Learn to read, punk.

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news:1b1ab121-adb4-4b7d-bc09- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

You are clueless as to the parameters, so you are clueless and yet still sit there making retarded baseless claims.

Your pathetic horseshit is what should not be possible, yet there you are and many like you, spewing bullshit on something you know nothing about.

No part of the process is 100% efficient. Not one. So even if we go with your 'it means something else' explanation, nope.

NT

whoosh. conveniently snipped again I note.

Do everyone a favour & learn some electronics. Then stop picking arguments with people that understand the physics. You're not fooling anyone or enjoying your time here.

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

I am quite sure that GE light bulbs were 100% efficient at making folks get their light, and for GE to get their money.

You are just pissing and moaning because I stated what you were going to say. Your little nit pik about filament photon output efficiency level.

We didn't need the attempt at a primer, dork.

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Fuck off brit twit.

& learn some electronics.

Far above your tinkertard mentality.

You're a total retard. I worked in an Infra-red thermometry engineering lab before you were done stuffing circuits.

You're a goddamned idiot.

I am having a great time, putz.

You either need a primer or to learn to be a bit more truthful. Your choice. Cos 100% efficient does not apply to any part of filament lamp operation.

NT