Checked, cheers Tony. One back.

If anyone has these there’s a few of us on the 231 crew would really like one 🙂

Don’t suppose you could add one more to that?

I don’t understand people’s problem with the ‘efficiency’ of wind-turbines; 32% sounds pretty efficient to me…

…especially as the fuel is free! :rolleyes:

What would you rather have a car that was 25% fuel efficient running on petrol or a car that was 1% efficient running on air? 😉

Well put.

And if 32% efficiency, which is the absolute maximum attained, is regarded as ” not sounding too bad” I dread to consider that percentage of efficiency spread across all of manufacturing. I don’t think we managed that even in the dark days of the 3-day week

It depends if you mean the wind turbines get back 32% of their production costs during their operational lifetime (which I don’t think you mean, as that’s worse than solar panels) or can only convert 32% of the wind energy in to usable electricity (which I think is what you mean?)?

If the former then you’re right and I apologise. If the latter then that’s not much worse than the maximum efficiency of a fossil fuel station. Don’t forget the wasted 68% is just lost as wind passing by and a bit of noise rather than the heat and steam pouring out of a fossil fuel station.

There are ways to store electricity, by pumping water up to a high reservoir and then letting that fall through a turbine later, for example. Not 100% efficient, but then nothing ever is.

None of these problems would have existed if the new nuclear programme had beeen commissioned 10 years ago when we would have secured our elecrticity needs for a generation or more with carbon free energy.

That’s a fair point.

On a general point, how anybody can defend something that at best is only 32% efficient, when it’s running, and runs only about 25% of the time, is a source of wonder.

32% doesn’t sounds too bad to me, better than nothing. What’s the equivalent for a coal powered station; not much higher I’d guess?

Engineering, 28th November 2010

It was a bit chilly on Sunday. The team turned up and managed to achieve very little, though we gave it a good go. The Artouste bay clean up is still ongoing, awaiting better tooling.

The snow allowed some different photography. Excuse the under-exposure, someone had been playing with my camera settings without me noticing.

By Nik Conley

Nik Conley

Nik Conley

Nik Conley

We’ll keep cracking on.

Can’t help but think that is a bad idea.. shes going to look good for a little while then the battle will be ongoing to keep her clean.

I believe that the anti-flash white is only going to be a temporary measure. After a few years of weathering she’ll hopefully get a new top coat, perhaps gloss camo. But yes it will start to look a bit tatty unless we stay on top of it.

And don’t worry about the engines. We wouldn’t try to do anything without a full examination by qualified people. As Mike says, all the ancillaries are factory fresh (I believe one of the fuel filters is now in XL426, or at least in their stores ready to go) and the blades are in better condition than some of the ground runners (which are all well within safety limits), but the casings are a bit corroded. It will be a long while before looking in to that becomes a priority.

That photo of Just Jane is something else! Are those exhaust gases coming out of the number 3 engine?

the port side of the cockpit, regarding godfrey lee

Godfrey Lee was the designer of the Victor (Handley Page’s chief designer?).

Cpl Graham Jones used to be one of Lindy’s crew chiefs but very sadly died sometime before early 2003 (just before I joined the team, so I never had the pleasure of meeting him).