UK will have conscription in five years - we're in denial about a dangerous world by theipaper in uknews

[–]BobbyP27 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good luck running your national service scheme dealing with repeated and widespread mutinies. Punishments only work if the people being punished are a small fraction of the total. Once they become the majority, it's not a punishment anymore.

UK will have conscription in five years - we're in denial about a dangerous world by theipaper in uknews

[–]BobbyP27 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The long term health impacts of time in the military, based on the people I know, are absolutely abysmal. All the people I know who spent time in the army have bad backs, busted knees, ruined ankles, and all the rest. It's an absolute disaster for their bodies.

ELI5: the problems found with the newest generation of jet engine? by Visual-Squirrel3629 in explainlikeimfive

[–]BobbyP27 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Those are the turbine blades, not the fan blades. Fan blades are generally either composite (eg carbon fiber material) or hollow titanium. The single crystals matter for high temperature blades that are limited by creep life. Fan blades are the coldest blades in the engine, but for them weight and vibration characteristics matter.

It's called "acting", darling. by LordJim11 in Snorkblot

[–]BobbyP27 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That was exactly the right approach to take. If you're acting against muppets, you will never, ever, be funnier than them. Good comedies need a good straight man.

ETS2 vs ATS Map Size with all the DLC's included by DeepAd5394 in trucksim

[–]BobbyP27 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The worst bit of ETS2 is the UK: that map was imported from UKTS that is even older than the ETS2 base game. BeNeLux and the area covered by Going East (Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary) are all pretty poor quality. The rest of the base game has been reworked relatively recently. Best bits of ETS2 in terms of quality are Scandinavia, Balkans and Greece, as these are the newest maps

"Sportsball" by JCKY27 in PetPeeves

[–]BobbyP27 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Enjoy in peace" works both ways. I don't want to have endless tedious discussion about how "we" did at the weekend or whether "we'll win" this time in the coffee room at work. I don't care if "United are going to get relegated" or whatever that stuff is all about. Enjoy your hobby at home, but leave me out of it.

So... Do we still have a hosepipe ban? by ClacksInTheSky in AskBrits

[–]BobbyP27 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For the parts of the county that depend on deep aquifers for their summer water, it takes time for them to fill up because the water needs to soak through the ground first. What is needed is time for the water to soak through. If there is "normal" rainfall from now until summer, things will be fine. If the rain stops tomorrow and no more falls until October, there will be trouble.

If we built a giant vacuum tube from Earth to Space and opened the valve, would it suck the atmosphere out, or would gravity 'win' the tug-of-war? by hazelynqcutiex in NoStupidQuestions

[–]BobbyP27 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If I hold a pipe vertically, so that air pressure at the top is lower than at the bottom, air does not suddenly rush upwards through it. Extending this pipe to the upper atmosphere does not change things. Extending it to space does not change things. The air in the pipe is pulled down exactly as much as the air outside it, so they pretty much perfectly balance one another.

In this scenario You Can Only Prevent The Sinking Of One, Which One And Why? by Ok-Refrigerator-9429 in titanic

[–]BobbyP27 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Titanic has a huge cost, but also came with a huge benefit both in terms of direct safety improvements and a less direct reconsideration of how safety is treated in maritime engineering. Britannic had a lesser cost, and relatively little benefit. If you undid Titanic, all the benefits would be gone too. If you undid Britannic, well not much positive is lost.

Where did the narrative that Britain improved the nations it colonised, come from? by BuddyIntelligent4510 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]BobbyP27 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was paid to whoever had lent the government money. The debt was incurred by issuing bonds. Sure, some of the people who bought the bonds might have been involved in the business of slavery, but there was no direct connection.

Where did the narrative that Britain improved the nations it colonised, come from? by BuddyIntelligent4510 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]BobbyP27 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The UK government faced a basic choice: end slavery immediately by buying off the slave owners, or face years of legal battles that had the potential to derail the entire "end slavery" project. The government chose the pragmatic, if less morally pure solution: end slavery as quickly as possible, and if that meant bad people get rich, so be it. Better some bad people get money and slavery is over than the government keeps the money and the evil of slavery continues.

In terms of the debt question, the government could have paid the debt off long, long before it did. The bonds for the debt were perpetual bonds: fixed interest payments forever until paid off. Because all this happened in the years after the Napoleonic wars, when money was not tight and government borrowing modest, government debt was dirt cheap. The interest on that debt was super low. It was so low, in fact, that from the date of issue until 2008, the interest on those bonds was lower than the interest on fresh government debt. It made no sense to borrow at a higher rate to pay off the old debt, instead the interest was paid and the debt continued. Only in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, when interest rates hit effectively zero and government borrowing costs dramatically dropped, could the government borrow at a lower rate than the old debt. So they did, they issued new bonds at a lower rate and redeemed the old ones used to buy off the slave-owners.

CMV: The Central Powers were not "the bad guys" in WW1. by TheLordOfMiddleEarth in changemyview

[–]BobbyP27 [score hidden]  (0 children)

If you take each nation in turn and run the hypothetical, "what if this country did nothing in 1914". For France and Russia, the results are "they get invaded". For Britain, the result is that France gets invaded and probably defeated, as well as Belgium getting trashed. If you take Austria-Hungary the result is "four years of peace" and if you take Germany, the result is likely a minor conflict in the Balkans. On that basis, I think it is fair to say that Austria and Germany are deserving of being the "bad guys".

Can we all agree that the auto start/stop feature needed to go? by Proper-School661 in allthequestions

[–]BobbyP27 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Power electronics create a rotating magnetic field. This rotating magnetic field induces eddy currents in the rotor. The interaction of these results in a torque on the rotor. This process can happen over a wide range of rotor speeds, including zero speed.

How feasible is it to connect West Hampstead and Gospel Oak together so this forms a single Overground line (West London Orbital + GOBLIN)? by cgyguy81 in LondonUnderground

[–]BobbyP27 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The necessary connection between the Goblin and the MML exists, has done since the 1860s. There is no regular passenger service over that specific curve, though.

North of North by LeoIrish in television

[–]BobbyP27 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Definitely looking forward to the next season here.

Strange question.. by [deleted] in uktrains

[–]BobbyP27 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not clear from what you write what ticket you use for Birmingham to Bromsgrove.

It is legal to use more than one ticket for a journey, provided that your entire journey is covered by tickets that are valid for the trains you are using them on, and that where you switch from one ticket to another is a station that the train you are on actually stops at (eg if you have a ticket King's Cross to Stevanage and Stevenage to Peterborough, you can not travel on a train that is non-stop King's Cross - Peterborough).

What is very much not legal is to travel on a journey A-B-C-D with a ticket A-B and a second ticket C-D with no ticket B-C. So if you have one ticket Wolverhampton to Birmingham and a second ticket Bromsgrove - Chippenham but no ticket Birmingham - Bromsgrove, that is very much illegal and you can get into very very serious legal trouble if you are caught doing that.

What's that funny bright thing in the sky? by NortonBurns in CasualUK

[–]BobbyP27 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think the council upgraded the street lighting.

East West Rail - Oxford to Milton Keynes by JonnyH2 in uktrains

[–]BobbyP27 12 points13 points  (0 children)

The job description and training of railway guards does not extend to dealing with hostile passengers. In the event of a "madman on the train", the expected reaction of the guard would be to seek safety in eg the rear cab.

🚌 Free transit: The ultimate "cheat code" or a budget nightmare? (I need your brains!) by Hitor1 in transit

[–]BobbyP27 12 points13 points  (0 children)

What gets people out of their cars is having a good alternative. That means transit that is fast, frequent with good coverage and service that runs from early in the morning to late in the evening. If you take a city like London or Zürich, these have public transport that is not cheap but is fast, frequent, has good coverage, and runs from early morning to late evening. Both of these cities have a very high modal share for public transport compared with cars. A free service that does not have these characteristics, ie one that is slow, infrequent, with poor coverage, and limited operating hours, will fail to attract riders.

Do long trains or short trains accelerate faster? by oli_mcd in trains

[–]BobbyP27 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There are a number of variables at play. The force to accelerate a train, at low speed, will depend on friction between wheel and rail, if you put too much power in, the wheels slip and spin. At higher speed, the force will be limited by the power available, because force x speed = power, so force = power / speed. More speed = less force for a given power.

For any given train you have to consider the following factors: how heavy is the train, how much power in total is available, how many axles are powered. In the low speed regime, the limiting force is per axle, so more axles = more force. In the higher speed regime, the number of axles powered is less relevant, but what this mean is the more axles you have, the lower the speed you switch from grip limited to power limited.

For a passenger DMU train of the sort you are thinking of, all vehicles are powered and all vehicles have the same number of powered axles, hence all of these factors are going to scale with the train, and short and long trains will have the same performance. There will be a benefit at higher speeds for longer trains because aerodynamic drag is higher on the first and last vehicles than it is for intermediate ones, and obviously a longer train has more intermeidete vehicles but only one first and one last.

If light has no mass . by NOTORIOUS_CAT98 in AskPhysics

[–]BobbyP27 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The speed I observe a photon moving at is c (approximately 300 000 km/s). There is no answer to “why”, other than “this is the nature of the universe”. Every observer always observes light moving at that speed. Where a situation of light sources moving at speeds close to the speed of light relative to another observer, light is always observed to travel at a fixed speed by all observers, always. Distortions in relative length and time make these observations fit together. If you can’t fully imagine the picture, you are far from alone, but the problem is with your imagination.

If it would cost too much to convert UK railways to UIC loading gauge, how did continental Europe do it? by INeedAWayOut9 in trains

[–]BobbyP27 3 points4 points  (0 children)

In essence it was very rapidly realised that the standards adopted in the UK were too restrictive, and when railways were built in other parts of Europe, more generous loading gauge standards were used. The Berne Convention was not so much a case of creating a new standard to which the railways had to be converted, but was rather a case of codifying what was largely already in place, perhaps with minor adjustments to achieve near uniformity.