Derek 2.0

1-point Michael Hardner

Is there any real evidence to support that though? In my personal experience, when I replaced the older toilets in my previous home and rental, I received a rebate of $25 per toilet from the city, or $125 refunded for outlaying several thousand dollars in new toilets.....clearly a negative return on investment in and of itself. My incentive though was nearly having my annual water bills, recouping the several thousand dollar initial outlay in several years............As I said, a cost/benefit, one not motivated on spending ~$1875 on toilets versus ~$2000, but actual long term savings.

Did I say different?

I don't know that it would be a no brainer.......what is the cost of not only retrofitting said pipes, but also maintaining them, versus a "regular pipe" that is left as is until it leaks? That is where cost benefit comes into play. Reducing consumption doesn't need to be a government carrot though........for example, if your domestic water is metered (if its not currently, it will be one day) changing old 12 lpf toilets with 6 or 4.8 lpf water saver toilets is the no brainer for the home owner.......

The pressure of the water doesn't play into the generation of power, hydro dams utilize water at atmospheric pressure (~5 psi dependent on elevation in relation to sea level), but by volume of flow.......

No, you don't know what you're talking about.......anything over 80 psi will do damage to fixtures within your home, which is why modern homes have a PRV on the inlet pipe where the water service enters the home.......City pressure has to be higher or it wouldn't be able to contend with elevations over 33 ft above sea level, likewise fire hydrants would trickle, when opened, like a garden hose........

I think, as you’ve indicated, it’s not a matter of pressurization, as that already has to occur (be it a gas or liquid) to transport the material through the pipe distribution network, but how much actual electricity is generated. As already pointed out, modern digital water/gas meters are already powered in such ways, but the actual power generation is significantly low voltage…….the question then becomes, as indicated by Tim, if it’s worth the actual overall capital outlay………I would assume said money would be better spent by incentives to reduce consumption, like credits to replace inefficient toilets or light bulbs.

Because ballistic science allows man to determine the flight path and point of impact of a projectile within yards, not miles (like WW II area bombing). Even assuming the North Koreans are piss poor at calculations, there presumptive points of impact would be measured in tens or even hundreds of yards, not miles, like area bombing. Now, you say my point is unsupported, but you're the one claiming their artillery fire, a science that has been known worldwide since the first world war, is less accurate than said bombings.........prove it.....I provided a link showing the accuracy of British area bombing, you've yet to provide anything to support you claim. I have zero control if your posts contradict one another......... And that point still stands (as I explained in the following passage in the post that you quoted)..........The North Koreans, like anyone else, don't need to determine environmental effects throughout the ballistic arc of their projectile.......as such effects are determined from the firing point, be it a deer rifle or 16" naval gun. Its not a semantic, but scientific fact, a principle that even a child with a pellet gun would clearly have more of an understanding of then yourself.......the only one using wikipedia (and piss poorly I might add) is yourself. Clearly if the North Koreans have the ability to develop (and export) ballistic missiles, with ranges in the hundreds and thousands of miles, they then have an understanding of parabola and ballistic arc/trajectory, they then understand the lessened complexities of artillery fire…….something you clearly don’t even have a rudimentary understanding of………perhaps instead of regurgitating Wikipedia, you might achieve better results by going down to Canadian Tire and picking up a $50 pellet gun, and then, with the help of an 8 year, you can put your failed theories to work. How did I misread or misrepresent your claim that the South Koreans, absent the help of the Americans, could defeat the nuclear armed North?

Likewise, they could be implemented on gas mains, and would probably require less maintenance then potable water supply lines, as there would be far less sediment within the lines, hence less junk to clog up any turbines......

City water pressure (in your mainline) is far higher than 50 psi, typically city water pressure is 100 psi and up. The water pressure inside your home will be reduced by a pressure reducing valve down to 60-50 psi, and most people would notice a 20% drop in pressure in their home, likewise, most modern appliances and plumbing fixtures wouldn't function properly with lower pressure.

Not at all, any buildings over typically 3-4 stories already require booster pumps to deliver domestic water, including domestic hot water unless the mechanical room is on the roof, and even then, most will still have circulation pumps to deliver hot water in a timely manner.

That's an idea, grey/storm water would have far less solids to contend with than sanitary sewage....

There are such systems already in place in communities that have digital water meters on each domestic water service.......of course, they only generate enough power to run a digital gauge....

Who stated North Korean artillery was less accurate then World War II area bombing? Priceless Uhh, no I didn't...... I'll provide the quote if you like? Ballistic science is ballistic science.......and no, there is no such thing as 2km flat trajectory rifle shot You're now claiming you never stated the South Koreans didn't need the Americans to help fend off the North? I'll gladly provide the quote if you like....

I’m certain if given the choice, Air Command wouldn’t have seen its fighter strength cut in half by the Chrétien Government, but then again, during that timeframe (early 90s) it was hard to justify the additional ~1 billion a year to maintain the Hornet squadrons from Germany and the remaining Freedom Fighter squadron with no perceived threat…….. As to a Cold War redux, until the Russians are able to threaten North America with streams of bomber regiments again, there is no requirement to expand our current NORAD commitment, as our current force structure committed to NORAD hasn’t changed since the early 1960s…….

65 is the bare minimum that allows us to meet our first priority, the defense of Canada via NORAD, well also allowing us to contribute to NATO. Australia doesn’t have that option (a NORAD or NATO), hence greater self-reliance….. Numbers wise, we’ve had 48 aircraft in operational squadrons since the Cold War drawdown in the early 90s, with the remaining aircraft being allocated to training, depot level maintenance and a large attrition reserve (afforded by the disbandment of squadrons in Germany no longer needed). With the F-35, we’ll have 48 aircraft in operational squadrons, with the remainder being allocated to conversion training and deep maintenance, with the option to purchase additional aircraft as attrition replacements if/when needed…….

Not really, as Australia, unlike Canada, doesn't live next to World's only remaining Superpower, instead potentially dangerous neighbors. Likewise, Australia's psyche is different, the nation collectively remembers being "hung out to dry" by the British, and then nearly again by the Americans, against the Empire of Japan...

No, again, you don't have a clue what you're talking about: Now why is it being "considered"? The final outcome, to be released within several months will be one of: -purchase a fourth F-35A squadron for the RAAF to replace the Super Hornets -purchase a fourth F-35A squadron for the RAAF to replace the Super Hornets, in addition to a squadron of F-35Bs for the RAN FAA -purchase a fourth squadron of F-35Bs to be jointly owned by the RAAF/RAN FAA and retire the Super Hornets -purchase a reduced squadron of F-35Bs for the RAN FAA and keep the Super Hornets in service out to the early 2030s, to be replaced by either additional F-35s or a sixth generation aircraft. One of these will be the result of the soon to be released White Paper.......zero Super Hornets will replace current legacy Hornets, as they have already committed to the 72 F-35As And no, the Super Hornet weren't bought to make up for F-35 shortfalls, but as I said, to replace the F-111 that were no longer supportable......

Ahh no, they are going to purchase the final ~28 F-35s, but have yet to fully determine if they will be F-35As or F-35Bs...........And no, the Super Hornets they purchased, replaced F-111s.......No RAAF legacy Hornets have been, or will be, replaced by Super Hornets, as their legacy force, in full, will be replaced by F-35s........

Ahh no, Australia didn't scale back their order, as they still plan to purchase 100 F-35s in three phases, with the last ~20 likely to be F-35B to utilize on the Canberra class LHDs........they purchased the Super Hornets/Growlers to replace their F-111s, not because the F-35 was delayed, but the F-111 was to costly to maintain after the USAF retired their fleet, but they still had a requirement for maritime strike/long range interdiction/recon. The US (and several other members) have scaled back their intended orders due to their own domestic budget issues, and are not replacing these scaled back requirements with another aircraft type, as such, its a reflection of their own money woes and not the F-35.....

The F-35 isn't replacing the F-15...... The baseline Super Hornet is no longer being produced, once Growler production for the USN is done (~2017), so is the Super Hornet line in St Louis, fore long lead item suppliers stop producing Hornet parts this Spring/Summer....... Not a single F-35 partner nation has left the program, let alone to purchase Hornets........

The F-16 can't "out do" the F-35, as already confirmed by the maker of both aircraft (Lockheed) and operators of both the F-16 and F-35.....Likewise, Lockheed will stop producing the F-16 in Fort Worth once the F-35 (also produced in Fort Worth) enters full rate production in several years......like the Super Hornet, the F-16 is nearing its end.

The "egie" had "rub and heat problems" in less than 10% of those produced, regardless, the issue was addressed among all current and future engines.....That is fact per the maker and DoD,......If you have some source that proves these statements false, by all means, enlighten us.... And yes, I do understand drag......you clearly don't as you failed to understand the point made....one more time: The F-35 can carry an air-to-air loadout internally, likewise more fuel, versus the F-16, which will carry the equal loadout externally, inversely to match the F-35's fuel capacity, it too must carry drop tanks. As such, the F-16's speed, agility and fuel usage are all degraded when compared to the F-35....... That says nothing to stealth, the 360 degree targeting afforded to the F-35 by it's DAS/HMD/sensor fusion.........

Drag is debatable? And of course, as pointed out to you countless times, the F135 no longer suffers from "rubbing".......

Well no, fore an armed f-16 (external stores and fuel) will not out turn an F-35A with a similar loadout carried internally......