The pre moon landing quote about having to build a rocket powerfull enough to carry enough fuel to reach escape velocity comes to mind, unfortunately for now it takes lugging a 500kg battery powering a 450bhp motor with to accelerate fast in an ev
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
Quite simply, an ultra-simplistic assertion not based on real world performance.
Why, even the use of higher-power motors to enable such acceleration increases mass and therefore energy required.
Add onto that the psychological factors which result in someone with a fast accelerating vehicle continually accelerating and braking rather than smoothly progressing as a factor. Boy-racers - whether in electric or ICE vehicles will always use more energy!
Electric Vehicle Acceleration Performance and Motor Drive Cycle Energy Efficiency Trade-Off
While electric vehicles are frequently marketed on the basis of their high acceleration, an important finding is that episodes of modest to high acceleration severely compromise their range and energy efficiency, regardless of speed.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8507201
Labour narrowly retain the Batley and Spen seat. Keir Starmer can stop holding his breath:
.
Batley and Spen: Labour narrowly hold seat in by-election
The result means Kim Leadbeater will represent the seat previously held by her murdered sister Jo Cox.
www.bbc.co.uk
At last! A use for tripe:
Study suggests bacteria in cow’s stomach can break down plastic
Scientists find micro-organisms from the bovine stomach have ability to degrade polyesters in lab setting
Study suggests bacteria in cow’s stomach can break down plastic
Scientists find micro-organisms from the bovine stomach have ability to degrade polyesters in lab setting
I watched the result around 4:30AM. The invited panel included Labour List and an ex policy adviser to JC.
They seem a little downbeaten that Labour retained the seat. Their main bone of contention is what is Labour for under the leadership of Starmer.
I felt a little sorry for Starmer. He can't win whichever way he leans to.
Practical socialism & directed economy anyone?
Had PR been in play, there would have been no possibility of the Tories winning that seat.Labour narrowly retain the Batley and Spen seat. Keir Starmer can stop holding his breath:
.Batley and Spen: Labour narrowly hold seat in by-election
The result means Kim Leadbeater will represent the seat previously held by her murdered sister Jo Cox.www.bbc.co.uk
He's the wrong man for the job, he has no easily recognised motivation. They need a leader, someone who choses which of the two paths to take and then takes the party forward on that by sheer force of personality and will power. Blair did it successfully for a while but then messed up.
Starmer has the wrong idea, it's not about beating the Tories, they're an irrelevance. It's about inspiring party and people to follow, and I don't think he could inspire anyone.
.
Second choice votes, coming into play if the first majority doesn't pass a preset barrier.
.
However, the electorate did not vote for corbyn and Macdonald, but boris. Starmer is the result of labour recognising how expedient and unprincipled the electorate is, and trying to give them the populist soundbyte driven bs they seem to prefer to genuine leadership, change, growth, productivity
That is, indeed, one of the problems that PR has to address - how do you handle loss of one member (however that occurs) in a multi-member constituency?
But to directly answer your question, single transferable vote is one possibility.
Last edited:
Interesting development:
Michael Gove and wife Sarah Vine to divorce
Minister and journalist ‘will continue to support their two children and they remain close friends’
Michael Gove and wife Sarah Vine to divorce
Minister and journalist ‘will continue to support their two children and they remain close friends’
Very easy. The quota is set at 50% of the valid poll plus 1. So in round one .. nobody gets that and nobody is elected. . Let us assume The numbers are more like 25% for A 26% for B 20% for C and a number of candidates at the 3% range. .. . So all the 3%s are eliminated and their second preference taken..and if they don't have a second pref , then their vote is now moot and discarded. Now it is possible that the person previously on 20% C leapfrogs the 26% person B , say is now at 28% and 25% person A has got to 30% . Well in the next round, B is eliminated..even if they were the front runner at the first count. and their second preferences go to A and C .. By this stage it is very likely that the still valid preferences from B will tip A or C over the threshold.
In the case of that bye election , it is apparent that there were two left wing or leftist wing , so ultimately one of them would be rlected.
Again no problem. PR can handle multiseat and single seat with the exact same strategy. If it has 3 vacant seats , the quota is 33% of the valid poll plus 1 , and the person with lowest number of aggregate votes after each round is eliminated, until either there are equal number of surviving candidates as the number of seats. Going to 14 counts is not unusual.
Each voter has a single vote. But that will have as many preferences as the voter wants .They assign a mark 1 to N ,against the name of each candidate. 1 is their highest preference. But if that Candidate is eliminated, then the vote comes into play again, and the next preference is used. As often happens a number of the preferences have already been eliminated, so the vote is to the highest still valid non eliminated candidate. Heading the poll is good for the ego, but irrelevant in the long run. Bottoming the poll is of course worst, since one doesn't survive
I think you have missed the starting point of my response.
Imagine a multi-member constituency with four seats. And, as it happened, four different parties ended up with vote % like this: A = 40%, B = 30%, C = 20%, D = 10%. Other parties had been eliminated and votes re-assigned by some sort of preference system.
If one elected members resigns, dies, is made ineligible for some reason, an election is called.
They could re-run the entire election for all seats - but that would appear unfair on members who had been properly elected.
The could run an election for one member. If the dead member were from A, probably no problem. But if they were from D, it is almost inconceivable that another member of D could get elected. What would you do to maintain some degree of fairness?
Your mindset needs resetting. The electorate selects and votes for a person to represent them not a political party. That that person is a member of a specific political party is their personal choice. The political parties don't need fair . Its the electorate who get fair .. and the fairness is that they get to elect the choice of the overall majority.
So the person dies, resigns ..well that makes a vacancy. There there is a new election and all unsuccessful candidates ,and all the political parties get another chance. Simple! . Paradoxically, it is the minority parties who tend to do better in bye elections.
The other point is that in say a 5 seat constituency, that the party A will probably get 2 and maybe 3 and B and C one each. It would be very difficult for D to get a seat, because the excess votes of A will go to other members from the A party. However a 15% of the poll will possibly get a seat.
Last edited:
In pure mechanical terms, the amount of energy required to increase a vehicle’s velocity from A m/s to B m/s is the same regardless of the time taken. But, higher rates of acceleration will require the battery to deliver a higher electrical current, resulting in greater energy losses due to the internal resistance of the battery (loss = I x I x R, where I = current draw from the battery and R = internal battery resistance). In other words, if you sink your right boot into the carpet on the exit from every bend and away from every set of traffic lights, you are going to deplete the battery of more energy than if you had accelerated more gently.
The government is considering not testing people, who have been vaccinated twice, for coronavirus if they come into contact with an infected person. But can’t a vaccinated person catch it and still pass it on? I believe you can still become seriously ill, despite being vaccinated and be susceptible to long COVID.
We‘ve been here before with not testing and having no guidance. It killed a lot of people. But I suppose it will bring the published infection rate, which is currently horrendous and worsening, down. It will also make that jockey’s diabolical test and trace system look better. So not all bad.
We‘ve been here before with not testing and having no guidance. It killed a lot of people. But I suppose it will bring the published infection rate, which is currently horrendous and worsening, down. It will also make that jockey’s diabolical test and trace system look better. So not all bad.
Last edited:
You make it sound like the X Factor, or maybe it is. Perhaps that’s what the country has come to. We should ask Simon Cowl and that bird with the plastic face & tits to choose the next leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition.
Yes from what I understand, vaccinated people can still catch it and pass it on, and yes you can still become seriously ill with Covid even if you have had both vaccines.
The figures I have seen mentioned a few times are as follows.
If you have had two doses of the AZ vaccine then you have a 92% chance of not needing to go to hospital if you get Covid. If you have had two doses of Pfizer then you have a 96% chance of not needing to go to hospital if you get Covid.
These figures have been around some time and therefore I suspect they were compiled before Delta became the dominant variant in the UK.
Other figures I have seen in relation to the Delta variant suggest that it is around 60% more transmissible than the Kent variant (which was in turn more transmissible than the original) and that you are twice as likely to end up in hospital after an infection than you were if you had the Kent variant.
I have a feeling that the Delta variant may be able to get past the protection of people vaccinated 6 or so months ago and I think the Government know this but don't want to talk about it while they still have so many people needing their first or second doses.
They have however started to mention booster jabs being offered to everyone over 50 starting in September, they have also being doing trials mixing and matching different vaccines and that it is quite likely if your first two doses were AZ then your booster could be Pfizer.