Alex321
Guru
- Location
- South Wales
That was my first thought too.
Interesting and informative pictures
- Thread starter PeteXXX
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
That was my first thought too.
Alex321
Guru
- Location
- South Wales
Yeah, but you bdidn't do it with two of them and extra pipework. Just adding a tap turns it into a simple water butt, not something as complex as the one shown.
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- The Urban Fringe
If id had two of the same or similar type I might have done so. I used scrap pallets to make a similar stand.
Dogtrousers
Lefty tighty. Get it righty.
All that wonky pipework at the bottom is a leaky failure just waiting to happen. That piddly little wooden rack will not support the weight of two full bins. Especially not after it has rotted due to being constantly wet from the leaky pipework.
In a world that is overrun with unused bins, and where water butts cost a fortune it might be a worthwhile exercise.
The humble British plug top has a card that details the official lengths that the cables should be cut to and the length of the exposed conductor. Sized so that if the cable is yanked then the shortest ( live ) should come free first and the earth wire be the last to disconnect.
Attachments
- Location
- Somewhere wet & hilly in NW England.
Our US brethren are apparently amazed at the safety features inherent in our UK plug according to some YouTube clips.
I used to have a single phase test connector when at work. Short lead from plug top to test block. You opened the cover and there were 3 insulated piano style connectors that you poked the bare ends of the wire into before closing the cover. The act of opening and closing the cover disconnected the main supply. Simple but effective.
Not just the plug but also that sockets typically have switches.
What wasn't spotted for years was that full length expoded metal live and neutral pins could be touched, as a plug was inserted, sufficient to make a connection.
Took me ages to convince dad the ones with insulation to the lower part of the pins weren't cheap rubbish.
One for Accy.😏
Dogtrousers
Lefty tighty. Get it righty.
I might get in trouble for politics here. I'm genuinely trying not to be political. I didn't like the above graphic for several reasons. The rationale behind the choice of nations wasn't clear. The fact that there was a single "rest of world" bucket. It all seemed off. I was worried that there might be some editorialising in the choice of what was presented.
So, with a bit of time to spare here's what I did. I took the world emission figures for 2024 and focused on the top 20 emitters. This was an arbitrary cutoff. Too few and you lose detail, too many and the graphic gets too crowded. It prevents me from making any editorial choices in who to show. I presented 6 continental groupings as per the United Nations Geoscheme That stopped me from monkeying round with how contries were classified (for example, the UN puts Turkey in Asia & Russia in Europe, so that's what I've done, I have no choice but follow the standard). I gave each continent its own separate "rest of" bucket.
Actually, I take it back. I was suspecting @PeteXXX 's original to have been editorialising the data. I now don't think it was (but I don't think it handled "rest of the world" properly).
And to contextualise it a bit further I presented the population data in the same way (showing detail only for the top 20 emitters)
And this enables me to present per capita emissions in the same format.
I'm not making a point here. Just exploring the possibilities of presenting the data. I think a few interesting/surprising things emerge.
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- The Urban Fringe
If the US military alone were a country it would be the world's 6th worst carbon emitting nation. Scary stuff, eh?
But that per capita emissions above...is it just direct emissions, or does it include emissions on the manufacture and import of foreign goods? Most figures are usually just the former, which gives a far friendlier spin on the numbers for nations such as the UK who keep their economy buoyant using someone else's emissions.
But that per capita emissions above...is it just direct emissions, or does it include emissions on the manufacture and import of foreign goods? Most figures are usually just the former, which gives a far friendlier spin on the numbers for nations such as the UK who keep their economy buoyant using someone else's emissions.
Dogtrousers
Lefty tighty. Get it righty.
It's a simple division of the '24 emissions by population. You make a good point regarding the extent to which (often Asian) manufacturing economies are emitting on behalf of those who import their goods.
That's an extra level of complication that goes beyond my spare hour or so fiddling with Excel.
The countries with the very highest per capita levels, Saudi and others not picked out here tend to be petroleum producers (Qatar, Kuwait and others inside Rest of Asia) who are probably emitting, to one degree or another, on behalf of their customers. Same may apply to Russia, I don't know.
Once you dig into a simple data set it's always possible to take it to another level.
Last edited:
