₦airaland Forum

deniyor:
One important factor in setting up a power plant is the 'ready' availability of resources needed to run the power plant. So for a country like Nigeria, in its current state, most of the sources you have listed are a pipe dream.
Due to lack of safety inherent in our systems and lifestyle, one does not need to tell you that any nuclear plant should not be considered at all. I have worked in both power plants and a uranium mine before. Trust me, nothing can make me work in a nuclear plant. Even if all safety mechanisms are introduced. Yes they work, but when things go wrong, the really go wrong. Think Japan a year or two ago. I know someone who was there at the time.
Hydro would work. But apart from river Niger and Benue, where are we going to put another dam for a hydro station. Building a dam isn't cheap either.
Green form of power plants like wind and solar are nice. Problem is they can never be a reliable total source of power supply. They only augment what is existing. Not as reliable given how much resources it might take to build them.
One old tried and trusted system? Coal fired Power plant. Nigeria has abundance of coal. There is abundance of water. If we are worried about coal emissions, google the ICCS project - Integrated Carbon Capture and Storage aka clean coal. Its operational now.

[b] This dude just said my mind

---

---

Forget that atomic batter, at least for now, I don't think it has been fully utilized in any country(I may be wrong tho.) , so its not coming to 9ja any time soon Even the cost is not encouraging..

---

---

Putting power plants in every street isn't much of a good idea (especially in this part of the world) it would be better building one for each local govt. perhaps, one for each state. This way, once there is a fault or breakdown somewhere, the whole state/local govt. will be affected and there would be quick and effective responsiveness to the situation(no be; 'Watin consign us, shebi we get light for our street )

---

---

Solar/wind energy aren't bad idea, but when an average Nigerian hear the cost of a standard solar unit, he would zoom off to the nearest mechanic to buy a fairly used or near death gen set

---

---

am a fan of quantum physis, but forget anything 'radio activit in your backyard' or 'radio activity in your pocket' for now
[/b]

johnydon22:
lmao na exclamation na. . i even called blood of zeus sometimes ..

chai, It's a lieeeee

---

---

Though I like what is written on the floor you are standing chech your profile pix

cheeketo:
so when will the wedding be now. my parents are expecting grand babies. i want a dozen.

Don't mind johnydon22, he cannot pe.rform vehi well.

---

---

you said a want a dozen? I will give you a dozen of a dozen . what you say?.......

FrancisTony:
Good Morning You, Johyndon22, Teempakguy, Slimzjoe, Queed et al

shortgun:
Thanks Boss,
I think I will like to switch on half of the lights at a time (15 lights to a switch)

Secondly, where do u think is the best position for the adapter?
Is it close to the power source which is 15m from the lights?
OR
Close to the lights.

I will like to use the first option.

shortgun:
I will settle for the already made adaptor.

shortgun:
30 pieces of of 20w LED bulbs spaced 0.65m from each other.
The power source is about 15m away from light points.

shortgun:
I thought most transformers/adapters come with inbuilt rectifier
Why do I need to get a transformer and a rectifier.
I also have concern for wattage loses due to length of wires(resistance).

cool down bro,
you don't need an engineering degree to build that which you want to build

a Transformer is somewhat different from an adapter

you may describe a transformer as a "crude" adapter

Let's start with; What kind of bulb do you want to power up? LEDs?

unicmarket:
Am sorry i dont know where u can find it..... But seriously i like the fact that you didnt say, where the Hell, like majority optin for.... God bless you jare...

Ada96:
https://www.nairaland.com/2205353/unizik-2015-2016-undergraduate-admission/5

Thread is dead,,, Thanks anyways

DrLazDevitan:
This is not how to set a problem.The questions are just too much and may require a host of pages to overcome.Learn to splatter your questions or problems into the business of rational extensions.This will make the fusses of argumentation enjoyable and interesting!

Philosophisation or reasoning should be an enjoyable task,not a painstaking one!



Queed.

dharay99:

qood yhu know it applies to yhu too,

Now find ur square root outta here-------->>>

I never searched my square root into here ,,, I ain't into this kind of stuff bro. Find someone else

dharay99:

check under here...

Ada96:
if e nor be uniben e nor fit b like uniben

Pukka36:
*Sighs*.....Search no further


Xcept U want to be the only person in the thread

Faba:
tnx for Ur time guys cc olusolaj teempakguy queed

anytime bro, my monika is very easy to CC

Teempakguy:
I knew it.
Well, it has been solved.
Shame on me. . . I guess?

better ,,,, at least I did something that's correct in its own sense

Teempakguy:
noted.

I'm not finished yet, but from my preparation, I found, assuming the semi-trailer was stationary, the car would have traveled a distance of 44 meters to overtake it. Since, from 10m from the rear, through 20m which is the length of the trailer, to 10m in front by which it is now the rear of the 4m car that is in front. Add it up.
10+20+10+4 = 44

So, how long would it take for a car accelerating at 3. 5 from 20m/s to cover 44?

When this time is found, multiply it by the speed of the trailer to find the distance which the trailer traveled. Then having found this, use it to find the total time taken by the car.

However, there is a problem. Finding time while knowing just distance, acceleration, and initial speed transforms into a quadratic equation.
Look,

Using

S= ut + 1/2 at^2

U= 20m/s
a= 3.5
S= 44

==> 44 = 20t + 1/2 x 3.5t^2
==> 44 = 20t + 1.75t^2
==> 7x^2 + 20t - 176

So, queed . . . come and explain yourself.

Meanwhile, olusolaj has gotten the right answer. Pains me that he beat me to it, but,
What can I say?

I gave a condition bro; [center]ALL CALCULATIONS WERE DONE ASSUMING THERE WAS NO RELATIVE MOTION BETWEEN THEM AT FIRST[/center]
so you can't say I am wrong

Trust me bro, I know how to escape shits like this

marshalcarter:
Plsssss gimme ya brain...e be lyk sey ma own need repairs

too much w33d I guess , check your signature

Pinocchioo:
Queed come and see o

who told this one that I am a physics guru?? abeg no fall my hand oo

Faba:
A car 4m long came up behind a semi-trailer
20m long travelling at a steady rate of 72km/
h. The car driver then overtook the truck. If
the car pulled out from behind the truck with
the front of the car 10m behind the rear of the
truck and accelerated at 3.5 m/s 2 until the
rear of the car was 10m in front of the truck,
[b]how far would [/b]the car travel and how long
would it take?

@the bolded

o boy, it would travel an infinite distance as long as fuel no finish

Had it been you asked
how far HAS the car travelled

hmmm... let's see

10m behind + 20m length of the trailer +

10m in front of the trailer + 4m length of the car + Xm distance travel by the

trailer in time 't' the car took to overtake the trailer (yes, the trailer moved a certain distance too during the time the car used to overtake it)

*Re-modified * made unnecessary mistakes

to find the distance X
V = X/t

t = -2u+sqrt(1600+8*3.5*44) /2*3.5

t = 1.9sec

72km/h = 20m/s
20= X/1.9

X= 38m

total distance = 44+38= 82m

total time = -2u+sqrt(1600+2296)/2*3.5
T = 3.2sec

here you go...

82m,,, 3.2sec

all calculations were done assuming there was NO relative motion between them AT FIRST

Take this with a pinch of salt tho

cc RobinHez ... Teempakguy Oya come and share your thoughts ..

VictoriaBee:
Not really blood. Drugs, diseases, their discoveries, cure , prevention etc but I'm seeing otherwise here.

RobinHez:
here u go

RobinHez:
loool who you calling small? u want me to upload pictures of my beards?

VictoriaBee:
You are definitely high on a cow dung.
Do you think there's a job for someone with weak G.P?
I only faff and while away my time(s) on Nairaland when i am less busy or done with a semester.
As for now, i recently resumed and you don't expect me to come online discussing trivialities.
As for your feminism reference, pray tell, did ALL feminists discuss with you that they are science-inclined? Even though i am.

Such pettiness! And i'm not sure this thread welcomes medicine-oriented.

No blood stuffs here pleas

Teempakguy:
it seems everyone here is getting into the habit of customizing their text. Well, I might as well join in.



Ah, there we go

Now. We know in radioactivity, there are three kinds of spontaneous radiation. Of these, two are charged. We know them to be the beta particles, which are electrons, and Alpha particles. Using solid state physics, we can trap these charges. And convert them into current electricity. The main concept is not difficult. However, nature is a bitch and as such, problems and complications arise when putting a beta voltaic to practical use.

The below is a list of its problems which I found in a suite where it was suggested the tech be used to power phones.



My intention is to bypass these disadvantages and make the atomic battery a reality.

[I]And how do you intend bypassing these numerous disadvantages [/I]

BeastOfNoNation:
FIRST TIME COMMENTING!! I would like to answer questions 2 3 6 7 and 8.
In these questions you mention how everything must start from something. And that is a very logical statement. It's something I also really believe in. It's also one of the primary reasons I left Christianity in the first place. Why? Because by that logic, explain what created God. If everything needs a beginning, how did God begin? Mind you, I think Christianity is a lovely religion that has been highly perverted by false prophets and practitioners of Christianity but that also applies for Islam. Sorry I'm rambling. But my answer to those questions is simply "Who created God?"

I bet your answer lies in question 7

johnydon22:
[b]lmao i have answered most of them over a thousand times in this forum, in short they are not in the least technical or difficult...


5: Question 4 mentions that gravity and wind are not seen but yet again forgets or maybe purposely decided not to mention they can be measured, studied and observed.
Then question 5 employs this tactics with god, just like gravity can be measured and studied to substantiate, no theist has actually observed or stipulated a credible mechanism to measure god that is obvious to all just like gravity is. all we get are poorly worked claims and delusional assumptions.

So for the number 5 question, once this your concept of god has not be substantiated through an obvious means to add weight to it's credibility, it just remains a claim.
A flying black diamond unicorn has never been seen, can you say it does not exist? Nope you can't because it has not been substantiated that it exists meaning there is practically NOTHING to refute, it remains a claim. same goes to all the concepts of god(s) mankind has invented [/b]

You can't see, yet you believe it exist and one of the reasons why you believe it exist is because it can be measured?
[b] Don't you think most of the things that can be measured has to gotten close to?
»»GET CLOSER TO GOD

Why does gravity has an effect on you?
its obviously because you are in its field
assuming you were born and brought up in one particular place in space, you would swear that there is nothing like gravity
»»TO FEEL THE EFFECT OF GOD YOU MUST BE WITHIN HIS FIELD


So I don't agree with your all what you have said

and I would like to see your response to question one