ELECTRONICS & POWER SEPTEMBER 1987

545

Letters
Neutrinos and basic research
Dear Sir Thank you for Prof. D.H. Perkins' interesting article about neutrino physics and its uses (July 1987 E&P, p.433). What an irony that it was published within a few days of a report to the Government by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils which in effect (according to newspaper reports) recommends British withdrawal from this and related areas of basic research into the nature of the universe. Specifically, the ABRC appears to believe that Britain can no longer afford to pay its subscription to CERN, the European Laboratory for Particle Physics, near Geneva, the place where British physicists such as Prof. Perkins carry out most of their experiments. All electrical engineers have reason to be grateful to the physicists who were working at the frontiers of knowledge 50, 100, or 150 years ago. Without the work of the pre-war particle physicists, many of them British or working in Britain, there would be no quantum theory, no solid-state physics, no lasers, no semiconductors, no understanding of DNA structure, and in general no Second Industrial Revolution. Yet at the time when it was carried out, the basic physics research which led to these advances was believed to be esoteric and unlikely to be of use. Similarly, in 1987 the ABRC is hardly in a position to decide on the value 50 years from now of today's research into particle physics. By proposing that Britain pulls out, the ABRC is virtually proposing that we pull out of the Third Industrial Revolution, whenever it may come. It is lamentable that the British civil science budget is so much under pressure that the SERC has difficulty in finding some 50 million as its 17% share of the CERN budget. The 80 British firms which have done significant business with CERN over the last year might find it even more lamentable to be disqualified from future procurements by a British withdrawal. Yours faithfully, B.E. CARPENTER (M) 2 chemin de Trepomy 1299 Crans-pres-Celigny Switzerland 27th July 1987 Generation of electricity from renewable resources interests me greatly, although unfortunately I have not been professionally involved. I was delighted therefore to see a year or more ago that such a system has actually been built and put into operation in Norway by the Norwegians.* As I recall, the scheme consists of a sloping ramp enclosed by two vertical walls built so that as the ramp slopes up from the sea, the space between the two walls narrows. The lower wide end of the rising 'U'-shaped channel so formed is open to the waves. As each moving wave hits and is collected by the wide end of this channel, the sea water is propelled forward and squeezed by the narrowing channel walls. By this means the wave energy is used to force the sea water to speed upwards to the higher narrow end of the channel where it is discharged into a reservoir. From the reservoir the sea water is led down again to the sea via a normal water turbine driving a generator. The simplicity of the scheme and the use of well tried and tested conventional plant and equipment seem most attractive, particularly when compared with wind power for electricity generation, on which so much of our effort is concentrated. The cost per unit generated by the Norwegian scheme is not known to me but assuming it is not so high that it is automatically ruled out, I wonder whether conditions anywhere in the British Isles or, say, the Falklands may be suitable and have been investigated. Yours faithfully, R.F. MAYLIN (F) 'Heatherdown', Wool fords Lane Elstead, Surrey GU8 6LL, UK 17th August 1987
* See, for example, July 1986 E&P, p.533

Classification of hazardous areas

Dear Sir With reference to the letter by L. Lipnis (July 1987 E&P, p.432), it does not appear practical to list in a standard the disciplines represented on the committee for the preparation of hazardous-area drawing(s). My reason for this comment is based on the practice of UK plant design contractors serving the refinery, petrochemical, chemical, offshore etc. industries who also include the plant layout design discipline (piping), safety (sometimes referred to as loss prevention) and quality assurance groups. It is common for the safety group to be responsible for the co-ordination and preparation of the hazardous-area drawing(s). Yours faithfully, W.N. LAWSON (F) Humphreys & Glasgow Ltd. Chestergate House 253 Vauxhall Bridge Road London SW1V 1HD, UK 21st July 1987

Advantages of wavepower
Dear Sir This refers to the letter by S.A. Stevens (July 1987 E&P, p.431) describing a tunnel in Australia made by Nature and so formed by chance that it uses the kinetic energy of waves to raise sea water above sea level. He asks whether this could be copied to generate electricity. Such a system has been considered in the past, particularly for isolated communities overseas with no fossilfuel reserves, where the size and regularity of the waves plus the lie of the land may sometimes appear to be very suitable. As far as I know the system has always been turned down, probably due to cost.

p.467) he reported that Joseph Priestley compared the conducting power of various substances by 'measuring the length of the maximum air gap across which he could just get a spark to jump when different resistors were in circuit. The larger the air gap, the better the conductor'. Although somewhat crude this method is correct in principle. The lower the resistance in circuit the lower its voltage drop when the practically constant current required to ionise the air gap is passing just prior to it breaking down into a spark discharge. Given the same supply voltage, this leaves a higher potential difference across the air gap so that it can be larger and yet still break down into a spark discharge. This is a scientific fact which is very simple to demonstrate. Although this method is valid FT. Bennell in his letter (August 1986 E&P, p.568) sought to question it by saying 'Resistors in series would not affect the initiation of a spark as until a current flows the resistors are inactive'. From this remark it is obvious that Mr. Bennell overlooked the effect of the ionising current, and even in his most recent letter (May 1987 E&P, pp.304-305) is still not able to accept that it was this effect which (perhaps unknowingly) enabled Priestley to observe the difference in 'conducting power' between various substances. Instead Mr. Bennell states that the 'mystery' was resolved for him when he learned that Priestley put the substance to be measured within the gap. This intrigues me and I would ask if the substance was in contact wjth both electrodes, only one electrode or with neither. If the first there would be no gap, if the second the effect would be no different and if the third there would be two gaps. Could Mr. Bennell please say which of these configurations Priestley employed and elaborate on how this produced the result described in Mr. Atherton's article if the theory is any different from that which I have given in the second paragraph of this letter. Yours faithfully, R. WELLS (F) Flat 13, 'Mayfield' 74 Hersham Road . Walton-on-Thames Surrey KT12 5NU, UK 28th July 1987

Shocking practice
Dear Sir In reply to R.C. Whitehead (July 1987 E&P, p.431) concerning what he terms are 'non-standard techniques' used for the electrical installations in schools, his first criticism I assume relates to a common safety practice in science laboratories. Here pupils are often required to use 240 V electrical equipment in close proximity to water and other liquids. As this is one of the most hazardous uses of electricity by inexperienced persons, the most comprehensively safe system of protection is often used. This system which is recognised by the Health & Safety Executive, uses a 1:1 transformer with

Ohm's Law
Dear Sir In Tony Atherton's article 'A history of Ohm's Law' (June 1986 E&P,