Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Break-even point for home electric generator powered by natural gas?What about NG-powered AC compres

C

Chris Lewis

Not a word in there about England recognizing the USA. England did not
treat US as a sovereign nation until after the War of 1812. It
recognized the individual states as sovereign *states*.

But so did those states! Texas still does! ;-)

[That's not as sarcastic as it sounds. The US states considered themselves
far more autonomous then than they do now. The US couldn't raise an army -
legally they could, but, in reality, it was by the states.]
The page you reference does not say England stopped boarding ships, nor
did it issue orders to stop doing so, it says they (Britain) had
announced that it *would* revoke its orders. No telling when they'd
get around to doing that. Probably sometime after they would get
around abiding by the terms of the Treaty of Paris and withdraw their
troops from the agreed upon land.

Well, it was only 2 days - that was hardly enough time for anyone
to do anything about it. Nobody on this side of the pond knew
anything about that for a few weeks.
Militarily, we had the edge at the end (we held parts of the US).
Politically, it was a draw (the Brits gave those parts back [+]).
If you read the treaties that ended the two wars with England, you'll
know that 1812 wasn't a draw.
Back to http://gatewayno.com/history/War1812.html:
- U.S. forces were not ready for war, and American hopes of conquering Canada collapsed
in the campaigns of 1812 and 1813.
H'm. "Hopes to conquer Canada collapsed". So, what you started the war over
was obsolete by the time war was declared, you didn't conquer Canada, and
the land possession hardly changed if at all.
A draw.
So you agree the US didn't lose it.

They didn't lose any territory out of it - a draw on that basis.

But, let's step back and look at it strictly and simply from the perspective
of goals:

- The US started the war to redress certain wrongs, and invade/conquer Canada.
- Canada "reacted" to that threat, with the goal being to repell the invasion.

Then achievements:

- The "wrongs" were mostly moot, and the invasion failed.
- Canada repelled the invasion.

Depending on how you define things, that's either a win for us (we achieved
our goals), or a draw (we didn't make you lose territory).

In reality, it was a remarkably dumb war. If the timing had been better,
there'd have been no war. The war was a remarkable series of blunders,
sheer luck (freakish occurances during the naval battles), and several strokes
of absolute brilliance - ie: the taking of Detroit[*], the defence of Niagara,
and the most important one of all: the US capturing a draw at the treaty
of Ghent[+]. Without that, you'd have been screwed.
Apply the same standards the other way. By this point, the English
Navy has been commiting acts of war for years. Was the United States
supposed to "sit around twiddling our thumbs"?

So you invade _us_. Makes sense, maybe.

[+]Ghent happened simply because Britain had just finished the war
with France, and were faced with the unpopularity of more years of heavy
taxation sending large numbers of just-released battle hardened troops to
North America.

Throughout the war, there were at most 3,000 British regulars
in Canada[=]. If Ghent hadn't happened, there would have
been 30,000 more on the way within months. But Britain was only
interested in finishing it - and didn't even know that we were
winning ground (again, that dang trans-atlantic communications lag).
Heck, nobody knew til weeks later that the war was over - the
Battle of New Orleans took place 2 weeks after the war was over.
[Which is just as well, because we screwed the pooch on that one.]

[*] An early implementation of psychological warfare. Ridiculously
small force gets their even smaller number of indians irregulars to
march back and forth making lots of noise just out of sight. The
American commander, remembering full well how pissed off the Indians
were about getting massacred during the American push west, figured
their only salvation was to surrender to the Brits and plead that
they be protected from the Indians. So he surrendered. Boy was he
embarrassed to find out that he had been surrendered to a mere handful
of troops/irregulars who were laughing themselves silly.

[=] During the first two years, the fighting on our side was
carried out almost exclusively by the British regulars and the Indians
they had helping them. It wasn't until the burning of towns in Niagara
that fighting the war became popular, and the British, French, and UEL
colonists pitched in too.
 
C

Chris Lewis

According to wkearney99 said:
Y'know what really seems to bug most Canadians? That the rest of the world
does know a damn thing about them, and frankly doesn't care.

Your sentence construction only makes logical sense if you _meant_
"doesn't know a damn thing". Which is wrong actually. The rest
of the world does know quite a bit about Canada, tho, liberally
sprinkled with the usual stereotypes (singing mounties and the
rest). An opportunity for humour and considerable kidding, not
being bugged about.

What you're actually seeing is a sense of disgust at how
appallingly bad the US educational system is. The worst
in the 1st world. Which is particularly annoying since
we've always been your largest trading partner - eg:
your largest supplier of petro fuels for most of the past
few years.

Instead, we see the results of an educational system that
all too often results in students not being able to pick out
their _own_ country on a map.

Or a president who can't pronounce "condom" ;-)

The level of knowledge in the rest of the world seems about
right. It has advantages: We're less likely to be shot at.
[Some American travellers have taken to wearing Canadian
flags or pins. Less hassle. Do US Passports/travel
advisories still say "If in trouble, and you can't find
a US embassy, try a British or Canadian one"? There were
a couple of Americans in Tehran in 1978 who found that
advice quite useful. Oh, right, you probably don't know
about that.]
 
S

Steve Scott

You're exactly right on this point, Chris. It's a real shame what 40
years of ever more liberal educators have done to the US educational
system.
 
C

Chris Lewis

According to Steve Scott said:
You're exactly right on this point, Chris. It's a real shame what 40
years of ever more liberal educators have done to the US educational
system.

Oh come now, Steve, our liberal educators can out-liberal your
liberal educators any day of the week[+], and have been doing it
far longer. Yet, our kids do considerably better.

It's way too easy to blame it on the "liberal boogyman", when the
real problem is governmental and societal neglect.

Even Heinlein fell into that trap.

[+] By US standards, we don't have _any_ non-liberal educators.
Heck, the current ruling party[*] isn't even afraid to call themselves
"Liberals". How liberal can you get? ;-)

[*] Past 11 years. Election next month. Perhaps the conservative
party will take over. Tho, by US standards, they're liberal.
Hell, by US standards, our fascist party is liberal too. Americans
don't realize how far right their government is compared to the
rest of the world. Most of the rest of the world considers the
Democrats and Republicans so far to the right to be indistinguishable
from Genghis Khan.
 
C

clifto

Chris said:
Your sentence construction only makes logical sense if you _meant_
"doesn't know a damn thing". Which is wrong actually. The rest
of the world does know quite a bit about Canada, tho, liberally
sprinkled with the usual stereotypes (singing mounties and the
rest).

One halloween when I was a kid, I went as Sgt. Preston.
What you're actually seeing is a sense of disgust at how
appallingly bad the US educational system is. The worst
in the 1st world. Which is particularly annoying since
we've always been your largest trading partner - eg:
your largest supplier of petro fuels for most of the past
few years.

At this moment I'm safe to say that Canada's chief export is cold air.
 
J

Jon Elson

Chris said:
Kinda like what's going on in the US, where no new nuke plants have
been built (or even proposed) in at least a decade.
Several new nuclear plants are being proposed right now. I can't
even begin to guess whether they will actually be built, and if so,
whether they will be using newer technology or the hideous old
designs from the 1960's.

Jon
 
D

Don Ocean

Steve said:
And it was still a colony then. Great Britain's colony.

You could have gotten renvenge on us by letting us have Quebec! ;-p
 
B

Bob

Geoman^^ said:
Go ask Home Depot, Why do you bother ten newsgroups and not the one you
will spend your money with?

GO AWAY JERK

Actually, it's been an interesting discussion, with an exception of a few AH's. The
usual alt.hvac suspects?

Bob
 
G

George

wkearney99 said:
You could just leave it at:




There's nobody at the box stores that even comes close to having a clue
anymore.

Ever hear of "you get what you pay for"? People are attracted to big box
stores becuase of cheap prices (which almost always means the level of
service has to be downgraded) and seem to be surprised when the service
they get doesn't match the marketing hype that all of the "associates"
are experts.
 
G

George

Some said:
Home depot is selling natural-gas powered home electric generators (7
kw and larger). The price for a 7 kw system is $3000 (I think it's a
turn-key system). This works out to a constant 120v/50 amp (240 v, 25
amp) supply.


My thoughts would be that you are not looking at the right equipment.
You would need to buy a real generator. Not a cheepo high RPM machine
that is made for short term use and to meet a price point.
 
Top