kent_white

🤣 - just your thing mate! Get that kaftan on!

Why don't you both just donate £100 to a Palestinian charity anyway. They sure as hell need it.

My point is that there's been a strong islamic influence in Spain for about 1300 years. So I'm surprised that you're surprised that there remains one on 2026. And also, why is it alright you you to be there, if it's not alright for them to be there?

Nice one mate. Enjoy 👍

That's a disgrace. As we all know, Spain definitely has no historical Muslim tradition whatsoever! Why can't they just stick to their own countries?

I'm so confused - where are you? 😁

What time is it over there mate?

I really like him too

You're so full of shit jmjhb! Improved surface finish does reduce friction and losses, but the direct efficiency gain is usually small (0.1–0.5% for well-designed gears). The honest economic case isn't energy savings—it's reliability. Smoother involute profiles cut boundary-film friction, micropitting risk, scuffing, and running-in losses. This matters enormously where load, speed, duty cycle, or oil film thinness push you toward mixed-film contact. Modern grinding and honing are especially valuable there. Where it's worth the cost: EV transmissions, wind turbines, aerospace, motorsport High-speed spindles, heavily loaded reducers, premium low-noise applications Anything with high failure consequence or long-life expectations Where it probably isn't: Commodity industrial gears, intermittent duty, light load Cases where well-designed, standard-finish gears already meet life/noise targets The real payback is usually durability + NVH + power density first, efficiency second. A single fleet recall for micropitting costs way more than precision grinding. Basically - sort your fucking life out! 😁

It was supposed to be obvious from the post that I used AI Boby. I wasn't trying to make out I was an expert on gearboxes! 🙄😁

Off the top of my head - I'd have to say that It depends heavily on volume and duty cycle. For high-volume automotive or continuous-duty industrial gearboxes, the compounded efficiency gains (typically 1-3% reduction in friction losses) absolutely justify the tooling investment over millions of units. But for low-volume applications or intermittent duty, the capital cost of advanced grinding or honing tech rarely pays back against modest 0.5-1% efficiency improvements. The sweet spot seems to be medium-to-high volume where you're amortizing the tooling cost across enough units to make the ROI positive—which is why OEMs have driven this hard in recent decades. 😁

I think we should ban gearboxes. They just break down eventually anyway. Completely inefficient. You're lucky to get 100,000 miles out of them these days. And even then they require 'frequent servicing'. Yeah alright, whatever! More money making. We need fewer gearbox mechanics fleecing the system! And certainly fewer 'engineers'. They should start doing their jobs properly and design a system which transfers rotational force from one shaft to another while trading off speed and torque according to the gear ratios, with higher speed meaning lower torque and vice versa, that actually work! 😁

Very good! 😁

Actually, the "too many chiefs" thing is a myth. The NHS has about 3.7% managers in the workforce. That's under half the UK average of 9.5%. And over the past decade they've been one of the slowest growing staff groups. So the numbers aren't the problem. The is waste though. Legacy IT that you've touched on. Systems that were never built to talk to each other, procurement that's a nightmare. When we moved from Bolton CCG to GM ICB, just integrating systems took years and serious money. Add in patients opting out of data sharing which means you need two parallel systems running, and you understand why it's slow and expensive. It's not a too many chiefs problem. Quite the opposite in fact. And cutting management won't fix that either. It just leaves you with fewer people trying to navigate systems that are already complex, which means more things break, which we then have to spend more money fixing. The answer isn't fewer chiefs. It's fixing procurement and legacy tech. But nobody campaigns on that though because it's boring and technical, and because it's an easy cheap shot politically to blame NHS managers. Which people then believe, when it's actually a crock of shite.

That's the difference between you and me Bolty. I understand where my knowledge gaps are. And I understand where I need more information to make an informed decision about something. I also listen to and synthesise other people's ideas and opinions, as well as change mine in response to new evidence or information. On the other hand have a over inflated view of your own competence, have no doubt that you're absolutely right about things you don't really understand very well, selectively pick what you do and don't listen to based on whether that information fits best what your preconceived ideas and see changing your opinion on something over time as some sort of weakness. When in reality it's a strength. Self righteousness Bolty old chap!

That's a bit patronising. Read my posts - they're all balanced and coming from a position of actually living and breathing what I'm talking about. I can acknowledge the good and bad in our current system. I'm not ideologically wed to the idea of an NHS. Or against private providers. My decisions come from decades of working in the system as a Health Trainer, Student Nurse, Critical Care Nurse, Health Improvement Manager, Commissioner and latterly Programme Manager for the ICB. Not that this means I'm automatically always right about what are extremely complicated questions. But my views come from experience and hard work, not ideology. There are lots of different health systems that can all work well to some degree or another. But once you have one, and it's embedded, the turmoil of changing it usually isn't worth it compared to the benefits.

I don't know. But either way it's very funny! 😁

I do think it's quite amusing that they've picked Iran vs Egypt as the 'pride match' 🤣

Shite defence if that's the case!

The concern for me would be if the judge had used that as a mitigation in order to give him a reduced sentence. Is that what happened in this case? If so then that's abhorrent.

I agree. And if we had the money we need to completely overhaul the current procurement system/s we would do. As I mentioned - the NHS needs significant investment to overhaul existing systems like procurement and IT. And it would still need significant investment if it was privately owned and operated. But I wasn't talking about not knowing where to start with NHS reforms. I was taking about not knowing where to start with that particular, throw away post.

No - I think you've misunderstood. We'd need to pay more of our GDP to match their levels of spending. So it would cost considerably more in the long run.

Fuck me. I don't know where to start! 🤣

Have you got any idea how much of a waste of time and money a transition to another system would be when we already have one of the better health systems in the world? It would take decades to properly roll out. You'd also be looking at about an additional £100bn annually to match France or Australia's spend as a proportion of GDP. And for that you'd potentially get some modest improvements AFTER decades of instability. And there would be huge implications and gaps in patient care while the transition happens too. Have a read about the problems Australia had mplementing Medicare, or the Bismarck reforms in Germany. It's just not worth it. What is worth it is properly finding the NHS so that it provides the service we all want, instead of bitching and whining about it all the time and pretending there's an easy solution to the (actually comparitively small) problems the NHS faces compared to most other countries.

Not really, no. It's the kind of thing you come out with on a daily basis on here. Unless your whole profile is an elaborate caricature and you don't really mean most of the things you post. Which would be enormously reassuring 😁