Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.checkmate > #205113 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-09-16 07:49 -0400 |
| Last post | 2018-09-18 09:11 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 306 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.checkmate
Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-16 07:49 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-16 10:48 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-09-16 11:17 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling % <%@%> - 2018-09-16 08:24 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-09-16 11:51 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling % <%@%> - 2018-09-16 08:55 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-16 11:09 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-16 10:41 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-16 08:56 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-16 13:14 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-16 10:31 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-09-16 13:56 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-17 05:17 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 02:37 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-09-17 23:15 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-18 05:57 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 09:19 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-18 09:21 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-09-18 14:27 +0100
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 12:41 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-09-18 11:48 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-09-18 19:20 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-18 22:50 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-09-18 23:55 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2018-09-18 17:06 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 21:11 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-18 21:19 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-19 06:22 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-19 11:27 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-09-19 11:32 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-19 12:03 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-19 13:11 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-19 16:05 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-20 01:46 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-19 20:18 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-19 22:31 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-09-19 22:21 -0500
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 18:08 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-22 01:41 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 01:07 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-22 07:22 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-22 09:17 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-09-22 15:15 +0100
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-22 10:33 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-09-22 17:59 +0100
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-22 16:41 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-09-22 22:47 +0100
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-22 16:11 -0500
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-09-22 22:48 +0100
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 11:47 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-22 09:11 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Avenging Angel <Not.fucking.likely@NoWay.com> - 2018-09-23 11:48 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-23 10:36 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-23 08:42 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Avenging Angel <Not.fucking.likely@NoWay.com> - 2018-09-23 12:06 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-23 10:38 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-23 08:41 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Avenging Angel <Not.fucking.likely@NoWay.com> - 2018-09-24 09:48 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-24 12:32 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Avenging Angel <Not.fucking.likely@NoWay.com> - 2018-09-25 10:23 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-25 11:31 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-25 09:35 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-25 11:50 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-25 12:11 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-25 20:13 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-25 16:23 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-25 20:48 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 13:51 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-25 17:20 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-26 03:23 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 09:54 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-26 11:47 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 18:10 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 15:06 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-25 14:58 -0500
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-19 06:19 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 18:04 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-22 01:42 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Bricked <bricked@barkingspiders.com> - 2018-09-21 20:51 -0500
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 01:02 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-22 07:23 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-09-22 15:21 +0100
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-22 11:10 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2018-09-22 10:19 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-22 09:10 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Avenging Angel <Not.fucking.likely@NoWay.com> - 2018-09-23 12:12 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-23 10:40 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-23 08:44 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-23 10:50 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-23 09:05 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-09-23 12:38 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2018-09-23 11:58 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-09-23 18:03 -0500
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-20 11:45 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-20 19:11 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-09-20 20:44 +0100
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-09-20 17:47 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-09-21 00:04 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-20 22:12 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-20 18:43 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-20 16:31 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-09-20 22:48 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-20 19:09 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-09-21 00:17 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-09-21 09:14 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-09-21 23:38 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-22 07:26 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-22 09:13 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-09-25 23:15 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-09-21 17:59 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-09-21 23:38 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-20 23:23 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-09-21 00:02 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-20 17:20 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-09-21 05:08 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 01:02 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-21 08:47 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-09-21 18:01 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-22 01:44 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-09-22 02:22 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-22 02:51 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-09-22 05:43 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-22 11:06 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-09-22 16:44 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-23 10:40 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-23 08:44 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-22 19:01 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling onion@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2018-09-22 20:32 +0100
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-09-21 23:47 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-22 07:29 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-09-25 23:17 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 01:23 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 11:28 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 09:27 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Lunar Opticfibre <jfwaldby@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 11:58 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-09-21 18:03 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 11:23 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 11:50 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-09-21 14:54 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-21 13:00 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-09-21 15:07 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-22 01:47 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-09-21 22:25 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-09-22 03:37 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-22 07:45 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-09-22 16:45 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-22 19:02 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-22 13:39 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-23 10:42 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-23 08:45 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-23 10:52 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-23 09:06 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling snipeco.2@gmail.com (Wader of Doom) - 2018-09-23 18:05 +0100
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 12:37 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-09-21 18:47 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 12:03 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 12:43 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-21 16:00 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 13:12 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 14:01 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-09-21 19:35 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 12:49 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 13:12 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-21 16:17 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 13:20 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-09-21 20:22 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 13:33 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-09-21 20:53 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 12:42 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 17:32 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-09-22 00:24 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-09-22 01:17 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-22 02:05 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-09-22 02:41 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-09-22 03:35 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-22 16:07 -0500
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 11:56 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-20 22:15 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-21 08:50 -0400
Fairies, dancing on the head of a pin. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-09-21 07:12 -0700
Re: Fairies, dancing on the head of a pin. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 11:40 -0400
Re: Fairies, dancing on the head of a pin. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-21 12:04 -0400
Re: Fairies, dancing on the head of a pin. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-21 10:49 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-21 10:08 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-09-21 18:07 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-09-21 13:03 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-09-21 19:38 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 13:58 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-09-21 21:14 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-22 16:08 -0500
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-22 17:27 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-09-22 22:50 +0100
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 17:37 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-24 13:43 -0500
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 19:52 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-25 01:57 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-25 14:42 -0500
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-22 01:54 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-09-22 02:31 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-22 02:53 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-09-22 05:48 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 01:18 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-22 07:48 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-22 09:12 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling invalid@invalid.invalid (Ï) - 2018-09-22 18:15 +0100
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-22 11:31 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling invalid@invalid.invalid (Ï) - 2018-09-22 23:23 +0100
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-09-21 23:54 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 17:29 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-20 22:12 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-09-21 00:17 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 01:05 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-09-20 18:17 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 01:06 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-21 08:52 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-21 10:08 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-09-21 18:12 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-09-21 13:05 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 13:52 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-21 16:59 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 14:02 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-24 13:46 -0500
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 19:52 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-09-21 00:12 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-21 08:53 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-09-21 18:13 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-09-21 19:39 +0100
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-09-21 13:09 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-09-21 23:31 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-09-20 23:46 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-21 08:55 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-21 10:01 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-09-21 18:15 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-09-21 23:26 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-22 07:52 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-18 14:38 -0500
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Dinsdale <yup@ayup.yup> - 2018-09-18 15:49 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 13:08 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-09-19 00:00 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-09-19 06:38 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-09-19 10:13 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-09-21 01:07 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-09-21 01:00 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2018-09-20 11:51 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-09-20 23:46 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-21 08:56 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-09-21 18:20 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-09-21 13:15 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-09-21 19:44 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 17:42 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-22 01:57 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-09-22 02:34 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-09-22 03:40 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-09-22 01:49 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-22 07:53 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-09-25 23:21 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-26 06:10 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-26 09:00 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 00:29 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-09-22 05:54 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-22 11:09 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Avenging Angel <Not.fucking.likely@NoWay.com> - 2018-09-23 11:44 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-24 13:40 -0500
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-09-25 23:23 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-22 10:13 -0500
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-22 09:55 -0600
Fusion, solar, and the graviton. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-09-22 02:14 -0700
Re: Fusion, solar, and the graviton. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-22 13:36 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-09-21 23:25 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 00:49 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-09-22 12:42 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-22 11:30 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-09-22 14:34 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-22 13:38 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-09-25 23:32 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-09-21 23:23 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-09-20 23:42 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-21 09:05 -0400
Re: Kensi has Mad Max dreams Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-21 10:09 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-09-21 18:25 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-22 02:01 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-09-22 02:36 +0000
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-09-16 23:24 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 02:25 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-09-17 08:13 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 09:15 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-09-17 12:43 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 11:54 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-09-17 12:59 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-17 13:06 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 12:35 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-17 15:43 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 12:51 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-09-18 01:36 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-18 11:39 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 12:43 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2018-09-18 13:53 -0600
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 15:55 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-17 15:59 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-09-17 15:00 -0500
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 13:08 -0700
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-09-17 15:28 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-09-17 23:22 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-09-17 23:07 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-09-18 01:19 -0400
Re: Global Climate Change Effort Looks for Reboot After Stalling benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 09:11 -0400
Page 9 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 16 Next page →
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 19:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5otf7f-noj.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #206812 |
In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2018-09-21 11:47 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 2018-09-21 11:03 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 2018-09-20 10:08 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2018-09-20 5:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 22:48:58 +0000, chimp chittered: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>>>>>>>>> melt! On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:44:32 +0100, Sn!pe wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [some fake pundit scribbled] >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your diesel tank meanwhile has an energy density of 32 MJ/L but the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tank to wheels efficiency is a quarter of the EV's, so what >>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually gets to the wheels is only 8 MJ/L, which is less than four >>>>>>>>>>>>>> times what the EV can deliver ... and shrinking, since EV batteries >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are improving rapidly but diesel tanks are diesel tanks are diesel >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a fat, stationary target. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't count all the inefficiency from converting fossil fuel >>>>>>>>>>>>> energy into chemical energy, then into electrical energy, then into >>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanical energy. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We were originally discussing only tank-to-wheels efficiency and >>>>>>>>>>> ignoring well-to-tank. But, now that the topic has broadened ... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Not to mention electricity transmission losses and the cost (both >>>>>>>>>>>> monetary and in energy and resources terms) of providing the charging >>>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And meanwhile we're just supposed to completely ignore the cost of >>>>>>>>>>> lugging all those fossil fuels *physically* to the individual gas >>>>>>>>>>> stations? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> the time to charge the battery >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Almost instant, with new battery and charging technologies that are >>>>>>>>>>> coming down the pike. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Utter nonsense, would violate the laws of physics and there are no >>>>>>>>>> available materials to let you get even close. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-21/new-technology-could-help-to-charge- >>>>>>>>> your-iphone-instantly/10021086 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> An iPhone is not a road vehicle. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you understand the concept of power, i.e. the amount of energy >>>>>>>> transferred per unit time? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you understand the relationship of voltage, current, and power? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <snip nonsense> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> yep >>>>>> >>>>>> Then you understand charge time is limited by current density. >>>>>> >>>>> what are you getting at >>>> >>>> That you and your fellow eco warriors do not understand high school level >>>> physics. >>>> >>>> >>> who are my eco workers i came into this post on my own i don't know >>> anyone here i just know about the topic at the top >> >> The word was "warriors", not "workers". >> >> You appear to have the comprehension of a six year old and the compostition >> skills to match. >> >> > your off topic would you like to start a new topic about what i am QED. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 12:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bk07ht.vmn.17.2@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #206834 |
On 2018-09-21 12:35 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 2018-09-21 11:47 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 2018-09-21 11:03 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 2018-09-20 10:08 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2018-09-20 5:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 22:48:58 +0000, chimp chittered: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>>>>>>>>>> melt! On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:44:32 +0100, Sn!pe wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [some fake pundit scribbled] >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your diesel tank meanwhile has an energy density of 32 MJ/L but the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tank to wheels efficiency is a quarter of the EV's, so what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually gets to the wheels is only 8 MJ/L, which is less than four >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times what the EV can deliver ... and shrinking, since EV batteries >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are improving rapidly but diesel tanks are diesel tanks are diesel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a fat, stationary target. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't count all the inefficiency from converting fossil fuel >>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy into chemical energy, then into electrical energy, then into >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanical energy. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We were originally discussing only tank-to-wheels efficiency and >>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring well-to-tank. But, now that the topic has broadened ... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Not to mention electricity transmission losses and the cost (both >>>>>>>>>>>>> monetary and in energy and resources terms) of providing the charging >>>>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And meanwhile we're just supposed to completely ignore the cost of >>>>>>>>>>>> lugging all those fossil fuels *physically* to the individual gas >>>>>>>>>>>> stations? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the time to charge the battery >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Almost instant, with new battery and charging technologies that are >>>>>>>>>>>> coming down the pike. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Utter nonsense, would violate the laws of physics and there are no >>>>>>>>>>> available materials to let you get even close. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-21/new-technology-could-help-to-charge- >>>>>>>>>> your-iphone-instantly/10021086 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> An iPhone is not a road vehicle. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you understand the concept of power, i.e. the amount of energy >>>>>>>>> transferred per unit time? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you understand the relationship of voltage, current, and power? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <snip nonsense> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> yep >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then you understand charge time is limited by current density. >>>>>>> >>>>>> what are you getting at >>>>> >>>>> That you and your fellow eco warriors do not understand high school level >>>>> physics. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> who are my eco workers i came into this post on my own i don't know >>>> anyone here i just know about the topic at the top >>> >>> The word was "warriors", not "workers". >>> >>> You appear to have the comprehension of a six year old and the compostition >>> skills to match. >>> >>> >> your off topic would you like to start a new topic about what i am > > QED. > > well that certainly slapped you into the corner you belong in
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 13:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.360ef09d10d36c9b994b37@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #206837 |
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by Checkmate! In article <bk07ht.vmn.17.2@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... > > On 2018-09-21 12:35 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 2018-09-21 11:47 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On 2018-09-21 11:03 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On 2018-09-20 10:08 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>>>>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 2018-09-20 5:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! > >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 22:48:58 +0000, chimp chittered: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, > >>>>>>>>>>>> melt! On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:44:32 +0100, Sn!pe wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [some fake pundit scribbled] > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your diesel tank meanwhile has an energy density of 32 MJ/L but the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tank to wheels efficiency is a quarter of the EV's, so what > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually gets to the wheels is only 8 MJ/L, which is less than four > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times what the EV can deliver ... and shrinking, since EV batteries > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are improving rapidly but diesel tanks are diesel tanks are diesel > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tanks, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a fat, stationary target. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't count all the inefficiency from converting fossil fuel > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy into chemical energy, then into electrical energy, then into > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanical energy. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> We were originally discussing only tank-to-wheels efficiency and > >>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring well-to-tank. But, now that the topic has broadened ... > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Not to mention electricity transmission losses and the cost (both > >>>>>>>>>>>>> monetary and in energy and resources terms) of providing the charging > >>>>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> And meanwhile we're just supposed to completely ignore the cost of > >>>>>>>>>>>> lugging all those fossil fuels *physically* to the individual gas > >>>>>>>>>>>> stations? > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the time to charge the battery > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Almost instant, with new battery and charging technologies that are > >>>>>>>>>>>> coming down the pike. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Utter nonsense, would violate the laws of physics and there are no > >>>>>>>>>>> available materials to let you get even close. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-21/new-technology-could-help-to-charge- > >>>>>>>>>> your-iphone-instantly/10021086 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> An iPhone is not a road vehicle. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Do you understand the concept of power, i.e. the amount of energy > >>>>>>>>> transferred per unit time? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Do you understand the relationship of voltage, current, and power? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> <snip nonsense> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> yep > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Then you understand charge time is limited by current density. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> what are you getting at > >>>>> > >>>>> That you and your fellow eco warriors do not understand high school level > >>>>> physics. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> who are my eco workers i came into this post on my own i don't know > >>>> anyone here i just know about the topic at the top > >>> > >>> The word was "warriors", not "workers". > >>> > >>> You appear to have the comprehension of a six year old and the compostition > >>> skills to match. > >>> > >>> > >> your off topic would you like to start a new topic about what i am > > > > QED. > > > > > well that certainly slapped you into the corner you belong in No, you're already occupying that corner. Now face the wall as you were told. -- Checkmate ® Author, Humorist, Cynic Philosopher, Humanitarian Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars Usenet Shot-Caller Copyright © 2018 all rights reserved In loving memory of The Battle Kitten May 2010-February 12, 2017 "There are many here among us, who feel that life is but a joke." "I am the author of nearly as much kook butthurt as kensi." -Nadegda Message-ID: <pbg8ne$p9k$21@dont-email.me>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 16:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <dakaqddijiiad4f2k6gqpdglfek7hs3ije@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #206845 |
On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 13:12:53 -0700, Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote: > In article <bk07ht.vmn.17.2@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >> On 2018-09-21 12:35 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> > In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 2018-09-21 11:47 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> On 2018-09-21 11:03 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> On 2018-09-20 10:08 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>>>>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> On 2018-09-20 5:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! >> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 22:48:58 +0000, chimp chittered: >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >> >>>>>>>>>>>> melt! On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:44:32 +0100, Sn!pe wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [some fake pundit scribbled] >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your diesel tank meanwhile has an energy density of 32 MJ/L but the >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tank to wheels efficiency is a quarter of the EV's, so what >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually gets to the wheels is only 8 MJ/L, which is less than four >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times what the EV can deliver ... and shrinking, since EV batteries >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are improving rapidly but diesel tanks are diesel tanks are diesel >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tanks, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a fat, stationary target. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't count all the inefficiency from converting fossil fuel >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy into chemical energy, then into electrical energy, then into >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanical energy. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> We were originally discussing only tank-to-wheels efficiency and >> >>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring well-to-tank. But, now that the topic has broadened ... >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Not to mention electricity transmission losses and the cost (both >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> monetary and in energy and resources terms) of providing the charging >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> And meanwhile we're just supposed to completely ignore the cost of >> >>>>>>>>>>>> lugging all those fossil fuels *physically* to the individual gas >> >>>>>>>>>>>> stations? >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the time to charge the battery >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Almost instant, with new battery and charging technologies that are >> >>>>>>>>>>>> coming down the pike. >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Utter nonsense, would violate the laws of physics and there are no >> >>>>>>>>>>> available materials to let you get even close. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-21/new-technology-could-help-to-charge- >> >>>>>>>>>> your-iphone-instantly/10021086 >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> An iPhone is not a road vehicle. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Do you understand the concept of power, i.e. the amount of energy >> >>>>>>>>> transferred per unit time? >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Do you understand the relationship of voltage, current, and power? >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> <snip nonsense> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> yep >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Then you understand charge time is limited by current density. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> what are you getting at >> >>>>> >> >>>>> That you and your fellow eco warriors do not understand high school level >> >>>>> physics. >> >>>>> >> >>>> who are my eco workers i came into this post on my own i don't know >> >>>> anyone here i just know about the topic at the top >> >>> >> >>> The word was "warriors", not "workers". >> >>> >> >>> You appear to have the comprehension of a six year old and the compostition >> >>> skills to match. >> >>> >> >> your off topic would you like to start a new topic about what i am >> > >> > QED. >> > >> well that certainly slapped you into the corner you belong in > >No, you're already occupying that corner. Now face the wall >and bend over as you were told. PHAG! -- Yours Truly, Gregory Hall If a woman stumbles onto a fact that is in opposition to her intuition, she will tend to reject it outright and, even if the evidence is overwhelming, she will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, she's offered evidence that affords a reason for acting in accordance with her feelings, she will embrace it even on the flimsiest of evidence. -- Capt. Neal ®
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 13:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bk09bt.dkh.17.8@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #206848 |
On 2018-09-21 1:17 PM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: > On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 13:12:53 -0700, Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote: >> In article <bk07ht.vmn.17.2@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>> On 2018-09-21 12:35 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 2018-09-21 11:47 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2018-09-21 11:03 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2018-09-20 10:08 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2018-09-20 5:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 22:48:58 +0000, chimp chittered: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> melt! On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:44:32 +0100, Sn!pe wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [some fake pundit scribbled] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your diesel tank meanwhile has an energy density of 32 MJ/L but the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tank to wheels efficiency is a quarter of the EV's, so what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually gets to the wheels is only 8 MJ/L, which is less than four >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times what the EV can deliver ... and shrinking, since EV batteries >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are improving rapidly but diesel tanks are diesel tanks are diesel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a fat, stationary target. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't count all the inefficiency from converting fossil fuel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy into chemical energy, then into electrical energy, then into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanical energy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We were originally discussing only tank-to-wheels efficiency and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring well-to-tank. But, now that the topic has broadened ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not to mention electricity transmission losses and the cost (both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> monetary and in energy and resources terms) of providing the charging >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And meanwhile we're just supposed to completely ignore the cost of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lugging all those fossil fuels *physically* to the individual gas >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stations? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the time to charge the battery >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost instant, with new battery and charging technologies that are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coming down the pike. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Utter nonsense, would violate the laws of physics and there are no >>>>>>>>>>>>>> available materials to let you get even close. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-21/new-technology-could-help-to-charge- >>>>>>>>>>>>> your-iphone-instantly/10021086 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> An iPhone is not a road vehicle. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand the concept of power, i.e. the amount of energy >>>>>>>>>>>> transferred per unit time? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand the relationship of voltage, current, and power? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <snip nonsense> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> yep >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Then you understand charge time is limited by current density. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> what are you getting at >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That you and your fellow eco warriors do not understand high school level >>>>>>>> physics. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> who are my eco workers i came into this post on my own i don't know >>>>>>> anyone here i just know about the topic at the top >>>>>> >>>>>> The word was "warriors", not "workers". >>>>>> >>>>>> You appear to have the comprehension of a six year old and the compostition >>>>>> skills to match. >>>>>> >>>>> your off topic would you like to start a new topic about what i am >>>> >>>> QED. >>>> >>> well that certainly slapped you into the corner you belong in >> >> No, you're already occupying that corner. Now face the wall >> and bend over as you were told. > > PHAG! > LOL
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 20:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ih0g7f-m4k.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #206837 |
In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2018-09-21 12:35 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 2018-09-21 11:47 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 2018-09-21 11:03 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2018-09-20 10:08 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2018-09-20 5:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 22:48:58 +0000, chimp chittered: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>>>>>>>>>>> melt! On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:44:32 +0100, Sn!pe wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [some fake pundit scribbled] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your diesel tank meanwhile has an energy density of 32 MJ/L but the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tank to wheels efficiency is a quarter of the EV's, so what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually gets to the wheels is only 8 MJ/L, which is less than four >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times what the EV can deliver ... and shrinking, since EV batteries >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are improving rapidly but diesel tanks are diesel tanks are diesel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a fat, stationary target. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't count all the inefficiency from converting fossil fuel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy into chemical energy, then into electrical energy, then into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanical energy. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We were originally discussing only tank-to-wheels efficiency and >>>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring well-to-tank. But, now that the topic has broadened ... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not to mention electricity transmission losses and the cost (both >>>>>>>>>>>>>> monetary and in energy and resources terms) of providing the charging >>>>>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And meanwhile we're just supposed to completely ignore the cost of >>>>>>>>>>>>> lugging all those fossil fuels *physically* to the individual gas >>>>>>>>>>>>> stations? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the time to charge the battery >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost instant, with new battery and charging technologies that are >>>>>>>>>>>>> coming down the pike. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Utter nonsense, would violate the laws of physics and there are no >>>>>>>>>>>> available materials to let you get even close. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-21/new-technology-could-help-to-charge- >>>>>>>>>>> your-iphone-instantly/10021086 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> An iPhone is not a road vehicle. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Do you understand the concept of power, i.e. the amount of energy >>>>>>>>>> transferred per unit time? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Do you understand the relationship of voltage, current, and power? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <snip nonsense> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> yep >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then you understand charge time is limited by current density. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> what are you getting at >>>>>> >>>>>> That you and your fellow eco warriors do not understand high school level >>>>>> physics. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> who are my eco workers i came into this post on my own i don't know >>>>> anyone here i just know about the topic at the top >>>> >>>> The word was "warriors", not "workers". >>>> >>>> You appear to have the comprehension of a six year old and the compostition >>>> skills to match. >>>> >>>> >>> your off topic would you like to start a new topic about what i am >> >> QED. >> >> > well that certainly slapped you into the corner you belong in QED yet again. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 13:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bk0a4v.qi3.17.5@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #206861 |
On 2018-09-21 1:22 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 2018-09-21 12:35 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 2018-09-21 11:47 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 2018-09-21 11:03 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2018-09-20 10:08 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2018-09-20 5:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 22:48:58 +0000, chimp chittered: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> melt! On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:44:32 +0100, Sn!pe wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [some fake pundit scribbled] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your diesel tank meanwhile has an energy density of 32 MJ/L but the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tank to wheels efficiency is a quarter of the EV's, so what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually gets to the wheels is only 8 MJ/L, which is less than four >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times what the EV can deliver ... and shrinking, since EV batteries >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are improving rapidly but diesel tanks are diesel tanks are diesel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a fat, stationary target. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't count all the inefficiency from converting fossil fuel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy into chemical energy, then into electrical energy, then into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanical energy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We were originally discussing only tank-to-wheels efficiency and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring well-to-tank. But, now that the topic has broadened ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not to mention electricity transmission losses and the cost (both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> monetary and in energy and resources terms) of providing the charging >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And meanwhile we're just supposed to completely ignore the cost of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> lugging all those fossil fuels *physically* to the individual gas >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stations? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the time to charge the battery >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost instant, with new battery and charging technologies that are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> coming down the pike. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Utter nonsense, would violate the laws of physics and there are no >>>>>>>>>>>>> available materials to let you get even close. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-21/new-technology-could-help-to-charge- >>>>>>>>>>>> your-iphone-instantly/10021086 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> An iPhone is not a road vehicle. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand the concept of power, i.e. the amount of energy >>>>>>>>>>> transferred per unit time? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand the relationship of voltage, current, and power? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <snip nonsense> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> yep >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then you understand charge time is limited by current density. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> what are you getting at >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That you and your fellow eco warriors do not understand high school level >>>>>>> physics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> who are my eco workers i came into this post on my own i don't know >>>>>> anyone here i just know about the topic at the top >>>>> >>>>> The word was "warriors", not "workers". >>>>> >>>>> You appear to have the comprehension of a six year old and the compostition >>>>> skills to match. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> your off topic would you like to start a new topic about what i am >>> >>> QED. >>> >>> >> well that certainly slapped you into the corner you belong in > > QED yet again. > > oh for joy a doctor of rerunology
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 20:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ja2g7f-kak.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #206868 |
In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2018-09-21 1:22 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 2018-09-21 12:35 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 2018-09-21 11:47 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2018-09-21 11:03 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2018-09-20 10:08 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2018-09-20 5:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 22:48:58 +0000, chimp chittered: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> melt! On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:44:32 +0100, Sn!pe wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [some fake pundit scribbled] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your diesel tank meanwhile has an energy density of 32 MJ/L but the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tank to wheels efficiency is a quarter of the EV's, so what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually gets to the wheels is only 8 MJ/L, which is less than four >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times what the EV can deliver ... and shrinking, since EV batteries >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are improving rapidly but diesel tanks are diesel tanks are diesel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a fat, stationary target. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't count all the inefficiency from converting fossil fuel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy into chemical energy, then into electrical energy, then into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanical energy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We were originally discussing only tank-to-wheels efficiency and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring well-to-tank. But, now that the topic has broadened ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not to mention electricity transmission losses and the cost (both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> monetary and in energy and resources terms) of providing the charging >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And meanwhile we're just supposed to completely ignore the cost of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lugging all those fossil fuels *physically* to the individual gas >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stations? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the time to charge the battery >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost instant, with new battery and charging technologies that are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coming down the pike. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Utter nonsense, would violate the laws of physics and there are no >>>>>>>>>>>>>> available materials to let you get even close. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-21/new-technology-could-help-to-charge- >>>>>>>>>>>>> your-iphone-instantly/10021086 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> An iPhone is not a road vehicle. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand the concept of power, i.e. the amount of energy >>>>>>>>>>>> transferred per unit time? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand the relationship of voltage, current, and power? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <snip nonsense> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> yep >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Then you understand charge time is limited by current density. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> what are you getting at >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That you and your fellow eco warriors do not understand high school level >>>>>>>> physics. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> who are my eco workers i came into this post on my own i don't know >>>>>>> anyone here i just know about the topic at the top >>>>>> >>>>>> The word was "warriors", not "workers". >>>>>> >>>>>> You appear to have the comprehension of a six year old and the compostition >>>>>> skills to match. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> your off topic would you like to start a new topic about what i am >>>> >>>> QED. >>>> >>>> >>> well that certainly slapped you into the corner you belong in >> >> QED yet again. >> >> > oh for joy a doctor of rerunology The child just won't stop proving my point, i.e. the comprehension of a six year old and the composition skills to match. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 12:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.360ee9731dfd4691994b32@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #206807 |
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by Checkmate! In article <ruqf7f-kdj.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com says... > > In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 2018-09-21 11:03 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On 2018-09-20 10:08 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On 2018-09-20 5:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>>>>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: > >>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! > >>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 22:48:58 +0000, chimp chittered: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, > >>>>>>>>> melt! On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:44:32 +0100, Sn!pe wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> [some fake pundit scribbled] > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Your diesel tank meanwhile has an energy density of 32 MJ/L but the > >>>>>>>>>>>> tank to wheels efficiency is a quarter of the EV's, so what > >>>>>>>>>>>> actually gets to the wheels is only 8 MJ/L, which is less than four > >>>>>>>>>>>> times what the EV can deliver ... and shrinking, since EV batteries > >>>>>>>>>>>> are improving rapidly but diesel tanks are diesel tanks are diesel > >>>>>>>>>>>> tanks, > >>>>>>>>>>>> a fat, stationary target. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> If you don't count all the inefficiency from converting fossil fuel > >>>>>>>>>>> energy into chemical energy, then into electrical energy, then into > >>>>>>>>>>> mechanical energy. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We were originally discussing only tank-to-wheels efficiency and > >>>>>>>>> ignoring well-to-tank. But, now that the topic has broadened ... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Not to mention electricity transmission losses and the cost (both > >>>>>>>>>> monetary and in energy and resources terms) of providing the charging > >>>>>>>>>> infrastructure. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> And meanwhile we're just supposed to completely ignore the cost of > >>>>>>>>> lugging all those fossil fuels *physically* to the individual gas > >>>>>>>>> stations? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> the time to charge the battery > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Almost instant, with new battery and charging technologies that are > >>>>>>>>> coming down the pike. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Utter nonsense, would violate the laws of physics and there are no > >>>>>>>> available materials to let you get even close. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-21/new-technology-could-help-to-charge- > >>>>>>> your-iphone-instantly/10021086 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> An iPhone is not a road vehicle. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Do you understand the concept of power, i.e. the amount of energy > >>>>>> transferred per unit time? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Do you understand the relationship of voltage, current, and power? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> <snip nonsense> > >>>>>> > >>>>> yep > >>>> > >>>> Then you understand charge time is limited by current density. > >>>> > >>> what are you getting at > >> > >> That you and your fellow eco warriors do not understand high school level > >> physics. > >> > >> > > who are my eco workers i came into this post on my own i don't know > > anyone here i just know about the topic at the top > > The word was "warriors", not "workers". > > You appear to have the comprehension of a six year old and the compostition > skills to match. LOL! You hit the nail right on the head, and he claims to have a college "diploma". Not a degree, but a diploma that nobody's ever seen. -- Checkmate ® Author, Humorist, Cynic Philosopher, Humanitarian Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars Usenet Shot-Caller Copyright © 2018 all rights reserved In loving memory of The Battle Kitten May 2010-February 12, 2017 "There are many here among us, who feel that life is but a joke." "I am the author of nearly as much kook butthurt as kensi." -Nadegda Message-ID: <pbg8ne$p9k$21@dont-email.me>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 17:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <po3o1j$13at$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #206807 |
On 9/21/2018 2:47 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 2018-09-21 11:03 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 2018-09-20 10:08 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 2018-09-20 5:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! >>>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 22:48:58 +0000, chimp chittered: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>>>>>>>> melt! On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:44:32 +0100, Sn!pe wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [some fake pundit scribbled] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Your diesel tank meanwhile has an energy density of 32 MJ/L but the >>>>>>>>>>>>> tank to wheels efficiency is a quarter of the EV's, so what >>>>>>>>>>>>> actually gets to the wheels is only 8 MJ/L, which is less than four >>>>>>>>>>>>> times what the EV can deliver ... and shrinking, since EV batteries >>>>>>>>>>>>> are improving rapidly but diesel tanks are diesel tanks are diesel >>>>>>>>>>>>> tanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>> a fat, stationary target. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't count all the inefficiency from converting fossil fuel >>>>>>>>>>>> energy into chemical energy, then into electrical energy, then into >>>>>>>>>>>> mechanical energy. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We were originally discussing only tank-to-wheels efficiency and >>>>>>>>>> ignoring well-to-tank. But, now that the topic has broadened ... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Not to mention electricity transmission losses and the cost (both >>>>>>>>>>> monetary and in energy and resources terms) of providing the charging >>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And meanwhile we're just supposed to completely ignore the cost of >>>>>>>>>> lugging all those fossil fuels *physically* to the individual gas >>>>>>>>>> stations? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> the time to charge the battery >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Almost instant, with new battery and charging technologies that are >>>>>>>>>> coming down the pike. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Utter nonsense, would violate the laws of physics and there are no >>>>>>>>> available materials to let you get even close. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-21/new-technology-could-help-to-charge- >>>>>>>> your-iphone-instantly/10021086 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> An iPhone is not a road vehicle. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you understand the concept of power, i.e. the amount of energy >>>>>>> transferred per unit time? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you understand the relationship of voltage, current, and power? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <snip nonsense> >>>>>>> >>>>>> yep >>>>> >>>>> Then you understand charge time is limited by current density. >>>>> >>>> what are you getting at >>> >>> That you and your fellow eco warriors do not understand high school level >>> physics. >>> >>> >> who are my eco workers i came into this post on my own i don't know >> anyone here i just know about the topic at the top > > The word was "warriors", not "workers". > > You appear to have the comprehension of a six year old and the composition > skills to match. > > For most of us that description usually uses the term leftist "journalist".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-22 00:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g0lgdqFcbaaU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #206807 |
On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 18:47:23 +0000, jimp wrote: > In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 2018-09-21 11:03 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 2018-09-20 10:08 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 2018-09-20 5:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, >>>>>>>> snowflakes, melt! On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 22:48:58 +0000, chimp >>>>>>>> chittered: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, >>>>>>>>>> snowflakes, melt! On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:44:32 +0100, Sn!pe >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [some fake pundit scribbled] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Your diesel tank meanwhile has an energy density of 32 MJ/L >>>>>>>>>>>>> but the tank to wheels efficiency is a quarter of the EV's, >>>>>>>>>>>>> so what actually gets to the wheels is only 8 MJ/L, which is >>>>>>>>>>>>> less than four times what the EV can deliver ... and >>>>>>>>>>>>> shrinking, since EV batteries are improving rapidly but >>>>>>>>>>>>> diesel tanks are diesel tanks are diesel tanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>> a fat, stationary target. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't count all the inefficiency from converting >>>>>>>>>>>> fossil fuel energy into chemical energy, then into electrical >>>>>>>>>>>> energy, then into mechanical energy. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We were originally discussing only tank-to-wheels efficiency >>>>>>>>>> and ignoring well-to-tank. But, now that the topic has >>>>>>>>>> broadened ... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Not to mention electricity transmission losses and the cost >>>>>>>>>>> (both monetary and in energy and resources terms) of providing >>>>>>>>>>> the charging infrastructure. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And meanwhile we're just supposed to completely ignore the cost >>>>>>>>>> of lugging all those fossil fuels *physically* to the >>>>>>>>>> individual gas stations? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> the time to charge the battery >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Almost instant, with new battery and charging technologies that >>>>>>>>>> are coming down the pike. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Utter nonsense, would violate the laws of physics and there are >>>>>>>>> no available materials to let you get even close. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-21/new-technology-could-help- to-charge- >>>>>>>> your-iphone-instantly/10021086 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> An iPhone is not a road vehicle. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you understand the concept of power, i.e. the amount of energy >>>>>>> transferred per unit time? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you understand the relationship of voltage, current, and power? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <snip nonsense> >>>>>>> >>>>>> yep >>>>> >>>>> Then you understand charge time is limited by current density. >>>>> >>>> what are you getting at >>> >>> That you and your fellow eco warriors do not understand high school >>> level physics. >>> >>> >> who are my eco workers i came into this post on my own i don't know >> anyone here i just know about the topic at the top > > The word was "warriors", not "workers". > > You appear to have the comprehension of a six year old and the > compostition skills to match. And are you lauded for your compostitions? (You're using a Unix. FFS, install aspell.) -- -v
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-22 01:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <iqhg7f-66m.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #206983 |
In sci.physics vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: > On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 18:47:23 +0000, jimp wrote: > >> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 2018-09-21 11:03 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 2018-09-20 10:08 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2018-09-20 5:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, >>>>>>>>> snowflakes, melt! On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 22:48:58 +0000, chimp >>>>>>>>> chittered: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, >>>>>>>>>>> snowflakes, melt! On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:44:32 +0100, Sn!pe >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [some fake pundit scribbled] >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your diesel tank meanwhile has an energy density of 32 MJ/L >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but the tank to wheels efficiency is a quarter of the EV's, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> so what actually gets to the wheels is only 8 MJ/L, which is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> less than four times what the EV can deliver ... and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> shrinking, since EV batteries are improving rapidly but >>>>>>>>>>>>>> diesel tanks are diesel tanks are diesel tanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a fat, stationary target. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't count all the inefficiency from converting >>>>>>>>>>>>> fossil fuel energy into chemical energy, then into electrical >>>>>>>>>>>>> energy, then into mechanical energy. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We were originally discussing only tank-to-wheels efficiency >>>>>>>>>>> and ignoring well-to-tank. But, now that the topic has >>>>>>>>>>> broadened ... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Not to mention electricity transmission losses and the cost >>>>>>>>>>>> (both monetary and in energy and resources terms) of providing >>>>>>>>>>>> the charging infrastructure. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And meanwhile we're just supposed to completely ignore the cost >>>>>>>>>>> of lugging all those fossil fuels *physically* to the >>>>>>>>>>> individual gas stations? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> the time to charge the battery >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Almost instant, with new battery and charging technologies that >>>>>>>>>>> are coming down the pike. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Utter nonsense, would violate the laws of physics and there are >>>>>>>>>> no available materials to let you get even close. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-21/new-technology-could-help- > to-charge- >>>>>>>>> your-iphone-instantly/10021086 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> An iPhone is not a road vehicle. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you understand the concept of power, i.e. the amount of energy >>>>>>>> transferred per unit time? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you understand the relationship of voltage, current, and power? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <snip nonsense> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> yep >>>>>> >>>>>> Then you understand charge time is limited by current density. >>>>>> >>>>> what are you getting at >>>> >>>> That you and your fellow eco warriors do not understand high school >>>> level physics. >>>> >>>> >>> who are my eco workers i came into this post on my own i don't know >>> anyone here i just know about the topic at the top >> >> The word was "warriors", not "workers". >> >> You appear to have the comprehension of a six year old and the >> compostition skills to match. > > And are you lauded for your compostitions? I was at one time but I don't write for others anymore. > (You're using a Unix. FFS, install aspell.) Just replying to most of these posts is a large enough waste of time without adding spell checking or proof reading. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-22 02:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <po480j$d3v$11@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #207007 |
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 01:17:38 +0000, chimp wrote: > In sci.physics vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: >> On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 18:47:23 +0000, jimp wrote: >> >>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 2018-09-21 11:03 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 2018-09-20 10:08 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2018-09-20 5:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, >>>>>>>>>> snowflakes, melt! On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 22:48:58 +0000, chimp >>>>>>>>>> chittered: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, >>>>>>>>>>>> snowflakes, melt! On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:44:32 +0100, Sn!pe >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [some fake pundit scribbled] >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your diesel tank meanwhile has an energy density of 32 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MJ/L but the tank to wheels efficiency is a quarter of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EV's, so what actually gets to the wheels is only 8 MJ/L, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is less than four times what the EV can deliver ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and shrinking, since EV batteries are improving rapidly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but diesel tanks are diesel tanks are diesel tanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a fat, stationary target. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't count all the inefficiency from converting >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fossil fuel energy into chemical energy, then into >>>>>>>>>>>>>> electrical energy, then into mechanical energy. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We were originally discussing only tank-to-wheels efficiency >>>>>>>>>>>> and ignoring well-to-tank. But, now that the topic has >>>>>>>>>>>> broadened ... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Not to mention electricity transmission losses and the cost >>>>>>>>>>>>> (both monetary and in energy and resources terms) of >>>>>>>>>>>>> providing the charging infrastructure. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And meanwhile we're just supposed to completely ignore the >>>>>>>>>>>> cost of lugging all those fossil fuels *physically* to the >>>>>>>>>>>> individual gas stations? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the time to charge the battery >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Almost instant, with new battery and charging technologies >>>>>>>>>>>> that are coming down the pike. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Utter nonsense, would violate the laws of physics and there >>>>>>>>>>> are no available materials to let you get even close. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-21/new-technology-could-help- >> to-charge- >>>>>>>>>> your-iphone-instantly/10021086 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> An iPhone is not a road vehicle. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you understand the concept of power, i.e. the amount of >>>>>>>>> energy transferred per unit time? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you understand the relationship of voltage, current, and >>>>>>>>> power? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <snip nonsense> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> yep >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then you understand charge time is limited by current density. >>>>>>> >>>>>> what are you getting at >>>>> >>>>> That you and your fellow eco warriors do not understand high school >>>>> level physics. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> who are my eco workers i came into this post on my own i don't know >>>> anyone here i just know about the topic at the top >>> >>> The word was "warriors", not "workers". >>> >>> You appear to have the comprehension of a six year old and the >>> compostition skills to match. >> >> And are you lauded for your compostitions? > > I was at one time but I don't write for others anymore. > >> (You're using a Unix. FFS, install aspell.) > > Just replying to most of these posts is a large enough waste of time > without adding spell checking or proof reading. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. -- FNVWe Nadegda "By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-22 02:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <iomg7f-bkm.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #207035 |
In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: > Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! > On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 01:17:38 +0000, chimp wrote: > >> In sci.physics vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: >>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 18:47:23 +0000, jimp wrote: >>> >>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 2018-09-21 11:03 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2018-09-20 10:08 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2018-09-20 5:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, >>>>>>>>>>> snowflakes, melt! On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 22:48:58 +0000, chimp >>>>>>>>>>> chittered: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, >>>>>>>>>>>>> snowflakes, melt! On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:44:32 +0100, Sn!pe >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [some fake pundit scribbled] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your diesel tank meanwhile has an energy density of 32 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MJ/L but the tank to wheels efficiency is a quarter of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EV's, so what actually gets to the wheels is only 8 MJ/L, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is less than four times what the EV can deliver ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and shrinking, since EV batteries are improving rapidly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but diesel tanks are diesel tanks are diesel tanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a fat, stationary target. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't count all the inefficiency from converting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fossil fuel energy into chemical energy, then into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electrical energy, then into mechanical energy. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We were originally discussing only tank-to-wheels efficiency >>>>>>>>>>>>> and ignoring well-to-tank. But, now that the topic has >>>>>>>>>>>>> broadened ... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not to mention electricity transmission losses and the cost >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (both monetary and in energy and resources terms) of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> providing the charging infrastructure. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And meanwhile we're just supposed to completely ignore the >>>>>>>>>>>>> cost of lugging all those fossil fuels *physically* to the >>>>>>>>>>>>> individual gas stations? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the time to charge the battery >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost instant, with new battery and charging technologies >>>>>>>>>>>>> that are coming down the pike. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Utter nonsense, would violate the laws of physics and there >>>>>>>>>>>> are no available materials to let you get even close. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-21/new-technology-could-help- >>> to-charge- >>>>>>>>>>> your-iphone-instantly/10021086 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> An iPhone is not a road vehicle. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Do you understand the concept of power, i.e. the amount of >>>>>>>>>> energy transferred per unit time? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Do you understand the relationship of voltage, current, and >>>>>>>>>> power? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <snip nonsense> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> yep >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then you understand charge time is limited by current density. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> what are you getting at >>>>>> >>>>>> That you and your fellow eco warriors do not understand high school >>>>>> level physics. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> who are my eco workers i came into this post on my own i don't know >>>>> anyone here i just know about the topic at the top >>>> >>>> The word was "warriors", not "workers". >>>> >>>> You appear to have the comprehension of a six year old and the >>>> compostition skills to match. >>> >>> And are you lauded for your compostitions? >> >> I was at one time but I don't write for others anymore. >> >>> (You're using a Unix. FFS, install aspell.) >> >> Just replying to most of these posts is a large enough waste of time >> without adding spell checking or proof reading. > > Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. How blazingly clever of you... It has been a while since I wasted much of any time on the gibbering idiots that infest sci.physics. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-22 03:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <po4da0$bcv$1@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #207049 |
On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 02:41:54 +0000, jimp wrote: > In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >> melt! >> On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 01:17:38 +0000, chimp wrote: >> >>> In sci.physics vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: >>>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 18:47:23 +0000, jimp wrote: >>>> >>>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 2018-09-21 11:03 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2018-09-20 10:08 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2018-09-20 5:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, >>>>>>>>>>>> snowflakes, melt! On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 22:48:58 +0000, chimp >>>>>>>>>>>> chittered: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> snowflakes, melt! On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:44:32 +0100, Sn!pe >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [some fake pundit scribbled] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your diesel tank meanwhile has an energy density of 32 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MJ/L but the tank to wheels efficiency is a quarter of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the EV's, so what actually gets to the wheels is only 8 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MJ/L, which is less than four times what the EV can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deliver ... and shrinking, since EV batteries are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improving rapidly but diesel tanks are diesel tanks are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diesel tanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a fat, stationary target. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't count all the inefficiency from converting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fossil fuel energy into chemical energy, then into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electrical energy, then into mechanical energy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We were originally discussing only tank-to-wheels >>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficiency and ignoring well-to-tank. But, now that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic has broadened ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not to mention electricity transmission losses and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost (both monetary and in energy and resources terms) of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> providing the charging infrastructure. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And meanwhile we're just supposed to completely ignore the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost of lugging all those fossil fuels *physically* to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual gas stations? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the time to charge the battery >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost instant, with new battery and charging technologies >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are coming down the pike. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Utter nonsense, would violate the laws of physics and there >>>>>>>>>>>>> are no available materials to let you get even close. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-21/new-technology-could- help- >>>> to-charge- >>>>>>>>>>>> your-iphone-instantly/10021086 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> An iPhone is not a road vehicle. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand the concept of power, i.e. the amount of >>>>>>>>>>> energy transferred per unit time? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand the relationship of voltage, current, and >>>>>>>>>>> power? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <snip nonsense> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> yep >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then you understand charge time is limited by current density. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> what are you getting at >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That you and your fellow eco warriors do not understand high >>>>>>> school level physics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> who are my eco workers i came into this post on my own i don't know >>>>>> anyone here i just know about the topic at the top >>>>> >>>>> The word was "warriors", not "workers". >>>>> >>>>> You appear to have the comprehension of a six year old and the >>>>> compostition skills to match. >>>> >>>> And are you lauded for your compostitions? >>> >>> I was at one time but I don't write for others anymore. >>> >>>> (You're using a Unix. FFS, install aspell.) >>> >>> Just replying to most of these posts is a large enough waste of time >>> without adding spell checking or proof reading. >> >> Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. > > How blazingly clever of you... > > It has been a while since I wasted much of any time on the gibbering > idiots that infest sci.physics. Would that include the one you see in the mirror, sonny? -- Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-22 16:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <po6aul$10ve$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #207050 |
On 9/21/2018 10:35 PM, Libtard wrote: > On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 02:41:54 +0000, jimp wrote: > >> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>> melt! >>> On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 01:17:38 +0000, chimp wrote: >>> >>>> In sci.physics vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 18:47:23 +0000, jimp wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2018-09-21 11:03 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2018-09-20 10:08 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2018-09-20 5:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, >>>>>>>>>>>>> snowflakes, melt! On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 22:48:58 +0000, chimp >>>>>>>>>>>>> chittered: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> snowflakes, melt! On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:44:32 +0100, Sn!pe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [some fake pundit scribbled] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your diesel tank meanwhile has an energy density of 32 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MJ/L but the tank to wheels efficiency is a quarter of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the EV's, so what actually gets to the wheels is only 8 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MJ/L, which is less than four times what the EV can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deliver ... and shrinking, since EV batteries are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improving rapidly but diesel tanks are diesel tanks are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diesel tanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a fat, stationary target. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't count all the inefficiency from converting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fossil fuel energy into chemical energy, then into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electrical energy, then into mechanical energy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We were originally discussing only tank-to-wheels >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficiency and ignoring well-to-tank. But, now that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic has broadened ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not to mention electricity transmission losses and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost (both monetary and in energy and resources terms) of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> providing the charging infrastructure. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And meanwhile we're just supposed to completely ignore the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost of lugging all those fossil fuels *physically* to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual gas stations? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the time to charge the battery >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost instant, with new battery and charging technologies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are coming down the pike. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Utter nonsense, would violate the laws of physics and there >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are no available materials to let you get even close. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-21/new-technology-could- > help- >>>>> to-charge- >>>>>>>>>>>>> your-iphone-instantly/10021086 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> An iPhone is not a road vehicle. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand the concept of power, i.e. the amount of >>>>>>>>>>>> energy transferred per unit time? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand the relationship of voltage, current, and >>>>>>>>>>>> power? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <snip nonsense> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> yep >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Then you understand charge time is limited by current density. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> what are you getting at >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That you and your fellow eco warriors do not understand high >>>>>>>> school level physics. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> who are my eco workers i came into this post on my own i don't know >>>>>>> anyone here i just know about the topic at the top >>>>>> >>>>>> The word was "warriors", not "workers". >>>>>> >>>>>> You appear to have the comprehension of a six year old and the >>>>>> compostition skills to match. >>>>> >>>>> And are you lauded for your compostitions? >>>> >>>> I was at one time but I don't write for others anymore. >>>> >>>>> (You're using a Unix. FFS, install aspell.) >>>> >>>> Just replying to most of these posts is a large enough waste of time >>>> without adding spell checking or proof reading. >>> >>> Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. >> >> How blazingly clever of you... >> >> It has been a while since I wasted much of any time on the gibbering >> idiots that infest sci.physics. > > Would that include the one you see in the mirror, sonny? > LIBTURD !!! I MISS YOU !! Where did you go ? are you really 4th in line ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 11:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.360edec2fb6ed641994b23@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #206778 |
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by Checkmate! In article <0cof7f-vvi.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com says... > > In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 2018-09-20 10:08 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On 2018-09-20 5:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: > >>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! > >>>>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 22:48:58 +0000, chimp chittered: > >>>>> > >>>>>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: > >>>>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, > >>>>>>> melt! On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:44:32 +0100, Sn!pe wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> [some fake pundit scribbled] > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Your diesel tank meanwhile has an energy density of 32 MJ/L but the > >>>>>>>>>> tank to wheels efficiency is a quarter of the EV's, so what > >>>>>>>>>> actually gets to the wheels is only 8 MJ/L, which is less than four > >>>>>>>>>> times what the EV can deliver ... and shrinking, since EV batteries > >>>>>>>>>> are improving rapidly but diesel tanks are diesel tanks are diesel > >>>>>>>>>> tanks, > >>>>>>>>>> a fat, stationary target. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> If you don't count all the inefficiency from converting fossil fuel > >>>>>>>>> energy into chemical energy, then into electrical energy, then into > >>>>>>>>> mechanical energy. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> We were originally discussing only tank-to-wheels efficiency and > >>>>>>> ignoring well-to-tank. But, now that the topic has broadened ... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Not to mention electricity transmission losses and the cost (both > >>>>>>>> monetary and in energy and resources terms) of providing the charging > >>>>>>>> infrastructure. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> And meanwhile we're just supposed to completely ignore the cost of > >>>>>>> lugging all those fossil fuels *physically* to the individual gas > >>>>>>> stations? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> the time to charge the battery > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Almost instant, with new battery and charging technologies that are > >>>>>>> coming down the pike. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Utter nonsense, would violate the laws of physics and there are no > >>>>>> available materials to let you get even close. > >>>>> > >>>>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-21/new-technology-could-help-to-charge- > >>>>> your-iphone-instantly/10021086 > >>>> > >>>> An iPhone is not a road vehicle. > >>>> > >>>> Do you understand the concept of power, i.e. the amount of energy > >>>> transferred per unit time? > >>>> > >>>> Do you understand the relationship of voltage, current, and power? > >>>> > >>>> <snip nonsense> > >>>> > >>> yep > >> > >> Then you understand charge time is limited by current density. > >> > > what are you getting at > > That you and your fellow eco warriors do not understand high school level > physics. LOL -- Checkmate ® Author, Humorist, Cynic Philosopher, Humanitarian Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars Usenet Shot-Caller Copyright © 2018 all rights reserved In loving memory of The Battle Kitten May 2010-February 12, 2017 "There are many here among us, who feel that life is but a joke." "I am the author of nearly as much kook butthurt as kensi." -Nadegda Message-ID: <pbg8ne$p9k$21@dont-email.me>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-20 22:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <po1k7d$1g42$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #206545 |
On 9/20/2018 8:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! >> On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 22:48:58 +0000, chimp chittered: >> >>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>> melt! On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:44:32 +0100, Sn!pe wrote: >>>> >>>>> Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> [some fake pundit scribbled] >>>>> >>>>>>> Your diesel tank meanwhile has an energy density of 32 MJ/L but the >>>>>>> tank to wheels efficiency is a quarter of the EV's, so what >>>>>>> actually gets to the wheels is only 8 MJ/L, which is less than four >>>>>>> times what the EV can deliver ... and shrinking, since EV batteries >>>>>>> are improving rapidly but diesel tanks are diesel tanks are diesel >>>>>>> tanks, >>>>>>> a fat, stationary target. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> If you don't count all the inefficiency from converting fossil fuel >>>>>> energy into chemical energy, then into electrical energy, then into >>>>>> mechanical energy. >>>> >>>> We were originally discussing only tank-to-wheels efficiency and >>>> ignoring well-to-tank. But, now that the topic has broadened ... >>>> >>>>> Not to mention electricity transmission losses and the cost (both >>>>> monetary and in energy and resources terms) of providing the charging >>>>> infrastructure. >>>> >>>> And meanwhile we're just supposed to completely ignore the cost of >>>> lugging all those fossil fuels *physically* to the individual gas >>>> stations? >>>> >>>>> the time to charge the battery >>>> >>>> Almost instant, with new battery and charging technologies that are >>>> coming down the pike. >>> >>> Utter nonsense, would violate the laws of physics and there are no >>> available materials to let you get even close. >> >> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-21/new-technology-could-help-to-charge- >> your-iphone-instantly/10021086 > > An iPhone is not a road vehicle. > > Do you understand the concept of power, i.e. the amount of energy > transferred per unit time? > > Do you understand the relationship of voltage, current, and power? > > <snip nonsense> > by now it should be obvious that Nads (a supposed programmer) and "kensi" a supposed Ph.D. only know journalist pseudoscience and their education has not progressed beyond "women's studies". Voltage, current and power (and I won't even mention battery chemistry) are clearly well beyond their abilities. Lefty libs (as I have pointed out many times, and is proved here) do not do quantity. To them a couple of amps to charge a cellphone is the same as the massive current needed to recharge your Tesla. But they are so mentally ill they can't even imagine that their fantasies are utter nonsense even when their noses are rubbed in the stink.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 08:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <po2pej$1at4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #206591 |
On 9/20/2018 10:15 PM, benj wrote: > by now it should be obvious that Nads (a supposed programmer) and > "kensi" a supposed Ph.D. only know journalist pseudoscience and their > education has not progressed beyond "women's studies". Voltage, current > and power (and I won't even mention battery chemistry) are clearly well > beyond their abilities. Lefty libs (as I have pointed out many times, > and is proved here) do not do quantity. To them a couple of amps to > charge a cellphone is the same as the massive current needed to recharge > your Tesla. But they are so mentally ill they can't even imagine that > their fantasies are utter nonsense even when their noses are rubbed in > the stink. Did *any* of you k0oks read Nadegda's second link? https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2017/Q2/instantly-rechargeable-battery-could-change-the-future-of-electric-and-hybrid-automobiles.html Or were you paid by the fossil fuel industry not to? -- "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks "I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade in here." ~Checkmate
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 07:12 -0700 |
| Subject | Fairies, dancing on the head of a pin. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Sep.21--7.12am.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #206662 |
"kensi" [sic] wrote: > instantly-rechargeable-battery-could-change- > the-future-of-electric-and-hybrid-automobiles.html Fairies, dancing on the head of a pin, can do the same thing, I'm told.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.checkmate
csiph-web