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 6 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 16 Next page →
| From | Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-20 16:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.360dcd9db39b0707994ae6@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #206508 |
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by Checkmate! In article <nh88qdlru1ebfceh0uk2688eukiqcah62i@4ax.com>, greghall@yacht_maester.fake says... > > On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 22:12:06 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: > > <trim extraneous> > > >Millions of Tesla customers disagree with you, kooky. > > > What can you tell me about the Tesla PowerWall? > I don't hear much about it and it seemed like such > a good idea. What say you? > > <trim to end> Musk is under investigation now for making untruthful statements regarding his former plans to take Tesla private. That comment made Tesla stock go up $11. Now he admits he never had any such funding lined up. The SEC is not pleased. -- Checkmate ® Author, Humorist, Cynic Philosopher, Humanitarian Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars Usenet Shot-Caller Copyright © 2018 all rights reserved In loving memory of The Battle Kitten May 2010-February 12, 2017 "There are many here among us, who feel that life is but a joke." "I am the author of nearly as much kook butthurt as kensi." -Nadegda Message-ID: <pbg8ne$p9k$21@dont-email.me>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-20 22:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <qnkd7f-ava.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #206483 |
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. >> If it was a viable option I'd switch to an electric car, but it just >> ain't ready for prime-time > > Millions of Tesla customers disagree with you, kooky. Actually, all of slightly over 200,000 total so far versus over 1 billion conventional vehicles. <snip remaining> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-20 19:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <po19bi$12sj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #206517 |
On 9/20/2018 6:48 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 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. What difference does that make? IF Greens can IMAGINE some new material then that is good enough. It will soon be reality! >>> If it was a viable option I'd switch to an electric car, but it just >>> ain't ready for prime-time >> >> Millions of Tesla customers disagree with you, kooky. > > Actually, all of slightly over 200,000 total so far versus over 1 billion > conventional vehicles. Just wait until those 200,000 battery packs need replacement. A new laptop battery for $50 or $75 is one thing, but the cost of a Tesla battery pack will send a squawk to the moon. But I guess it's worth it to have a car the runs on coal. > <snip remaining> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 00:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <po29tp$b89$16@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #206518 |
"benj" <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote in message news:po19bi$12sj$1@gioia.aioe.org... > On 9/20/2018 6:48 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 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. > > What difference does that make? IF Greens can IMAGINE some new material > then that is good enough. It will soon be reality! > >>>> If it was a viable option I'd switch to an electric car, but it just >>>> ain't ready for prime-time >>> >>> Millions of Tesla customers disagree with you, kooky. >> >> Actually, all of slightly over 200,000 total so far versus over 1 billion >> conventional vehicles. > > Just wait until those 200,000 battery packs need replacement. A new laptop > battery for $50 or $75 is one thing, but the cost of a Tesla battery pack > will send a squawk to the moon. But I guess it's worth it to have a car > the runs on coal. Current cost for a 55kW tesla pack is just under $7,000 I can buy a LOT of fuel for $7,000 and not have to waste hours waiting around for a recharge. Which also means, that when the battery packs are close to failing the car's value is going to sink like a rock. After all, who wants to immediately shell out $7,000 on a used car just to allow it to run? Further, I bet EVs aren't popular in the rural areas of the Northern US where getting stranded in a snow store and depending on your car being able to keep you warm means survival. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 09:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <po2qrn$1ead$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #206638 |
On 9/21/2018 12:17 AM, Scout wrote: > > Further, I bet EVs aren't popular in the rural areas of the Northern US > where getting stranded in a snow store and depending on your car being > able to keep you warm means survival. Rural roads are cleared before urban roads. People in rural areas have winter tires and buy cars that are "good in snow". Most rural people carry a snow shovel, a bucket of sand, a blanket or two, snow boots, warm gloves and snow clothes. If the weather is going to be really crappy, people with a long commute stay home. Companies build that into the plan because wrecked employees are useless and have to be replaced which is expensive and very inconvenient. -- Grizzly H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 23:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <po4l7b$79j$11@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #206671 |
"mixed nuts" <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> wrote in message news:po2qrn$1ead$1@gioia.aioe.org... > On 9/21/2018 12:17 AM, Scout wrote: >> >> Further, I bet EVs aren't popular in the rural areas of the Northern US >> where getting stranded in a snow store and depending on your car being >> able to keep you warm means survival. > > Rural roads are cleared before urban roads. No, actually the order is Interstates, Primary roads, secondary roads, and then everything else based on population density. That makes the rural roads of the north among the LAST places to get plowed. > > People in rural areas have winter tires and buy cars that are "good in > snow". Which would leave out an EV which can easily leave you stranded since driving in snow takes a lot more power than normal and thus your range would drop drastically. Then let's not forget the electric heater that's keeping the windshield from icing up also is pulled from the same source. > > Most rural people carry a snow shovel, a bucket of sand, a blanket or two, > snow boots, warm gloves and snow clothes. Which is still worse than having a car that will actually get you where you're going without running out of power, and which can continue to provide far more heat even if stuck than an EV could provide. > > If the weather is going to be really crappy, people with a long commute > stay home. Right, let's shut down the hospitals, power plants, emergency services and all the rest because the workers can't rely on the EV cars to get them through the storm. >Companies build that into the plan because wrecked employees are useless >and have to be replaced which is expensive and very inconvenient. Actually, companies often don't really give a shit, unless you're on company business, and even then their liability is covered by a very minimal $50K insurance policy and a card to the family. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-22 07:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <po58tb$18e7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #207080 |
On 9/21/2018 11:38 PM, Scout wrote: > Which would leave out an EV which can easily leave you stranded since > driving in snow takes a lot more power than normal and thus your range > would drop drastically. That only applies if driving in actual inches-high snow, i.e. on unplowed roads or off-road. > Then let's not forget the electric heater that's keeping the windshield > from icing up also is pulled from the same source. And where does the heat in a fossil fuel vehicle come from, fairy dust? Do you expect that to keep working if you run out of gas? If so, that's hilarious. :) -- "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 | Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-22 09:13 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.361009fe9883e4c0989a2a@reader.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #207150 |
In article <po58tb$18e7$1@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01 @gmail.nospam.invalid says... > And where does the heat in a fossil fuel vehicle come from, fairy dust? > Do you expect that to keep working if you run out of gas? If so, that's > hilarious. :) > Go to a gas station?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-25 23:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pof4ig$mn1$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #207150 |
"kensi" <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:po58tb$18e7$1@gioia.aioe.org... > On 9/21/2018 11:38 PM, Scout wrote: > >> Which would leave out an EV which can easily leave you stranded since >> driving in snow takes a lot more power than normal and thus your range >> would drop drastically. > > That only applies if driving in actual inches-high snow, i.e. on unplowed > roads or off-road. > >> Then let's not forget the electric heater that's keeping the windshield >> from icing up also is pulled from the same source. > > And where does the heat in a fossil fuel vehicle come from, fairy dust? NO EXTRA FUEL TO HAVE, unlike an EV vehicle where you kick on an electric heater which pulls yet more electricity from the battery thus shortening how long you can drive. > Do you expect that to keep working if you run out of gas? If so, that's > hilarious. :) No, but I expect the gas will last a WHOLE lot longer given that it has a far higher energy quantity than is in your EV battery. Oh, but you wouldn't know about things like that. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 17:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <35of7f-vvi.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #206638 |
In sci.physics Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: > > > "benj" <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:po19bi$12sj$1@gioia.aioe.org... >> On 9/20/2018 6:48 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 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. >> >> What difference does that make? IF Greens can IMAGINE some new material >> then that is good enough. It will soon be reality! >> >>>>> If it was a viable option I'd switch to an electric car, but it just >>>>> ain't ready for prime-time >>>> >>>> Millions of Tesla customers disagree with you, kooky. >>> >>> Actually, all of slightly over 200,000 total so far versus over 1 billion >>> conventional vehicles. >> >> Just wait until those 200,000 battery packs need replacement. A new laptop >> battery for $50 or $75 is one thing, but the cost of a Tesla battery pack >> will send a squawk to the moon. But I guess it's worth it to have a car >> the runs on coal. > > Current cost for a 55kW tesla pack is just under $7,000 Does that include labor? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 23:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <po4l7c$79j$12@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #206775 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:35of7f-vvi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> > wrote: >> >> >> "benj" <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:po19bi$12sj$1@gioia.aioe.org... >>> On 9/20/2018 6:48 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 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. >>> >>> What difference does that make? IF Greens can IMAGINE some new material >>> then that is good enough. It will soon be reality! >>> >>>>>> If it was a viable option I'd switch to an electric car, but it just >>>>>> ain't ready for prime-time >>>>> >>>>> Millions of Tesla customers disagree with you, kooky. >>>> >>>> Actually, all of slightly over 200,000 total so far versus over 1 >>>> billion >>>> conventional vehicles. >>> >>> Just wait until those 200,000 battery packs need replacement. A new >>> laptop >>> battery for $50 or $75 is one thing, but the cost of a Tesla battery >>> pack >>> will send a squawk to the moon. But I guess it's worth it to have a car >>> the runs on coal. >> >> Current cost for a 55kW tesla pack is just under $7,000 > > Does that include labor? Nope, you could probably add at least several hundred dollars for the labor, and probably another hundred or so in disposal fees. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-20 23:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <po1a5o$e0i$28@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #206517 |
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 https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2017/Q2/instantly-rechargeable- battery-could-change-the-future-of-electric-and-hybrid-automobiles.html SPNAK! -- 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 | 2018-09-21 00:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p0pd7f-meb.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #206522 |
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> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-20 17:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bju32p.hha.17.5@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #206545 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 05:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tuae7f-sfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #206550 |
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. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 01:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.360e455d28d5eeae994b11@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #206612 |
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by Checkmate! In article <tuae7f-sfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com says... > > 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. "%" is practically illiterate. He wouldn't have a clue. -- 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 | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 08:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <po2p7v$17uv$10@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #206624 |
On 9/21/2018 4:02 AM, Checkmate wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com says... >> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 2018-09-20 5:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> Do you understand the relationship of voltage, current, and power? >>>> >>>> <snip nonsense> >>>> >>> yep >> >> Then you understand charge time is limited by current density. > > "%" is practically illiterate. He wouldn't have a clue. So is jimp. Either that or he's a fossil fuel shill. -- "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks "I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade in here." ~Checkmate
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 18:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <i9of7f-vvi.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #206661 |
In sci.physics kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: > On 9/21/2018 4:02 AM, Checkmate wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com says... >>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 2018-09-20 5:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> Do you understand the relationship of voltage, current, and power? >>>>> >>>>> <snip nonsense> >>>>> >>>> yep >>> >>> Then you understand charge time is limited by current density. >> >> "%" is practically illiterate. He wouldn't have a clue. > > So is jimp. > > Either that or he's a fossil fuel shill. A so called physicist that hasn't a clue about current density. This is high school level physics, you mighty eco warriors. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-22 01:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <po46p2$d3v$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #206777 |
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 18:01:54 +0000, chimp wrote: > In sci.physics kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: >> On 9/21/2018 4:02 AM, Checkmate wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com says... >>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 2018-09-20 5:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> Do you understand the relationship of voltage, current, and power? >>>>>> >>>>>> <snip nonsense> >>>>>> >>>>> yep >>>> >>>> Then you understand charge time is limited by current density. >>> >>> "%" is practically illiterate. He wouldn't have a clue. >> >> So is jimp. >> >> Either that or he's a fossil fuel shill. > > A so called physicist that hasn't a clue about current density. Irrelevant to recharging a *flow* battery, you idiot. Or maybe you're just illiterate? That would explain both your inability to understand the article that was linked *and* your evident jealousy of kensi's educational attainment. -- 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 02:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ljlg7f-bkm.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #207022 |
In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: > Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! > On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 18:01:54 +0000, chimp wrote: > >> In sci.physics kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: >>> On 9/21/2018 4:02 AM, Checkmate wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com says... >>>>> In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 2018-09-20 5:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> Do you understand the relationship of voltage, current, and power? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <snip nonsense> >>>>>>> >>>>>> yep >>>>> >>>>> Then you understand charge time is limited by current density. >>>> >>>> "%" is practically illiterate. He wouldn't have a clue. >>> >>> So is jimp. >>> >>> Either that or he's a fossil fuel shill. >> >> A so called physicist that hasn't a clue about current density. > > Irrelevant to recharging a *flow* battery, you idiot. The technique described for the so called, theoretical flow battery would not be called "recharging" by any literate person, you idiot. <snip remaing babble> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.checkmate
csiph-web