Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #702932 > 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 261 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
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 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 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 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 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 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 "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-25 11:50 -0400
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 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 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 "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 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 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: 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 invalid@invalid.invalid (Ï) - 2018-09-22 18:15 +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 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 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 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
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 "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: 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 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 7 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 14 Next page →
| From | Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 11:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.360edd4dc1def9f2994b22@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #703862 |
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate! In article <bk02ft.nbj.19.2@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com
says...
>
> 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
So you're not an eco warrior, but you still don't understand high school
physics, or math (which you proved a couple days ago), or grammar,
punctuation or spelling ("potatoe" "intelligents" etc.).
--
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$21@dont-email.me>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 14:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <po3eq3$k7m$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #703867 |
On 9/21/2018 2:50 PM, Checkmate wrote:
> So you're not an eco warrior, but you still don't understand high school
> physics, or math (which you proved a couple days ago), or grammar,
> punctuation or spelling ("potatoe" "intelligents" etc.).
"Intelligent's"
Please check you're spelling before you hit send.
--
Grizzly H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 12:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.360ee858913cb6a2994b30@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #703868 |
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate! In article <po3eq3$k7m$2@gioia.aioe.org>,
melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie says...
>
> On 9/21/2018 2:50 PM, Checkmate wrote:
> > So you're not an eco warrior, but you still don't understand high school
> > physics, or math (which you proved a couple days ago), or grammar,
> > punctuation or spelling ("potatoe" "intelligents" etc.).
>
> "Intelligent's"
>
> Please check you're spelling before you hit send.
Please no you're roll.
--
Checkmate ®
Author, Humorist, Cynic
Philosopher, Humanitarian
Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars
Usenet Shot-Caller
Copyright © 2018
all rights reserved
In loving memory of The Battle Kitten
May 2010-February 12, 2017
"There are many here among us,
who feel that life is but a joke."
"I am the author of nearly as much kook butthurt as
kensi." -Nadegda
Message-ID: <pbg8ne$p9k$21@dont-email.me>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 18:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ruqf7f-kdj.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #703862 |
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. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 12:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bk04s8.l9p.17.5@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #703871 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 12:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.360ee9bd41bb7170994b33@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #703875 |
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by Checkmate! In article <bk04s8.l9p.17.5@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... > > 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 That topic's already been covered in AC. -- 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 16:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mcjaqdpjm0uuuv1hf77dbb9i4pvghlnbg4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #703889 |
On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 12:43:32 -0700, Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote: > In article <bk04s8.l9p.17.5@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >> 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 > >That topic's already been covered in AC. Yes, assholes are discussed regularly. -- Yours Truly, Gregory Hall If a woman is offered a fact which goes against 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 is offered something that affords a reason for acting in accordance with her feelings, she will accept it even on the flimsiest of evidence. The origin of PMS is explained in this way." -- Capt. Neal ®
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 13:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bk08s7.dkh.17.3@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #703896 |
On 2018-09-21 1:00 PM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: > On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 12:43:32 -0700, Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote: >> In article <bk04s8.l9p.17.5@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... >>> 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 >> >> That topic's already been covered in AC. > > Yes, assholes are discussed regularly. > LOL
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 14:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.360efbf8c13d9662994b42@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #703901 |
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by Checkmate! In article <bk08s7.dkh.17.3@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... > > On 2018-09-21 1:00 PM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 12:43:32 -0700, Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> In article <bk04s8.l9p.17.5@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... > >>> 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 > >> > >> That topic's already been covered in AC. > > > > Yes, assholes are discussed regularly. > > > LOL Speaking of assholes, one just LOLed and it made farty sounds. -- 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 | 2018-09-21 19:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5otf7f-noj.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #703875 |
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 | #703890 |
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 | #703893 |
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 | #703902 |
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 | #703904 |
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 | #703893 |
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 | #703906 |
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 | #703908 |
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 | #703871 |
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 | #703871 |
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 | #703871 |
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]
Page 7 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web