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 5 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 14 Next page →
| From | snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-20 20:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1nvg117.1v403l6sewlouN%snipeco.2@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #703665 |
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.
>
Not to mention electricity transmission losses and the cost
(both monetary and in energy and resources terms) of providing
the charging infrastructure. If the US is anything like the UK,
the electricity transmission system is severely below the needed
capacity to make a switch to electric vehicles viable. Then
there's the limitation of range and the time to charge the battery
to be considered. One in the eye for the Pembroke Poseur...
If it was a viable option I'd switch to an electric car, but it
just ain't ready for prime-time and AFAICS it won't be for quite
a long time yet.
OTOH, a Hydrogen fuel cell vehicle might do the trick, but the
storage and management of all those loose protons is just a bit
problematic at the current state of the art.
--
^Ï^ My pet rock Gordon just is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-20 17:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <po14i1$rq0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #703670 |
On 9/20/2018 3:44 PM, 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. > > Not to mention electricity transmission losses and the cost > (both monetary and in energy and resources terms) of providing > the charging infrastructure. If the US is anything like the UK, > the electricity transmission system is severely below the needed > capacity to make a switch to electric vehicles viable. Then > there's the limitation of range and the time to charge the battery > to be considered. One in the eye for the Pembroke Poseur... > > If it was a viable option I'd switch to an electric car, but it > just ain't ready for prime-time and AFAICS it won't be for quite > a long time yet. > > OTOH, a Hydrogen fuel cell vehicle might do the trick, but the > storage and management of all those loose protons is just a bit > problematic at the current state of the art. The power company in my town had the shortcut to the highway blocked off for most of the summer (which annoyed me - it adds 5 minutes to my trip). They put in a new transformer and switch gear at the substation. All the new solar panels that people are putting on their roofs and the utility-scale solar arrays the towns and utilities are putting up have changed the distribution requirements. It used to be that on hot days, big power came into town and they had to reduce voltage to limit the load. Now, on bright sunny days, the town needs less power, the excess gets routed to the big city and they have to let the voltage rise to increase the load. The electric car people get free charging in the parking garages in the big city. Most of the cars commute 20-40 miles so they only need $1-$2 worth of electricity. If they didn't do that, people would take trains or busses and the parking garages would lose money. It's an intelligent marketing strategy and the cars store power that can help balance peak load. -- Grizzly H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 00:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <po29to$b89$14@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #703691 |
"mixed nuts" <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> wrote in message news:po14i1$rq0$1@gioia.aioe.org... > On 9/20/2018 3:44 PM, 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. >> >> Not to mention electricity transmission losses and the cost >> (both monetary and in energy and resources terms) of providing >> the charging infrastructure. If the US is anything like the UK, >> the electricity transmission system is severely below the needed >> capacity to make a switch to electric vehicles viable. Then >> there's the limitation of range and the time to charge the battery >> to be considered. One in the eye for the Pembroke Poseur... >> >> If it was a viable option I'd switch to an electric car, but it >> just ain't ready for prime-time and AFAICS it won't be for quite >> a long time yet. >> >> OTOH, a Hydrogen fuel cell vehicle might do the trick, but the >> storage and management of all those loose protons is just a bit >> problematic at the current state of the art. > > The power company in my town had the shortcut to the highway blocked off > for most of the summer (which annoyed me - it adds 5 minutes to my trip). > They put in a new transformer and switch gear at the substation. All the > new solar panels that people are putting on their roofs and the > utility-scale solar arrays the towns and utilities are putting up have > changed the distribution requirements. It used to be that on hot days, > big power came into town and they had to reduce voltage to limit the load. > Now, on bright sunny days, the town needs less power, the excess gets > routed to the big city and they have to let the voltage rise to increase > the load. > > The electric car people get free charging in the parking garages in the > big city. Most of the cars commute 20-40 miles so they only need $1-$2 > worth of electricity. And yet they cost nearly twice as much as their conventional cousins, and doesn't consider the energy input needed to make the EV car or to recycle it. But even if we look at the direct energy costs, an EV driven 15,000 per year would save you about $860 per year. How much is it going to cost you to get an electrician in to wire up your charger to your home's breaker box? Figure 12-18 months shot out the window for that. Then consider how increasing your home's average usage by nearly 1/3 multiplied by the number of homes in your town is going to impact the need for power and infrastructure to support this increased demand. Electric rates will then climb as it will take decades to adapt to the new higher loads Then consider that unless you can reach your destination, your EV is nearly useless for your road trip, unless you want to spend hours twiddling your thumbs waiting for the recharge. I saw a recent article of a man who was going to test drive a new EV leaving with what should have been more than enough range to reach the destination, do some sightseeing, recharge, eat dinner and arrive back home that night. Instead, there was no sightseeing, they had to spend hours at their destination just trying to get enough charge to reach a charging station, then they spend several more hours there to get enough range to reach a super charger, when they finally got enough charge it was too late so they had to get a motel room for the night and drive back the next day. So HOW much is your time worth? How much did the extra lodging cost? How much did the extra food cost? How much of your day are you willing to waste waiting for a battery to charge? So, unless you never go anywhere, EV's are going to massive increase your time on the road and reduce what you can do and still won't eliminate the need to sit around waiting for a charge while the kids turn into holy terrors because there is nothing to do, see, or keep them engaged sitting around in a waiting room. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-20 22:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <po15vm$e0i$22@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #703670 |
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. > If it was a viable option I'd switch to an electric car, but it just > ain't ready for prime-time Millions of Tesla customers disagree with you, kooky. > OTOH, a Hydrogen fuel cell vehicle might do the trick, but the storage > and management of all those loose protons is just a bit problematic at > the current state of the art. That makes sloshing and bucket-brigading fossil fuels everywhere seem sane by comparison. I've bet tens of K on EVs, rather than either fossil fuels or hydrogen, being the future. And I rarely lose my bets ... -- FNVWe Nadegda "By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-20 18:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nh88qdlru1ebfceh0uk2688eukiqcah62i@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #703694 |
On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 22:12:06 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: <trim extraneous> >Millions of Tesla customers disagree with you, kooky. What can you tell me about the Tesla PowerWall? I don't hear much about it and it seemed like such a good idea. What say you? <trim to end> -- 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 | Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-20 16:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.360dcd9db39b0707994ae6@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #703702 |
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by Checkmate! In article <nh88qdlru1ebfceh0uk2688eukiqcah62i@4ax.com>, greghall@yacht_maester.fake says... > > On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 22:12:06 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: > > <trim extraneous> > > >Millions of Tesla customers disagree with you, kooky. > > > What can you tell me about the Tesla PowerWall? > I don't hear much about it and it seemed like such > a good idea. What say you? > > <trim to end> Musk is under investigation now for making untruthful statements regarding his former plans to take Tesla private. That comment made Tesla stock go up $11. Now he admits he never had any such funding lined up. The SEC is not pleased. -- Checkmate ® Author, Humorist, Cynic Philosopher, Humanitarian Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars Usenet Shot-Caller Copyright © 2018 all rights reserved In loving memory of The Battle Kitten May 2010-February 12, 2017 "There are many here among us, who feel that life is but a joke." "I am the author of nearly as much kook butthurt as kensi." -Nadegda Message-ID: <pbg8ne$p9k$21@dont-email.me>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-20 22:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <qnkd7f-ava.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #703694 |
In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: > Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! > On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:44:32 +0100, Sn!pe wrote: > >> Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> [some fake pundit scribbled] >> >>> > Your diesel tank meanwhile has an energy density of 32 MJ/L but the >>> > tank to wheels efficiency is a quarter of the EV's, so what actually >>> > gets to the wheels is only 8 MJ/L, which is less than four times what >>> > the EV can deliver ... and shrinking, since EV batteries are >>> > improving rapidly but diesel tanks are diesel tanks are diesel tanks, >>> > a fat, stationary target. >>> > >>> > >>> If you don't count all the inefficiency from converting fossil fuel >>> energy into chemical energy, then into electrical energy, then into >>> mechanical energy. > > We were originally discussing only tank-to-wheels efficiency and ignoring > well-to-tank. But, now that the topic has broadened ... > >> Not to mention electricity transmission losses and the cost (both >> monetary and in energy and resources terms) of providing the charging >> infrastructure. > > And meanwhile we're just supposed to completely ignore the cost of lugging > all those fossil fuels *physically* to the individual gas stations? > >> the time to charge the battery > > Almost instant, with new battery and charging technologies that are coming > down the pike. Utter nonsense, would violate the laws of physics and there are no available materials to let you get even close. >> If it was a viable option I'd switch to an electric car, but it just >> ain't ready for prime-time > > Millions of Tesla customers disagree with you, kooky. Actually, all of slightly over 200,000 total so far versus over 1 billion conventional vehicles. <snip remaining> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-20 19:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <po19bi$12sj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #703706 |
On 9/20/2018 6:48 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! >> On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:44:32 +0100, Sn!pe wrote: >> >>> Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> [some fake pundit scribbled] >>> >>>>> Your diesel tank meanwhile has an energy density of 32 MJ/L but the >>>>> tank to wheels efficiency is a quarter of the EV's, so what actually >>>>> gets to the wheels is only 8 MJ/L, which is less than four times what >>>>> the EV can deliver ... and shrinking, since EV batteries are >>>>> improving rapidly but diesel tanks are diesel tanks are diesel tanks, >>>>> a fat, stationary target. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> If you don't count all the inefficiency from converting fossil fuel >>>> energy into chemical energy, then into electrical energy, then into >>>> mechanical energy. >> >> We were originally discussing only tank-to-wheels efficiency and ignoring >> well-to-tank. But, now that the topic has broadened ... >> >>> Not to mention electricity transmission losses and the cost (both >>> monetary and in energy and resources terms) of providing the charging >>> infrastructure. >> >> And meanwhile we're just supposed to completely ignore the cost of lugging >> all those fossil fuels *physically* to the individual gas stations? >> >>> the time to charge the battery >> >> Almost instant, with new battery and charging technologies that are coming >> down the pike. > > Utter nonsense, would violate the laws of physics and there are no available > materials to let you get even close. What difference does that make? IF Greens can IMAGINE some new material then that is good enough. It will soon be reality! >>> If it was a viable option I'd switch to an electric car, but it just >>> ain't ready for prime-time >> >> Millions of Tesla customers disagree with you, kooky. > > Actually, all of slightly over 200,000 total so far versus over 1 billion > conventional vehicles. Just wait until those 200,000 battery packs need replacement. A new laptop battery for $50 or $75 is one thing, but the cost of a Tesla battery pack will send a squawk to the moon. But I guess it's worth it to have a car the runs on coal. > <snip remaining> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 00:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <po29tp$b89$16@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #703707 |
"benj" <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote in message news:po19bi$12sj$1@gioia.aioe.org... > On 9/20/2018 6:48 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! >>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:44:32 +0100, Sn!pe wrote: >>> >>>> Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> [some fake pundit scribbled] >>>> >>>>>> Your diesel tank meanwhile has an energy density of 32 MJ/L but the >>>>>> tank to wheels efficiency is a quarter of the EV's, so what actually >>>>>> gets to the wheels is only 8 MJ/L, which is less than four times what >>>>>> the EV can deliver ... and shrinking, since EV batteries are >>>>>> improving rapidly but diesel tanks are diesel tanks are diesel tanks, >>>>>> a fat, stationary target. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> If you don't count all the inefficiency from converting fossil fuel >>>>> energy into chemical energy, then into electrical energy, then into >>>>> mechanical energy. >>> >>> We were originally discussing only tank-to-wheels efficiency and >>> ignoring >>> well-to-tank. But, now that the topic has broadened ... >>> >>>> Not to mention electricity transmission losses and the cost (both >>>> monetary and in energy and resources terms) of providing the charging >>>> infrastructure. >>> >>> And meanwhile we're just supposed to completely ignore the cost of >>> lugging >>> all those fossil fuels *physically* to the individual gas stations? >>> >>>> the time to charge the battery >>> >>> Almost instant, with new battery and charging technologies that are >>> coming >>> down the pike. >> >> Utter nonsense, would violate the laws of physics and there are no >> available >> materials to let you get even close. > > What difference does that make? IF Greens can IMAGINE some new material > then that is good enough. It will soon be reality! > >>>> If it was a viable option I'd switch to an electric car, but it just >>>> ain't ready for prime-time >>> >>> Millions of Tesla customers disagree with you, kooky. >> >> Actually, all of slightly over 200,000 total so far versus over 1 billion >> conventional vehicles. > > Just wait until those 200,000 battery packs need replacement. A new laptop > battery for $50 or $75 is one thing, but the cost of a Tesla battery pack > will send a squawk to the moon. But I guess it's worth it to have a car > the runs on coal. Current cost for a 55kW tesla pack is just under $7,000 I can buy a LOT of fuel for $7,000 and not have to waste hours waiting around for a recharge. Which also means, that when the battery packs are close to failing the car's value is going to sink like a rock. After all, who wants to immediately shell out $7,000 on a used car just to allow it to run? Further, I bet EVs aren't popular in the rural areas of the Northern US where getting stranded in a snow store and depending on your car being able to keep you warm means survival. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 09:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <po2qrn$1ead$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #703784 |
On 9/21/2018 12:17 AM, Scout wrote: > > Further, I bet EVs aren't popular in the rural areas of the Northern US > where getting stranded in a snow store and depending on your car being > able to keep you warm means survival. Rural roads are cleared before urban roads. People in rural areas have winter tires and buy cars that are "good in snow". Most rural people carry a snow shovel, a bucket of sand, a blanket or two, snow boots, warm gloves and snow clothes. If the weather is going to be really crappy, people with a long commute stay home. Companies build that into the plan because wrecked employees are useless and have to be replaced which is expensive and very inconvenient. -- Grizzly H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 23:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <po4l7b$79j$11@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #703814 |
"mixed nuts" <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> wrote in message news:po2qrn$1ead$1@gioia.aioe.org... > On 9/21/2018 12:17 AM, Scout wrote: >> >> Further, I bet EVs aren't popular in the rural areas of the Northern US >> where getting stranded in a snow store and depending on your car being >> able to keep you warm means survival. > > Rural roads are cleared before urban roads. No, actually the order is Interstates, Primary roads, secondary roads, and then everything else based on population density. That makes the rural roads of the north among the LAST places to get plowed. > > People in rural areas have winter tires and buy cars that are "good in > snow". Which would leave out an EV which can easily leave you stranded since driving in snow takes a lot more power than normal and thus your range would drop drastically. Then let's not forget the electric heater that's keeping the windshield from icing up also is pulled from the same source. > > Most rural people carry a snow shovel, a bucket of sand, a blanket or two, > snow boots, warm gloves and snow clothes. Which is still worse than having a car that will actually get you where you're going without running out of power, and which can continue to provide far more heat even if stuck than an EV could provide. > > If the weather is going to be really crappy, people with a long commute > stay home. Right, let's shut down the hospitals, power plants, emergency services and all the rest because the workers can't rely on the EV cars to get them through the storm. >Companies build that into the plan because wrecked employees are useless >and have to be replaced which is expensive and very inconvenient. Actually, companies often don't really give a shit, unless you're on company business, and even then their liability is covered by a very minimal $50K insurance policy and a card to the family. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-22 07:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <po58tb$18e7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #704039 |
On 9/21/2018 11:38 PM, Scout wrote: > Which would leave out an EV which can easily leave you stranded since > driving in snow takes a lot more power than normal and thus your range > would drop drastically. That only applies if driving in actual inches-high snow, i.e. on unplowed roads or off-road. > Then let's not forget the electric heater that's keeping the windshield > from icing up also is pulled from the same source. And where does the heat in a fossil fuel vehicle come from, fairy dust? Do you expect that to keep working if you run out of gas? If so, that's hilarious. :) -- "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks "I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade in here." ~Checkmate
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-25 23:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pof4ig$mn1$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #704074 |
"kensi" <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:po58tb$18e7$1@gioia.aioe.org... > On 9/21/2018 11:38 PM, Scout wrote: > >> Which would leave out an EV which can easily leave you stranded since >> driving in snow takes a lot more power than normal and thus your range >> would drop drastically. > > That only applies if driving in actual inches-high snow, i.e. on unplowed > roads or off-road. > >> Then let's not forget the electric heater that's keeping the windshield >> from icing up also is pulled from the same source. > > And where does the heat in a fossil fuel vehicle come from, fairy dust? NO EXTRA FUEL TO HAVE, unlike an EV vehicle where you kick on an electric heater which pulls yet more electricity from the battery thus shortening how long you can drive. > Do you expect that to keep working if you run out of gas? If so, that's > hilarious. :) No, but I expect the gas will last a WHOLE lot longer given that it has a far higher energy quantity than is in your EV battery. Oh, but you wouldn't know about things like that. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 17:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <35of7f-vvi.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #703784 |
In sci.physics Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: > > > "benj" <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:po19bi$12sj$1@gioia.aioe.org... >> On 9/20/2018 6:48 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! >>>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:44:32 +0100, Sn!pe wrote: >>>> >>>>> Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> [some fake pundit scribbled] >>>>> >>>>>>> Your diesel tank meanwhile has an energy density of 32 MJ/L but the >>>>>>> tank to wheels efficiency is a quarter of the EV's, so what actually >>>>>>> gets to the wheels is only 8 MJ/L, which is less than four times what >>>>>>> the EV can deliver ... and shrinking, since EV batteries are >>>>>>> improving rapidly but diesel tanks are diesel tanks are diesel tanks, >>>>>>> a fat, stationary target. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> If you don't count all the inefficiency from converting fossil fuel >>>>>> energy into chemical energy, then into electrical energy, then into >>>>>> mechanical energy. >>>> >>>> We were originally discussing only tank-to-wheels efficiency and >>>> ignoring >>>> well-to-tank. But, now that the topic has broadened ... >>>> >>>>> Not to mention electricity transmission losses and the cost (both >>>>> monetary and in energy and resources terms) of providing the charging >>>>> infrastructure. >>>> >>>> And meanwhile we're just supposed to completely ignore the cost of >>>> lugging >>>> all those fossil fuels *physically* to the individual gas stations? >>>> >>>>> the time to charge the battery >>>> >>>> Almost instant, with new battery and charging technologies that are >>>> coming >>>> down the pike. >>> >>> Utter nonsense, would violate the laws of physics and there are no >>> available >>> materials to let you get even close. >> >> What difference does that make? IF Greens can IMAGINE some new material >> then that is good enough. It will soon be reality! >> >>>>> If it was a viable option I'd switch to an electric car, but it just >>>>> ain't ready for prime-time >>>> >>>> Millions of Tesla customers disagree with you, kooky. >>> >>> Actually, all of slightly over 200,000 total so far versus over 1 billion >>> conventional vehicles. >> >> Just wait until those 200,000 battery packs need replacement. A new laptop >> battery for $50 or $75 is one thing, but the cost of a Tesla battery pack >> will send a squawk to the moon. But I guess it's worth it to have a car >> the runs on coal. > > Current cost for a 55kW tesla pack is just under $7,000 Does that include labor? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 23:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <po4l7c$79j$12@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #703854 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:35of7f-vvi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> > wrote: >> >> >> "benj" <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:po19bi$12sj$1@gioia.aioe.org... >>> On 9/20/2018 6:48 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>>> melt! >>>>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:44:32 +0100, Sn!pe wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> [some fake pundit scribbled] >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Your diesel tank meanwhile has an energy density of 32 MJ/L but the >>>>>>>> tank to wheels efficiency is a quarter of the EV's, so what >>>>>>>> actually >>>>>>>> gets to the wheels is only 8 MJ/L, which is less than four times >>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>> the EV can deliver ... and shrinking, since EV batteries are >>>>>>>> improving rapidly but diesel tanks are diesel tanks are diesel >>>>>>>> tanks, >>>>>>>> a fat, stationary target. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you don't count all the inefficiency from converting fossil fuel >>>>>>> energy into chemical energy, then into electrical energy, then into >>>>>>> mechanical energy. >>>>> >>>>> We were originally discussing only tank-to-wheels efficiency and >>>>> ignoring >>>>> well-to-tank. But, now that the topic has broadened ... >>>>> >>>>>> Not to mention electricity transmission losses and the cost (both >>>>>> monetary and in energy and resources terms) of providing the charging >>>>>> infrastructure. >>>>> >>>>> And meanwhile we're just supposed to completely ignore the cost of >>>>> lugging >>>>> all those fossil fuels *physically* to the individual gas stations? >>>>> >>>>>> the time to charge the battery >>>>> >>>>> Almost instant, with new battery and charging technologies that are >>>>> coming >>>>> down the pike. >>>> >>>> Utter nonsense, would violate the laws of physics and there are no >>>> available >>>> materials to let you get even close. >>> >>> What difference does that make? IF Greens can IMAGINE some new material >>> then that is good enough. It will soon be reality! >>> >>>>>> If it was a viable option I'd switch to an electric car, but it just >>>>>> ain't ready for prime-time >>>>> >>>>> Millions of Tesla customers disagree with you, kooky. >>>> >>>> Actually, all of slightly over 200,000 total so far versus over 1 >>>> billion >>>> conventional vehicles. >>> >>> Just wait until those 200,000 battery packs need replacement. A new >>> laptop >>> battery for $50 or $75 is one thing, but the cost of a Tesla battery >>> pack >>> will send a squawk to the moon. But I guess it's worth it to have a car >>> the runs on coal. >> >> Current cost for a 55kW tesla pack is just under $7,000 > > Does that include labor? Nope, you could probably add at least several hundred dollars for the labor, and probably another hundred or so in disposal fees. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-20 23:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <po1a5o$e0i$28@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #703706 |
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 22:48:58 +0000, chimp chittered: > In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >> melt! On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:44:32 +0100, Sn!pe wrote: >> >>> Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> [some fake pundit scribbled] >>> >>>> > Your diesel tank meanwhile has an energy density of 32 MJ/L but the >>>> > tank to wheels efficiency is a quarter of the EV's, so what >>>> > actually gets to the wheels is only 8 MJ/L, which is less than four >>>> > times what the EV can deliver ... and shrinking, since EV batteries >>>> > are improving rapidly but diesel tanks are diesel tanks are diesel >>>> > tanks, >>>> > a fat, stationary target. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> If you don't count all the inefficiency from converting fossil fuel >>>> energy into chemical energy, then into electrical energy, then into >>>> mechanical energy. >> >> We were originally discussing only tank-to-wheels efficiency and >> ignoring well-to-tank. But, now that the topic has broadened ... >> >>> Not to mention electricity transmission losses and the cost (both >>> monetary and in energy and resources terms) of providing the charging >>> infrastructure. >> >> And meanwhile we're just supposed to completely ignore the cost of >> lugging all those fossil fuels *physically* to the individual gas >> stations? >> >>> the time to charge the battery >> >> Almost instant, with new battery and charging technologies that are >> coming down the pike. > > Utter nonsense, would violate the laws of physics and there are no > available materials to let you get even close. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-21/new-technology-could-help-to-charge- your-iphone-instantly/10021086 https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2017/Q2/instantly-rechargeable- battery-could-change-the-future-of-electric-and-hybrid-automobiles.html SPNAK! -- FNVWe Nadegda "By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 00:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p0pd7f-meb.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #703709 |
In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: > Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! > On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 22:48:58 +0000, chimp chittered: > >> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>> melt! On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:44:32 +0100, Sn!pe wrote: >>> >>>> Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> [some fake pundit scribbled] >>>> >>>>> > Your diesel tank meanwhile has an energy density of 32 MJ/L but the >>>>> > tank to wheels efficiency is a quarter of the EV's, so what >>>>> > actually gets to the wheels is only 8 MJ/L, which is less than four >>>>> > times what the EV can deliver ... and shrinking, since EV batteries >>>>> > are improving rapidly but diesel tanks are diesel tanks are diesel >>>>> > tanks, >>>>> > a fat, stationary target. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> If you don't count all the inefficiency from converting fossil fuel >>>>> energy into chemical energy, then into electrical energy, then into >>>>> mechanical energy. >>> >>> We were originally discussing only tank-to-wheels efficiency and >>> ignoring well-to-tank. But, now that the topic has broadened ... >>> >>>> Not to mention electricity transmission losses and the cost (both >>>> monetary and in energy and resources terms) of providing the charging >>>> infrastructure. >>> >>> And meanwhile we're just supposed to completely ignore the cost of >>> lugging all those fossil fuels *physically* to the individual gas >>> stations? >>> >>>> the time to charge the battery >>> >>> Almost instant, with new battery and charging technologies that are >>> coming down the pike. >> >> Utter nonsense, would violate the laws of physics and there are no >> available materials to let you get even close. > > http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-21/new-technology-could-help-to-charge- > your-iphone-instantly/10021086 An iPhone is not a road vehicle. Do you understand the concept of power, i.e. the amount of energy transferred per unit time? Do you understand the relationship of voltage, current, and power? <snip nonsense> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-20 17:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bju32p.hha.17.5@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #703718 |
On 2018-09-20 5:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! >> On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 22:48:58 +0000, chimp chittered: >> >>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>> melt! On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:44:32 +0100, Sn!pe wrote: >>>> >>>>> Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> [some fake pundit scribbled] >>>>> >>>>>>> Your diesel tank meanwhile has an energy density of 32 MJ/L but the >>>>>>> tank to wheels efficiency is a quarter of the EV's, so what >>>>>>> actually gets to the wheels is only 8 MJ/L, which is less than four >>>>>>> times what the EV can deliver ... and shrinking, since EV batteries >>>>>>> are improving rapidly but diesel tanks are diesel tanks are diesel >>>>>>> tanks, >>>>>>> a fat, stationary target. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> If you don't count all the inefficiency from converting fossil fuel >>>>>> energy into chemical energy, then into electrical energy, then into >>>>>> mechanical energy. >>>> >>>> We were originally discussing only tank-to-wheels efficiency and >>>> ignoring well-to-tank. But, now that the topic has broadened ... >>>> >>>>> Not to mention electricity transmission losses and the cost (both >>>>> monetary and in energy and resources terms) of providing the charging >>>>> infrastructure. >>>> >>>> And meanwhile we're just supposed to completely ignore the cost of >>>> lugging all those fossil fuels *physically* to the individual gas >>>> stations? >>>> >>>>> the time to charge the battery >>>> >>>> Almost instant, with new battery and charging technologies that are >>>> coming down the pike. >>> >>> Utter nonsense, would violate the laws of physics and there are no >>> available materials to let you get even close. >> >> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-21/new-technology-could-help-to-charge- >> your-iphone-instantly/10021086 > > An iPhone is not a road vehicle. > > Do you understand the concept of power, i.e. the amount of energy > transferred per unit time? > > Do you understand the relationship of voltage, current, and power? > > <snip nonsense> > yep
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 05:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tuae7f-sfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #703721 |
In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2018-09-20 5:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! >>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 22:48:58 +0000, chimp chittered: >>> >>>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>>> melt! On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:44:32 +0100, Sn!pe wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> [some fake pundit scribbled] >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Your diesel tank meanwhile has an energy density of 32 MJ/L but the >>>>>>>> tank to wheels efficiency is a quarter of the EV's, so what >>>>>>>> actually gets to the wheels is only 8 MJ/L, which is less than four >>>>>>>> times what the EV can deliver ... and shrinking, since EV batteries >>>>>>>> are improving rapidly but diesel tanks are diesel tanks are diesel >>>>>>>> tanks, >>>>>>>> a fat, stationary target. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you don't count all the inefficiency from converting fossil fuel >>>>>>> energy into chemical energy, then into electrical energy, then into >>>>>>> mechanical energy. >>>>> >>>>> We were originally discussing only tank-to-wheels efficiency and >>>>> ignoring well-to-tank. But, now that the topic has broadened ... >>>>> >>>>>> Not to mention electricity transmission losses and the cost (both >>>>>> monetary and in energy and resources terms) of providing the charging >>>>>> infrastructure. >>>>> >>>>> And meanwhile we're just supposed to completely ignore the cost of >>>>> lugging all those fossil fuels *physically* to the individual gas >>>>> stations? >>>>> >>>>>> the time to charge the battery >>>>> >>>>> Almost instant, with new battery and charging technologies that are >>>>> coming down the pike. >>>> >>>> Utter nonsense, would violate the laws of physics and there are no >>>> available materials to let you get even close. >>> >>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-21/new-technology-could-help-to-charge- >>> your-iphone-instantly/10021086 >> >> An iPhone is not a road vehicle. >> >> Do you understand the concept of power, i.e. the amount of energy >> transferred per unit time? >> >> Do you understand the relationship of voltage, current, and power? >> >> <snip nonsense> >> > yep Then you understand charge time is limited by current density. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 01:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.360e455d28d5eeae994b11@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #703761 |
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by Checkmate! In article <tuae7f-sfd.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com says... > > In sci.physics % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 2018-09-20 5:02 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: > >>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! > >>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 22:48:58 +0000, chimp chittered: > >>> > >>>> In sci.physics Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote: > >>>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, > >>>>> melt! On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:44:32 +0100, Sn!pe wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> [some fake pundit scribbled] > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Your diesel tank meanwhile has an energy density of 32 MJ/L but the > >>>>>>>> tank to wheels efficiency is a quarter of the EV's, so what > >>>>>>>> actually gets to the wheels is only 8 MJ/L, which is less than four > >>>>>>>> times what the EV can deliver ... and shrinking, since EV batteries > >>>>>>>> are improving rapidly but diesel tanks are diesel tanks are diesel > >>>>>>>> tanks, > >>>>>>>> a fat, stationary target. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> If you don't count all the inefficiency from converting fossil fuel > >>>>>>> energy into chemical energy, then into electrical energy, then into > >>>>>>> mechanical energy. > >>>>> > >>>>> We were originally discussing only tank-to-wheels efficiency and > >>>>> ignoring well-to-tank. But, now that the topic has broadened ... > >>>>> > >>>>>> Not to mention electricity transmission losses and the cost (both > >>>>>> monetary and in energy and resources terms) of providing the charging > >>>>>> infrastructure. > >>>>> > >>>>> And meanwhile we're just supposed to completely ignore the cost of > >>>>> lugging all those fossil fuels *physically* to the individual gas > >>>>> stations? > >>>>> > >>>>>> the time to charge the battery > >>>>> > >>>>> Almost instant, with new battery and charging technologies that are > >>>>> coming down the pike. > >>>> > >>>> Utter nonsense, would violate the laws of physics and there are no > >>>> available materials to let you get even close. > >>> > >>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-21/new-technology-could-help-to-charge- > >>> your-iphone-instantly/10021086 > >> > >> An iPhone is not a road vehicle. > >> > >> Do you understand the concept of power, i.e. the amount of energy > >> transferred per unit time? > >> > >> Do you understand the relationship of voltage, current, and power? > >> > >> <snip nonsense> > >> > > yep > > Then you understand charge time is limited by current density. "%" is practically illiterate. He wouldn't have a clue. -- Checkmate ® Author, Humorist, Cynic Philosopher, Humanitarian Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars Usenet Shot-Caller Copyright © 2018 all rights reserved In loving memory of The Battle Kitten May 2010-February 12, 2017 "There are many here among us, who feel that life is but a joke." "I am the author of nearly as much kook butthurt as kensi." -Nadegda Message-ID: <pbg8ne$p9k$21@dont-email.me>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web