How much extra HP from burning nitro?

[et...@whidbey.com]

So I was wondering, from a post here about a bone stock engine running
nitro methane instead of gasoline, how much extra horsepower could a
stock engine produce just by changing fuels from gas to nitro? I'm
thinking that the engine won't run very well. Now, I'm sure that if
the compression was changed, and the carb re-jetted, and the cam
changed, things might work better. But if all you do is change fuels I
think there won't be much of an increase. This is of course in
response to gunner's assertion that he was clocked going 264 mph on a
bone stock Ninja motorcycle burning nitro methane fuel. I don't think
the motorcycle could develop enough power to push itself and someone
sitting on it to over 200 mph no matter what kind of fuel it was
burning.
ERic

[Ed Huntress]

At the time Gunner initially made this (absurd) claim, an all-out
lakes-modified Ninja did 231 at Bonneville. That was considered to be
the world record for Ninjas, although it wasn't a class record. Some
other make was slightly faster.

The 1000 cc Honda that topped 270 was claimed to have 400 hp. That
doesn't sound unreasonable: the engine was built by Honda specifically
for this attempt. That must be very recent, because Gunner held the
world record for sit-on motorcycles until very recently. <g!>

That is, if Gunner had actually gone 264 when he said he did, that
would have been a world record at the time. The record for "sit-on"
motorcycles was broken by Al Lamb in 2012. It was 265 mph, and the
bike was another Honda.

As for running a stock engine with nitromethane; only if you want to
turn your engine into shrapnel. It is very weird stuff, behaving
differently with different percentage combinations of gasoline or
methanol. You may get lucky with small amounts, or, if the gasoline
sucks up the oxygen in the mix, you may blow your muffler into the
next county when the resulting hydrogen explodes in your exhaust pipe.
If you use much, you will blow up any of several parts of your engine.
It's strictly for people who know what they're doing. It also costs
too much to be practical. And if your engine is newer than, say, 1980,
forget it unless you're an electronics expert, too.

If you want a chemical jolt for more horsepower, go for nitrous oxide
("the bottle"). You'll find kits for it all over the Web. We used to
have an expert on it here (Bottle Bob) but I think he left.

With nitrous, your engine may actually hold together long enough for
you to get home. <g>

--
Ed Huntress

[Snag]

An added bonus is that if you get a misfire it's gonna explode on the next
cycle ... I read up a bit once on nitro burning drag cars , them motors are
running very close to hydraulic lock . It was also interesting to discover
just how few times the motor actually turns over in a quarter mile . At <for
example> 10k RPM's , on a trip down the track that lasts say 5 seconds
that's only like a bit over 800 revolutions - and many of those care do it
in way less that 5 seconds .
--
Snag
Learning keeps
you young !

[Ed Huntress]

Right. The stoichiometric ratio for pure nitro requires one heck of a
lot of nitro. But even mixed with gasoline, the products of a misfire
are themselves explosive, and your engine can grenade in a spectacular
way.

Which makes you wonder about Gunner sitting on a nitro-fueled bomb,
just one misfire away from suffering high-speed castration...

I think the nitro story is a new addition to his account of the event,
BTW. <g>

--
Ed Huntress

[Snag]

Ed Huntress wrote:
>The stoichiometric ratio for pure nitro requires one heck of a
> lot of nitro. But even mixed with gasoline, the products of a misfire
> are themselves explosive, and your engine can grenade in a spectacular
> way.
>
> Which makes you wonder about Gunner sitting on a nitro-fueled bomb,
> just one misfire away from suffering high-speed castration...
>
> I think the nitro story is a new addition to his account of the event,
> BTW. <g>

Heh , I was following a friend on a little motorcycle ride . His was a
stroked 92 ci Harley Shovelhead . As he attacked a sweeping uphill turn at a
"high rate of speed" I heard a loud BANG and saw him and the bike basically
disappear in a cloud of smoke . After attempting roadside repairs we
discovered that the rear cylinder had cracked most of the way around at the
base flange . It <probably> wouldn't have castrated him as there was a frame
top tube between him and the jug , but it sure would have been exciting if
it had broken all the way . Pretty good chance the flying bits would have
done at least some minor maiming of his lower extremities ...

[anorton]

<et...@whidbey.com> wrote in message
news:i13qi81e5e90bq06c...@4ax.com...

I think the issue with a motorcycle reaching those speeds is not so much
horsepower as stream lining. After all, if there was no resistance of any
kind, you could reach 264 mph with a 1 horsepower engine. The only
motorcycles that have reached speeds close to that I know about have had
fully enclosed shells. It was clear from Gunner's original description that
was not the case. I am not sure why there is so much debate about this.
Gunner is a text-book classic sociopath. He will say whatever he thinks he
can get away with to gain status among his percieved peers. When questioned,
he resorts to threats.

[Ed Huntress]

Well, there are stages to it.

1) Make silly Walter Mitty type assertion
2) When caught, pretend it's a joke
3) When no one laughs, gather up the Boyz, who will make wisecracks
4) Laugh at the wisecracks
5) Try changing the subject
6) If that doesn't work, villify whoever is arguing with you
7) If that doesn't work, accuse him of homosexuality
8) And of being a liberal
9) Tell him he's on the cull list and will die soon
10) Start a new conversation on an unrelated topic

It's complicated.

--
Ed Huntress

[et...@whidbey.com]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 13:39:24 -0800, "anorton"
<ano...@removethis.ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>

I know about the streamlining. That's why I was thinking about how
much HP it would take to actually push a sit on bike and rider at high
speed.
Eric

[jon_banquer]

On Feb 26, 1:39 pm, "anorton" <anor...@removethis.ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
> <e...@whidbey.com> wrote in message

What I love is when Gunner claims you are now in his kill file when he
can't handle being confronted with the truth. An example would be
Gunner having no inspection area in his shit hole shop. He posted a
picture of his inspection tool cabinet. His inspection tools were
covered with dirt and sand from the dirt floor in his shop.

What's much more interesting than Gunner's many, many lies is the fact
that the more Gunner lies, the more his cult of idiots worship him.

[et...@whidbey.com]

In the early 80s I found a radio control airplane store that sold
nitromethane for the engines in these model planes. It came in quart
bottles at different concentrations. So I used to buy the stuff and
run it in lawnmower engines. I would mill the heads until they would
just clear the valves to increase the compression some too. I was
amazed at how much better the lawnmowers would cut tall, thick grass.
Engine life was poor though. I never did try to run straight nitro. It
smelled good too.
Eric

[Ed Huntress]

Jeez, Eric, that's the only nitro-fueled lawnmower I've ever heard of.
Did you have to run behind it to keep up?

Regarding the model planes, yes, and I had to soup glow plug fuel with
an extra 10% nitro to start my model OS Wankel. That would mean about
20% nitro in total.

But a lawnmower? Jeez. Yeah, I'll *bet* engine life was poor. <g>

--
Ed Huntress

[Michael A. Terrell]

Just think what a quart of the full strength stuff would do to the
engine of one of those idiot's who roar down your street at 3 in the
morning, ratting windows for blocks? :)

[et...@whidbey.com]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:06:56 -0500, Ed Huntress

My older brother thought it was funny too. He would tell me if he saw
a lawnmower dumped on the side of the road. I'd get it and see if it
was worth fixing. Usually they were. Just needed points or something
simple. Then I'd have another mower to modify for the tall weeds. No
bogging them mowers down.
Eric

[jon_banquer]

On Feb 26, 2:02 pm, e...@whidbey.com wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 15:26:19 -0500, Ed Huntress
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glow_fuel

[Ed Huntress]

Well, I'm with you on that. Until I bought my current Honda from my
neighbor, when he moved away, I never spent more than $10 for a lawn
mower, at yard sales. Points, plug, maybe a condenser, fresh oil,
sharpen the blade...another five to ten years of mowing happiness.

--
Ed Huntress

[jon_banquer]

On Feb 26, 2:06 pm, Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 14:02:10 -0800, e...@whidbey.com wrote:
> >On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 15:26:19 -0500, Ed Huntress

> ><huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glow_fuel

"Ingredients

Glow fuel is a mixture of methanol, nitromethane, and oil.

Methanol is the primary ingredient as it provides the bulk of the
fuel, and is needed as a solvent for the other ingredients. The
presence of methanol causes the glow plug found in model engines to
heat via a catalytic reaction with the platinum metal wire element
which glows in the presence of methanol vapor.

Nitromethane is added to the methanol to increase power and to make
the engine easier to tune. Typically glow fuel is about 0-30%
nitromethane. While higher concentrations can result in better engine
performance, usage of highly concentrated nitromethane is rare due to
its cost. Although a given amount of nitromethane contains less energy
than the same amount of methanol, it increases the amount of available
oxygen in the combustion chamber per every intake stroke, which allows
the engine to draw in more fuel while still maintaining a favorable
mixture setting. The increased amount of fuel entering the engine
increases power output, and also aids in cooling. For racing use, the
nitromethane content can be increased to the range of 30%-65%.

Nitromethane is often difficult to obtain in many countries, so in
these countries glow fuel typically has no nitromethane at all.

Lubrication

Most model engines require oil to be included with the fuel as a
lubricant since the engine has no independent oiling capability. Model
engine fuel is typically 8-22% oil, with the higher percentages run in
older design two-stroke glow engines that use bushings for the
crankshaft bearings. The most commonly used lubricants are castor oil
and synthetic oils, and many glow fuels include a mixture of the two.
The oils included in glow fuel generally are not burned by the engine,
and are expelled out the exhaust of the engine. This also helps the
engine dissipate heat, as the oil emitted is generally hot.

Four stroke model engines, since they are generally designed to be
simple powerplants while still incorporating the usual camshaft,
rocker arms and poppet valves of larger sized four stroke engines, are
generally meant to use glow ignition and their fuel. Often, the oil
percentage for four stroke glow fuel can be lowered from the 18-20%
figure used for some two-stroke engines, down to as low as a 12-15%
percentage per unit of blended glow fuel, but use of such low-
percentage lubricant fuel can also mandate the need for a small
percentage of castor oil in the mix to avoid having too little oil in
the mix, and also mandates setting the high-speed fuel mixture
carefully by using a handheld digital tachometer to check engine speed
to avoid over-leaning of the fuel mixture.

Glow engines generally have to be run slightly rich with a higher fuel/
air ratio than is ideal to keep the engine cool as the fuel going out
the exhaust also takes heat with it, and so vehicles with glow engines
generally get coated with lots of oil. Almost all the oil comes out
the exhaust, and some nitromethane and methanol as well (as it's not
all burned) requiring some cleaning when one is done using the model.

The nitromethane that exists in many glow fuel blends can cause
corrosion of metal parts in model engines, especially four-stroke
designs, due to the nitric acid residue formed from combustion of
nitromethane-content glow fuel, making the use of a so-called "after-
run oil" a common practice after a model flying session with a four-
stroke glow engine-powered model.

Glow fuel is not difficult to make, and so many modelers mix their own
to save money, but some of the ingredients are flammable and/or
explosive and so can be dangerous, especially in large quantities.
Most modelers buy their glow fuel premixed from such manufacturers
such as Byron, Blue Thunder, FHS Supply, Model Technics, Morgan,
Powermaster, Tornado, Wildcat, and many others.

"Typically glow fuel is about 0-30% nitromethane."

[Ed Huntress]

Yeah, standard old blue-can Cox was 10% nitro. It probably still is.
Cheaper stuff has 5% or less.

--
Ed Huntress

[George Plimpton]

On 2/26/2013 11:52 AM, et...@whidbey.com wrote:
> So I was wondering, from a post here about a bone stock engine running
> nitro methane instead of gasoline, how much extra horsepower could a
> stock engine produce just by changing fuels from gas to nitro? I'm
> thinking that the engine won't run very well. Now, I'm sure that if
> the compression was changed, and the carb re-jetted, and the cam
> changed, things might work better. But if all you do is change fuels I
> think there won't be much of an increase. This is of course in
> response to gunner's assertion that he was clocked going 264 mph on a
> bone stock Ninja motorcycle burning nitro methane fuel.

Actually, what gummer said was "Stone custom engine, nitro fueled."

But it doesn't matter what kind of motorcycle it was - gummer didn't
ride it at 264 mph. He said he did it on a "paved public road,", but
there are no roads near Taft, CA that are

- straight enough
- long enough
- in sufficiently good condition
- lightly traveled

on which he could do it. Interstate 5 has some long straight stretches,
as does CA 99, but both are too heavily traveled 24/7, and I-5 in
particular is a shitty roadbed due to heavy truck traffic.

In addition to any logistical and technical reasons why no one would
believe gummer, there is the fact that at the time of the alleged ride,
he was 57 years old and not long past coronary bypass surgery. I'm sure
he has putted around the low desert where he lives on a little dirt bike
from time to time, but the idea someone in his age and health is
suddenly going to hop on a motorcycle and ride at Bonneville lake speeds
on a local public highway is simply ludicrous.

> I don't think
> the motorcycle could develop enough power to push itself and someone
> sitting on it to over 200 mph no matter what kind of fuel it was
> burning.

I think you're probably right.

[jon_banquer]

I have such found memories of my control line airplane from Cox. The
glow fuel, the castor oil all over everything, the wonderful noise, it
starting backwards and cutting my finger... still have the scar! Had
no mentor and had to teach myself everything. My dad wasn't mechanical
and had zero interest. It wasn't easy. I experienced lots of
frustration. See below.

This is what I had as a kid:

http://tinyurl.com/bj6g8o7

I had this dragster as well. No where near as fun as the plane:

http://tinyurl.com/bzdo3j3

After these I got a Carl Goldberg RC kit plane made of styrofoam. No
one told me that spray painting it would be a bad idea. Pretty sure I
cried when it melted. I remember the RC I put in it was called a
galloping ghost. Someone sold me a used RC control cheap. Don't
remember who made the RC stuff. I haven't thought about this shit in
many, many years.

One more thing:

I remember using Elmers glue to glue together a colored tissue paper
hot air balloon I got from a novelty company. I can't remember the
name of the novelty company. They had a catalog filled with cool shit
that I always looked at. The hot air balloon took me a lot of work to
put together on our kitchen floor and It was pretty big. You filled
it / launched it by putting charcoal in a stove pipe and putting the
bottom part of the balloon over it while being very careful. I think
around the tenth launch it caught fire as it took off. Huge flames. I
remember being both happy and sad at the same time.

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 14:46:07 -0800, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
wrote:

FWIW, the 2011 Kawasaki Ninja with the 1350 cc engine will do around
200 -- if you disable the electronic governor that limits speed to 189
mph. It had close to 190 hp. The newer ones have 100 more cc and
another ten hp.

However, speed is an exponential-ratio thing, and the record set with
one of the recent models was 231 mph. If a bike will go 200 mph with
190 hp, it will take 298 hp to go 231, and 450 hp to go 265. So a
Ninja with standard streamlining is not as efficient as that special
factory-built Honda.

A Ninja that makes 450 hp is not likely. Not for long, anyway. And
you'd better wear a bulletproof jockstrap. <g>

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

Oh, yeah, I have great memories of flying models, too. We flew
control-line combat in our neighborhood. I must have build a dozen
planes, because we kept crashing them.

>
>One more thing:
>
>I remember using Elmers glue to glue together a colored tissue paper
>hot air balloon I got from a novelty company. I can't remember the
>name of the novelty company.

I had a six-footer from Edmund Scientific. Was that it? Glue sticks
were easier. <g>

> They had a catalog filled with cool shit
>that I always looked at. The hot air balloon took me a lot of work to
>put together on our kitchen floor and It was pretty big. You filled
>it / launched it by putting charcoal in a stove pipe and putting the
>bottom part of the balloon over it while being very careful. I think
>around the tenth launch it caught fire as it took off. Huge flames. I
>remember being both happy and sad at the same time.

They always burn sooner or later. My dad set *his* dad's field on fire
with one when he was 10 years old. In those days, they put a crossed
pair of fine wires across the bottom, wrapped a piece of rag around
the intersection, soaked it in kerosene and lit it. Then they ran when
it caught fire.

Those things have been around for a very long time. My dad was 10 in
1925.

--
Ed Huntress

[Gunner]

Bone stock? Who the hell made that claim? It was a heavily modified
custom engine that may or may not been built by a guy who later busted
the land speed record on an improved verson. Might even have been the
same bike..shrug. Or not.

Bone stock? Sounds like a bone head was making buffoonery again.

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

[Gunner]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 13:39:24 -0800, "anorton"
<ano...@removethis.ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>

<VBG>

[Tom Stanton]

On 2/26/2013 3:28 PM, Gunner wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:52:10 -0800, et...@whidbey.com wrote:
>
>> So I was wondering, from a post here about a bone stock engine running
>> nitro methane instead of gasoline, how much extra horsepower could a
>> stock engine produce just by changing fuels from gas to nitro? I'm
>> thinking that the engine won't run very well. Now, I'm sure that if
>> the compression was changed, and the carb re-jetted, and the cam
>> changed, things might work better. But if all you do is change fuels I
>> think there won't be much of an increase. This is of course in
>> response to gunner's assertion that he was clocked going 264 mph on a
>> bone stock Ninja motorcycle burning nitro methane fuel. I don't think
>> the motorcycle could develop enough power to push itself and someone
>> sitting on it to over 200 mph no matter what kind of fuel it was
>> burning.
>> ERic
>
> Bone stock? Who the hell made that claim? It was a heavily modified
> custom engine that may or may not been built by a guy who later busted
> the land speed record on an improved verson. Might even have been the
> same bike..shrug. Or not.

No, there was no land speed record broken by anyone with any connection
to you or anyone you know. Stop lying.

[George Plimpton]

Confession noted.

[jon_banquer]

On Feb 26, 3:28 pm, Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 15:03:29 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
>

I found who it was. It was Johnson Smith. I was completely obsessed
with their catalog and buying stuff from it:

http://imprint.printmag.com/branding/amazing-x-ray-glasses-and-9000-other-novelties-johnson-smith-co/

"Glue sticks were easier. <g>"

Now you tell me. :>)

"Oh, yeah, I have great memories of flying models, too. We flew
control-line combat in our neighborhood. I must have build a dozen
planes, because we kept crashing them."

I crashed mine all the time... no combat needed. Struggled with
controlling it. Never did get the hang of it. Maybe one day I'll buy
another one and master it. Cheaper than seeing a shrink for all that
childhood baggage and frustration of having no one to mentor me. :>)

"In those days, they put a crossed pair of fine wires across the
bottom, wrapped a piece of rag around the intersection, soaked it in
kerosene and lit it. Then they ran when it caught fire."

The idea was to hold it till the hot air balloon inflated and took
off?

[jon_banquer]

On Feb 26, 4:02 pm, Tom Stanton <pendejo.gummer.dwie...@taft.con>
wrote:

Mark Wieber can't stop lying and the more he lies the more his cult of
idiots worship him.

[Spamβuster]

On 2/26/2013 4:02 PM, Tom Stanton wrote:

Path: not-for-mail
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:02:17 -0800
From: Tom Stanton <pendejo.gum...@taft.con>
Organization: gummer dweeber's buddies
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107
Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.metalworking,can.politics
Subject: Re: How much extra HP from burning nitro?
References: <i13qi81e5e90bq06c...@4ax.com>
<i3hqi8d6edf17oqsj...@4ax.com>
In-Reply-To: <i3hqi8d6edf17oqsj...@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <3bb86$512d4caa$414e828e$21...@EVERESTKC.NET>
X-Complaints-To: ab...@usenetserver.com
Lines: 25
X-Trace: 3bb86512d4caae4eb272b21410
X-Received-Bytes: 2175
Xref: Hurricane rec.crafts.metalworking:951474 can.politics:1454481

--

=====================================================================
SPAMMED INTO NON-RELEVANT GROUPS / COUNTRIES
=====================================================================

[Spamβuster]

On 2/26/2013 4:05 PM, jon_banquer wrote:
> On Feb 26, 4:02 pm, Tom Stanton <pendejo.gummer.dwie...@taft.con>
> wrote:
>> On 2/26/2013 3:28 PM, Gunner wrote:
>>
>>

[whoyakidding's ghost]

11) Demand that everyone laughing disprove his lie.
12) Pretend to killfile anyone who keeps laughing.
13) Tell new lies to validate the original.

>It's complicated.

Arf arf. Complication isn't an impediment when you have a 165 IQ and a
Victoria's Secret girlfriend who worships you.

[PrecisionmachinisT]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:9pgqi892fctc2rnui...@4ax.com...

>
> I had a six-footer from Edmund Scientific. Was that it? Glue sticks
> were easier. <g>
>
>> They had a catalog filled with cool shit

Pretty sure the printed version still is available, even...

http://www.scientificsonline.com/catalogsearch/result/?q=balloon

[PrecisionmachinisT]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:9pgqi892fctc2rnui...@4ax.com...
>

> I had a six-footer from Edmund Scientific.

http://www.scientificsonline.com/professional-weather-balloon.html

"Professional Weather Balloon, One 16 Foot Balloon, 100 Cubic Feet (3072151) $79.95

[whoyakidding's ghost]

My theory about Gunner's ridiculous stories is that each one
represents something he's trying to compensate for. In this case,
which is more likely:

A) He hit 265.

B) That's he's never been able to afford anything nice or fast and his
keyboard is his only vehicle that can top 100.

[Spamβuster]

[Ed Huntress]

Oh, that's cool. I don't remember ever seeing that one.

>
>"Glue sticks were easier. <g>"
>
>Now you tell me. :>)
>
>"Oh, yeah, I have great memories of flying models, too. We flew
>control-line combat in our neighborhood. I must have build a dozen
>planes, because we kept crashing them."
>
>I crashed mine all the time... no combat needed. Struggled with
>controlling it. Never did get the hang of it. Maybe one day I'll buy
>another one and master it. Cheaper than seeing a shrink for all that
>childhood baggage and frustration of having no one to mentor me. :>)

Get one of the cheap foam trainers. Start with slow movements and
don't overcorrect. Overcorrecting is what gets you into trouble.

Combat planes were wild things. They also were easy to build,
thankfully. They had no fuselage; all wing and elevator.

>
>"In those days, they put a crossed pair of fine wires across the
>bottom, wrapped a piece of rag around the intersection, soaked it in
>kerosene and lit it. Then they ran when it caught fire."
>
>The idea was to hold it till the hot air balloon inflated and took
>off?

I never did it that way myself, but I think that was it. I know they
glued a string to the top and held it up with a long stick until it
was ready to fly.

My grandmother owned a florist's shop, so my dad had an endless supply
of tissue paper. I guess he made green balloons. <g>

--
Ed Huntress

[dca...@krl.org]

On Feb 26, 6:09 pm, Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> However, speed is an exponential-ratio thing, and the record set with
> one of the recent models was 231 mph. If a bike will go 200 mph with
> 190 hp, it will take 298 hp to go 231, and 450 hp to go 265.
>

> --
> Ed Huntress

Can you explain the math?

Dan

[jon_banquer]

On Feb 26, 5:01 pm, Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:04:06 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
>

> >http://imprint.printmag.com/branding/amazing-x-ray-glasses-and-9000-o...

I'll look into that. Thanks.

"I know they glued a string to the top and held it up with a long
stick until it was ready to fly."

Good idea. I hadn't learned to think well enough mechanically back
then. Mechanical wasn't emphasized / covered in the prep schools I was
forced to go to.

[John B.]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 13:53:52 -0800, et...@whidbey.com wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 13:39:24 -0800, "anorton"
><ano...@removethis.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><et...@whidbey.com> wrote in message
>>news:i13qi81e5e90bq06c...@4ax.com...

>>> So I was wondering, from a post here about a bone stock engine running
>>> nitro methane instead of gasoline, how much extra horsepower could a
>>> stock engine produce just by changing fuels from gas to nitro? I'm
>>> thinking that the engine won't run very well. Now, I'm sure that if
>>> the compression was changed, and the carb re-jetted, and the cam
>>> changed, things might work better. But if all you do is change fuels I
>>> think there won't be much of an increase. This is of course in
>>> response to gunner's assertion that he was clocked going 264 mph on a
>>> bone stock Ninja motorcycle burning nitro methane fuel. I don't think
>>> the motorcycle could develop enough power to push itself and someone
>>> sitting on it to over 200 mph no matter what kind of fuel it was
>>> burning.
>>> ERic
>>

>>I think the issue with a motorcycle reaching those speeds is not so much
>>horsepower as stream lining. After all, if there was no resistance of any
>>kind, you could reach 264 mph with a 1 horsepower engine. The only
>>motorcycles that have reached speeds close to that I know about have had
>>fully enclosed shells. It was clear from Gunner's original description that
>>was not the case. I am not sure why there is so much debate about this.
>>Gunner is a text-book classic sociopath. He will say whatever he thinks he
>>can get away with to gain status among his percieved peers. When questioned,
>>he resorts to threats.

>I know about the streamlining. That's why I was thinking about how
>much HP it would take to actually push a sit on bike and rider at high
>speed.
>Eric

For a bicycle the force necessary to overcome "wind resistance"
requires 216,228,92 watts, or 289.96 H.P. at 264 MPH. This, of course,
does not include the losses due to internal friction in the engine,
rolling resistance of tires and so on, and is calculated solely on
cross sectional area, I'm sure.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:52:10 -0800, et...@whidbey.com wrote:

>So I was wondering, from a post here about a bone stock engine running
>nitro methane instead of gasoline, how much extra horsepower could a
>stock engine produce just by changing fuels from gas to nitro? I'm
>thinking that the engine won't run very well. Now, I'm sure that if
>the compression was changed, and the carb re-jetted, and the cam
>changed, things might work better. But if all you do is change fuels I
>think there won't be much of an increase. This is of course in
>response to gunner's assertion that he was clocked going 264 mph on a
>bone stock Ninja motorcycle burning nitro methane fuel. I don't think
>the motorcycle could develop enough power to push itself and someone
>sitting on it to over 200 mph no matter what kind of fuel it was
>burning.
>ERic

A non modified (non calibrated) engine won't run worth crap on
nitromethane. The engine needs about 8.7 times as much Nitro per unit
of air compared to gasoline, but only produces about 2.3 times as much
power from a full cyl charge.

So, an engine running stock compression and valve timing, but with
fuel injection or carburetion modified to pass about 8.7 times as much
fuel, COULD produce up to 2.3 times as much power.

[Ed Huntress]

Jeez, all those toys....

No hot-air tissue balloons like the ones they used to sell, though.
And the prices are pretty steep.

--
Ed Huntress

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 14:52:02 -0600, "Snag" <snag...@att.net> wrote:

>Ed Huntress wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:52:10 -0800, et...@whidbey.com wrote:
>>
>>> So I was wondering, from a post here about a bone stock engine
>>> running nitro methane instead of gasoline, how much extra horsepower
>>> could a stock engine produce just by changing fuels from gas to
>>> nitro? I'm thinking that the engine won't run very well. Now, I'm
>>> sure that if the compression was changed, and the carb re-jetted,
>>> and the cam changed, things might work better. But if all you do is
>>> change fuels I think there won't be much of an increase. This is of
>>> course in response to gunner's assertion that he was clocked going
>>> 264 mph on a bone stock Ninja motorcycle burning nitro methane fuel.
>>> I don't think the motorcycle could develop enough power to push
>>> itself and someone sitting on it to over 200 mph no matter what kind
>>> of fuel it was burning.
>>> ERic
>>

> An added bonus is that if you get a misfire it's gonna explode on the next
>cycle ... I read up a bit once on nitro burning drag cars , them motors are
>running very close to hydraulic lock . It was also interesting to discover
>just how few times the motor actually turns over in a quarter mile . At <for
>example> 10k RPM's , on a trip down the track that lasts say 5 seconds
>that's only like a bit over 800 revolutions - and many of those care do it
>in way less that 5 seconds .
You have to remember those "top fuel" cars are virtually all
supercharged - and they do pump enough fuel into them to fill the
combustion chamber up to90+% in volume. - with 60 PSI (over 4
atmospheres) of boost - SO - 4X as much air as a NA engine running at
100% VE, and 2.3 times as much power per unit of fuel = at leat 12
times as much power as a non modified engine. Then add additional
compression to the "mix". They burn about 75 gallons per minite. They
use 85% Nitro - the rest is alcohol - generally Methanol.

If a top fuel engine puts out 7500 HP, it is producing 8400 HP - the
other 900HP drives the supercharger!!!!

[Steve W.]

Ed Huntress wrote:
>
> Get one of the cheap foam trainers. Start with slow movements and
> don't overcorrect. Overcorrecting is what gets you into trouble.
>
> Combat planes were wild things. They also were easy to build,
> thankfully. They had no fuselage; all wing and elevator.

That yellow battery powered one that HF sells actually flies pretty
good, but you will want a supply of wings.....

>
> I never did it that way myself, but I think that was it. I know they
> glued a string to the top and held it up with a long stick until it
> was ready to fly.
>
> My grandmother owned a florist's shop, so my dad had an endless supply
> of tissue paper. I guess he made green balloons. <g>
>


--

Steve W.

[et...@whidbey.com]

<SNIP>
Correction: Mark Weiber (AKA Gunner) said "stone custom engine" and I
read this as "stone stock engine" which I further morphed in my brain
as "bone stock engine". My mistake and I stand corrected. There is
still no fucking way he rode any motorcycle as fast as 264 miles per
hour. Mark, how about you get the guy who's bike you supposedly rode
264 miles per hour to confirm you actually rode it that fast. Or that
you even got to sit on it while it was parked. I apologize for making
the mistake about what you said in the first place. But Mark, your
story was so fantastic that I guess I embellished it in my mind. Why
do you post stuff like this anyway? Nobody believes a word of it and
you must realize that. Why not just write a book about some kind of
superhero? Everybody will know it's a work of fiction and you can spin
all sorts of tales and maybe get paid for it instead of looking and
acting like a fool. Nobody takes the James Bond movies seriously but
they sure are fun to watch and make lots of money. Take advantage of
that. How can you expect folks to take you seriously when you talk
about stuff you do know about when you keep posting so much bullshit
and presenting it as the truth?
Eric

[Ed Huntress]

No. I used a speed shop's calculator and I'm not telling. <g>

Oh, all right....The horsepower required to maintain a specific speed:

P = 1/2 * Cd * A * k * v^3

P = horsepower required for the velocity in question
Cd = coefficient of drag
A = frontal area
k = constant to account for the density of air (or you can use the
actual number - 1.2g/m^3, if you watch your units throughout)
v = velocity

In addition, you have to work in the rolling resistance. For a
motorcycle with high-speed, hard tires, you can ignore it for these
purposes. I'll give you a shortcut for the formula in a minute.

I'll give you the site of a calculator but first, note the v^3. That's
the key to the whole thing, which leads people to overestimate how
fast they can go on, say, a Kawasaki Ninja with two or three hundred
horsepower. <g>

Here's the calculator.

http://www.apexgarage.com/tech/horsepower_calc.shtml

Knowing that the unregulated speed of a Ninja is 200 mph and it
achieves that with 190 hp, you can plug in any trial numbers you want
to get everything to work (I used Cd = 0.5; A = 7; weight 500 lb.) As
long as the relationship of these numbers isn't ridiculous, all you
need to know is what trial numbers give you 200 mph with 190 hp. Then
use those same trial values and try changing the speed. That will give
you the horsepower.

I tested the online calculator by using a shortcut of the real formula
on my own pocket calculator:

Original speed cubed over original horsepower = final speed cubed over
"x", where "x" is horsepower required.

Actually, I tested it by using the variable for speed, and assumed 450
horsepower, to test the online calculator. It works either way.

By knowing the original speed and horsepower, you can do away with
drag coefficient, frontal area, and air density. It's the relationship
between power and speed that you need, plus the "cube" factor for
velocity. The shortcut, or the online calculator, will give that to
you.

Have fun.

--
Ed Huntress



>
> Dan

[Snag]

Yup , that was also in the info I read . The supercharger takes more
horsepower than 3 average cars produce .
--
Snag
Learning keeps
you young !

[Snag]

When I was a teen I made 'em out of those plastic bags the dry cleaners
send your suits home in ... but I always had a problem with getting enough
heat . I was using candles , and that just wasn't enough .

[whoyakidding's ghost]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 18:12:20 -0800, et...@whidbey.com wrote:


>Correction: Mark Weiber (AKA Gunner)

> How can you expect folks to take you seriously when you talk
>about stuff you do know about when you keep posting so much bullshit
>and presenting it as the truth?
>Eric

"Pathological Liar � Types

4.1
Daydreaming Pathological Liar � Pseudologia Fantastica

Some of the more extreme forms of pathological lying is Pseudologia
Fantastica. This is a matrix of facts & fiction, mixed together in a
way that makes the reality and fantasy almost indistinguishable. The
pseudologue type pathological liar makes up stories that seem possible
on the surface, but over time things start falling apart. Pseudologues
have dynamic approach to their lies, they are likely to change the
story if confronted or faced with disbelief, they have excessive
anxiety of being caught and they desperately try to modify their story
to something that would seem plausible to create or preserve a sense
of self that is something they wish they were or at least something
better than they fear others would find out they are. The excessive
anxiety is driven by unusually low self-esteem, the person tries to
hide reality by creating a fake reality, and once the story has
enduring quality to it, he/she is likely to repeat it and if repeated
enough times he/she might start believing in it as well. This reality
escape can be triggered of a past incident or of an unbearable present
for the pseudologue.

About 30% of daydreaming pathological liars have brain dysfunction.
For some it may take the form of learning disabilities, ex. dyslexia.
Often those with cerebral dysfunction have greater verbal production &
lower developed logical, analytical parts of the brain, thus they
often fail to control verbal output.


Read more http://depressiond.com/pathological-liar/"

His habits don't have to make sense, even to himself.

[George Plimpton]

Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_%28physics%29#Power

The key thing to note is that the power required to overcome drag
increase as the cube of the velocity.

[Ed Huntress]

Ok, but we were talking about tissue-paper hot-air balloons.

I have a funny story about those weather balloons, and my 8th-grade
buddy's hydrogen-generating apparatus, with zinc chips and some kind
of acid, but I'll spare you. <g>

--
Ed Huntress

[PrecisionmachinisT]

"Snag" <snag...@att.net> wrote in message
news:8CeXs.84228$532....@newsfe03.iad...

HAHAHA !!!

WE filled them with hydrogen, THEN attached the candles....letting them to
drift at various locations over Puget Sound...

Oftentimes, numerous UFO sightings were reported on the nightly news...

[Jeffrey Fowler]

You need to know something about the surface area.

[Ed Huntress]

Start with a hair dryer or heat gun, until the bag is inflated. Then
apply your flame.

That's how I did it.

--
Ed Huntress

[PrecisionmachinisT]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:ovtqi8p7rj5ase1b7...@4ax.com...

Aww come on Ed...

--ya probably already told about it once, just that we've both done
forgotten.

[Tom Stanton]

Because he's a pathological liar.

> Nobody believes a word of it and
> you must realize that.

He claims not to care if people believe his bullshit or not, yet he
strenuously and stridently objects whenever anyone challenges the
bullshit; the objections usually occur over many posts, too.

[Avicenna]

It has always interested me that some people who are mechanics and
understand engineering, can nonetheless say things like "My
neighbour's road car goes 200mph on methanol" and (recently heard)
"Our Harley [unblown] nitro drag-bike makes 900bhp."

I don't blame anyone for being an enthusiast, but it's shame when
their brain allows nonsense.

Once a vehicle, 2- or 4-wheeled, exceeds 230mph, it is entering
exponentially-difficult territory. Only very serious and well-
equipped outfits succeed out there. Those Bugattis and Lambo's that
are occasionally taken to a test track for an all-out run at the mfr's
claimed maxr, are accompanied by computers and tire specialists,
weather-monitors, and even then frequently suffer damage.

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:13:08 -0800, "PrecisionmachinisT"
<precisionm...@notmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:ovtqi8p7rj5ase1b7...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:34:01 -0800, "PrecisionmachinisT"
>> <123mac...@notmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>>news:9pgqi892fctc2rnui...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> I had a six-footer from Edmund Scientific.
>>>
>>>http://www.scientificsonline.com/professional-weather-balloon.html
>>>
>>> "Professional Weather Balloon, One 16 Foot Balloon, 100 Cubic Feet
>>> (3072151) $79.95
>>
>> Ok, but we were talking about tissue-paper hot-air balloons.
>>
>> I have a funny story about those weather balloons, and my 8th-grade
>> buddy's hydrogen-generating apparatus, with zinc chips and some kind
>> of acid, but I'll spare you. <g>
>>
>
>Aww come on Ed...
>
>--ya probably already told about it once, just that we've both done
>forgotten.

I don't think so. Let me just cut to the end, where the newly laid
tile in my friend's basement turned into a puddle of silly putty...go
easy on the zinc, we learned. <g>

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

If you're referring to skin drag (versus form drag), that is
theoretically included in Cd -- drag coefficient.

It is in practice, too, for the most part, because Cd usually is
measured empirically, in a wind tunnel.

--
Ed Huntress

[PrecisionmachinisT]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:0nuqi8he39qu519tl...@4ax.com...

I vaguely recall making rockets using zinc powder and sulphur as a
propellant, of mempry serves me, the usual exoected progagation rate was
something like 900 fps

Pretty sure it's no longer being recommended, good mix / packing job
basically becoming a pipe-bomb

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:56:41 -0800, "PrecisionmachinisT"

That was the formula promoted by Scientific American back in the '60s.
They had a chapter on amateur rocketry in _The Amateur Scientist_ and
I remember the formula. They said it was a lot safer than black
powder. I should hope so...

>
>Pretty sure it's no longer being recommended, good mix / packing job
>basically becoming a pipe-bomb

There's supposedly something a lot better.

The formula I was talking about was just pieces of zinc spatter in (I
think) hydrohloric acid. We got plenty of hydrogen -- and a
boiled-over beaker of acid. <g>

--
Ed Huntress
>

[jon_banquer]

On Feb 26, 7:15 pm, Tom Stanton <pendejo.gummer.dwie...@taft.con>
wrote:

> On 2/26/2013 6:12 PM, e...@whidbey.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:02:17 -0800, Tom Stanton
> > <pendejo.gummer.dwie...@taft.con> wrote:
>
> >> On 2/26/2013 3:28 PM, Gunner wrote:

No doubt in my mind Wieber cares. Once someone is on to Wieber lies or
disagrees with Wieber strongly enough he will do almost anything to
try and discredit that person.

[jon_banquer]

On Feb 26, 7:56 pm, "PrecisionmachinisT"
<precisionmachinist...@notmail.com> wrote:
> "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote in message

>
> news:0nuqi8he39qu519tl...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:13:08 -0800, "PrecisionmachinisT"

> > <precisionmachinist...@notmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>"Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote in message

> >>news:ovtqi8p7rj5ase1b7...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:34:01 -0800, "PrecisionmachinisT"

> >>> <123machin...@notmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>"Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote in message

> >>>>news:9pgqi892fctc2rnui...@4ax.com...
>
> >>>>> I had a six-footer from Edmund Scientific.
>
> >>>>http://www.scientificsonline.com/professional-weather-balloon.html
>
> >>>>      "Professional Weather Balloon, One 16 Foot Balloon, 100 Cubic Feet
> >>>> (3072151) $79.95
>
> >>> Ok, but we were talking about tissue-paper hot-air balloons.
>
> >>> I have a funny story about those weather balloons, and my 8th-grade
> >>> buddy's hydrogen-generating apparatus, with zinc chips and some kind
> >>> of acid, but I'll spare you. <g>
>
> >>Aww come on Ed...
>
> >>--ya probably already told about it once, just that we've both done
> >>forgotten.
>
> > I don't think so. Let me just cut to the end, where the newly laid
> > tile in my friend's basement turned into a puddle of silly putty...go
> > easy on the zinc, we learned. <g>
>
> I vaguely recall making rockets using zinc powder and sulphur as a
> propellant, of mempry serves me, the usual exoected progagation rate was
> something like 900 fps
>
> Pretty sure it's no longer being recommended, good mix / packing job
> basically becoming a pipe-bomb

Never made my own. I used the Estes solid rockets. Half the time when
the parachute opened the rocket was carried so far I could never find
it.

[PrecisionmachinisT]

"jon_banquer" <jonba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:af3080de-39cc-4f9a...@nu2g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

> Never made my own. I used the Estes solid rockets. Half the time when the
> parachute opened the rocket was carried so far I could never find it

The estes still make for a fine bottle-rocket, scrape the clay
parachute-launch barrier loose to expose some actual fire to your
burst-charge, which can be contained in an end mill tube that's been
duct-taped to the top of the rocket tube.

A word of warning, you need a LONG stick and /or you need to attach weughts
to the bottom of the stick...the nozzle is the pivot point; if it is not
also the balance point ( a top-heavy rocket will overturn if you attempt to
balance the nozzle on your finger...if it does, then the trajectory is
basically random...the nozzle must ALWAYS stay pointed downwards if you want
to shoot for the moon instead of your neighbor's Cadillac.

And then there's the spent carcass...best to do over the ocean, IMO

[Gunner]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:57:08 -0600, "Snag" <snag...@att.net> wrote:

Sterno worked well enough.

As did the filling of the bag with the gas emitted from Draino and
Water with a bit of aluminum foil in the bottle. A fuze for a counter
weight always made a fun addition and far safer than a heat supply of
Sterno.

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

[Gunner]

Which "other" bullshit have I posted? Ive not lied here ever. Nor do
I have any reason to do so. Lying or "exaggeration" is not part of my
social "skills". Im not..not a Leftwinger.

Feel free to be specific and post each and any items you can find.

We/I will be waiting with great amusement.

<VBG>

[axolotl]

On 2/26/2013 9:57 PM, Snag wrote:

> When I was a teen I made 'em out of those plastic bags the dry cleaners
> send your suits home in ... but I always had a problem with getting enough
> heat . I was using candles , and that just wasn't enough .
>

I wouldn't know, of course, but I understand the key is using birthday
candles. 12 of them. Hold the bottom of the bag open with crossed
drinking straws (you will need to jam one straw into another to make
them long enough), and carefully drip some wax onto the straws as candle
mounts. No one would want to try this, say, on a beach at night with an
offshore breeze, because a puff of breeze will fold over the top of the
bag and it will catch fire, plunging into the sea and endangering the
turtles. There is also the danger that the Asbury Park Press will report
that the UFO "glowed red and hummed".

Kevin Gallimore

[John B.]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:12:07 -0800, Jeffrey Fowler
<trai...@pardoned.con> wrote:

It was taken from an article on "bicycle aerodynamics" and used a
"standard" area (whatever that was). The formula was apparently
tweaked by comparing it with actual torque and RPM figures taken from
the power meters that are now fitted to some bikes.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:08oqi8d46fn916obh...@4ax.com...

>>
>>http://www.scientificsonline.com/catalogsearch/result/?q=balloon
>
> Jeez, all those toys....
>
> No hot-air tissue balloons like the ones they used to sell, though.
> And the prices are pretty steep.

> Ed Huntress

I made my paper balloons from instructions in a magazine that
described how to lay out the gore pattern for a sphere.

Polyethylene cleaners bags worked almost as well for minimal effort,
and didn't alarm the neighborhood with a bright flame when they
ignited. IIRC the ring was split bamboo and the cross wires were
strands of picture hanging wire. I hung them on a tall stake to
inflate them with a tiny campfire and then put alcohol-soaked cotton
balls in the aluminum foil cup for the flight.

The flame made the balloon glow like a Japanese paper lantern. This is
a good description:
http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseSubarticle.asp?ID=427

That one wasn't mine. At that time I was pulling my pranks in college
a few towns away.
A hot-air balloon could lift a few cells from a disassembled 9V
battery and these light bulbs :
http://www.advantagehobby.com/137114/MDP391/?pcat=1316
or series-string (low voltage) Christmas flashers.

[whoyakidding's ghost]

In this case, the culprit was not only too ignorant to know about
exponents at the time he told his lie, but I would bet that he STILL
does not grasp the concept despite all the lessons. To him, the number
he pulled out of his ass is only slightly larger than others he's
read, and therefore it will forever remain fully plausible.

[whoyakidding's ghost]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 23:02:50 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 18:12:20 -0800, et...@whidbey.com wrote:
>
> How can you expect folks to take you seriously when you talk
>>about stuff you do know about when you keep posting so much bullshit
>>and presenting it as the truth?
>>Eric
>
>Which "other" bullshit have I posted?

Below is one of my favorite examples, because the lying is so
blatantly self evident and self defeating.

"I dabbled as a reserve Deputy for a couple years"
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/msg/50864f4b5ffce244

"a reserve Deputy at night (two years)"
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.survivalism/msg/daf6b3de8807600c

"Worked for 5 yrs as a reserve Sheriff's Deputy"
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/msg/cab03648c38ec69b

"I was a Deputy for several years in the 70s"
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/msg/0f875239e83efa41

"8 yrs on the street as a cop"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/898e16741f642645
----------------------------------------

> Ive not lied here ever.

Ah, another demonstration of how someone with a 165 IQ handles being
called out for telling ridiculous lies. By telling more ridiculous
lies!

"mid 150s"
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.survivalism/msg/60beacdc8a0bd420

"165"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.machines.cnc/msg/b8b3afb9ad1fd63f

> Nor do
>I have any reason to do so. Lying or "exaggeration" is not part of my
>social "skills".

What social skills? You regularly claim to be adding names to a death
list! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

>Feel free to be specific and post each and any items you can find.

The funny, it burns.

[George Plimpton]

These are hilarious. It's *always* hilarious when people overstate
their IQ so egregiously. IQ is distributed as the normal distribution,
with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. An IQ of 145 would
be three standard deviations above the mean. Approximately 99.7% of
values of a normally distributed measure lie within three standard
deviations of the mean, leaving 0.3% of values at the two extreme tails.
If gummer claimed an IQ of "only" 145, in other words, he would be
claiming to have an IQ greater than that of about 99.85% of humanity.
But *no*! gummer, *always* extravagant in his lying, has to add *more*
than another full standard deviation to his IQ. If he had been just
slightly less extravagant and claimed an IQ of "only" 160, he would be
exactly four sigmas above the mean, which mean an IQ surpassing that of
99.9968% of humanity.

gummer isn't alone. I regularly see people bragging about their own IQ,
or that of someone close to them whom they typically like, as being in
that range. These people are simply bone-ignorant of statistics. It's
not that any one person couldn't be that intelligent, but far too many
people casually claim such an astronomical IQ, and exactly like gummer,
*nothing* about them suggests that it might be true.

[Ed Huntress]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 08:12:47 -0800, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
wrote:

Anyone who talks about his IQ in public has certainly inflated it.
It's like talking about the length of your dick.

--
Ed Huntress

[dca...@krl.org]

On Feb 26, 9:53 pm, Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:05:16 -0800 (PST), "dcas...@krl.org"

>
> <dcas...@krl.org> wrote:
> >On Feb 26, 6:09 pm, Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >> However, speed is an exponential-ratio thing, and the record set with
> >> one of the recent models was 231 mph. If a bike will go 200 mph with
> >> 190 hp, it will take 298 hp to go 231, and 450 hp to go 265.
>
> >> --
> >> Ed Huntress
>
> >Can you explain the math?
>

> No. I used a speed shop's calculator and I'm not telling. <g>
>
> Oh, all right....The horsepower required to maintain a specific speed:
>
> P = 1/2 * Cd * A * k * v^3
>
> P = horsepower required for the velocity in question
> Cd = coefficient of drag
> A = frontal area
> k = constant to account for the density of air (or you can use the
> actual number - 1.2g/m^3, if you watch your units throughout)
> v = velocity
>
> In addition, you have to work in the rolling resistance. For a
> motorcycle with high-speed, hard tires, you can ignore it for these
> purposes. I'll give you a shortcut for the formula in a minute.
>
> I'll give you the site of a calculator but first, note the v^3. That's
> the key to the whole thing, which leads people to overestimate how
> fast they can go on, say, a Kawasaki Ninja with two or three hundred
> horsepower. <g>
>
> Here's the calculator.
>
> http://www.apexgarage.com/tech/horsepower_calc.shtml
>
> Knowing that the unregulated speed of a Ninja is 200 mph and it
> achieves that with 190 hp, you can plug in any trial numbers you want
> to get everything to work (I used Cd = 0.5; A = 7; weight 500 lb.) As
> long as the relationship of these numbers isn't ridiculous, all you
> need to know is what trial numbers give you 200 mph with 190 hp. Then
> use those same trial values and try changing the speed. That will give
> you the horsepower.
>
> I tested the online calculator by using a shortcut of the real formula
> on my own pocket calculator:
>
> Original speed cubed over original horsepower = final speed cubed over
> "x", where "x" is horsepower required.
>
> Actually, I tested it by using the variable for speed, and assumed 450
> horsepower, to test the online calculator. It works either way.
>
> By knowing the original speed and horsepower, you can do away with
> drag coefficient, frontal area, and air density. It's the relationship
> between power and speed that you need, plus the "cube" factor for
> velocity. The shortcut, or the online calculator, will give that to
> you.
>
> Have fun.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
>
>
>
> >                                  Dan

Thanks.

Ah an online calculator.

I was wondering how you got the aerodynamic drag and the rolling
resistance . But a good on line calculator would take the rolling
resistance into account.

Dan

[whoyakidding's ghost]

Perhaps his real IQ can be rated based on him telling two
contradictory IQ fables....

[dca...@krl.org]

On Feb 26, 9:12 pm, e...@whidbey.com wrote:
> Why
> do you post stuff like this anyway? Nobody believes a word of it and
> you must realize that.

I am sure he does.


. How can you expect folks to take you seriously when you talk

> about stuff you do know about when you keep posting so much bullshit
> and presenting it as the truth?
> Eric

Have you read about Pecos Bill or Pail Bunyan? There is a long
history of fiction presented as fact. What I do not understand is why
people get upset. I enjoy reading of Gunner's exploits. I think he
does a pretty good job of spinning a yarn.

Did I ever tell you about exploring " 23 dollar pit"?


Dan

[James Waldby]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 21:06:33 -0800, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
> "jon_banquer" <jonba...@yahoo.com> wrote ...

>> Never made my own. I used the Estes solid rockets. Half the time when the
>> parachute opened the rocket was carried so far I could never find it
>
> The estes still make for a fine bottle-rocket, scrape the clay
> parachute-launch barrier loose to expose some actual fire to your
> burst-charge, which can be contained in an end mill tube that's been
> duct-taped to the top of the rocket tube.
>
> A word of warning, you need a LONG stick and /or you need to attach weughts
> to the bottom of the stick...the nozzle is the pivot point; if it is not
> also the balance point ( a top-heavy rocket will overturn if you attempt to
> balance the nozzle on your finger...if it does, then the trajectory is
> basically random...the nozzle must ALWAYS stay pointed downwards if you want
> to shoot for the moon instead of your neighbor's Cadillac.

Adding weights at the bottom is wrong way round -- the condition for
aerodynamically stable flight is center of gravity *above* the center
of pressure. Eg see following and some links from it.
<http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/rktstab.html>

--
jiw

[dca...@krl.org]

On Feb 27, 11:12 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:


> These are hilarious.  It's *always* hilarious when people overstate
> their IQ so egregiously.  IQ is distributed as the normal distribution,
> with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.  An IQ of 145 would
> be three standard deviations above the mean.  Approximately 99.7% of
> values of a normally distributed measure lie within three standard
> deviations of the mean, leaving 0.3% of values at the two extreme tails.
>   If gummer claimed an IQ of "only" 145, in other words, he would be
> claiming to have an IQ greater than that of about 99.85% of humanity.
> But *no*!  gummer, *always* extravagant in his lying, has to add *more*
> than another full standard deviation to his IQ.  If he had been just
> slightly less extravagant and claimed an IQ of "only" 160, he would be
> exactly four sigmas above the mean, which mean an IQ surpassing that of
> 99.9968% of humanity.
>
> gummer isn't alone.  I regularly see people bragging about their own IQ,
> or that of someone close to them whom they typically like, as being in
> that range.  These people are simply bone-ignorant of statistics.  It's
> not that any one person couldn't be that intelligent, but far too many
> people casually claim such an astronomical IQ, and exactly like gummer,
> *nothing* about them suggests that it might be true.
>

My experience is very different. I almost never see anyone bragging
about their
IQ. And I do know a few really bright people. Most of the really
bright people do their best to keep their IQ hidden.

It is pretty much like walking on water. You do not want people
knowing that you can , because the next thing you know they want you
to walk across the lake and get another six pack or two.


Dan

[Avicenna]

On 27 Feb, 08:12, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
> These are hilarious.  It's *always* hilarious when people overstate
> their IQ so egregiously.

My pal Steve has an IQ of 289 and his Chev Eldorado with a fifth wheel
trailer can go over 300mph on nitro and his buddy killed five guys
with one punch last night and and

[Ed Huntress]

I was lazy and looked for a calculator first. But I don't know the
source and so I didn't trust it.

The equation is something I had on hand. So, to check the online
calculator, I cancelled out the factors that would be the same at
different horsepower ratings and speeds on one particular bike (Cd, A,
k) and realized that the equation simplifies to something trivial, IF
you know both one particular speed and the horsepower required at that
speed.

Which happens rarely, but fortunately there is a lot of documentation
about it online because of the unusual agreement between Kawasaki and
the EU to speed-limit the bike to 300 km/hr. The magazines all wanted
to know what it will do without the governor, and there are several
road tests that came up with the 200 mph figure.

And that also happens to make sense in terms of the factors I
cancelled out. Those are pretty typical for a big bike with advanced
streamlining, like the Ninja.

Notice that the Honda that went 270+ did a bit better with less
horsepower (270 with 400 hp vs. 265 with 450), which also makes sense.
That Honda is engineered for one thing: setting a world record at
Bonneville. Its Cd probably is lower than that of any street bike.

Anyway, the online calculator checks out. Try varying the weight of
the bike a bit and see what the consequence is for different values of
rolling resistance (that's where the weight factor comes into play).
The speed varies very little, you'll notice. That also makes sense.

--
Ed Huntress

[George Plimpton]

On 2/27/2013 9:39 AM, dca...@krl.org wrote:
> On Feb 27, 11:12 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
>
>> These are hilarious. It's *always* hilarious when people overstate
>> their IQ so egregiously. IQ is distributed as the normal distribution,
>> with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. An IQ of 145 would
>> be three standard deviations above the mean. Approximately 99.7% of
>> values of a normally distributed measure lie within three standard
>> deviations of the mean, leaving 0.3% of values at the two extreme tails.
>> If gummer claimed an IQ of "only" 145, in other words, he would be
>> claiming to have an IQ greater than that of about 99.85% of humanity.
>> But *no*! gummer, *always* extravagant in his lying, has to add *more*
>> than another full standard deviation to his IQ. If he had been just
>> slightly less extravagant and claimed an IQ of "only" 160, he would be
>> exactly four sigmas above the mean, which mean an IQ surpassing that of
>> 99.9968% of humanity.
>>
>> gummer isn't alone. I regularly see people bragging about their own IQ,
>> or that of someone close to them whom they typically like, as being in
>> that range. These people are simply bone-ignorant of statistics. It's
>> not that any one person couldn't be that intelligent, but far too many
>> people casually claim such an astronomical IQ, and exactly like gummer,
>> *nothing* about them suggests that it might be true.
>>
>
> My experience is very different. I almost never see anyone bragging
> about their IQ. And I do know a few really bright people. Most of the really
> bright people do their best to keep their IQ hidden.

I don't know people who brag about their IQ, but I do encounter more
than a few. The very brightest people I know have never said anything
about their measured IQ, and none would. The closest is that one very
bright person I know claims to have given talks at Mensa conventions,
but says he is not a member; I have no doubt he could be if he wished.

The big problems with gummer's wildly extravagant IQ claims is not only
that they are highly improbable, but his performance here doesn't match
his claims, and his claims are inconsistent - he has given figures as
much as 10 points apart.

[Ed Huntress]

After 10 years, I have him pegged around 130. And I've always been
good at estimating IQ.

He's quite smart. Don't underestimate his intelligence. It's just too
bad that it doesn't have better material to work on. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

I don't think we've heard the last of the World Record Ninja, though.

Hmmm...try this: It wasn't actually done on the road, it was OVER the
road. He was shot out of a drain culvert with a bucket of Pyrodex,
using a buffalo robe for wadding.

They call it "being buffaloed."

--
Ed Huntress
>
>

[George Plimpton]

I wouldn't guess his IQ to be quite that high, but definitely above
average; maybe 120 or so. I generally find very intelligent people to
be highly articulate, nearly always in speech and most often in writing.
Obviously I can't gauge gummer's speech, but his writing just doesn't
strike me as that of a remarkably intelligent person.

>
> He's quite smart. Don't underestimate his intelligence. It's just too
> bad that it doesn't have better material to work on. d8-)

I always distinguish between being smart and being intelligent. Being
smart means one has acquired knowledge; intelligence refers to the
*ease* with which one can acquire knowledge. I know a guy who never
struck me (or anyone else) as being remarkably intelligent, but due to a
superior work ethic and strong drive, helped along by a pushy mom, he
became a medical doctor and has had a solid career as an ER doctor. I
know another person - a mutual friend with the doctor - who strikes all
who know him as exceptionally intelligent and quick-witted, but he is
the *laziest* person I know, and has achieved far less than he might
have done.

gummer seems more like the second friend I described. I think he has
the mental horsepower to have done far better than he did, but his work
ethic and drive are atrocious.

gummer has one other huge failing: so much of the stuff he believes
simply isn't so.

[Ed Huntress]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:15:27 -0800, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>

120 is within range, but you may not have seen his occassional
discussions of technical subjects. He can deal with abstract ideas and
complex relationships quite well. That's why I say 130. Much of his
political discussion is shooting for effect, not what he really
understands. Talking with him over a decade has made that clear.

But my estimates, while typically in the ballpark, are not that
precise.

--
Ed Huntress

[Gunner]

This could be fun to build...add some lighting....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb_ACMSG_hc

[Gunner]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:57:03 -0500, Ed Huntress

I had it tested in about 1976. "They" claimed it was 150ish. One of
the reasons the CLEATUS program paid my way to the cop academy.

Which just goes to show I was smart enough to get out of the cop
business while I still had the chance..or their tests were wrong.

[Gunner]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:22:10 -0500, Ed Huntress

[Gunner]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:25:03 -0800 (PST), "dca...@krl.org"
<dca...@krl.org> wrote:

<VBG>

23 Dollar pit? Tell us!!

[jon_banquer]

On Feb 27, 9:57 am, Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:15:31 -0800, whoyakidding's ghost
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <whoyakidd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:04:48 -0500, Ed Huntress
> ><huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >>On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 08:12:47 -0800, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>On 2/27/2013 7:37 AM, whoyakidding's ghost wrote:

> >>>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 23:02:50 -0800, Gunner <gunnera...@gmail.com>

Mark Wieber's actions show what his real intelligence is:

Wieber drinks brominated vegetable oil day and night and has no
interest in learning to eat healthier.

Wieber's shop is a shit hole and he has no concept of how to machine
or check tight tolerance parts.

Wieber has a difficult time doing basic repairs on his Ford Ranger
pickup truck.

Wieber frequently lies and makes death treats to those who call him
out on his constant lies because he fears them.

Wieber has no real CAD or CAM experience.

Wieber makes excuse after excuse for why he's poor and blames liberals
for his sorry plight in life.

Wieber refuses to go to school to broaden his skill set so he can make
a more consistent living.

Wieber has implied he had something to do with Cliff Huprich's death.
He didn't even know about Huprich's death until he was told about it.

[George Plimpton]

A *new* data point. We've had "mid 150s", "165" and now "150ish."

Hilarious.

[Spamβuster]

On 2/27/2013 9:15 AM, whoyakidding's ghost wrote:

Path: not-for-mail
From: whoyakidding's ghost <whoyak...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.metalworking,can.politics
Subject: Re: How much extra HP from burning nitro?
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:15:31 -0800
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <tofsi8phkj7kfjr20...@4ax.com>
References: <i13qi81e5e90bq06c...@4ax.com>
<i3hqi8d6edf17oqsj...@4ax.com>
<3bb86$512d4caa$414e828e$21...@EVERESTKC.NET>
<52mqi8pg1fa0f7njt...@4ax.com>
<tnbri8ll282oiovb5...@4ax.com>
<ck9si8hkb7lgvu3d6...@4ax.com>
<14c15$512e3031$414e828e$10...@EVERESTKC.NET>
<c2fsi8h4odfoa8h90...@4ax.com>
Reply-To: whoyak...@hotmail.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: j+7NzyDQ96AEiXQsV3V4lw.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: ab...@aioe.org <<===========

X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118
X-Received-Bytes: 3363
Xref: Hurricane rec.crafts.metalworking:951759 can.politics:1454570

--
=====================================================================
SPAMMED INTO NON-RELEVANT GROUPS / COUNTRIES
=====================================================================

[Spamβuster]

On 2/27/2013 9:25 AM, dca...@krl.org wrote:
> . How can you expect folks to take you seriously when you talk

[Spamβuster]

[Spamβuster]

On 2/26/2013 6:12 PM, et...@whidbey.com wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:02:17 -0800, Tom Stanton
> <pendejo.gum...@taft.con> wrote:
>
>> On 2/26/2013 3:28 PM, Gunner wrote:
>>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:52:10 -0800, et...@whidbey.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> So I was wondering, from a post here about a bone stock engine running
>>>> nitro methane instead of gasoline, how much extra horsepower could a
>>>> stock engine produce just by changing fuels from gas to nitro? I'm
>>>> thinking that the engine won't run very well. Now, I'm sure that if
>>>> the compression was changed, and the carb re-jetted, and the cam
>>>> changed, things might work better. But if all you do is change fuels I
>>>> think there won't be much of an increase. This is of course in
>>>> response to gunner's assertion that he was clocked going 264 mph on a
>>>> bone stock Ninja motorcycle burning nitro methane fuel. I don't think
>>>> the motorcycle could develop enough power to push itself and someone
>>>> sitting on it to over 200 mph no matter what kind of fuel it was
>>>> burning.
>>>> ERic
>>> Bone stock? Who the hell made that claim? It was a heavily modified
>>> custom engine that may or may not been built by a guy who later busted
>>> the land speed record on an improved verson. Might even have been the
>>> same bike..shrug. Or not.
> <SNIP>
> Correction: Mark Weiber (AKA Gunner) said "stone custom engine" and I
> read this as "stone stock engine" which I further morphed in my brain
> as "bone stock engine". My mistake and I stand corrected. There is
> still no fucking way he rode any motorcycle as fast as 264 miles per
> hour. Mark, how about you get the guy who's bike you supposedly rode
> 264 miles per hour to confirm you actually rode it that fast. Or that
> you even got to sit on it while it was parked. I apologize for making
> the mistake about what you said in the first place. But Mark, your
> story was so fantastic that I guess I embellished it in my mind. Why

> do you post stuff like this anyway? Nobody believes a word of it and

> you must realize that. Why not just write a book about some kind of
> superhero? Everybody will know it's a work of fiction and you can spin
> all sorts of tales and maybe get paid for it instead of looking and
> acting like a fool. Nobody takes the James Bond movies seriously but
> they sure are fun to watch and make lots of money. Take advantage of
> that. How can you expect folks to take you seriously when you talk

> about stuff you do know about when you keep posting so much bullshit
> and presenting it as the truth?
> Eric

[Spamβuster]

On 2/26/2013 7:12 PM, Jeffrey Fowler wrote:
> On 2/26/2013 5:26 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 13:53:52 -0800, et...@whidbey.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 13:39:24 -0800, "anorton"
>>> <ano...@removethis.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> <et...@whidbey.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:i13qi81e5e90bq06c...@4ax.com...

>>>>> So I was wondering, from a post here about a bone stock engine
>>>>> running
>>>>> nitro methane instead of gasoline, how much extra horsepower could a
>>>>> stock engine produce just by changing fuels from gas to nitro? I'm
>>>>> thinking that the engine won't run very well. Now, I'm sure that if
>>>>> the compression was changed, and the carb re-jetted, and the cam
>>>>> changed, things might work better. But if all you do is change
>>>>> fuels I
>>>>> think there won't be much of an increase. This is of course in
>>>>> response to gunner's assertion that he was clocked going 264 mph on a
>>>>> bone stock Ninja motorcycle burning nitro methane fuel. I don't think
>>>>> the motorcycle could develop enough power to push itself and someone
>>>>> sitting on it to over 200 mph no matter what kind of fuel it was
>>>>> burning.
>>>>> ERic
>>>>

>>>> I think the issue with a motorcycle reaching those speeds is not so
>>>> much
>>>> horsepower as stream lining. After all, if there was no resistance
>>>> of any
>>>> kind, you could reach 264 mph with a 1 horsepower engine. The only
>>>> motorcycles that have reached speeds close to that I know about
>>>> have had
>>>> fully enclosed shells. It was clear from Gunner's original
>>>> description that
>>>> was not the case. I am not sure why there is so much debate about
>>>> this.
>>>> Gunner is a text-book classic sociopath. He will say whatever he
>>>> thinks he
>>>> can get away with to gain status among his percieved peers. When
>>>> questioned,
>>>> he resorts to threats.
>>> I know about the streamlining. That's why I was thinking about how
>>> much HP it would take to actually push a sit on bike and rider at high
>>> speed.
>>> Eric
>>
>> For a bicycle the force necessary to overcome "wind resistance"
>> requires 216,228,92 watts, or 289.96 H.P. at 264 MPH. This, of course,
>> does not include the losses due to internal friction in the engine,
>> rolling resistance of tires and so on, and is calculated solely on
>> cross sectional area, I'm sure.
>
> You need to know something about the surface area.

[dca...@krl.org]

On Feb 27, 12:55 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:



, but his performance here doesn't match
> his claims, and his claims are inconsistent - he has given figures as
> much as 10 points apart.
>

I have taken more than one IQ test and the scores are not super
consistent. Some tests are truncated so the score just means that
your IQ is at least so much.


Dan

[Ed Huntress]

I'm a little skeptical of them myself. I had a Stanford-Binet test in
5th grade and a Wechsler Adult test as a college sophomore. I scored
four points higher on the Wechsler test, but Wechsler scores are
supposed to be *lower* than Stanford-Binet.

Then I had Mensa evaluate my SATs and calculate their IQ equivalent.
That was eight points higher than the S-B, so I toss that one away.

--
Ed Huntress

[Uncle Steve]

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:02:50PM -0800, Gunner wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 18:12:20 -0800, et...@whidbey.com wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:02:17 -0800, Tom Stanton
> ><pendejo.gum...@taft.con> wrote:
> >
> >>On 2/26/2013 3:28 PM, Gunner wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:52:10 -0800, et...@whidbey.com wrote:
> >>>

> >>>> So I was wondering, from a post here about a bone stock engine running
> >>>> nitro methane instead of gasoline, how much extra horsepower could a
> >>>> stock engine produce just by changing fuels from gas to nitro? I'm
> >>>> thinking that the engine won't run very well. Now, I'm sure that if
> >>>> the compression was changed, and the carb re-jetted, and the cam
> >>>> changed, things might work better. But if all you do is change fuels I
> >>>> think there won't be much of an increase. This is of course in
> >>>> response to gunner's assertion that he was clocked going 264 mph on a
> >>>> bone stock Ninja motorcycle burning nitro methane fuel. I don't think
> >>>> the motorcycle could develop enough power to push itself and someone
> >>>> sitting on it to over 200 mph no matter what kind of fuel it was
> >>>> burning.
> >>>> ERic
> >>>

> >>> Bone stock? Who the hell made that claim? It was a heavily modified
> >>> custom engine that may or may not been built by a guy who later busted
> >>> the land speed record on an improved verson. Might even have been the
> >>> same bike..shrug. Or not.
> >>
> ><SNIP>
> >Correction: Mark Weiber (AKA Gunner) said "stone custom engine" and I
> >read this as "stone stock engine" which I further morphed in my brain
> >as "bone stock engine". My mistake and I stand corrected. There is
> >still no fucking way he rode any motorcycle as fast as 264 miles per
> >hour. Mark, how about you get the guy who's bike you supposedly rode
> >264 miles per hour to confirm you actually rode it that fast. Or that
> >you even got to sit on it while it was parked. I apologize for making
> >the mistake about what you said in the first place. But Mark, your
> >story was so fantastic that I guess I embellished it in my mind. Why
> >do you post stuff like this anyway? Nobody believes a word of it and
> >you must realize that. Why not just write a book about some kind of
> >superhero? Everybody will know it's a work of fiction and you can spin
> >all sorts of tales and maybe get paid for it instead of looking and
> >acting like a fool. Nobody takes the James Bond movies seriously but
> >they sure are fun to watch and make lots of money. Take advantage of
> >that. How can you expect folks to take you seriously when you talk
> >about stuff you do know about when you keep posting so much bullshit
> >and presenting it as the truth?
> >Eric
>

> Which "other" bullshit have I posted? Ive not lied here ever. Nor do
> I have any reason to do so. Lying or "exaggeration" is not part of my
> social "skills". Im not..not a Leftwinger.
>
> Feel free to be specific and post each and any items you can find.
>
> We/I will be waiting with great amusement.
>
> <VBG>

What a stupid fucking moron. Parasites like you ought to be
pilloried instead of studied and documented as the fradulent
shitburghers you actually are.


Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it
flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come.
-- Friedrich Neitzsche

[PrecisionmachinisT]

"James Waldby" <n...@valid.invalid> wrote in message news:kglft1$23u$2...@dont-email.me...

The goal here was to maintain a self-correcting, straight-up trajectory, not to hit a target located some distance away...

--with the proper amount of weight attached to the end of the stick, they would quickly arc in an upwards direction and assume a purely vertical climb even if launched horizontally.

[dca...@krl.org]

On Feb 27, 3:13 pm, Gunner <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:

> <VBG>
>
> 23 Dollar pit?  Tell us!!
>

23 $ pit is a cave in North West Alabama that was found by Bill
Torode. Bill gave it that name because he lost $23 somewhere in the
cave on one of the first trips. It is called a pit because that is
what it is. It is a large sink hole maybe 150 feet across and an
eighty foot drop to the floor of the pit. So you start out repelling
down 80 feet, but then you move off to the right and go down another
20 foot drop using the same rope. And then you move off into the
cave.

As I remember the story , when Bill first found the pit , there was no
rope available. So no exploration was done. But of course they came
back another day with rope. And explored the cave. Well not all of
it. The upper section is not real large, but not too far from the
entrance was another pit, about 60 feet. And so that trip only
explored the upper level. But cavers are persistent. And they came
back on another trip with more rope. But not enough. As there was
yet another pit. This one about 160 feet. And so they had to come
back again. And I was in the group that finally got to the bottom of
the cave. We carried lots of rope and used most of it. We left early
to get to the cave and stayed late. As I remember we were in the cave
about 13 hours and repelled down over 400 feet. Actually repelling
down is easy. It is the climbing up that is hard. I was using
Asender knots and the rope at the 160 foot pit was a bit dirty with
clay . I got about 90 feet up and couldn't go any higher. I would
slide down about as fast as I could climb up. Bill tied his Jumars
to the bottom of the rope and I pulled them up and changed to the
Jumars. He let me use them on the remaining climbs. I am not sure if
it was because he thought I needed the assurance of using Jumars or
that he just wanted me to climb faster.

So I am one of the few, possibly only caver, that has done over 400
feet of vertical caving in Alabama without doing pit in Fern Cave.

Dan

[Spamβuster]

On 2/26/2013 4:02 PM, Tom Stanton wrote:
> On 2/26/2013 3:28 PM, Gunner wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:52:10 -0800, et...@whidbey.com wrote:
>>
>>> So I was wondering, from a post here about a bone stock engine running
>>> nitro methane instead of gasoline, how much extra horsepower could a
>>> stock engine produce just by changing fuels from gas to nitro? I'm
>>> thinking that the engine won't run very well. Now, I'm sure that if
>>> the compression was changed, and the carb re-jetted, and the cam
>>> changed, things might work better. But if all you do is change fuels I
>>> think there won't be much of an increase. This is of course in
>>> response to gunner's assertion that he was clocked going 264 mph on a
>>> bone stock Ninja motorcycle burning nitro methane fuel. I don't think
>>> the motorcycle could develop enough power to push itself and someone
>>> sitting on it to over 200 mph no matter what kind of fuel it was
>>> burning.
>>> ERic
>>
>> Bone stock? Who the hell made that claim? It was a heavily modified
>> custom engine that may or may not been built by a guy who later busted
>> the land speed record on an improved verson. Might even have been the
>> same bike..shrug. Or not.
>

> No, there was no land speed record broken by anyone with any
> connection to you or anyone you know. Stop lying.