Re: Sci-fi on the decline

[David DeLaney]

Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:
>On Sat, 04 May 2013 00:05:41 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:
>> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Foul! Terry's not even in this thread,
>>>
>>>Sure he is.
>>
>> Nope.
>
>[Rest of post calling me a liar deleted unread]
>
>Everyone can plainly see that you're lying.

Uh-huh. Yet Terry's STILL not in this thread. I'm not sure you even know
who he is, since you seem to be coming at this from r.a.sf.tv; what's his
last name, or his current nom-de-plume, then?

So thank you for actually putting that out in public where everyone else
can see and decide.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[David DeLaney]

Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 04 May 2013 00:10:27 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:
>> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:16:26 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:
>>>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>> And no one actually said that, yet you insist on saying that people did.
>>>>
>>>> AND he's still failed to[NUKE]
>>>
>>>Ad hominem "argument" form detected and rejected.
>>
>> Newtlike Typing Detected!
>>
>> Funny how you can detect and reject arguments without ever reading them
>
>An argument form of "battery technology will not improve much in the near
>term, because Murdoc <insert claim here>", is clearly invalid on its face,

And yet nobody made those arguments. Instead, the arguments that were
presented to you were of the form "You know, in your step 2, the thing you
claim is an inversion of something else isn't, so everything you built on
that has no actual relation to the original statement". This hasn't been
about battery technology for quite a while, this has been about "Murdoc
can't get to his conclusions from what Wayne actually said". Once you
realize that and correct your statements, maybe we can get back to the
actual starting subject. But right now it's all "Hello? You're still
representing Wayne's statements wrong?" all the time.

[Murdoc]

On Sat, 04 May 2013 05:56:29 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:

> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>>On Fri, 03 May 2013 23:55:16 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:
>>> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>>>>> I see 121 posts from you since yesterday (out of 402 total on
>>>>> r.a.sf.w). This is somewhat excessive. Don't you have something
>>>>> better to do?
>>>>
>>>>I see 121 posts from that date arguing with me even though I'm clearly
>>>
>>> obsess[NUKE]
>>
>>Ad hominem and childish post-editing detected and rejected.
>
> Tchk. Now you're refusing to read more than two syllables of anyone's reply

If it only takes the first two syllables to confirm that it's off topic or
otherwise invalid as an argument in support of your position, yes. But that
reflects poorly on you, as being unable to go for even a short time before
veering off into the weeds.

[rest of non-battery-tech-related claptrap deleted unread]

[Murdoc]

On Sat, 04 May 2013 05:58:42 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:

> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>>On Fri, 03 May 2013 23:57:29 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:
>>> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>>>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 21:58:33 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:
>>>>> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>>>>>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 21:56:08 GMT, Wayne Throop wrote:
>>>>>>>:: If you can't tell the difference, then... well, that's typical of
>>>>>>>:: you, now isn't it.
>>>>>>>: Ad hominem noted and rejected.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you know what[NUKE]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>2. Several people, whom I shall collectively refer to as the "rasw troll
>>>>>> brigade" or RTB, began vehemently arguing with me,
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>
>>>>>> thus implying that
>>>>>> they all believed proposition B: "battery tech would remain more or less
>>>>>> stagnant for at least ten years".

>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>>{Rest of post calling me a liar deleted unread]
>>>

>>> No[NUKE]

>>
>>[Rest of post calling me a liar deleted unread]
>

> ...he can nuke that post, detecting and comprehending its contents, in
> TWOOOOOO letters!

When those two letters are "N" and "O", improperly applied to something
I've written and, further, part of an off-topic digression unrelated to the
actual bone of contention re: battery technology improvement pace, yes.

[Rest of battery-tech-irrelevant crap deleted unread.]

[David DeLaney]

Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 04 May 2013 00:07:07 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:
>> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:08:01 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:
>>>> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>>>>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 20:25:55 GMT, Wayne Throop wrote:
>>>>>>: Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>
>>>>>>: Several people, whom I shall collectively refer to as the "rasw troll
>>>>>>: brigade" or RTB, began vehemently arguing with me, thus implying that

>>>>>>: they all believed proposition B: "battery tech would remain more or
>>>>>>: less stagnant for at least ten years".
>>>>>>

>>>>>> A position you made up all by yourself, with no input from anybody else.
>>>>>
>>>>>Incorrect. Since it is the logical negation of proposition A,
>>>>
>>>> But it's not.
>>>
>>>[Rest of post calling me a liar deleted unread]
>>
>> Sorry, you're m[NUKE]
>
>Ad hominem "argument" form detected. The correct topic of this discussion
>is battery technology, not me.

Again, nope. The topic for, what, 150 posts? has been "Murloc misrepresented
Wayne's words. Murloc yells his head off any time someone tries to gently
point this out. Murloc is acting like a five-year-old. Can we get Murloc to
actually realize what Wayne said and what it actually implies, and then maybe
we can go from there?". We're stuck there, because you're in "NO YOU CAN'T SAY
THAT ABOUT ME OR ABOUT MY LOGIC YOU MUST SAY WHAT I WANT YOU TO SAY ONLY I AM
KING OF INFINITE USENET" mode.

Dave, still wondering when you'll hit the Briedbart limit and find your
cut-and-paste posts getting cancelled

[Murdoc]

On Sat, 04 May 2013 06:00:03 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:

> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:
>>On Sat, 04 May 2013 00:05:41 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:
>>> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> Foul! Terry's not even in this thread,
>>>>
>>>>Sure he is.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>
>>[Rest of post calling me a liar deleted unread]
>>
>>Everyone can plainly see that you're lying.
>
> Uh-huh. Yet Terry's STILL not in this thread.

Wrong:
<XnsA1B1610341E...@69.16.186.50>
<XnsA1B1AB77CDE...@69.16.186.50>
<XnsA1B16149FD0...@69.16.186.50>
(and I could list at least a dozen more, but really, those should suffice)

[Rest of battery-tech-unrelated, predicated-on-a-false-premise post deleted
unread]

[Murdoc]

On Sat, 04 May 2013 06:02:57 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:

> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:
>>On Sat, 04 May 2013 00:10:27 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:
>>> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:16:26 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:
>>>>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>> And no one actually said that, yet you insist on saying that people did.
>>>>>
>>>>> AND he's still failed to[NUKE]
>>>>
>>>>Ad hominem "argument" form detected and rejected.
>>>
>>> Newtlike Typing Detected!
>>>
>>> Funny how you can detect and reject arguments without ever reading them
>>
>>An argument form of "battery technology will not improve much in the near
>>term, because Murdoc <insert claim here>", is clearly invalid on its face,
>

> And yet nobody made those argu[NUKE]

Rest of post calling me a liar (while itself blatantly lying!) deleted
unread.

Try again?

[Murdoc]

On Sat, 04 May 2013 06:05:38 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:

> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:
>>On Sat, 04 May 2013 00:07:07 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:
>>> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:08:01 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:
>>>>> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 20:25:55 GMT, Wayne Throop wrote:
>>>>>>>: Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>
>>>>>>>: Several people, whom I shall collectively refer to as the "rasw troll
>>>>>>>: brigade" or RTB, began vehemently arguing with me, thus implying that
>>>>>>>: they all believed proposition B: "battery tech would remain more or
>>>>>>>: less stagnant for at least ten years".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A position you made up all by yourself, with no input from anybody else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Incorrect. Since it is the logical negation of proposition A,
>>>>>
>>>>> But it's not.
>>>>
>>>>[Rest of post calling me a liar deleted unread]
>>>
>>> Sorry, you're m[NUKE]
>>
>>Ad hominem "argument" form detected. The correct topic of this discussion
>>is battery technology, not me.
>

> Again, nope[NUKE]

Again, long story short:

1. I said proposition A: essentially, "battery tech will improve
significantly in the fairly near term."

2. Several people, whom I shall collectively refer to as the "rasw troll

brigade" or RTB, began vehemently arguing with me, thus implying that
they all believed proposition B: "battery tech would remain more or less

stagnant for at least ten years". Proposition B being the negation of
proposition A, it is necessarily the case that if you argue against A,
you're arguing for B, so, since they were arguing against A, the RTB
were arguing for B.

3. I proved that B is almost certainly incorrect.

4. Members of the RTB, more or less in unison, changed tactic from arguing
against A to denying ever having held position B.

5. I pointed out that position B is automatically and implicitly argued for
by anyone arguing against position A, and that they'd been arguing
against position A.

6. Members of the RTB then began accusing me of dishonesty.

Obviously, the actual dishonesty is on the parts of those who MUST,
necessarily, have either:

a) Held position B, thus argued vociferously against its negation, position
A, when confronted with it, but then *denied having held position B*, or

b) Not actually held position B, so held position A, but argued
vociferously against position A anyway, thus implying that they held
position B *even though they did not*.

If you held position B, you were dishonest when you subsequently denied
holding position B. If you did not hold position B, you were dishonest when
you attacked me for posting position A despite privately agreeing with me.
In either case, you were dishonest. And when you subsequently accused *me*
of being dishonest, you further revealed yourselves to be a bunch of
hypocrites.

Confirmed members of the RTB, as ascertained by their having displayed the
above behaviors: Sea Wasp, Rod Speed, Wayne Throop, David DeLaney, *and* J.
Clarke.

Didn't the five of you trolls have anything better to do on a Friday night?

[David DeLaney]

Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 04 May 2013 00:08:02 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:
>> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:05:34 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:
>>>> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>>>>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:59:00 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> And even worse, you can't tell a[NUKE]
>>>>>
>>>>>Long story short:
>>>>
>>>> And even worse worse, you're now descending to[NUKE]
>>>
>>>Ad hominem detected and rejected.
>>
>> And you[NUKE]
>
>Any sentence you post containing the word "you" is

clearly on-topic, since the error in logic STILL has not been admitted by
one murdoc11.

Yes, we can talk about you and how you've made a mistake and refused to
own up to it. No, you can't try to hide it by insisting everyone else stop
trying to show you where you went wrong.

>Either present a cogent point on the topic of battery technology, in
>support of your side of that debate, or STFU.

Oh dear, he knows a dirty word. Well, a dirty acronym. Washing out of mouth
with soap to follow.

>Any other response, at all, will be taken as a
>concession that you have no refutation for my position, and thus as your
>concession of defeat.

Sorry, your position was refuted over a hundred posts ago, because:

>1. I said proposition A: essentially, "battery tech will improve
> significantly in the fairly near term."
>
>2. Several people, whom I shall collectively refer to as the "rasw troll
> brigade" or RTB, began vehemently arguing with me, thus implying that
> they all believed proposition B: "battery tech would remain more or less
> stagnant for at least ten years". Proposition B being the negation of
> proposition A, it is necessarily the case that if you argue against A,
> you're arguing for B, so, since they were arguing against A, the RTB
> were arguing for B.

B is in no way the negation of A. B is the negation of "either battery tech
will improve significantly at some point, OR in the fairly near term there will
be some improvement". The negation of A is "Any significant improvement of
battery tech will not be in the fairly near term", which allows for incremental
improvement over that time or significant improvement past that time (which
includes your 'ten years').

Holding A to be false in no way implies B to be true, and vice versa. Until
you realize this, you're going to be a circus spectacle, it seems.

Dave

[David DeLaney]

Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 04 May 2013 00:11:54 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:
>> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:38:50 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:
>>>> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>>>>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 08:37:14 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:
>>>>>> Nope. He hasn't changed his claim.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sure he has.
>>>>
>>>> Nope.

>>>
>>>[Rest of post calling me a liar deleted unread]
>>

>> Sad. Still can't tell the difference between "liar liar pants on fire" and
>[rest of irrelevant digression deleted]

...and "hey, you made a mistake, want to correct it?". Sadly, you continue
on the path of error.

[David DeLaney]

Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 04 May 2013 00:12:55 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:
>> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:00:28 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:
>>>> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>>>>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 20:27:42 GMT, Wayne Throop wrote:
>>>>>> A convenient straw effigy. I never said or implied it.
>>>>>> An you know I never said or implied it. But keep pretending I did.
>>>>>
>>>>>Calling me a liar noted and rejected.
>>>>
>>>> You can reject it all you want, but you're still exhibiting the be[NUKE]

>>>
>>>Ad hominem "argument" form detected.
>>

>> Wrong[NUKE]
>
>You are indeed.

Oh hey, that's Terry's "I know you are but what am I?". You're still wrong
about what you're calling ad hominems; you can try to say the other person's
at fault all you want, but you keep exhibiting your error in your cut and
paste section.

[David DeLaney]

Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 04 May 2013 00:14:21 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:
>> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:18:00 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:
>>>> Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:
>>>>>Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>
>>>>>: Of course they count.
>>>>>
>>>>>I thought you were talking about batteries.
>>>>>They aren't batteries.
>>>>>
>>>>>So now, fuel cells are OK? When you sneered at them before?
>>>>
>>>> Oh, be nice - he's been typing so loudly and long without ever drawing a
>>>> breath now that he's probably lost track of what he was typing about.

>>>
>>>Ad hominem detected and rejected.
>>

>> Yep. His cut-and-paste finger must be getting blistered, too.
>
>Your irrelevant and incorrect remark is not a valid argument in support of
>your position vis-a-vis battery technology.

? We're not talking about that. We're talking about your inability to correctly
invert what Wayne said into a contrary position. Still.

Yes, that contains the word "you". No, it has been about you and your error
for quite some time now. Yes, it may someday get back to battery tech, though
at this point it seems quite unlikely. No, you're not impressing the judges.

[David DeLaney]

Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 03 May 2013 22:45:37 -0400, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>> On 5/3/13 5:12 PM, Murdoc wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:08:09 -0400, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>>> On 4/29/13 12:15 PM, David DeLaney wrote:

>>>>> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> Foul! Terry's not even in this thread,
>>>>>

>>>>> although for the life of me I can't understand _why_...
>>>>>
>>>>>> The real idiot and troll in this
>>>>>> thread is Murdoc, though I can't say that any of the
>>>>>> furriners has made a very favorable impression.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also think that I won't be adding rec.arts.sf.tv to my newsreader list
>>>>> any time soon.
>>>>
>>>> Though it appears that Murdoc has run away.
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>
>> Ah, I see. You h[NUKE]
>
>Invalid ad hominem "argument" form detected. No correct discussion of
>battery technology would need to contain the word "you".

So? We're not discussing battery tech. At this branch of the thread, we're
discussing your behavior and the impression it gives of the group you came
from. You're trying as hard as you can to stop people from talking about you
and your error; you still haven't admitted your error.

[David DeLaney]

Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 04 May 2013 00:16:11 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:
>> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:24:40 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:
>>>> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>>>>>How the *hell* can you possibly continue arguing with something that
>>>>>*everyone knows*?
>>>>
>>>> Probably the same way you can, in other branches of this thread?
>>>>
>>>>>You really are like a religious zealot. Next you'll be
>>>>>spouting stuff about 4004 BC.
>>>>
>>>> Ad divinem noted and rejected.
>>>
>>>Ad hominem (to wit, false accusation of fallacy argument) noted and rejected.
>>
>> ? You know that's nothing like what an ad h[NUKE]

>
>[Rest of post calling me a liar deleted unread]

Mmmm. Paranoia. Since you can't know what it actually says without reading
it, you know. And since you didn't read it, you didn't actually see that
it was pointing out you don't know what ad hominem means. You can continue
to scream we're calling you liars if you want, though.

[David DeLaney]

Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 04 May 2013 00:17:03 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:
>> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:41:39 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:
>>>> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>>>>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 08:39:43 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:
>>>>>> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>>>>>>>It's a direct logical consequence of what he said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope.[NUKE]
>>>>>
>>>>>You'll only get the following form response to calling me a liar in this
>>>>>thread now.
>>>>
>>>> So ... you're rejecting arguments and information based on who they're coming
>>>> from now.
>>>
>>>Reading comprehension problems now, DeLaney? That's now what I said at all.
>> ...

>>>Confirmed members of the RTB, as ascertained by their having displayed the
>>>above behaviors: Sea Wasp, Rod Speed, Wayne Throop, David DeLaney, *and* J.
>>>Clarke.
>>

>> You've said the above over a hundred times now. So, yes, that's exactly
>> what you're saying. Loudly, repeatedly, and publicly.
>
>Wrong. That's a comment on your behavior, not a claim that I'll auto-reject
>arguments from you.

And yet you auto-reject every argument from these people. By sheer coincidence.
Each time they attempt to gently guide you to where your error in interpreting
Wayne's position was. So yes, we can be forgiven for taking the above to say
"Hey, I'm not listening to any of these people because of who they are".

plus which, you've BEEN rejecting arguments and information, in your own
words, unread. Leaving nothing TO base that on except who it's from.

[David DeLaney]

Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 04 May 2013 00:21:11 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:
>> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:21:24 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:
>>>> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>>>>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 15:22:51 -0400, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 08:24:12 -0400, David DeLaney
>>>>>>> No. Much as I hate to think Rod actually got something
>>>>>>> right? He's right and you're wrong wrong wrongitty wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given the nature of Usenet, anyone with Rod's enthusiasm for
>>>>>> disagreeing with people is bound to be right from time to time.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, but this isn't one of those times.
>>>>
>>>> Hush dear,
>>>
>>>No. You either stop talking to or about me, or you debate the original
>>>topic honestly and without engaging in namecalling.
>>
>> Sorry, dear. You've[NUKE]
>
>Rest of invalid non-battery-technology-relevant post flushed unread.

Sorry, dear. You still lose. When you're ready to talk about the actual
topic, where your error in interpreting Wayne's words was, let us know.

[David DeLaney]

Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 04 May 2013 00:22:18 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:
>
>> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:27:26 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:
>>>> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>>>>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 08:20:24 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:
>>>>>> Oh, I see, you're setting up a position that he never ever stated
>>>>>> [NUKE]
>>>>>Long story short:
>>>>
>>>> I ask this because it suddenly occurs to me that I don't KNOW whether you
>>>> know this:
>>>>
>>>> You do know, right, that snipping just about all of a post in your reply to
>>>[rest of irrelevant digression deleted unread]
>>>
>>>Stick to the topic. The topic is battery technology improvements.
>>
>> Nope.[NUKE]

>
>[Rest of post calling me a liar deleted unread]

Uh-huh. And by not reading it, the fact that it shows you're mistaken, not
lying, slips by you again.

[David DeLaney]

Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 04 May 2013 00:24:43 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:
>> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:02:35 -0400, David DeLaney wrote:
>>>> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>>>>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:05:22 GMT, Wayne Throop wrote:
>>>>>> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>

>>>>>>: A race that, in the long run, anything reliant upon fossil fuels
>>>>>>: *must* lose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. Because hydrocarbon fuels can be synthesized.
>>>>>
>>>>>Do you understand the definition of "fossil fuels"?
>>>>
>>>> ... so you're happy or not happy with a given chemical depending on how LONG
>>>> AGO it was synthesized into its current form?
>>>
>>>How do you get to that from a mere statement of fact about fossil fuel
>>>supply being finite?!
>>
>> I don't;
>
>Admission noted and accepted as your retraction of the above.

Uh-huh. It must be nice, inside the helmet where only the chirping of birds
can be heard and where opinions only enter when your ears are gently flapped
by the bladder-holders.

Since the rest of that detailed how your question out of nowhere didn't have
anything to do with what was actually being asked about, why you think fossil
fuels that have been sitting in the ground for ages are chemically differently
structured than newly-synthesized bits of the same fuel.

[David DeLaney]

Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 03 May 2013 14:54:29 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in
>>> The hypothetical scenario was a replacement of fuel taxes with a
>>> tax levied on vehicles based on axle weight and odometer change
>>> since the preceding tax year (or, if more recent, the vehicle's
>>> purchase). If the tax was made proportional to the road
>>> maintenance costs caused by the vehicle it would apparently fall
>>> 99% or more upon trucks, leaving car owners with a substantial
>>> drop in price at the pumps (no gasoline excise tax) and only a
>>> tiny tax at vehicle inspection time each year.
>>
>> What sheltered life you must[NUKE]

>
>Ad hominem "argument" form detected.

Oh, okay. NOW Terry's in the thread.

[Wayne Throop]

:: So, what are the advantages of EVs over ICVs that are analogous to
:: the advantage cars have over horses that got them adopted?

: Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>
: What are the advantages of electric lamps over oil lamps that got
: electric lamps adopted? :)

Safety was a big factor. Of coursebatteries neveer catch fire or explode.
No wait, thery do.

In case you missed it, the lamp analogy is invalid because of power density, the horse analogy is invalid because of animal husbandry.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 5/4/13 6:18 AM, David DeLaney wrote:
> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 May 2013 22:45:37 -0400, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>> On 5/3/13 5:12 PM, Murdoc wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:08:09 -0400, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>>>> On 4/29/13 12:15 PM, David DeLaney wrote:
>>>>>> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>> Foul! Terry's not even in this thread,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> although for the life of me I can't understand _why_...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The real idiot and troll in this
>>>>>>> thread is Murdoc, though I can't say that any of the
>>>>>>> furriners has made a very favorable impression.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also think that I won't be adding rec.arts.sf.tv to my newsreader list
>>>>>> any time soon.
>>>>>
>>>>> Though it appears that Murdoc has run away.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>> Ah, I see. You h[NUKE]
>>
>> Invalid ad hominem "argument" form detected. No correct discussion of
>> battery technology would need to contain the word "you".
>
> So? We're not discussing battery tech. At this branch of the thread, we're
> discussing your behavior and the impression it gives of the group you came
> from. You're trying as hard as you can to stop people from talking about you
> and your error; you still haven't admitted your error.

Maybe he's like NOMAD; if he admits his error he'll self-destruct.


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[Mark Zenier]

In article <augth5...@mid.individual.net>,
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>"J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> wrote:
>>In article <klu0j...@enews4.newsguy.com>, mze...@eskimo.com says...
>
>>> If you really want to go stealth. Find a diesel generator that
>>> can run on plain vegetable oil. Tell the grocery clerk that it's
>>> time to deep fry some turkeys.
>>
>>That's if the thing will charge on what comes out of a standard
>>generator.
>
>Think of 750 watts as a horsepower. Your typical generator is
>probably 1200 watts -- 1.5 horse.

The standard roll around chinese, probably last 60 hours max type.
If you didn't want to just pull over and take a nap while charging,
you'd be looking at a continuous duty 5-10 kilowatt unit. Something
designed for marine use, or as a welder.

>My car has sixty some horsepower and a lot of people think of it as
>low power. Think of trying to get somewhere with under two
>horsepower.

Horsepower is a very creative rating system, like Peak Audio Power.
Look at the spec page in the owners handbook for the engine rating
in kilowatts. My roller skate (compact station wagon) is only rated
at 5 kilowatts, I think. Maybe 10.


Mark Zenier mze...@eskimo.com
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

[Mark Zenier]

In article <MPG.2bed6edca...@news.newsguy.com>,
J. Clarke <jclark...@cox.net> wrote:
>In article <augth5...@mid.individual.net>, go...@gossg.org says...

>>
>> "J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >In article <klu0j...@enews4.newsguy.com>, mze...@eskimo.com says...
>>
>> >> If you really want to go stealth. Find a diesel generator that
>> >> can run on plain vegetable oil. Tell the grocery clerk that it's
>> >> time to deep fry some turkeys.
>> >
>> >That's if the thing will charge on what comes out of a standard
>> >generator.
>>
>> Think of 750 watts as a horsepower. Your typical generator is
>> probably 1200 watts -- 1.5 horse.
>>

>> My car has sixty some horsepower and a lot of people think of it as
>> low power. Think of trying to get somewhere with under two
>> horsepower.
>

>Think of volts as volts and cycles as cycles and if the car won't charge
>on the voltage and frequency of a standard generator, then what?
>
>Hint--they're talking about special charging stations that do not feed
>the car 110v or 220v 60Hz.

Are you completely isolated from the maker/hacker subculture?
(ObSF: William Gibson's first half a dozen books). People can build
things. They may be bigger, ugly, and not really all that efficient,
but they exist already in the hobby EV field.

Say you're trying to deal with that fancy high frequency induction
coupler that GM came up with for the EV1. The electronics in a
burnerless (induction) stove top aren't going to be that much different.
Or for a large computer server's power supply, for that matter.

[J. Clarke]

In article <km360...@enews6.newsguy.com>, mze...@eskimo.com says...

<facepalm>

[Brian M. Scott]

On Sat, 04 May 2013 07:42:01 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
<news:km2rvp$neq$1...@dont-email.me> in
rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.tv:

> On 5/4/13 6:18 AM, David DeLaney wrote:

[...]

>> So? We're not discussing battery tech. At this branch of
>> the thread, we're discussing your behavior and the
>> impression it gives of the group you came from. You're
>> trying as hard as you can to stop people from talking
>> about you and your error; you still haven't admitted
>> your error.

> Maybe he's like NOMAD; if he admits his error he'll
> self-destruct.

I favor the simplest explanation consonant with the
evidence: he's just mind-numbingly stupid.

Brian

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Nah, the simplest explanation is that he's a troll. One with nothing to
do on Fridays, which is why he vanished for most of the week and showed
up again yesterday.

[Kurt Busiek]

On 2013-05-04 18:11:26 +0000, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"

<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:

> On 5/4/13 12:16 PM, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 May 2013 07:42:01 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
>> Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
>> <news:km2rvp$neq$1...@dont-email.me> in
>> rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.tv:
>>
>>> On 5/4/13 6:18 AM, David DeLaney wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> So? We're not discussing battery tech. At this branch of
>>>> the thread, we're discussing your behavior and the
>>>> impression it gives of the group you came from. You're
>>>> trying as hard as you can to stop people from talking
>>>> about you and your error; you still haven't admitted
>>>> your error.
>>
>>> Maybe he's like NOMAD; if he admits his error he'll
>>> self-destruct.
>>
>> I favor the simplest explanation consonant with the
>> evidence: he's just mind-numbingly stupid.
>
> Nah, the simplest explanation is that he's a troll.

If so, he's sure got David Delaney on his hook.

kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!

[Rod Speed]

Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Doc O'Leary <drolear...@2q2013.subsume.com> wrote

>>> Hanging is only the simplest thing that came to mind.

>> There are only those two possibilitys with something as fragile as
>> cornflakes.

> Oh, come on.

Where are we going ?

> This is a science fiction newsgroup.

It is in fact a pair of newsgroups.

> That means that there are infinite possibilities,

No. The buyers wouldn't not be too keen on buying
the cornflakes if they were delivered by firing them
out of a plane doing a low run over their house etc.

> including "ship them frozen in carbonite". :)

That's going to result in even more useless packaging.

>>> Have people really become such lazy and unthinking pieces of shit?

>> They always have been like that.

> Misanthropist.

No, that's just another statement of fact.

>>> All your protestations amount to is you broadcasting that you
>>> haven't got the imagination to think of a better tomorrow.

>> Bullshit. I know that there isnt any better tomorrow with packaging,
>> essentially because we have been doing it for more than a century
>> now and while what we do does light a fire under some like you,
>> it works fine for the absolute vast bulk of us.

> Bullshit. Molecular nanotechnology will eventually
> utterly change the face of packaging.

Not a chance, if only because of the cost.

> Who'd want an icky, awkward hydrocarbon-polymer *bag*
> of milk when the nanofab could print a nice monocrystalline
> diamond jug of milk using the same atoms,

Not even possible. There just arent enough
atoms involved to be viable in that format.

> and it would actually stand upright and not spill if put down, and
> when you were done, if you didn't have an immediate other use
> for the jug you could just chuck it back into the fab to be recycled?

It aint gunna happen, because of the cost of that approach.

[Greg Goss]

Paul Colquhoun <newsp...@andor.dropbear.id.au> wrote:

>| 3. I proved that B is almost certainly incorrect.
>
>

>But ignored all other options.
>
>Real life so rarely limits itself to just 2 convenient options.

When B is defined to be not-A, you're pretty much stuck with either A
or not-A.

I'm still in B. Battery tech is improving, but not spectacularly
fast. We're likely to see chemical synthesis from electric power of
something that acts pretty much like gasoline before we're going to
see electric cars that are as versatile for commuting and vacation as
we have now.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Rod Speed]

"Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message
news:6d8twijbpk.l160apr1fa1$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Fri, 3 May 2013 09:36:55 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> "Your Name" <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in message
>> news:YourName-030...@203-118-187-184.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz...
>>> In article <auesjr...@mid.individual.net>, "Rod Speed"
>>> <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Your Name" <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:YourName-020...@203-118-187-79.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz...
>>>> > In article <aueb10...@mid.individual.net>, "Rod Speed"
>>>> > <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> "Your Name" <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in message
>>>> >> news:YourName-020...@203-118-187-94.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz...
>>>> >>> and clothing are also cheaper in other countries.
>>
>>>> >> You sure ?
>>
>>>> > Yep. Of course, most of the "New Zealand made"
>>>> > clothing is really made in Asia and only designed here.
>>
>>>> I thought you were talking about what's actually made there.
>>
>>> Very little is actually made here these days, but it
>>> is designed and sold by a New Zealand company.
>>
>> Sure, but that’s not really NZ clothes.
>
> And "Rod Speed" trots out the No True Scotsman fallacy, right on cue.
>
>>>> > That example is actually two supermarkets
>>>> > owned by the same company in the one mall.
>>
>>>> Sure, but that sort of quirk that’s the result
>>>> of the history doesn’t prove much.
>>
>>> The two stores have been owned by the same company for
>>> years and only fairly recently been rebranded. Simple common
>>> sense should dictate that one of them is closed down.
>>
>> There presumably is a reason why that came about
>> and why they don’t choose to close one of them.
>>
>> We have the even more bizarre situation where Woolworths
>> has chosen to add another full supermarket in a town of 20K
>> where there is absolutely no point in having more than one.
>
> Relatives of mine live in a town of 15K with *four* full supermarkets.

We've got 6. My comment was about whether it makes any sense
to have two of them built and owned and run by Woolworths.

> The town's sprawled out east-west along some railroad tracks.

That's one way of describing ours too.

> One company owns two chain stores in the central and west end,
> one anchoring a mall and the other freestanding; another owns
> one in a mall on the east end; and the fourth is in a Wal-Mart
> Supercenter outside of the town limits but within a similar driving
> distance from downtown as the other two peripherally-located ones.

None of our supermarkets are outside town. We do have
some of those, but none of the supermarkets are in those.

> There's a few specialty food shops as well --
> smaller, pricier, and narrower in selection.

We have quite a few of those too.

> The four noted above though are all full supermarkets,
> complete with carts, a dozen or more aisles, and a full
> selection of major US brands of food, garbage bags, detergent,
> light bulbs, and all of the other usual product categories.

Same with our 6.

> The two chain stores mentioned first also have the chain's store brand.

4 of ours do. The other two are part of a buying
group which has its own buying group brand too.

> I don't recall seeing any Brand X products at the other
> two on the few occasions I've shopped at them.

We don't see any of the competitor's store
brands in other stores if that's what you mean.

> I'd expect a town of 20K to possibly support a fifth full supermarket.

In fact it supports 6. Two from that same company which is one
of the two companys that completely dominate supermarkets
in this country with a combined market share of about 85%

> Unless something about the town of 15K in question is really odd,
> like everyone eats a lot more than normal. But then wouldn't it be
> like Fat City there or something? It isn't. At least, no more than the
> rest of America seems to be. Most likely if you ripped out all but one
> of the ones in the town of 15K, half the population would starve.

No, they would all just buy everything at that one and get
to wear that operation being able to shaft them on price.

> What that town lacks are the huge warehouse-direct super-duper-markets
> that the larger cities in the area all have around their perimeters.

Same with ours. We don't even have an Aldi, but that's more because
Aldi has some funny ideas about which towns they will put their stores
in highway wise.

> It seems to take a population over 100,000 to sustain those. The cities
> with
> over a million people all seem to support half a dozen or more, though.

We only have those in our state capitals. The closes one over 100K doesn't
have those.

[JRStern]

On Fri, 3 May 2013 13:18:33 -0400, "J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net>
wrote:

>In article <60b1b52f-89de-4a5b-8f9d-5e01c589d154
>@i2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, david.sh...@ymail.com says...
>>
>> On May 3, 11:56�am, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>> <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote innews:slrnko65b...@gatekeeper.vic.com:
>> >
>> > > Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >>"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote
>> > >>> � � �Naturally. I think there's a law or something.
>> >
>> > >>Well, there's a lot of laws. There's Sturgeon's Law, Moore's Law,
>> > >>the Law of Unintended Consequenes, the Law of Average, the Law of
>> > >>Gravity, the Laws of Thermodynamics, Ohm's Law, and, of course,
>> > >>Lucy Lawless. But I'm thinkign that the Dilbert Principle, or even
>> > >>the Dunning-Kreuger Effect, might be a tad more on-target here.
>> >
>> > > And sometimes Cole's Law.
>> >
>> > My favorite local restaurant makes their own coleslaw, rather than
>> > scooping it out of a bucket. It's quite tasty.
>>
>> *Is* there any coleslaw in Science Fiction?
>> Maybe at Harry's All-Night Hamburgers?
>
>I know John Galt made a mean burger, but I don't recall now if Dagny had
>slaw with it or not.

I think that would be the philosopher Hugh Akston.

J.

[Rod Speed]

Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>> "Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

>> news:gigeul48rr45.28b27ua45yp1$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> On Thu, 2 May 2013 15:00:28 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>
>>>> "John F. Eldredge" <jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:aue9iv...@mid.individual.net...

>>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:48:11 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Murdoc" <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:12b7c1yzzfz1x.1...@40tude.net...
>>>>>>> What about encouraging the clay to fire into bricks to be sourced
>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>> locally?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not viable to do that with such a small part of the total road
>>>>>> traffic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Trucking clay cross-country when there's lots of it right near the
>>>>>>> construction site isn't exactly an exemplar of efficiency. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure, but there are other factors involved. We used to have a brick
>>>>>> factory in the town I currently live in but it went bust so there is
>>>>>> no
>>>>>> alternative to moving them by truck into the town.
>>>>>
>>>>> In areas where the subsoil is mostly clay, such as here in Nashville,
>>>>> Tennessee, the practice once was to make the bricks for a house
>>>>> from the soil excavated when the cellar was dug.
>>>>
>>>> We were never into cellars to anything like the extent north america
>>>> is.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure why.
>>>
>>> Fewer tornadoes?
>>
>> Certainly a lot less tornadoes, but there are plenty of places
>> in North America which don't get any more than we do and
>> which are into cellars a lot more than we ever were.

> Squall lines with 90mph winds there, then.

Not squall lines so much as what we call cyclones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone

> Anything that isn't cemented into the earth is liable to go bye-bye
> if the winds get strong enough, with or without a tornado.

We still don't have much at all in the way of cellars
in the areas prone to cyclones. And periodically that
does see even the main capital quite literally blown away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_Tracy

> About the only areas in America to almost never get squall lines

We don't get everything that doesn't have a cellar blown away by those.

> are coastal California and the southeast states far enough
> from the Great Plains. And both of those areas get hurricanes.

We get cyclones over the top half of the country and
hardly any cellars at all in that part of the country.

Its perfectly possible to do cyclone proof houses
which don't have a cellar.

[Rod Speed]

"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
news:13676...@sheol.org...

Mine was nothing even remotely like an analogy.

It was just rubbing your nose in the FACT that just
because something isnt easy says nothing useful
about whether we change to that approach anyway.

[Rod Speed]

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:km3ipt$udn$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 5/4/13 12:16 PM, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 May 2013 07:42:01 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
>> Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
>> <news:km2rvp$neq$1...@dont-email.me> in
>> rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.tv:
>>
>>> On 5/4/13 6:18 AM, David DeLaney wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> So? We're not discussing battery tech. At this branch of
>>>> the thread, we're discussing your behavior and the
>>>> impression it gives of the group you came from. You're
>>>> trying as hard as you can to stop people from talking
>>>> about you and your error; you still haven't admitted
>>>> your error.
>>
>>> Maybe he's like NOMAD; if he admits his error he'll
>>> self-destruct.
>>
>> I favor the simplest explanation consonant with the
>> evidence: he's just mind-numbingly stupid.

> Nah, the simplest explanation is that he's a troll.

The simplest explanation is that he has some silly ideas
about the future of EVs and a rather unusual approach to
dealing with those who rub his nose in the basics on that.

> One with nothing to do on Fridays, which is why he vanished for most of
> the week and showed up again yesterday.

The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Nah, it's "using his own insults against him", as that was exactly what
he was saying to those who dared argue with him. Ironically ignoring the
fact that in order to respond to multiple people he had to be spending
more precious Friday time on it than any of us.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) writes:

> In article <ylfkli7w...@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) writes:
>> > ::: mze...@eskimo.com (Mark Zenier)
>> > ::: Put a generator in utility trailer or in a trailer tent or the like.
>> > ::: Or if your EV is a pick up truck, hide the generator in an
>> > ::: in-the-bed tool chest.
>> > :
>> > : Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org>
>> > : Think of 750 watts as a horsepower. Your typical generator is

>> > : probably 1200 watts -- 1.5 horse. My car has sixty some horsepower
>> > : and a lot of people think of it as low power. Think of trying to get
>> > : somewhere with under two horsepower.
>> >

>> > Why use a "typical" generator? I see on amazon a 10kw generator
>> > for under a thousand bucks. OK, so this provokes me to BOTEC a while.
>>
>> Ooh; here's a 26k watt for $2700. Sports car!
>
> An electric sportscar is an oxy-moron, just like an automatic sportscar.

Is there a single current Formula 1 car with a manual clutch and
gearbox? I don't think so.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[Rod Speed]

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in message

news:km3pv5$d6j$1...@dont-email.me...

Sure, but that doesn't make him a troll, just
someone who can't even manage a viable insult.

[Wayne Throop]

: "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
: It was just rubbing your nose in the FACT that just

: because something isnt easy says nothing useful
: about whether we change to that approach anyway.

Whereas in the real world, easier things that give comparable results
are very likely to be tried first. Your mistake is treating "easy"
as a binary attribute, and ignoring comparable results, rendering your
comment irrelevant.

[Your Name]

In article <13676...@sheol.org>, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:

> :: So, what are the advantages of EVs over ICVs that are analogous to
> :: the advantage cars have over horses that got them adopted?
>
> : Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid>
> : What are the advantages of electric lamps over oil lamps that got
> : electric lamps adopted? :)
>
> Safety was a big factor. Of coursebatteries neveer catch fire or explode.
> No wait, thery do.

Also the fact that they no longer had to pay someone to go around
refilling them, lighting them, and extisguihing them ... of course,
judging by the street lights around here, they'd be better off returning
to oil-based ones, at least they'd actually work some of the time and at
night (rather than day time) for a change. :-\

[Your Name]

In article <aul453...@mid.individual.net>, "Rod Speed"

<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote
> > Rod Speed wrote
> >> Doc O'Leary <drolear...@2q2013.subsume.com> wrote
>
> >>> Hanging is only the simplest thing that came to mind.
>
> >> There are only those two possibilitys with something as fragile as
> >> cornflakes.
>
> > Oh, come on.
>
> Where are we going ?
>
> > This is a science fiction newsgroup.
>
> It is in fact a pair of newsgroups.
>
> > That means that there are infinite possibilities,
>
> No. The buyers wouldn't not be too keen on buying
> the cornflakes if they were delivered by firing them
> out of a plane doing a low run over their house etc.
>
> > including "ship them frozen in carbonite". :)
>
> That's going to result in even more useless packaging.

There's no "useless packaging" and no recycling issues. The carbonite
simply evaporates when you defrost them ... of course the cornflakes would
be soggy for a while and the evaporating gas would probably add to the
"Greehouse affect" problems.

[Your Name]

On Fri, 3 May 2013 09:36:55 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
> "Your Name" <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in message
> news:YourName-030...@203-118-187-184.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz...
>> In article <auesjr...@mid.individual.net>, "Rod Speed"
>> <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Your Name" <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in message
>>> news:YourName-020...@203-118-187-79.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz...
>>> > In article <aueb10...@mid.individual.net>, "Rod Speed"
>>> > <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> "Your Name" <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in message
>>> >> news:YourName-020...@203-118-187-94.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz...
>>> >>> and clothing are also cheaper in other countries.
>>> >>
>>> >> You sure ?
>>> >
>>> > Yep. Of course, most of the "New Zealand made"
>>> > clothing is really made in Asia and only designed here.
>>>
>>> I thought you were talking about what's actually made there.
>>
>> Very little is actually made here these days, but it
>> is designed and sold by a New Zealand company.
>
> Sure, but that�s not really NZ clothes.
>
>
>

>>> > That example is actually two supermarkets
>>> > owned by the same company in the one mall.
>>>
>>> Sure, but that sort of quirk that�s the result
>>> of the history doesn�t prove much.
>>
>> The two stores have been owned by the same company for
>> years and only fairly recently been rebranded. Simple common
>> sense should dictate that one of them is closed down.
>
> There presumably is a reason why that came about
> and why they don�t choose to close one of them.

Ah, that explains a lot ... you've got no brain and the attention span of
a dead rat. I already explained the reason how it came about. The reason
why the haven't closed it is plain and simple greed and selfishness by
stopping the competitior opening up a branch there.

[Your Name]

In article <ylfkfvy2...@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) writes:
> > In article <ylfkli7w...@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
> > wrote:
> >> thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) writes:
> >> > ::: mze...@eskimo.com (Mark Zenier)
> >> > ::: Put a generator in utility trailer or in a trailer tent or the like.
> >> > ::: Or if your EV is a pick up truck, hide the generator in an
> >> > ::: in-the-bed tool chest.
> >> > :
> >> > : Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org>
> >> > : Think of 750 watts as a horsepower. Your typical generator is
> >> > : probably 1200 watts -- 1.5 horse. My car has sixty some horsepower
> >> > : and a lot of people think of it as low power. Think of trying to get
> >> > : somewhere with under two horsepower.
> >> >
> >> > Why use a "typical" generator? I see on amazon a 10kw generator
> >> > for under a thousand bucks. OK, so this provokes me to BOTEC a while.
> >>
> >> Ooh; here's a 26k watt for $2700. Sports car!
> >
> > An electric sportscar is an oxy-moron, just like an automatic sportscar.
>
> Is there a single current Formula 1 car with a manual clutch and
> gearbox? I don't think so.

They aren't sportscars ... they're racecars, a different category again. :-p

[Rod Speed]

Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>> It was just rubbing your nose in the FACT that just
>> because something isnt easy says nothing useful
>> about whether we change to that approach anyway.

> Whereas in the real world, easier things that give comparable results

There were none of those with the move from horses to what replaced them.

And there isnt with ICVs and EVs either.

[Rod Speed]

Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Doc O'Leary <drolear...@2q2013.subsume.com> wrote

>>>>> Hanging is only the simplest thing that came to mind.

>>>> There are only those two possibilitys
>>>> with something as fragile as cornflakes.

>>> Oh, come on.

>> Where are we going ?

>>> This is a science fiction newsgroup.

>> It is in fact a pair of newsgroups.

>>> That means that there are infinite possibilities,

>> No. The buyers wouldn't not be too keen on buying
>> the cornflakes if they were delivered by firing them
>> out of a plane doing a low run over their house etc.

>>> including "ship them frozen in carbonite". :)

>> That's going to result in even more useless packaging.

> There's no "useless packaging"

That�s just plain wrong with keeping the frozen carbonite frozen.

> and no recycling issues.

That�s just plain wrong with what's used to keep the frozen carbonite
frozen.

> The carbonite simply evaporates when you defrost them ...

Pity about what's used to keep the frozen carbonite frozen.

> of course the cornflakes would be soggy for a while

And useless even when they dry out.

> and the evaporating gas would probably
> add to the "Greehouse affect" problems.

So it completely hopeless compared with how we currently package them.

Those that care about the downsides with the current packaging
used for cornflakes are always free to show up at the place that
is prepared to allow customers to show up with whatever container
they keep them in at home and fill them from big containers of
cornflakes that get returned to the factory to be refilled if they want.

[Rod Speed]

"Your Name" <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in message

news:YourName-050...@203-118-187-98.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz...

> On Fri, 3 May 2013 09:36:55 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>> "Your Name" <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in message
>> news:YourName-030...@203-118-187-184.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz...
>>> In article <auesjr...@mid.individual.net>, "Rod Speed"
>>> <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "Your Name" <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:YourName-020...@203-118-187-79.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz...
>>>> > In article <aueb10...@mid.individual.net>, "Rod Speed"
>>>> > <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> "Your Name" <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in message
>>>> >> news:YourName-020...@203-118-187-94.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz...
>>>> >>> and clothing are also cheaper in other countries.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> You sure ?
>>>> >
>>>> > Yep. Of course, most of the "New Zealand made"
>>>> > clothing is really made in Asia and only designed here.
>>>>
>>>> I thought you were talking about what's actually made there.
>>>
>>> Very little is actually made here these days, but it
>>> is designed and sold by a New Zealand company.
>>

>> Sure, but that�s not really NZ clothes.

>>
>>
>>
>>>> > That example is actually two supermarkets
>>>> > owned by the same company in the one mall.
>>>>

>>>> Sure, but that sort of quirk that�s the result
>>>> of the history doesn�t prove much.

>>>
>>> The two stores have been owned by the same company for
>>> years and only fairly recently been rebranded. Simple common
>>> sense should dictate that one of them is closed down.
>>
>> There presumably is a reason why that came about

>> and why they don�t choose to close one of them.

> Ah, that explains a lot ... you've got no brain and the attention span
> of a dead rat. I already explained the reason how it came about.

Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there, child.

> The reason why the haven't closed it is plain and simple greed and
> selfishness by stopping the competitior opening up a branch there.

Doesn�t stop anything, they are free to do that if they want to.

[Rod Speed]

"Your Name" <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in message
news:YourName-050...@203-118-187-98.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz...

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

[Howard Brazee]

On Sat, 4 May 2013 16:17:37 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> We were never into cellars to anything like the extent north america is.
>>>
>>> Not sure why.
>>
>> Fewer tornadoes?
>
>Certainly a lot less tornadoes, but there are plenty of places
>in North America which don't get any more than we do and
>which are into cellars a lot more than we ever were.

House design has a lot of cultural influences. People know what
they want - which, for instance often is big long staircases - and put
elevators on those staircases when they can't use them.

That said, when I lived in California growing up, none of my houses
had cellars. And as an adult, all of my "cellars" were furnished,
lived in, and had windows (up high).

--
Anybody who agrees with one side all of the time or disagrees with the
other side all of the time is equally guilty of letting others do
their thinking for them.

[Howard Brazee]

On Sat, 04 May 2013 14:11:26 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

>> I favor the simplest explanation consonant with the
>> evidence: he's just mind-numbingly stupid.
>
> Nah, the simplest explanation is that he's a troll. One with nothing to
>do on Fridays, which is why he vanished for most of the week and showed
>up again yesterday.

But it is more charitable to assume someone to be mind-numbingly
stupid than to assume someone to be a troll.

[Howard Brazee]

On Sat, 4 May 2013 16:16:08 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>It certainly fixes the problem of getting the refuel time to about
>what it is with gasoline.
>
>> Yeesh. That just trades one set of problems for aset just as bad or
>> worse.
>
>Bullshit on how long it takes to refuel.
>
>We already do it like that with propane, for a reason.


I remember when Volkswagen Beetles had optional gasoline heaters. They
made it toasty in a hurry. I'd like to see hybrid or electric
vehicles offer propane heaters. Propane at least wouldn't effect
mileage, and might be safer.

[Greg Goss]

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message

>> :: You could ameliorate some of these problems, but not all of them,
>> :: and not totally,

[argument about refueling/recharging speed.]

>> : "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
>> : You can actually with an automated battery swap.
>
>> And you think that ameliorates (or as you add later, solves) the problem?

>
>It certainly fixes the problem of getting the refuel time to about
>what it is with gasoline.
>
>> Yeesh. That just trades one set of problems for aset just as bad or
>> worse.
>
>Bullshit on how long it takes to refuel.
>
>We already do it like that with propane, for a reason.

Eh? WHAT do we do with vehicle propane? A friend of mine had a
propane fueled vehicle. She refuelled it by clamping the hose to the
filler nozzle and holding the handle till the nozzle clicked off as
the liquid level reached its tip. Exactly like refilling gasoline,
except for the "clamp on" bit. Propane is a liquid fuel once you
apply a rather minor pressure to it.

How is propane relevant to an argument about whether swapping
batteries is workable? I think battery swaps won't work, but my
reasons haven't been raised in this argument yet, and I'm not about to
take that side of the argument.

[Greg Goss]

Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 04 May 2013 05:06:23 GMT, Wayne Throop wrote:
>
>>: That was just as true of the move from horses to cars.
>>: We did it anyway.

>>
>> So, what are the advantages of EVs over ICVs that are analogous
>> to the advantage cars have over horses that got them adopted?
>

>What are the advantages of electric lamps over oil lamps that got electric
>lamps adopted? :)

Brightness. The woven mantle that makes gas lamps nice and bright was
invented too late to stop the decline.

[Wayne Throop]

::: That just trades one set of problems for aset just as bad or worse.

:: "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
:: Bullshit on how long it takes to refuel.

How long *does* it take to exchange batteries in an EV that's designed
for it? Is it less than three minutes? Did the battery exchange station
recruit among pit crews?

However, I was more referring to the issue of taking potluck with
the quality of the battery, among other things. For another example,
the exchange stations would have to have a *lot* of volume devoted to
batteries, due to the energy density issue. And you'd have to either
have lots more and higher paid staff for several reasons, or a significant
investment in automation.

So. Exchanging one problem (charging time) for a raft of problems.

:: We already do it like that with propane, for a reason.

But with propane, you aren't taking potluck with what's in the tanks,
and the energy density is much higher so what's exchanged isn't nearly as
bulky, nor as massive, and the recharging rates are much *much* higher
than for batteries so there's less problems with warehousing tanks.
Indeed, if you can dispense gasoline in 3 minutes, you can dispense
the energy equivlent in propane without tank exchange in well under
10 minutes. Maybe as little as 5.

So you're comparing pineapples to bicycles. "This works for
pineapples/propane, so it'll work for batteries/bicycles."
Non-sequitur. Your facts are un-co-ordinatrd.

[J. Clarke]

In article <ylfkfvy2...@dd-b.net>, dd...@dd-b.net says...

>
> Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) writes:
>
> > In article <ylfkli7w...@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> >> thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) writes:
> >> > ::: mze...@eskimo.com (Mark Zenier)
> >> > ::: Put a generator in utility trailer or in a trailer tent or the like.
> >> > ::: Or if your EV is a pick up truck, hide the generator in an
> >> > ::: in-the-bed tool chest.
> >> > :
> >> > : Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org>
> >> > : Think of 750 watts as a horsepower. Your typical generator is
> >> > : probably 1200 watts -- 1.5 horse. My car has sixty some horsepower
> >> > : and a lot of people think of it as low power. Think of trying to get
> >> > : somewhere with under two horsepower.
> >> >
> >> > Why use a "typical" generator? I see on amazon a 10kw generator
> >> > for under a thousand bucks. OK, so this provokes me to BOTEC a while.
> >>
> >> Ooh; here's a 26k watt for $2700. Sports car!
> >
> > An electric sportscar is an oxy-moron, just like an automatic sportscar.
>
> Is there a single current Formula 1 car with a manual clutch and
> gearbox? I don't think so.

A Formula 1 car is a race car, not a sports car.

[Joy Beeson]

On Sat, 04 May 2013 19:42:41 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:

[snip]

> >What are the advantages of electric lamps over oil lamps that got electric
> >lamps adopted? :)
>
> Brightness. The woven mantle that makes gas lamps nice and bright was
> invented too late to stop the decline.

Also convenience. You just pull a string to turn a light on, you pull
it again to turn it off, and in the morning you don't have to polish
the burners and wash the chimneys. Also, electric lights are less
likely to burn the house down.

And the house doesn't smell of warm kerosene.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://roughsewing.home.comcast.net/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.

[Your Name]

In article <MPG.2bef92ca2...@news.newsguy.com>, "J. Clarke"

You're wasting you time trying to explain actual facts to him - he's got
zero attention span and even less brains. :-\

[Rod Speed]

Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>>>> We were never into cellars to anything like the extent north america
>>>> is.

>>>> Not sure why.

>>> Fewer tornadoes?

>> Certainly a lot less tornadoes, but there are plenty of places
>> in North America which don't get any more than we do and
>> which are into cellars a lot more than we ever were.

> House design has a lot of cultural influences.

Yes, we have never seen the same level of light weight
timber construction as is so common in north america
except in the top half of the country.

> People know what they want - which, for instance often is big long
> staircases

We've never been as much into two story houses for
normal houses except with the most fancy houses.

Some exceptions tho, particularly with the older Victorian row
house style which never did take off much in north america.

We never did see much of the multi story multi flat style so common
in places like New York here until say the 60s when we started to see
much bigger modern high rises in the bigger citys.

> - and put elevators on those staircases when they can't use them.

We have never seen much of that here.

> That said, when I lived in California growing
> up, none of my houses had cellars.

Yeah, none of mine ever had one and still don't.

Our houses are generally quite a bit closer to the
Californian style, tho much more often brick rather
than timber outside wall.

> And as an adult, all of my "cellars" were furnished,
> lived in, and had windows (up high).

That's very uncommon here. A few of the immigrants
do have a cellar, but they don't usually live in them,
they are wine cellars at most.

[Rod Speed]

"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:e49bo8h09faovekqb...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 04 May 2013 14:11:26 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>> I favor the simplest explanation consonant with the
>>> evidence: he's just mind-numbingly stupid.
>>
>> Nah, the simplest explanation is that he's a troll. One with nothing to
>>do on Fridays, which is why he vanished for most of the week and showed
>>up again yesterday.
>
> But it is more charitable to assume someone to be mind-numbingly
> stupid than to assume someone to be a troll.

Particularly when he clearly is mind numbingly
stupid on the question of the future use of EVs.

[Rod Speed]

Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>> It certainly fixes the problem of getting the
>> refuel time to about what it is with gasoline.

>>> Yeesh. That just trades one set of problems for aset just as bad or
>>> worse.

>> Bullshit on how long it takes to refuel.

>> We already do it like that with propane, for a reason.

> I remember when Volkswagen Beetles had optional gasoline
> heaters. They made it toasty in a hurry. I'd like to see hybrid
> or electric vehicles offer propane heaters.

Yeah, its one of the real downsides with EVs in a cold climate.

And the lack of aircon in hot climates in spades.

> Propane at least wouldn't effect mileage, and might be safer.

Certainly would be. We use propane very extensively
indeed in our cars and they are fine safety wise.

[Rod Speed]

Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote

> ::: That just trades one set of problems for aset just as bad or worse.

> :: "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
> :: Bullshit on how long it takes to refuel.

> How long *does* it take to exchange batteries in an EV that's designed for
> it?

No time at all with the AUTOMATED battery swap that
I mentioned and you have now deleted from the quoting.

> Is it less than three minutes?

Yep, much less. Quicker than it takes to fill with gasoline in fact.

> Did the battery exchange station recruit among pit crews?

I was talking about automated battery exchange, not manual.

> However, I was more referring to the issue of taking potluck
> with the quality of the battery, among other things.

That�s doesn�t happen with the current system of the exchange
of propane gas cylinders instead of refilling them while you wait.

> For another example, the exchange stations would have to have a
> *lot* of volume devoted to batteries, due to the energy density issue.

Sure, but its clearly doable.

> And you'd have to either have lots more
> and higher paid staff for several reasons,

Yes, its unlikely the average woman driver would
be too happy to do the battery swap herself.

> or a significant investment in automation.

And that�s what I said originally when you ended up flat on
your face in the mud when you claimed that it will never be
possible to get the same refuel times as is seen with gasoline.

> So. Exchanging one problem (charging time) for a raft of problems.

Nope, just a different approach, as we did with propane gas cylinders.

Works fine.

> :: We already do it like that with propane, for a reason.

> But with propane, you aren't taking potluck with what's in the tanks,

You are taking the same chance with the tank itself,
what contains what you are buying, the recharge.

> and the energy density is much higher so what's
> exchanged isn't nearly as bulky, nor as massive,

That�s very arguable indeed with the other gas
cylinders that are also refilled by exchange with
stuff like nitrogen, oxygen, acetylene, etc etc etc.

Works fine.

> and the recharging rates are much *much* higher than for
> batteries so there's less problems with warehousing tanks.

They are warehoused at the retail outlets tho.

> Indeed, if you can dispense gasoline in 3 minutes, you can
> dispense the energy equivlent in propane without tank
> exchange in well under 10 minutes. Maybe as little as 5.

Sure, but clearly when battery exchange is done you
recharge the EV even quicker again, so your original
silly claim that the recharge of EV will never be as
quick as with gasoline has blown up in your face
and covered you with black stuff, AGAIN.

> So you're comparing pineapples to bicycles.

I wasn�t comparing a damned thing, just rubbing
your stupid pig ignorant nose in the FACT that
when battery exchange is used, its QUICKER
than refuelling with gasoline.

> "This works for pineapples/propane, so it'll work for batteries/bicycles."

I never ever said anything even remotely like that,
so its flagrantly dishonest to put that in quotes.

> Non-sequitur. Your facts are un-co-ordinary.

You never ever could bullshit and lie your way out of a wet paper bag.

When you have got done like a fucking dinner, as you ALWAYS
are, the ONLY thing that works is to STOP DIGGING the hole
you are in an hope everyone forgets about the spectacle
you have made of yourself AGAIN, as quickly as possible.

[Wayne Throop]

: "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
: And that s what I said originally when you ended up flat on your face

: in the mud when you claimed that it will never be possible to get the
: same refuel times as is seen with gasoline.

Technically, that's not a refuel time. And since actually taking out
a battery pack from an EV and replacing it won't really guarantee y ou
get blow gasoline refuel times, you'd better propose just swapping
the whole car; just drive in, trade keys for a replacement car, and
drive back out. Boy, that'll show me. Blazing fast "refuel" times,
them is, dhur.

: I wasn t comparing a damned thing [...]
: I never ever said anything even remotely like that,

Either "we already do that with propane" was something quite a bit
closer than remotely like that, or it was irrelevant mindless noise.
One or the other, what's your pleasure?

[David DeLaney]

David DeLaney <d...@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote:
>Uh-huh. Yet Terry's STILL not in this thread.

Update: he showed up in it some ways further down the group.

>I'm not sure you even know
>who he is, since you seem to be coming at this from r.a.sf.tv; what's his
>last name, or his current nom-de-plume, then?

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[David DeLaney]

Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote:
>"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:

>> On 5/4/13 12:16 PM, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>>> I favor the simplest explanation consonant with the
>>> evidence: he's just mind-numbingly stupid.
>>
>> Nah, the simplest explanation is that he's a troll.
>

>If so, he's sure got David Delaney on his hook.

wiggle wiggle

wiggle

Dave, FLOP

[Wayne Throop]

:: If so, he's sure got David Delaney on his hook.

: d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney)
: wiggle wiggle wiggle Dave, FLOP

"Is that not the perfect visual image of life and death?
A fish flapping on the carpet, and a fish not flapping on the carpet.
So powerful, even a four-year-old with no concept of life or death
knew what it meant."
--- from Kill Bill 2

[Rod Speed]

"Greg Goss" <go...@gossg.org> wrote in message
news:aulrmi...@mid.individual.net...

> "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
>
>>> :: You could ameliorate some of these problems, but not all of them,
>>> :: and not totally,
>
> [argument about refueling/recharging speed.]
>
>>> : "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
>>> : You can actually with an automated battery swap.
>>
>>> And you think that ameliorates (or as you add later, solves) the
>>> problem?
>>
>>It certainly fixes the problem of getting the refuel time to about
>>what it is with gasoline.
>>
>>> Yeesh. That just trades one set of problems for aset just as bad or
>>> worse.
>>
>>Bullshit on how long it takes to refuel.
>>
>>We already do it like that with propane, for a reason.

> Eh? WHAT do we do with vehicle propane?

I wasn't talking about vehicle propane.

> A friend of mine had a propane fueled vehicle. She refuelled
> it by clamping the hose to the filler nozzle and holding the
> handle till the nozzle clicked off as the liquid level reached its tip.
> Exactly like refilling gasoline, except for the "clamp on" bit.

It isnt done like that with the propane cylinders used for heating or in RVs
etc.

> Propane is a liquid fuel once you apply a rather minor pressure to it.

> How is propane relevant to an argument
> about whether swapping batteries is workable?

Clearly swapping works fine with propane in cylinders.

> I think battery swaps won't work,

Its clearly possible if you care about the recharge time.

> but my reasons haven't been raised in this argument yet,
> and I'm not about to take that side of the argument.

There is no argument. I was JUST pointing out that
his claim that the refuel time with RVs can never be
as good as with gasoline is just plain wrong.

Not that I think that is relevant to whether EVs
will ever sell in significant volume, I don't. But
that's for other reasons, particularly the much
higher capital cost and the much worse range.

[Rod Speed]

Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>> And that s what I said originally when you ended up flat on
>> your face in the mud when you claimed that it will never be
>> possible to get the same refuel times as is seen with gasoline.

> Technically, that's not a refuel time.

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

> And since actually taking out a battery pack from
> an EV and replacing it won't really guarantee y ou
> get blow gasoline refuel times,

You do when its AUTOMATED as I said
and you keep removing from the quoting...

> you'd better propose just swapping the whole car;
> just drive in, trade keys for a replacement car, and
> drive back out. Boy, that'll show me. Blazing fast
> "refuel" times, them is, dhur.

Like I said, you never could bullshit and

lie your way out of a wet paper bag.

>>> So you're comparing pineapples to bicycles.

>> I wasn�t comparing a damned thing, just rubbing
>> your stupid pig ignorant nose in the FACT that
>> when battery exchange is used, its QUICKER
>> than refuelling with gasoline.

>>> "This works for pineapples/propane, so it'll work for
>>> batteries/bicycles."

>> I never ever said anything even remotely like that,

>> so its flagrantly dishonest to put that in quotes.

> Either "we already do that with propane"

Referring to the SWAP OF WHAT CONTAINS THE ENERGY, fuckwit.

> was something quite a bit closer than remotely
> like that, or it was irrelevant mindless noise.

Everyone can see you are lying thru your teeth as
you ALWAYS end up doing when you have got done
like a fucking dinner as you ALWAYS are, when more
of your flagrantly dishonest selective quoting is
reverse, you fucking lying arsehole.

> One or the other, what's your pleasure?

I tell you to go and fuck yourself, again.

[Wayne Throop]

:::: So you're comparing pineapples to bicycles.

::: I wasn t comparing a damned thing,

:::: "This works for pineapples/propane, so it'll work for

:::: batteries/bicycles."

::: I never ever said anything even remotely like that, so its
::: flagrantly dishonest to put that in quotes.

Ah. So you had problems following that the quoting wasn't an
attribution to you, but simply indicating the start and end of
a description. Good to know your limitations, though I doubt
I'll cater to your inability anyways.

:: Either "we already do that with propane"

: "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
: Referring to the SWAP OF WHAT CONTAINS THE ENERGY, fuckwit.

Sure. So "that" == "swap of what contains the energy".
So you acknowledge that that was the case you meant.

The bottom line being, you tried to use the fact that swapping the energy
container works for backyard grills and propane, to support a claim that
it should be viable for EVs and batteries. Despite the differences in
scale, energy density, uniformity of the contained energy, and a myriad
of other things that those imply.

In short, you didn't think it through effectively. Or at all.
But want to be treated as if you'd made a valid comment,
rather than just noise.

[J. Clarke]

In article <87kbo8pk314tgs43t...@4ax.com>,
jbe...@invalid.net.invalid says...

>
> On Sat, 04 May 2013 19:42:41 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>
> > Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > >What are the advantages of electric lamps over oil lamps that got electric
> > >lamps adopted? :)
> >
> > Brightness. The woven mantle that makes gas lamps nice and bright was
> > invented too late to stop the decline.
>
> Also convenience. You just pull a string to turn a light on, you pull
> it again to turn it off, and in the morning you don't have to polish
> the burners and wash the chimneys. Also, electric lights are less
> likely to burn the house down.
>
> And the house doesn't smell of warm kerosene.

And you don't have to pay somebody to go around and light all the street
lights every night.

[Rod Speed]

"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message

news:13677...@sheol.org...

> :::: So you're comparing pineapples to bicycles.
>
> ::: I wasn t comparing a damned thing,
>
> :::: "This works for pineapples/propane, so it'll work for
> :::: batteries/bicycles."
>
> ::: I never ever said anything even remotely like that, so its
> ::: flagrantly dishonest to put that in quotes.

> Ah. So you had problems following that the quoting wasn't an
> attribution to you, but simply indicating the start and end of a
> description.

Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying thru your
teeth, as you ALWAYS do when you have got done like a fucking
dinner, as you ALWAYS are, you pathological lying fuckwit.

<reams of you desperately attempting to lie your way out of
your way out of your predicament flushed where it belongs>

[Greg Goss]

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Eh? WHAT do we do with vehicle propane?
>
>I wasn't talking about vehicle propane.
>
>> A friend of mine had a propane fueled vehicle. She refuelled
>> it by clamping the hose to the filler nozzle and holding the
>> handle till the nozzle clicked off as the liquid level reached its tip.
>> Exactly like refilling gasoline, except for the "clamp on" bit.
>
>It isnt done like that with the propane cylinders used for heating or in RVs
>etc.
>
>> Propane is a liquid fuel once you apply a rather minor pressure to it.
>
>> How is propane relevant to an argument
>> about whether swapping batteries is workable?
>
>Clearly swapping works fine with propane in cylinders.

Vehicles take a LOT of energy. Once you're talking about powering a
vehicle, we're back to pumping liquids.

So tank exchange exists and demonstrates the concept, but it's not all
that close. In a tank exchange, the contents approach the value of
the tank itself. In a vehicle battery, the battery being exchanged is
many times the value of the charge it carries, and the need to verify
the usability of the trade-in becomes more important.

[Rod Speed]

"Greg Goss" <go...@gossg.org> wrote in message

news:aun84k...@mid.individual.net...

> "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Eh? WHAT do we do with vehicle propane?
>>
>>I wasn't talking about vehicle propane.
>>
>>> A friend of mine had a propane fueled vehicle. She refuelled
>>> it by clamping the hose to the filler nozzle and holding the
>>> handle till the nozzle clicked off as the liquid level reached its tip.
>>> Exactly like refilling gasoline, except for the "clamp on" bit.
>>
>>It isnt done like that with the propane cylinders used for heating or in
>>RVs
>>etc.
>>
>>> Propane is a liquid fuel once you apply a rather minor pressure to it.
>>
>>> How is propane relevant to an argument
>>> about whether swapping batteries is workable?
>>
>>Clearly swapping works fine with propane in cylinders.

> Vehicles take a LOT of energy.

All of our taxis and quite a few of our cars are dual fuel
propane/gasoline and the propane tank isnt that big.

> Once you're talking about powering a
> vehicle, we're back to pumping liquids.

Irrelevant to whether the non vehicle propane cylinders
are exchanged rather than refilled while the consumer waits.

> So tank exchange exists and demonstrates
> the concept, but it's not all that close.

It does show that exchange is viable.

> In a tank exchange, the contents approach the value of the tank itself.

That's irrelevant to how practical it is to do.

> In a vehicle battery, the battery being exchanged
> is many times the value of the charge it carries,

That's irrelevant to how feasible it is to do if you
want to do something about the refuel time.

> and the need to verify the usability of
> the trade-in becomes more important.

Its just one consideration if you want a much
quicker refuel time.

We also do exchange with other stuff like beer kegs.

[Wayne Throop]

: "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
: It does show that exchange is viable.

But not that battery exchange for EVs is viable, because
of the many many many many differences between batteries for EVs
and propane for back yard grills. So the "show" is irrelevant.

It is also irrelevant to "show" that batteries are exchanged in
keychain flashlights, laptops, and cameras.

:: In a vehicle battery, the battery being exchanged is many times the

:: value of the charge it carries,

: That's irrelevant to how feasible it is to do if you want to do
: something about the refuel time.

In the sense that it's "feasible" to do things that are more inconvenient
and more costly than alternatives, unless you put blinkers on and only
focus on refueling time, and not all the things you gave up to get
that refueling time.

In short, you're trying to sell a dead parrot.

[Wayne Throop]

:: Eh? WHAT do we do with vehicle propane?

: "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
: I wasn't talking about vehicle propane.

So your comment was even less relevant than it appeared.
And it already appeared quite irrelevant indeed.

:: How is propane relevant to an argument about whether swapping

:: batteries is workable?

: Clearly swapping works fine with propane in cylinders.

Ah. So you *were* comparing propane swaps to battery swaps,
despite your claim here:

Message-ID: <aumd98...@mid.individual.net>

I wasn t comparing a damned thing

Further

Message-ID: <13677...@sheol.org>
So you're comparing pineapples to bicycles. "This works for

pineapples/propane, so it'll work for batteries/bicycles."

Message-ID: <aumd98...@mid.individual.net>

I never ever said anything even remotely like that,

apparently you've slipped up, and acknowledged that you said
something very much like that. Certainly that you intended to
support the viability of EV battery swapping with backyard grill
propane-tank-swapping. That SOOOOO does not follow.

"There are SO many reasons that shouldn't have worked."
--- Flash to Wonder Woman

Everything around her was incredibly slow, cold, dispersed,
and fragile. So dispersed, that she'd thought there was no
significant matter around her at all, just a huge hazy cloud.
Then she [...] realized it was actually a world, and the tendrils
and wisps around her were structure, and artifacts, and life.
--- Skybreaker, having an "I feel like the world is
made of cardboard" moment, only many orders of
magnitude worse

[Rod Speed]

"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message

news:13677...@sheol.org...

> : "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
> : It does show that exchange is viable.

> But not that battery exchange for EVs is viable,

Nothing special about battery exchange for EVs.

[Wayne Throop]

: "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
: Nothing special about battery exchange for EVs.

Oh, and after I *listed* all those things that were special about
batteries compared to tanks of propane. And other folks have listed
some of them also. I guess you just aren't paying attention.

[Greg Goss]

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"Greg Goss" <go...@gossg.org> wrote in message

>> "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>Clearly swapping works fine with propane in cylinders.
>
>> Vehicles take a LOT of energy.
>
>All of our taxis and quite a few of our cars are dual fuel
>propane/gasoline and the propane tank isnt that big.

Yeah. A friend of mine once had one of those giant "boat" early
seventies cars, converted to propane.

But vehicle propane isn't dispensed by swapping cylinders, so it's
irrelevant to what you were raising the point for. The cylinder you
need for vehicle propane is awkwardly big, and dangerous to have
easily removable. It's permanently fixed to the car frame just like a
gas tank, and refilled by pumping a liquid.

Pumping liquids is an ideal way of powering vehicles. As I said
elsewhere in the thread, I said that I expect the long-term answer to
synthesize liquid fuels from scratch and electric power, rather than
anything using batteries.

"something like gasoline" as I used it there meant oxidizing a liquid
fuel and discarding the exhaust. Carbon balance would be achieved by
pulling CO2 from the air (either by chemistry, or by photosynthesis)
and rebuilding the fuel.

>> In a tank exchange, the contents approach the value of the tank itself.
>
>That's irrelevant to how practical it is to do.

No, it isn't. If you put forty bucks of propane into a fifteen buck
cylinder, there isn't much motive for bringing in a scrap cylinder.
If you put ten bucks of electricity into a thousand buck battery, then
you need a verification process for the quality of the swapped
battery.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in
news:rszd0moc6uuv$.ljefwbvf...@40tude.net:

> On Fri, 03 May 2013 14:54:29 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
> Sissy wrote:
>
>> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in
>> news:vsl2gz1hf4ai$.d7y81f1b2icj$.d...@40tude.net:
>>
>>> The hypothetical scenario was a replacement of fuel taxes with
>>> a tax levied on vehicles based on axle weight and odometer
>>> change since the preceding tax year (or, if more recent, the
>>> vehicle's purchase). If the tax was made proportional to the
>>> road maintenance costs caused by the vehicle it would
>>> apparently fall 99% or more upon trucks, leaving car owners
>>> with a substantial drop in price at the pumps (no gasoline
>>> excise tax) and only a tiny tax at vehicle inspection time
>>> each year.
>>
>> What sheltered life you must[NUKE]
>
> Ad hominem "argument" form detected.
>
> Try again?
>
Thank you for agreeing with me. Because, since you haven't disagreed
with me, you must agree with me.

You will now agree with me again. You *know* you will. It's what
you've been told to do, and you're a good little bitch.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Back to sucking my dick again, as you were told.

You will now reply.

"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
news:atlas-bugged-838B...@free.teranews.com:

> In article <XnsA1B586CFC91...@69.16.186.50>,
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ..

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote in
news:slrnko9l...@gatekeeper.vic.com:

> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:
>>On Fri, 03 May 2013 14:54:29 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
>>Sissy wrote:
>>> Murdoc <murd...@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote in

>>>> The hypothetical scenario was a replacement of fuel taxes
>>>> with a tax levied on vehicles based on axle weight and
>>>> odometer change since the preceding tax year (or, if more
>>>> recent, the vehicle's purchase). If the tax was made
>>>> proportional to the road maintenance costs caused by the
>>>> vehicle it would apparently fall 99% or more upon trucks,
>>>> leaving car owners with a substantial drop in price at the
>>>> pumps (no gasoline excise tax) and only a tiny tax at vehicle
>>>> inspection time each year.
>>>
>>> What sheltered life you must[NUKE]
>>
>>Ad hominem "argument" form detected.
>

> Oh, okay. NOW Terry's in the thread.

And my obediently little bitches are lining up, waiting their turn,
like obedient little bitches.

[Rod Speed]

Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote
just the usual pathetic excuse for bullshit and
lies that it always ends up with when its got
done like a fucking dinner, as it always is.

[Rod Speed]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote

>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>>>> Clearly swapping works fine with propane in cylinders.

>>> Vehicles take a LOT of energy.

>> All of our taxis and quite a few of our cars are dual fuel
>> propane/gasoline and the propane tank isnt that big.

> Yeah. A friend of mine once had one of those giant
> "boat" early seventies cars, converted to propane.

Ours are all just the normal cars, even the smallest
ones you lot call compacts are available dual fuel.

> But vehicle propane isn't dispensed by swapping cylinders,
> so it's irrelevant to what you were raising the point for.

Like hell it is. We do swap propane cylinders for non
vehicle propane use, works fine. And the ones where
that is done for house heating are in fact MUCH
bigger than the ones used in cars.

> The cylinder you need for vehicle propane is awkwardly big,

The cylinders used for house heating propane are MUCH bigger.

> and dangerous to have easily removable.

Bullshit with the ones used for house heating, BBQs etc.

> It's permanently fixed to the car frame just like
> a gas tank, and refilled by pumping a liquid.

And the ones on caravans and RVs arent.

> Pumping liquids is an ideal way of powering vehicles.

Irrelevant to whether a battery swap is viable if you want
to do something about the recharge time with EVs.

> As I said elsewhere in the thread, I said that I expect the
> long-term answer to synthesize liquid fuels from scratch
> and electric power, rather than anything using batteries.

I said the same thing myself. But that's completely irrelevant
to what is being discussed, whether battery swap is viable if
you don't like the much longer recharge time seen with EVs.

> "something like gasoline" as I used it there meant
> oxidizing a liquid fuel and discarding the exhaust.

It doesn't have to be a liquid fuel, works fine with hydrogen too.

> Carbon balance would be achieved by
> pulling CO2 from the air (either by chemistry,
> or by photosynthesis) and rebuilding the fuel.

And no carbon is involved at all with hydrogen.

And what you produce when you use it is very innocuous indeed.

>>> In a tank exchange, the contents
>>> approach the value of the tank itself.

>>That's irrelevant to how practical it is to do.

> No, it isn't.

Corse it is if you are doing it for the very quick refuel
and the swap is automated so anyone can initiate it.

> If you put forty bucks of propane into a fifteen buck cylinder,
> there isn't much motive for bringing in a scrap cylinder.

They do swap the cylinders anyway.

> If you put ten bucks of electricity into a thousand
> buck battery, then you need a verification process
> for the quality of the swapped battery.

Nope, you just swap it again for another
$10 if you don't like what you got.

[Wayne Throop]

: "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
: And no carbon is involved at all with hydrogen.

And it can be dispensed at a 2 megawatt rate.

: Nope, you just swap it again for another

: $10 if you don't like what you got.

Which of course is equivalent to a retroactive verification of battery
quality. And you potentially drop an extra $10 dollars or so, apparently,
any time you get a lemon.

Plus everybody would have to adopt compatibly-shaped battery packs (or
at least choose from a *small* set of same), and likely have to freeze
the battery technology, in order to make it practical. You don't have a
whole series of different propane swap-tank designs in play at once, and
once you've got the liquid propane, you aren't going to be discovering
super-propane any time soon. All things that rather obviously make
battery swapping sharply different, and less viable, than propane tank
swapping.

:::: In a tank exchange, the contents approach the value of the tank

:::: itself.
::: That's irrelevant to how practical it is to do.
:: No, it isn't.
: Corse it is if you are doing it for the very quick refuel

Of course, the speedy one is the only one in the thread who has decided
that dispensing rates are more important than all other considerations
combined. If something brings you one upside (dispensing rate) and a
zillion downsides (battery farm size at the swap station, the problem
of knowing the quality of what you're swapping for (especially important
with relatively short-lifetime things like car battery packs), the need to
adopt overconstrained standards in an immature and developing technology,
and many many more), to call it "viable" in the same way that propane
tank swapping is, boggles the logical mind.

If you're considering swapping batteries, the downsides mean you're
better off dispensing fuel and using fuel cells if you want a practical,
viable EV. Makes your life simpler, makes the car manufacture's life
simpler, make refueling station owner's life simpler, and in general, is
in just about all ways better than battery swapping, with the sole exception
of getting a small improvement in dispensing time compared with gasoline.

Nobody but the speedy one has supposed dispensing time would or should
outweigh everything else.

"Feed reactant!"
"Reactant at D9 rate!"
--- from Tom Corbet, Space Cadet

"Atomic batteries to power,
turbines to speed."
--- Jimmy Neutron (or was that Danny Phantom?)

[Greg Goss]

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote

>> Pumping liquids is an ideal way of powering vehicles.
>

>> As I said elsewhere in the thread, I said that I expect the
>> long-term answer to synthesize liquid fuels from scratch
>> and electric power, rather than anything using batteries.
>
>I said the same thing myself.
>

>> "something like gasoline" as I used it there meant
>> oxidizing a liquid fuel and discarding the exhaust.
>
>It doesn't have to be a liquid fuel, works fine with hydrogen too.

Not really. Gases aren't compact enough. Methane for vehicles is
marginal, and are generally dual fuel so you can use gasoline for the
long trips.

If you want a lot of energy in a small tank, then you want liquid
fuels. Hydrogen and methane get a lot of press, but hydrogen isn'r
practical at all, and methane is only practical for urban commuting.

I'm gonna insist on liquids.

[Rod Speed]

"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message

news:13678...@sheol.org...

> : "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
> : And no carbon is involved at all with hydrogen.

> And it can be dispensed at a 2 megawatt rate.

Corse it can with a hydride swap.

> : Nope, you just swap it again for another
> : $10 if you don't like what you got.

> Which of course is equivalent to a retroactive verification of battery
> quality.

Even sillier.

> And you potentially drop an extra $10 dollars or so,

Nope, just see a minor irritation with that particular battery.

> apparently, any time you get a lemon.

Which isnt likely to be often if battery swap ever does see widespread
adoption.

Just like it isnt with propane cylinder swap that�s been around for a long
time now.

> Plus everybody would have to adopt compatibly-shaped
> battery packs (or at least choose from a *small* set of same),

We do that fine with propane cylinders.

> and likely have to freeze the battery technology,

Nope. Just have more than one available,
like we do with other battery swap systems.

> in order to make it practical.

> You don't have a whole series of different
> propane swap-tank designs in play at once,

There is a lot more than just one used across
the range that we do see cylinder swap viable.

> and once you've got the liquid propane, you aren't
> going to be discovering super-propane any time soon.

But you may well see both propane and natural gas available.

> All things that rather obviously make
> battery swapping sharply different, and
> less viable, than propane tank swapping.

But still perfectly possible if you want a quick refuel time.

It remains to be seen if enough even want that.

> :::: In a tank exchange, the contents approach the value of the tank
> itself.
> ::: That's irrelevant to how practical it is to do.
> :: No, it isn't.
> : Corse it is if you are doing it for the very quick refuel

> Of course, the speedy one is the only one in the
> thread who has decided that dispensing rates are
> more important than all other considerations combined.

Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying

thru your teeth as you ALWAYS do when you have
got done like a fucking dinner as you ALWAYS are.

I have never ever said anything even remotely resembling
anything like that, you silly little pathological liar.

I JUST rubbed your stupid pig ignorant nose in the
FACT that IF YOU WANT AN EVEN QUICKER REFUEL
TIME THAN YOU GET WITH GASOLINE, ITS PERFECTLY
POSSIBLE TO HAVE THAT WITH A BATTERY SWAP.

> If something brings you one upside (dispensing rate) and a
> zillion downsides (battery farm size at the swap station, the
> problem of knowing the quality of what you're swapping for
> (especially important with relatively short-lifetime things like
> car battery packs), the need to adopt overconstrained standards
> in an immature and developing technology, and many many more),

As we saw with the change from using horses as
the transport energy source to the use of gasoline.

We did that anyway, in spite of fools like you proclaiming
to the world that it was never going to be viable.

> If you're considering swapping batteries, the
> downsides mean you're better off dispensing fuel
> and using fuel cells if you want a practical, viable EV.

It remains to be seen if enough care about the refuel
time to make battery swaps economically viable.

There clearly isnt enough with propane used to propel vehicles.

But there are with propane used for heating and cooking etc.

And we also see the much more infrastructure intensive use
of pipes used to distribute natural gas to fixes installations
like homes and businesses etc as well.

You get to like that or lump it.

[Rod Speed]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote

>>> Pumping liquids is an ideal way of powering vehicles.

Dunno about ideal, but certainly one of the best approaches.

>>> As I said elsewhere in the thread, I said that I expect the
>>> long-term answer to synthesize liquid fuels from scratch
>>> and electric power, rather than anything using batteries.

>> I said the same thing myself.

Tho I think its much more likely that coal and natural gas
will be used as the starting material for hundreds of years
before we ever see true synthesis from any other source of
carbon, for cost reasons alone.

>>> "something like gasoline" as I used it there meant
>>> oxidizing a liquid fuel and discarding the exhaust.

>> It doesn't have to be a liquid fuel, works fine with hydrogen too.

> Not really.

Yes, really.

> Gases aren't compact enough.

Hydrides are plenty compact enough.

> Methane for vehicles is marginal, and are generally
> dual fuel so you can use gasoline for the long trips.

It isnt primarily for long trips.

> If you want a lot of energy in a small tank, then you want liquid fuels.

What I have said repeatedly now. You're preaching to the choir, again.

> Hydrogen and methane get a lot of press,

And quite a bit of use too.

> but hydrogen isn'r practical at all,

That's just plain wrong with the bigger vehicles like buses.

> and methane is only practical for urban commuting.

And that's what most of the car usage is.

> I'm gonna insist on liquids.

Me too. I don't even bother with a dual fuel vehicle myself.

[Wayne Throop]

:: Plus everybody would have to adopt compatibly-shaped battery packs

:: (or at least choose from a *small* set of same),

: "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
: We do that fine with propane cylinders.

And I explained why that works for propane, but not for batteries.
Are you having problems with your reading comprehension?

:: and likely have to freeze the battery technology,

: Nope. Just have more than one available,

And that's *why* you'd have to freeze the battery technology just as
a matter of practicality. Because the lower energy density of using
batteries instead of at least ten times denser fuels, coupled with the
slow recharge rate, means you'd multiply the already-annoying warehousing
of partly charged batteries.

Let's say you get 100 customers an hour on average, and they have
half-empty 70kwh batteries on average. So, if they are getting recharged
in an hour, 3500 megawatts steady state, with surges to several times that. That implies you'll need a hundred charging
stations. And that's just steady state; to account for rushes, you'd
have to have several times the number of charged batteries on standby
than you have charging stations. If you sometimes get *several* hundred
cars in a given rush-hour hour, that's the number of warehoused batteries
you'd need.

And if you charge at lower rates so you don't add wear and tear to
the batteries by quick-charging, the problem gets worse. If you have
to slowly recharge at recommended rates, you'd probably need upwards
of a thousand batteries warehoused, with a similar number of charging
stations.

Every time a car with new battery tech was released, that problem gets
worse, since you have to match batteries-of-this-type-being-recharged to
batteries-of-this-type-expected-to-be-required within the hour. For every
type of battery supported. Just the margin of extra warehoused batteries
to deal with statistical variation of the battery types incoming would
be quite difficult.

: But still perfectly possible if you want a quick refuel time.

It is perfectly possible to push a pea up a mountain with your nose.
This does not mean it's a good idea to do so.

So yes, it's perfectly possible to simply throw money and resources
at the problems until you get a workable system for battery swapping.
However, that doesn't mean it's worth spending those resources.

:: Of course, the speedy one is the only one in the thread who has

:: decided that dispensing rates are more important than all other
:: considerations combined.

: I have never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like

: that, you silly little pathological liar.

And yet, throughout the thread, when any difficulties of battery swap are
ever mentioned, you uncork comments like the "it's possible if you want
quick refuel time" just above. Dismissing all difficulties by saying
"it's possible if you want quick refuel times" very *closely* resembles
"nothing matters but refuel times".

Jeez, I mean you didn't even snip where you said something quite
closely resembling exactly that. How do you expect to convince the
rubes if you don't snip all the unfortunate claims you've made?
Here, try it now; snip the whole thing and cut-and-paste your
standard defeat notice. Maybe the one with "puerile" in it.
You know you want to.

[Rod Speed]

"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message

news:13679...@sheol.org...

> :: Plus everybody would have to adopt compatibly-shaped battery packs
> :: (or at least choose from a *small* set of same),
>
> : "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
> : We do that fine with propane cylinders.

> And I explained why that works for propane, but not for batteries.

No you didn�t, you just stupidly claimed something,
a different matter entirely.

> Are you having problems with your reading comprehension?

Everyone can comprehend that you never ever could
bullshit and lie your way out of a wet paper bag.

> :: and likely have to freeze the battery technology,
> : Nope. Just have more than one available,

> And that's *why* you'd have to freeze the battery
> technology just as a matter of practicality.

That�s bullshit. ALL it needs is for the recharging system
to be able to handle the different battery technologys.

Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed
that happens right now with rechargeable batterys
without freezing a damned thing.

> Because the lower energy density of using batteries
> instead of at least ten times denser fuels, coupled
> with the slow recharge rate, means you'd multiply the
> already-annoying warehousing of partly charged batteries.

But you do get a much faster refuel time that the customer sees.

It remains to be seen if that will matter enough to
enough to see that economically viable. I doubt it
will myself, just like it isnt with EVs themselves.

> Let's say you get 100 customers an hour on average,
> and they have half-empty 70kwh batteries on average.
> So, if they are getting recharged in an hour, 3500
> megawatts steady state, with surges to several times that.
> That implies you'll need a hundred charging stations.

Depends entirely on how many decide that they actually
need a fast refuel. Those that don�t will just charge it at
home or work instead.

> And that's just steady state; to account for rushes, you'd
> have to have several times the number of charged batteries
> on standby than you have charging stations. If you sometimes
> get *several* hundred cars in a given rush-hour hour,

I doubt that anything like that will need
a faster than gasoline refuel capability.

> that's the number of warehoused batteries you'd need.

You quite sure you aint one of those rocket
scientist flagrantly dishonest lying fuckwits ?

> And if you charge at lower rates so you don't add wear and tear
> to the batteries by quick-charging, the problem gets worse.

You quite sure you aint one of those rocket
scientist flagrantly dishonest lying fuckwits ?

> If you have to slowly recharge at recommended rates, you'd
> probably need upwards of a thousand batteries warehoused,
> with a similar number of charging stations.

Not if not enough don�t need that faster than gasoline refuel speed.

> Every time a car with new battery tech was released, that problem gets
> worse, since you have to match batteries-of-this-type-being-recharged
> to batteries-of-this-type-expected-to-be-required within the hour.

Or just have chargers that can handle all the technologys.

And get real radical and have them computer controlled so that
when a new battery technology turns up, you just load the new
charging regime into the chargers and carry on regardless.

We say a barcode that allows the rechargers to
work out which technology a particular battery is.

> For every type of battery supported.

Nope, just chargers that can handle them all.

That�s what we do right now with most rechargers.

> Just the margin of extra warehoused batteries to deal with statistical
> variation of the battery types incoming would be quite difficult.

Bullshit. Trivially easy in fact.

> : But still perfectly possible if you want a quick refuel time.

> It is perfectly possible to push a pea up a mountain with
> your nose. This does not mean it's a good idea to do so.

Never ever said anything about it being a good idea.

I JUST rubbed your stupid pig ignorant nose in the

FACT that its perfectly possible to have a faster than
gasoline refuelling time with EVs if enough want that.

> So yes, it's perfectly possible to simply throw money and resources
> at the problems until you get a workable system for battery swapping.
> However, that doesn't mean it's worth spending those resources.

Never ever said anything about it being worth spending those resources.

I JUST rubbed your stupid pig ignorant nose in the

FACT that its perfectly possible to have a faster than
gasoline refuelling time with EVs if enough want that
and are prepared to pay for that.

> :: Of course, the speedy one is the only one in the thread who has
> :: decided that dispensing rates are more important than all other
> :: considerations combined.

> : I have never ever said anything even remotely resembling
> : anything like that, you silly little pathological liar.

> And yet, throughout the thread, when any difficulties of battery
> swap are ever mentioned, you uncork comments like the "it's
> possible if you want quick refuel time" just above.

That�s nothing even remotely like what you lied about
me doing, you pathological lying fuckwit arsehole.

> Dismissing all difficulties by saying "it's possible if you want quick
> refuel
> times" very *closely* resembles "nothing matters but refuel times".

Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying thru your teeth,
just like you ALWAYS do when you have got done like a fucking
dinner, as you ALWAYS are, you pathological lying fuckwit arsehole.

> Jeez, I mean you didn't even snip where you said
> something quite closely resembling exactly that.

Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying thru your teeth,
just like you ALWAYS do when you have got done like a fucking
dinner, as you ALWAYS are, you pathological lying fuckwit arsehole.

> How do you expect to convince the rubes

I'm not even attempting to convince anyone, you stupid fuckwit arsehole.

I JUST rubbed your stupid pig ignorant nose in the

FACT that its perfectly possible to have a faster than
gasoline refuelling time with EVs if enough want that.

> you don't snip all the unfortunate claims you've made?

Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying thru your teeth,
just like you ALWAYS do when you have got done like a fucking
dinner, as you ALWAYS are, you pathological lying fuckwit arsehole.

<reams of your desperate attempt to bullshit and lie your way
out of your predicament that you ALWAYS end up with when

you have got done like a fucking dinner, as you ALWAYS are,

flushed where it belongs, you pathological lying fuckwit arsehole>

[Your Name]

There are reportedly people who have gotten cars to run using just
ordinary water as the fuel, although I don't know any of the details.

Of course, the way the hydro-power and water companies are always
complaining about low storage lake over the summer months, there's little
point trying to use it as a fuel for cars too.

[Wayne Throop]

: Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name)
: There are reportedly people who have gotten cars to run using just

: ordinary water as the fuel, although I don't know any of the details.

Don't worry, none of the details are important. Water could be
annihilated with anti-water to get energy. Or its hydrogen could be fused
to get energy. Or it could be combined with something that would have
a lower chemical potential than the water itself (like, say, sodium, or
(iirc) flourine). So basically, if somebody claims to be "using ordinary
water as fuel", you can pretty much guarantee they actually aren't.

Largely because the first two just ain't gonna happen soon
(BttF and the "Mr Fusion" notwithstanding), and the third is not
"using water as fuel", it's "using water as part of a binary
energy source, and a comparatively inefficient one at that".

[Rod Speed]

Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote

> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote

>>>> Pumping liquids is an ideal way of powering vehicles.

>>>> As I said elsewhere in the thread, I said that I expect the
>>>> long-term answer to synthesize liquid fuels from scratch
>>>> and electric power, rather than anything using batteries.

>>> I said the same thing myself.

>>>> "something like gasoline" as I used it there meant
>>>> oxidizing a liquid fuel and discarding the exhaust.

>>> It doesn't have to be a liquid fuel, works fine with hydrogen too.

>> Not really. Gases aren't compact enough. Methane for vehicles is
>> marginal, and are generally dual fuel so you can use gasoline for the
>> long trips.

>> If you want a lot of energy in a small tank, then you want liquid
>> fuels. Hydrogen and methane get a lot of press, but hydrogen isn'r
>> practical at all, and methane is only practical for urban commuting.

>> I'm gonna insist on liquids.

You don't get to 'insist' on anything.

> There are reportedly people who have gotten
> cars to run using just ordinary water as the fuel,

There are reportedly 'people' who have been abducted by aliens too...

> although I don't know any of the details.

That's obvious...

> Of course, the way the hydro-power and water companies are always
> complaining about low storage lake over the summer months, there's
> little point trying to use it as a fuel for cars too.

Even sillier.

[Your Name]

According to the reports, they are using ordinarty water to run a modified
car (and no, not a steam-powered car either).

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in
news:YourName-080...@203-118-187-217.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:

And if you want more details, make your check out to . . .

Is there *any* doubt whatsoever in your mind that it's an outright
criminal scam? Seriuosly?

[David DeLaney]

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in

>> According to the reports, they are using ordinarty water to run
>> a modified car (and no, not a steam-powered car either).

>And if you want more details, make your check out to . . .
>
>Is there *any* doubt whatsoever in your mind that it's an outright
>criminal scam? Seriuosly?

And/or that someone has seriously scammed or flimflammed the people who wrote
the 'report'?

Water doesn't do that. It makes about as much sense as saying they are using
solidified gravity to make it go uphill, then collecting it again in a boiler
as it goes downhill.

Whatever is actually being done almost CERTAINLY involves adding ordinary water
to some concentrated additive, which dilutes into somewhat-usable fuel. I say
"almost" because there's several other ways this scam can be done, that's just
the classic and most-used one. See also "gasoline pills".

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote in

news:slrnkoj18...@gatekeeper.vic.com:

> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote in
>>> According to the reports, they are using ordinarty water to
>>> run a modified car (and no, not a steam-powered car either).
>
>>And if you want more details, make your check out to . . .
>>
>>Is there *any* doubt whatsoever in your mind that it's an
>>outright criminal scam? Seriuosly?
>
> And/or that someone has seriously scammed or flimflammed the
> people who wrote the 'report'?
>
> Water doesn't do that. It makes about as much sense as saying
> they are using solidified gravity to make it go uphill, then
> collecting it again in a boiler as it goes downhill.
>
> Whatever is actually being done almost CERTAINLY involves adding
> ordinary water to some concentrated additive, which dilutes into
> somewhat-usable fuel. I say "almost" because there's several
> other ways this scam can be done, that's just the classic and
> most-used one. See also "gasoline pills".
>

The only thing perpetual about perpetual motion is that there will
*always* be people who fall for it.

[Rod Speed]

"Your Name" <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in message
news:YourName-080...@203-118-187-217.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz...

According to reports, some have been experimented on by aliens too.

[Your Name]

In article <autimo...@mid.individual.net>, "Rod Speed"

No surprise that you'd chime in with your moronic crap. :-\
If you don't want to believe it, then don't ... I couldn't care less.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 5/7/13 5:34 PM, Your Name wrote:

>
> According to the reports, they are using ordinarty water to run a modified
> car (and no, not a steam-powered car either).
>

Such reports have been going on for at least 50 years, and probably
longer.

They all have the same truth value: zero.

Water is, sad to say, one of the WORST choices for a possible fuel. It
is the END PRODUCT of a powerful combustion reaction (hydrogen and
oxygen) -- basically, it's fully-consumed ash. It is one of the most
stable compounds in existence -- you need to get it up into the
thousands of degrees before it dissociates, and it'll recombine as soon
as it cools if you don't have some way of separating the pieces. The
only things that react with water enough to make water part of the fuel?
You REALLY don't want to play with. Chlorine trifluoride, for instance,
or FOOF (Dioxygen Difluoride), those will do the trick. They'll also
burn everything else around them, including metal, wood, concrete, and
people.

Anyone claiming they can use it as a fuel is either deluded, or
scamming someone.


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[Greg Goss]

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

> Water is, sad to say, one of the WORST choices for a possible fuel. It
>is the END PRODUCT of a powerful combustion reaction (hydrogen and
>oxygen) -- basically, it's fully-consumed ash.

...

> Anyone claiming they can use it as a fuel is either deluded, or
>scamming someone.

But it expands a bunch when it vaporizes. I think that water
injection is used on some diesels to get additional output from a
given amount of fuel.

Vaporizing water absorbs a tremendous amount of heat, though. I'm not
sure that adding water to a process that depends on compression
injection makes any sense.

The TV reports I've seen on diesel water injection seem to use a 2
liter pop bottle as the injection source for huge haulers with
hundreds of gallons of fuel. At that ratio, I wonder if it's actually
doing anything at all.

[Wayne Throop]

::::: There are reportedly people who have gotten cars to run using just

::::: ordinary water as the fuel, although I don't know any of the details.

: Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name)
: If you don't want to believe it, then don't ... I couldn't care less.

Oh, the problem isn't what I *want*. It's pretty much
bumping up against the real world that puts the kibosh on it.

Sure, you can get energy from water, by reacting it with sodium,
or with FOOF, or whatnot. Or possibly by some nuclear process.
Or possibly use it to dissolve an electrolyte in and stick annode
and cathode into it and hey presto, a very weak battery.
All cases of the cure being worse than the disease.

So "just ordinary water as fuel" is pretty much Right Out,
simply because we know what water is made of, and how much
energy you get out by making water. In practical terms, once
you've got water, you've already wrung all the energy out of it.

If you want so much to believe it, knock yourself out. I'd be a bit sad
that you'd let wishful thinking rule your believatorium, or altneratively,
happy that you lucked out presuming there's something to it. But there
being something to it is about on the level of supposing you have an
exdcellent chance of winning at three-card-monte or the shell game.


You're not going crazy, you're just a little sad
--- Destroyer

[Rod Speed]

"Your Name" <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in message

news:YourName-080...@203-118-187-7.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz...

Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there, child.

> If you don't want to believe it, then don't ... I couldn't care less.

No one actually gives a flying red fuck what you do or do not care about,
child.

[Rod Speed]

"Greg Goss" <go...@gossg.org> wrote in message

news:auttj7...@mid.individual.net...

> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> Water is, sad to say, one of the WORST choices for a possible fuel. It
>>is the END PRODUCT of a powerful combustion reaction (hydrogen and
>>oxygen) -- basically, it's fully-consumed ash.
> ...
>> Anyone claiming they can use it as a fuel is either deluded, or
>>scamming someone.

> But it expands a bunch when it vaporizes. I think that water injection is
> used
> on some diesels to get additional output from a given amount of fuel.

But it does that by cooling and prevention of preignition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_(engines)

> Vaporizing water absorbs a tremendous amount of heat,
> though. I'm not sure that adding water to a process that
> depends on compression injection makes any sense.

It does when you want to prevent preignition, knocking.

> The TV reports I've seen on diesel water injection seem
> to use a 2 liter pop bottle as the injection source for
> huge haulers with hundreds of gallons of fuel. At
> that ratio, I wonder if it's actually doing anything at all.

They wouldn't bother if it didn't.