75% Efficiency From Induction Electrification of Roadbeds

[Eeyore]

Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com wrote:

You cannot patent the laws of physics that allow or prohibit moving
induction.

Sure, but how do you plan to deal with the effect of real roads in the real
world and inconvenient things like suspension travel ?

Roads don't stay flat for long.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Bret Cahill wrote:

Then you need to .... study engineering

He already did !

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com wrote:

You don't think $20 billion/day in oil cost savings could finance
anything?

You could do that by driving more economic ICE vehicles.

VW long ago made their '3 litre car'. It takes 3 litres of fuel (< 1 US
gallon) to cover 100km or ~ 62mi. It's about 80 US mpg or 100 UK mpg.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com wrote:

You don't think $20 billion/day in oil cost savings could finance
anything?

At what ***COST*** ? You SERIOUSLY want to make some savings ? Look
elsewhere.

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS82323+24-Jun-2008+BW20080624

Shipping Wasting 4.37 Million Barrels of Oil a Day

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bret Cahill wrote:

The technology to precisely position a car in a lane with an over ride
option has been trivial for quite some time.

Do you realise what effect that would have on the number of potholes (and their
location) ?

That's a minor issue.

The main problem is such things are horrifically expensive with the
total cost = number of lanes (in both directions) times number of miles
times cost per installed mile.

Technically possible does not mean fiscally possible, a fact the arm
wavers usually overlook.

Oh indeed. I just liked that particular drawback. Imagine the tramlining effect too !

BTW, it has now become environmentally unfriendly to recycle newsprint paper in the
UK. It costs more (uses more energy) to collect and recycle (which involves using
nasty bleaches and so on) than the damn stuff is worth (saves energy). Why ?
Oversupply ! Too much is being recycled. The price / tonne the recyclers will pay has
dropped from Ł25 to Ł1. And at the end of it, all you get is crap paper !

Strange that 'the greens' forgot you can basically grow the stuff (which captures CO2
if you're into that as well ) !

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 12:20:39 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

For starters, tell us what you think that "magnetic induction cable" and
"pickup coil" you were touting earlier look like and how you think
they'd work, and then maybe, if you're polite, we can go on from there.

If you took thermo or fields, you'ld know why an engineer doesn't need
to know what a device looks like to discuss it.

"Looks like" doesn't always mean physically,

Who suggested it did?

---
You did.
---

Here, we'll try again:

If you took thermo or fields, you'ld know why it isn't necessary for
someone with a background in that area to know what a device looks
like to discuss it.

---
Which pegs you as the one at a loss since you can't describe what the
device would look like electrically, let alone physically.
---

Also, you dodged the "how you think they'd work" part.

If you are interested in that, feel free to start another thread.

---
Geez, thanks for the permission, but I think I'll keep it here, where it
started, and hold your feet to the fire instead of giving you an
opportunity to slime away into a nice new clean thread.

So, how's 'bout it? Are you gonna get some balls and tell us how you
think they'd work and take the flak if you're wrong, or are you going to
play your usual games and run away, tossing epithets into the wind?
---

Looking for more free info, huh?  

Not just information but ideas as well.

---
I like the sound of that but, from your previous posts, it seems that if
other's ideas contradict yours those aren't the kinds of ideas you're
interested in embracing.
---

It ain't gonna work.

Certainly not from a dunce who has never studied thermodynamics or
fields.

---
In line with that, ISTR that a while ago I posed a rather simple
thermodynamic problem which asked for, as a solution, the identification
of a COTS heat sink which would keep the junction temperature of the
semiconductor device to which it was attached at or below its absolute
maximum temperature while dissipating its maximum rated power.

I don't recall whether or not it was you who didn't respond, but if you
feel up to it I'd be happy to repost the problem and let you have a
crack at it.
---

That is how I know that you never took thermo and why you look so
ignorant posting to any threads involving thermo.

Let's see...

Let's!

Now, in order to prove that I'm literate in thermodynamics

You already proved that several times.

---
Thank you!
---

you're trying
to get me to cast a few pearls into your sty so you can say they were
always yours.

Certainly not from you.

---
OK, Goober, you're right.
It doesn't matter where the pearls came from, if they're meant for you
they'll still be thrown into a sty.

JF

 

[jmfbahciv]

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Bret Cahill wrote:

The technology to precisely position a car in a lane with an over ride
option has been trivial for quite some time.
Do you realise what effect that would have on the number of potholes (and their
location) ?

Graham

That's a minor issue.

<grin> Have you ever driven in Massachusetts? It can take more than
year to fill one.

<snip>

/BAH

 

[Bret Cahill]

For starters, tell us what you think that "magnetic induction cable" and
"pickup coil" you were touting earlier look like and how you think
they'd work, and then maybe, if you're polite, we can go on from there.

If you took thermo or fields, you'ld know why an engineer doesn't need
to know what a device looks like to discuss it.

"Looks like" doesn't always mean physically,

Who suggested it did?

You did.

Where?

Here, we'll try again:

If you took thermo or fields, you'ld know why it isn't necessary for
someone with a background in that area to know what a device looks
like to discuss it.

Which pegs you as the one at a loss since you can't describe what the
device would look like electrically, let alone physically.

Trying to change the issue?

Anyway the response is still the same:

If you took thermo or fields, you'ld know why it isn't necessary
forsomeone with a background in those area to know what a device
"looks like electrically" to discuss it.

Are you _really_ this stoopid in real life or are you just pulling my
leg?

Also, you dodged the "how you think they'd work" part.

If you are interested in that, feel free to start another thread.

Geez, thanks for the permission,

So you openly admit you are too ignorant to start a discussion on the
subject?

but I think I'll keep it here, where it
started,

Don't try to dodge issues by trying to change the issue.

You've tried that scam before.

And speaking of scams, how's that defamation lawsuit coming?

.. . .

Looking for more free info, huh? ďż˝

Not just information but ideas as well.

I like the sound of that

Answer this question:

What do you think these groups are for?

but, from your previous posts, it seems that if
other's ideas contradict yours those aren't the kinds of ideas you're
interested in embracing.

And what ideas are those?

The "idea" that circular furrows are impossible?

The "idea" that hybrids won't work?

The "idea" that adiabatic engine systems may be difficult to scale up?

The "idea" that math is to dress up a technical discussion?

Those aren't ideas.

That's just some nonsense put out by a fraud trying to fake a tech
background.

And speaking of frauds, how's that defamation lawsuit coming?

It ain't gonna work.

Certainly not from a dunce who has never studied thermodynamics or
fields.

In line with that, ISTR that a while ago I posed a rather simple
thermodynamic problem which asked for, as a solution, the identification
of a COTS heat sink which would keep the junction temperature of the
semiconductor device to which it was attached at or below its absolute
maximum temperature while dissipating its maximum rated power.

Well you've convinced me. You're a fraud trying to fake a background
in thermo.

And speaking of frauds, how's that defamation lawsuit coming?

That is how I know that you never took thermo and why you look so
ignorant posting to any threads involving thermo.

Let's see...

Let's!

Now, in order to prove that I'm literate in thermodynamics

You already proved that several times.

Thank you!

You can do it again if you want.

Just tell us again why you thought adiabatic engine systems may be
difficult to scale up.

you're trying
to get me to cast a few pearls into your sty so you can say they were
always yours.

Certainly not from you.

OK, Goober, you're right.

Of course. You keep trying to fake a background in tech so we get a
good laugh out of you.

And speaking of frauds, how's that defamation lawsuit coming?

Doncha wanna be good for more than a laugh?


Bret Cahill

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 08:47:06 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

For starters, tell us what you think that "magnetic induction cable" and
"pickup coil" you were touting earlier look like and how you think
they'd work, and then maybe, if you're polite, we can go on from there.

If you took thermo or fields, you'ld know why an engineer doesn't need
to know what a device looks like to discuss it.

"Looks like" doesn't always mean physically,

Who suggested it did?

You did.

Where?

---
Where you couldn't tell that I was talking about its electromagnetic
properties.

You still can't describe it, can you?
---

Here, we'll try again:

If you took thermo or fields, you'ld know why it isn't necessary for
someone with a background in that area to know what a device looks
like to discuss it.

Which pegs you as the one at a loss since you can't describe what the
device would look like electrically, let alone physically.

Trying to change the issue?

---
Not at all.

The issue was, is, and will be that you don't know what you're talking
about, and your continuous tripping up on the tech stuff is the proof of
the pudding.

Not only your tripping up, but also your refusal to even _enter_ into
real technical dialog shows the fear you have in being found out for the
technical incompetent you really are.
---

Anyway the response is still the same:

If you took thermo or fields, you'ld know why it isn't necessary
forsomeone with a background in those area to know what a device
"looks like electrically" to discuss it.

---
Of course I know that gibberish makes perfect sense to you, but if you
want to talk about, say, the propagation of an EM wave through a medium
then you really do need to know _something_ about its electrical
characteristics (that is, "what it looks like, electrically") and the
characteristics of the medium through which its traveling if the
discussion is to have much substance.

The same is true if you want to discuss thermodynamics, in that you need
to know what what you're talking about "looks like" before the
discussion can be substantive.

In either case, without that knowledge the "discussion" will just
degenerate into opinion VS opinion, which seems to be what you always
try to elicit.
---

Are you _really_ this stoopid in real life or are you just pulling my
leg?

---
Nice try, but I'm not stupid and this _is_ real life.
---

Also, you dodged the "how you think they'd work" part.

If you are interested in that, feel free to start another thread.

Geez, thanks for the permission,

So you openly admit you are too ignorant to start a discussion on the
subject?

---
Nope, go back and read it over and over again until you understand it.

I see you're also sarcasm impaired. Pity.
---

but I think I'll keep it here, where it
started,

Don't try to dodge issues by trying to change the issue.

---
The issue was, and still is, your failure to respond to "how you think
they'd work".

Your "starting another thread" ploy and false accusations about my
trying to change the issue are _clearly_ failed attempts at keeping from
having to deal with the issue.

If they weren't, you'd simply answer the question and get on with your
life.
---

You've tried that scam before.

---
Cite?
---

And speaking of scams, how's that defamation lawsuit coming?

---
How should I know? It's nothing I have anything to do with, as I've
stated before.
---

Looking for more free info, huh? ?

Not just information but ideas as well.

I like the sound of that

Answer this question:

What do you think these groups are for?

---
Read their charters if you don't know.
---

but, from your previous posts, it seems that if
other's ideas contradict yours those aren't the kinds of ideas you're
interested in embracing.

And what ideas are those?

The "idea" that circular furrows are impossible?

The "idea" that hybrids won't work?

---
Cite?
---

The "idea" that adiabatic engine systems may be difficult to scale up?

---
Cite?
---

The "idea" that math is to dress up a technical discussion?

---
Clearly, you didn't understand the statement.

I suggest you go back and read it until... Oh, but wait, you have a
reading comprehension problem. Never mind...

Those aren't ideas.

---
Then why are you bringing them up when what's being talked about is
ideas which are in opposition to yours?
---

That's just some nonsense put out by a fraud trying to fake a tech
background.

---
That's right, and since you consistently refuse to do anything but
proffer opinion and blunder into faux pas instead of engaging in
meaningful technical discussion I think it's pretty clear who the _real_
fraud is
---

And speaking of frauds, how's that defamation lawsuit coming?

---
Cite?
---

It ain't gonna work.

Certainly not from a dunce who has never studied thermodynamics or
fields.

In line with that, ISTR that a while ago I posed a rather simple
thermodynamic problem which asked for, as a solution, the identification
of a COTS heat sink which would keep the junction temperature of the
semiconductor device to which it was attached at or below its absolute
maximum temperature while dissipating its maximum rated power.

Well you've convinced me. You're a fraud trying to fake a background
in thermo.

---
I see you've conveniently snipped the part where I gave you a chance to
show off your expertise in thermodynamics by working through a simple
exercise which those of us in the electronics biz do all the time.

Geez, you could even have solved it using that spreadsheet you're so
fond of bringing up but, since you didn't, I guess you're not much good
at that either. What a surprise.

What is it you do, exactly?
---

And speaking of frauds, how's that defamation lawsuit coming?

---
Is that some more of your: "If I repeat it often enough I can make this
lie seem true."?
---

That is how I know that you never took thermo and why you look so
ignorant posting to any threads involving thermo.

Let's see...

Let's!

Now, in order to prove that I'm literate in thermodynamics

You already proved that several times.

Thank you!

You can do it again if you want.

---
WoW! Thanks for the permission!
---

Just tell us again why you thought adiabatic engine systems may be
difficult to scale up.

---
I don't recall that I did.

Got a cite?
---

you're trying
to get me to cast a few pearls into your sty so you can say they were
always yours.

Certainly not from you.
---

Is that some more of your: "If I repeat it often enough I can make this
lie seem true."?
--->

OK, Goober, you're right.

Of course. You keep trying to fake a background in tech so we get a
good laugh out of you.

---
Running out of steam, huh?
---

And speaking of frauds, how's that defamation lawsuit coming?

---
Running out of steam, huh?
---

Doncha wanna be good for more than a laugh?

---
I am.

I'm an excellent circuit designer.

And you?

I recall reading something about you being a stenographer... <tee-hee>


JF

 

[Bill Ward]

On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 12:21:38 -0600, John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 3 Jan 2009 08:47:06 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com
wrote:

For starters, tell us what you think that "magnetic induction
cable" and "pickup coil" you were touting earlier look like and
how you think they'd work, and then maybe, if you're polite, we
can go on from there.

If you took thermo or fields, you'ld know why an engineer doesn't
need to know what a device looks like to discuss it.

"Looks like" doesn't always mean physically,

Who suggested it did?

You did.

Where?

---
Where you couldn't tell that I was talking about its electromagnetic
properties.

You still can't describe it, can you? ---

Here, we'll try again:

If you took thermo or fields, you'ld know why it isn't necessary for
someone with a background in that area to know what a device looks
like to discuss it.

Which pegs you as the one at a loss since you can't describe what the
device would look like electrically, let alone physically.

Trying to change the issue?

---
Not at all.

The issue was, is, and will be that you don't know what you're talking
about, and your continuous tripping up on the tech stuff is the proof of
the pudding.

Not only your tripping up, but also your refusal to even _enter_ into real
technical dialog shows the fear you have in being found out for the
technical incompetent you really are. ---

Anyway the response is still the same:

If you took thermo or fields, you'ld know why it isn't necessary
forsomeone with a background in those area to know what a device "looks
like electrically" to discuss it.

---
Of course I know that gibberish makes perfect sense to you, but if you
want to talk about, say, the propagation of an EM wave through a medium
then you really do need to know _something_ about its electrical
characteristics (that is, "what it looks like, electrically") and the
characteristics of the medium through which its traveling if the
discussion is to have much substance.

The same is true if you want to discuss thermodynamics, in that you need
to know what what you're talking about "looks like" before the discussion
can be substantive.

In either case, without that knowledge the "discussion" will just
degenerate into opinion VS opinion, which seems to be what you always try
to elicit.
---

Are you _really_ this stoopid in real life or are you just pulling my
leg?

---
Nice try, but I'm not stupid and this _is_ real life. ---

Also, you dodged the "how you think they'd work" part.

If you are interested in that, feel free to start another thread.

Geez, thanks for the permission,

So you openly admit you are too ignorant to start a discussion on the
subject?

---
Nope, go back and read it over and over again until you understand it.

I see you're also sarcasm impaired. Pity. ---

but I think I'll keep it here, where it started,

Don't try to dodge issues by trying to change the issue.

---
The issue was, and still is, your failure to respond to "how you think
they'd work".

Your "starting another thread" ploy and false accusations about my trying
to change the issue are _clearly_ failed attempts at keeping from having
to deal with the issue.

If they weren't, you'd simply answer the question and get on with your
life.
---

You've tried that scam before.

---
Cite?
---

And speaking of scams, how's that defamation lawsuit coming?

---
How should I know? It's nothing I have anything to do with, as I've
stated before.
---

Looking for more free info, huh? ?

Not just information but ideas as well.

I like the sound of that

Answer this question:

What do you think these groups are for?

---
Read their charters if you don't know. ---

but, from your previous posts, it seems that if other's ideas
contradict yours those aren't the kinds of ideas you're interested in
embracing.

And what ideas are those?

The "idea" that circular furrows are impossible?

The "idea" that hybrids won't work?

---
Cite?
---

The "idea" that adiabatic engine systems may be difficult to scale up?

---
Cite?
---

The "idea" that math is to dress up a technical discussion?

---
Clearly, you didn't understand the statement.

I suggest you go back and read it until... Oh, but wait, you have a
reading comprehension problem. Never mind...

Those aren't ideas.

---
Then why are you bringing them up when what's being talked about is ideas
which are in opposition to yours? ---

That's just some nonsense put out by a fraud trying to fake a tech
background.

---
That's right, and since you consistently refuse to do anything but proffer
opinion and blunder into faux pas instead of engaging in meaningful
technical discussion I think it's pretty clear who the _real_ fraud is
---

And speaking of frauds, how's that defamation lawsuit coming?

---
Cite?
---

It ain't gonna work.

Certainly not from a dunce who has never studied thermodynamics or
fields.

In line with that, ISTR that a while ago I posed a rather simple
thermodynamic problem which asked for, as a solution, the
identification of a COTS heat sink which would keep the junction
temperature of the semiconductor device to which it was attached at or
below its absolute maximum temperature while dissipating its maximum
rated power.

Well you've convinced me. You're a fraud trying to fake a background in
thermo.

---
I see you've conveniently snipped the part where I gave you a chance to
show off your expertise in thermodynamics by working through a simple
exercise which those of us in the electronics biz do all the time.

Geez, you could even have solved it using that spreadsheet you're so fond
of bringing up but, since you didn't, I guess you're not much good at that
either. What a surprise.

What is it you do, exactly?
---

And speaking of frauds, how's that defamation lawsuit coming?

---
Is that some more of your: "If I repeat it often enough I can make this
lie seem true."?
---

That is how I know that you never took thermo and why you look so
ignorant posting to any threads involving thermo.

Let's see...

Let's!

Now, in order to prove that I'm literate in thermodynamics

You already proved that several times.

Thank you!

You can do it again if you want.

---
WoW! Thanks for the permission!
---

Just tell us again why you thought adiabatic engine systems may be
difficult to scale up.

---
I don't recall that I did.

Got a cite?
---

you're trying
to get me to cast a few pearls into your sty so you can say they
were always yours.

Certainly not from you.
---
Is that some more of your: "If I repeat it often enough I can make this
lie seem true."?
---
OK, Goober, you're right.

Of course. You keep trying to fake a background in tech so we get a good
laugh out of you.

---
Running out of steam, huh?
---

And speaking of frauds, how's that defamation lawsuit coming?

---
Running out of steam, huh?
---

Doncha wanna be good for more than a laugh?

---
I am.

I'm an excellent circuit designer.

And you?

I recall reading something about you being a stenographer... <tee-hee


JF

You should be ashamed of yourself, John. You're trying to engage in a
battle of wits with an unarmed man.

Plonk him and be done with it.

 

[Bret Cahill]

For starters, tell us what you think that "magnetic induction cable" and
"pickup coil" you were touting earlier look like and how you think
they'd work, and then maybe, if you're polite, we can go on from there.

If you took thermo or fields, you'ld know why an engineer doesn't need
to know what a device looks like to discuss it.

"Looks like" doesn't always mean physically,

Who suggested it did?

You did.

Where?

Where you couldn't tell that I was talking about its electromagnetic
properties.

Why would anyone want to know what you're talking about?

You're a dunce who is too stoopid to scam anyone into believing you're
anything other than a dunce.

Are you _really_ this stoopid?

You still can't describe it, can you?

You still can't explain why I'ld want to, can you?

Here, we'll try again:

If you took thermo or fields, you'ld know why it isn't necessary for
someone with a background in that area to know what a device looks
like to discuss it.

Which pegs you as the one at a loss since you can't describe what the
device would look like electrically, let alone physically.

Trying to change the issue?

Not at all.

You changed it from "look like" to "look like electrically."

Now why did you change it?

Are you always this disreputable?

.. . .

Anyway the response is still the same:

If you took thermo or fields, you'ld know why it isn't necessary
forsomeone with a background in those area to know what a device
"looks like electrically" to discuss it.

Of course I know

Then why did you bring it up?

Were you trying to dodge the issue that you are a dunce who cannot
fool anyone that you know anything?

.. . .

Are you _really_ this stoopid in real life or are you just pulling my
leg?

Nice try, but I'm not stupid

Then you're pulling everyone's leg by acting really stoopid.

and this _is_ real life.

We're still waiting on your "real life" patent number and "real life"
defamation action.

Is your life so pitiful that you indulge in fantasy 100% of the time?

Also, you dodged the "how you think they'd work" part.

If you are interested in that, feel free to start another thread.

Geez, thanks for the permission,

So you openly admit you are too ignorant to start a discussion on the
subject?

Nope,

Well you've proven your ignorance by chickening out of starting a
thread on the matter.

And speaking of chickening out, are you chickening out of your
defamation action?

.. . .

but I think I'll keep it here, where it
started,

Don't try to dodge issues by trying to change the issue.

The issue was, and still is, your failure to respond to "how you think
they'd work".

That was never the issue.

How long will it take for you to figger out you cannot dodge issues by
changing them?

Your "starting another thread" ploy and false accusations about my
trying to change the issue are _clearly_ failed attempts at keeping from
having to deal with the issue.

It's not my job to deal with every issue of a system.

You need to stick to _your_ job which is being a dunce who cannot fool
anyone into believing you had a background in tech.

.. . .

And speaking of scams, how's that defamation lawsuit coming?

How should I know? �It's nothing I have anything to do with, as I've
stated before.

Ah ha! Just as I predicted! Our fraud is nothing but hot air and
idle threats.

He's chickening out of his defamation action.

He knows everything I say about him would be proven true in court!

Looking for more free info, huh? ?

Not just information but ideas as well.

I like the sound of that

Answer this question:

What do you think these groups are for?

Read their charters if you don't know.

Another dodge.

The issue isn't if I know but if a dunce like _you_ knows.

but, from your previous posts, it seems that if
other's ideas contradict yours those aren't the kinds of ideas you're
interested in embracing.

And what ideas are those?

The "idea" that circular furrows are impossible?

So you openly admit you came up with that moronic "idea?"

The "idea" that hybrids won't work?

Cite?

Are you trying to deny that you multiplied three efficiencies together
-- middle skool math -- and then announced that hybrids wouldn't work?

The "idea" that adiabatic engine systems may be difficult to scale up?

Cite?

Are you trying to deny that you claimed that Mg - Al wire generation
of H2 might be a problem in harbour tugs because of scaling up to a
larger engine?

If so you are so disreputable you'ld never have any credibility in
defamation court.

The "idea" that math is to dress up a technical discussion?

Clearly, you didn't understand the statement.

Well you need to clarify it because every scientist on the entire
planet thinks it's utterly moronic.

Are you _really_ this stoopid or are you just pulling my leg?

.. . .

Those aren't ideas.

Then why are you bringing them up

Did you post anything else that wasn't completely idiotic?

.. . .

And speaking of frauds, how's that defamation lawsuit coming?

Cite?

You think I can sue myself on your behalf?

If you knew the law then you'ld know I don't have standing to sue
myself.

Are you really this stoopid or are you just pulling my leg?

It ain't gonna work.

Certainly not from a dunce who has never studied thermodynamics or
fields.

In line with that, ISTR that a while ago I posed a rather simple
thermodynamic problem which asked for, as a solution, the identification
of a COTS heat sink which would keep the junction temperature of the
semiconductor device to which it was attached at or below its absolute
maximum temperature while dissipating its maximum rated power.

Well you've convinced me. �You're a fraud trying to fake a background
in thermo.

I see you've conveniently snipped the part where I gave you a chance to
show off your expertise in thermodynamics by working through a simple
exercise which those of us in the electronics biz do all the time.

You'll first need to sprinkle in more math equations and acronyms for
it to be impressive to the other dunces here trying fake a background
in thermo.

.. . .

What is it you do, exactly?

I study scams and then expose them.

I'm full service. No scam is too big or too small. I do little two
bit scams, or in your case, 0 bits.

And I do Giga scams.

www.scamotology.com

.. . . .

That is how I know that you never took thermo and why you look so
ignorant posting to any threads involving thermo.

Let's see...

Let's!

Now, in order to prove that I'm literate in thermodynamics

You already proved that several times.

Thank you!

You can do it again if you want.

WoW! �Thanks for the permission!

Since when have you asked for my permission to prove you are a dunce?

You do that every time you post with or WITHOUT my permission.

Just tell us again why you thought adiabatic engine systems may be
difficult to scale up.

I don't recall that I did.

Trying to deny that you're a dunce ain't fooling anyone.

.. . .

I'm an excellent circuit designer.

With "lots of happy customers."

That's what every fraud trying to fake a background in tech says.

And you?

You need to stop denying you are a dunce fraud _first_ and then maybe
we could start other threads on other issues.


Bret Cahill

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 11:17:53 -0800, Bill Ward
<bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

You should be ashamed of yourself, John. You're trying to engage in a
battle of wits with an unarmed man.

---
You're right; mea culpa.
---

Plonk him and be done with it.

---
Excellent idea! He's gone.

JF

 

[gabydewilde]

On Jan 3, 8:28 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

And speaking of scams, how's that defamation lawsuit coming?
How should I know? It's nothing I have anything to do with, as I've
stated before.

Ah ha!  Just as I predicted!  Our fraud is nothing but hot air and
idle threats.

He's chickening out of his defamation action.

He knows everything I say about him would be proven true in court!

HahAHAhaHAHa

remindes me of Rabbit man who was going to complaint to my ISP because
I was posting in sci.energy.hydrogen a forbidden place to post by
divine laws of teh Illuminati, skullandbones, NWO billyburgers, the
gristian church and scientology. Hahahahahaa

Lets see and address what Rabbit man wrote in this topic and it
becomes obvious wireless electricity needs to be debunked to protect
the petroleum snakes.

On Jan 2, 7:58 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Do you realise what effect that would have on the number of potholes (and their
location) ?

On Jan 2, 8:03 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

What's the conductivity of the rails?

Depends what they're made of doesn't it ? I believe the London Underground uses
high molybdenum steel for low wear. And you are going to have a LOT of wear.

So, go find the resistance of it and answer John's question.

This one is fucking hilarious, here is is chit chatting with the other
disinformation fucktard:

On Jan 2, 8:14 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

"hhc...@yahoo.com" wrote:
A very different subject is non-contact of energy to individual
vechicles on a roadway.and not on a guideway or on tracks. The US
Federal Government as part of their IVHS program has been exploring
this for now well over 20 years, without much evidence of success thus
far. This project also addresses the driverless operation of
individual vehicles.

Surprising, the wireless transfer of operating traction energy to the
individual vehicles is not, as I understand it, the major obstacle,
but is problematic. As I understand it, the greates coefficient of
coupling thus obtained is about 15%, which is close to the figure
obtain by your inductively charged electric toothbrush. Energy
efficiency is not the issue here, since energy that is not coupled to
a load is not lost.

But the primary has to be constantly energised regardless of loading and
that DOES mean losses.

Also, the test bus they made (requiring an amazingly flat road) created
such high levels of acoustic noise from the power transfer that it would
never be acceptable. I haven't the article in front of me, but a figure in
the 70-80 dB region comes to mind.

I do haven teh article in front of me and it says something compleatly
differents.

This means you are an idiot Rabbit man. Learn to live with it.
hahahahahaha

On Jan 2, 11:13 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

PLEASE DO NOT TRIM THE IDENTITIES OF THE POSTERS YOU ARE REPLYING TO

On Jan 2, 11:21 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Sure, but how do you plan to deal with the effect of real roads in the real
world and inconvenient things like suspension travel ?

Roads don't stay flat for long.

On Jan 2, 11:23 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Bret Cahill wrote:
Then you need to .... study engineering

He already did !

On Jan 2, 11:29 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com wrote:
You don't think $20 billion/day in oil cost savings could finance
anything?

You could do that by driving more economic ICE vehicles.

VW long ago made their '3 litre car'. It takes 3 litres of fuel (< 1 US
gallon) to cover 100km or ~ 62mi. It's about 80 US mpg or 100 UK mpg.

Graham

Hey? You didn't lie here Graham!!1!!1!

What about Shell's 376 MPG car? Surely that is 3.76 times as good as
the VW?

http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/introduction-to-the-water-fueled-car/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/15#Popular_counter_reasoning



On Jan 2, 11:40 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Oh indeed. I just liked that particular drawback. Imagine the tramlining effect too !

BTW, it has now become environmentally unfriendly to recycle newsprint paper in the
UK. It costs more (uses more energy) to collect and recycle (which involves using
nasty bleaches and so on) than the damn stuff is worth (saves energy). Why ?
Oversupply ! Too much is being recycled. The price / tonne the recyclers will pay has
dropped from Ł25 to Ł1. And at the end of it, all you get is crap paper !

Strange that 'the greens' forgot you can basically grow the stuff (which captures CO2
if you're into that as well ) !

The value of trees can not be expressed in toilet paper Rabbit man.

Wireless electricity is so 1940, lets build cars that use no fuel at
all.

http://wind-car.go-here.nl/

Lets call it alternative 4. hahaahahahaha

You can cry but you cant win.

__________
http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/water-fueled-car/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/2

 

[Bill Ward]

On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 14:33:44 -0600, John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 11:17:53 -0800, Bill Ward
bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:


You should be ashamed of yourself, John. You're trying to engage in a
battle of wits with an unarmed man.

---
You're right; mea culpa.
---

Plonk him and be done with it.

---
Excellent idea! He's gone.

JF

Thanks.

 

[Eeyore]

Bill Ward wrote:

John Fields wrote:

I'm an excellent circuit designer.

And you?

I recall reading something about you being a stenographer... <tee-hee


JF

You should be ashamed of yourself, John. You're trying to engage in a
battle of wits with an unarmed man.

LOL !

Plonk him and be done with it.

The task does seem somewhat futile at times but if his crazy ideas go
unchallenged we'll get more crazies thinking they're good ideas.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

gabydewilde wrote:

On Jan 3, 8:28 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

And speaking of scams, how's that defamation lawsuit coming?
How should I know? It's nothing I have anything to do with, as I've
stated before.

Ah ha! Just as I predicted! Our fraud is nothing but hot air and
idle threats.

He's chickening out of his defamation action.

He knows everything I say about him would be proven true in court!


HahAHAhaHAHa

remindes me of Rabbit man who was going to complaint to my ISP because
I was posting in sci.energy.hydrogen a forbidden place to post by
divine laws of teh Illuminati, skullandbones, NWO billyburgers, the
gristian church and scientology. Hahahahahaa

Been too busy. I haven't forgotten. I have the charter somewhere kicking around.

Graham