Chip with simple program for Toy

[Eeyore]

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

Wrong again. The real problem is whats used to fry it in.

---
Short attention span?

That's what I originally stated and what you chose to disagree with.

In case you weren't aware John, 'Rod Speed' is known to be a reknowned troll.

From some of the intelligent comments he made in this thread re: technology I
thought he may have been mispresented. I'll leave you to make your own decision.

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 05:55:11 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 04:10:57 +1000, "Rod Speed"
rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

I dare say we could debate factors of this at length
and it would be quite interesting but I think there are
other more important fish to fry.

Fried fish is bad for you.

Depends on what you fry it in.

Nope, frying is bad for you.

Got some data?

Yep, http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=frying+grilling+health

From the same source:

"According to a spokesperson from the European Union, acrylamide
content
is much higher in foods that have been discolored or burned by
cooking.

So dont discolor or burn the food, stupid.

No shit?

My, you _do_ have a remarkable grasp of the obvious.

So why did you wave that shit around, stupid ?

---
You needed to be hit with a 2X4 to get your attention.
---

"General advice, resulting from this project, is to avoid
overcooking when baking, frying or toasting carbohydrate-rich
foods," the spokesperson said.

Funny that.

"French fries and roast potatoes should be cooked
to a golden yellow rather than golden brown color.""

See, not a shred of rocket science required whatever.

Well, you do have to know the difference between golden yellow and golden brown,

Not a shred of rocket science required to do that, stupid.

---
Didn't say there was, did I?
---

Even someone as stupid as you should be able to manage that if someone
was actually stupid enough to lend you a seeing eye dog and a white cane, stupid.

plus it took a little "rocket science" to establish the link between acrylamide and cancer, you know.

Nope, not a shred of rocket science involved at all, stupid.

---
Well, I see you don't quite have a grasp about what quotation marks
mean in that context.
---

Ovarian cancer, BTW,

Taint the only cancer thats involved in, stupid.

---
Ding!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylamide#Published_articles_on_the_potential_health_risks_to_humans
---

so I really don't have to worry about it.

Wrong when its not the only cancer its involved in, stupid.

YMMV.

RFDE.

---
Radio Frequency Design Engineer?
---

So, then, as long as you fry them that way and use vegetable oil you should be OK

Thats just as far as the acrylamide content is concerned.

You're still stuck with the fat that it collects when you fry them and thats bad for you.

It doesn't have to be,

Yes it does. There is no way to avoid some of that ending up in the food you eat, stupid.

---
Geez, another obvious slap-you-in-the-face fact actually grasped, but
irrelevant, the point being that if the proper oil is used for frying
then ingesting what's been absorbed during frying will actually be
good for you.
---

and you _need_ fat.

Doesnt have to come from frying, stupid.

---
Won't hurt if it does, lamebrain.
---

The trick is in knowing what and how much you're putting into your body.

Makes a hell of a lot more sense to not fry it and to grill it instead, stupid.

---
Not if you want something fried, dumbass.
---

Here:

http://www.pennhealth.com/health_info/nutrition/fat.html

Which points out that fat is present in more than just fried food, stupid.

---
Wow! You really _are_ good at this "grasping the obvious" stuff,
aren't you, thicky?
---

Salud!

You a wog or sumfin ?

---
Sumfin.

JF

 

[Eeyore]

Rod Speed wrote:

You're still stuck with the fat that it collects when you fry them and thats bad for you.

Vegetable (esp olive) oil is bad for you ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rob Dekker wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote i

I don't know the exact details for sure but very large marine diesels are
now hitting 50%. That's impressive, especially when you consider what you
might do > with the waste
'co-gen' capacity.

That IS impressive..
I believe these, but where did you get these numbers ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wärtsilä-Sulzer_RTA96-C

But there used to be a far better page about it. Maybe I found the wrong one ?
Ah !
http://people.bath.ac.uk/ccsshb/12cyl/

I assume they pertain to these monsters running at their optimal rate
(crusing at constant RPM and significant load).

Perfect for ships.

About co-gen on a ship, assuming they don't need all the waste heat, what's
the temp of the exhaust ? There may be a way to get additional energy from a
second cycle (steam turbine or so).

The run quite cool AIUI. Not sure how much you could extract. Some, no doubt.

I believe the target for road diesels in the long term is in the region
of 40% or maybe a tad better.


Most diesels (as other ICEs) obtain best efficiency in a small RPM range and
under 'ideal' (significant) load.
Is the 40% you mention here pertaining to that ? Where did you find this
number ?

It was a US or EU document I have long lost the link for pertaining to future
methods of improving ICE efficiency. Incidentally, electrically driven valves
might alone improve efficiency by as much as 5% ? by avoiding the inefficiency
of the camshaft and its drive.

Why would it not be close to 50% as with the

Carnot I think. Temp diffs.

In vehicles, load varies wildly (unless you are crusing on the freeway), so,
well-tuned diesels performing in series hybrids (essentially driving a
generator) should be the most efficient way to power a vehicle...

I totally agree. Opel of Germany are working on one. May be out around 2012.
Google Opel Flextreme.

Graham

 

On Jul 28, 11:41 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

Think of it this way:  Do you _really_ want the mental cases out on
the street?

What damage can they do here?

What do you mean "they," paleface?

 

[Eeyore]

disgoftunwells wrote:

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

Pure fantasy. Show us the plant doing anything like that.

Here you go: http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/

It's actually 100 feet per minute, or about 1mph.(Not even 2 orders of
magnitude error)

On the other hand, this isn't a plant doing 1GW (capacity) per year.
It's a machine.

They expect $1 / watt.

To the best of my knowledge nanosolar product has not been independently
tested and is only being sold to 'selected' customers.

When there's one of the shelf I can buy I'll believe it. If they can do it
- GREAT - but I see certain fundamental physical principles of an
extraordinary order that they would have had to overcome.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rob Dekker wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:488E4BA5.1C39F9FC@hotmail.com...


Rob Dekker wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Bret Cahill wrote:

When looking at battery tech for (PH)EVs, I came across an
interesting experiment converting a school bus into an electric
vehicle.

And if it was so great whey aren't they in volume manufacture right
now ?

They are manufactured, but not in large volume yet.
Many reasons for that. One important one because the cost of diesel only
recently became more expensive than grid+battery.
Remember oil was HALF the cost last year around this time (remember
$70/barrel?).
It has been only been a few years that even diesel-hybrids became
competitive with standard diesels.

Diesel-hybrids (especially series hybrids) already have full electric
drive, so now that battery+grid became cheaper than diesel, I
expect a lot plug-in hybrid diesels to emerge (retrofit bigger batteries
on existing hybrids, and on new vehicles), and electric and
plug-in hybrid busses/delivery vans will almost certainly take off too.

All this is assuming that price of oil is not gotta go down below $100
any more. If that happens, many applications will drop back
to simpler ICE technology.

Couple of big problems remains : how fast can the world increase battery
production ? And which battery technology can expand
fastest...
The free market should be able to determine that though.
Since ZEBRAs use cheap production materials, and fairly simple
production process, I give them a very good chance of becoming a
dominant battery technology for PHEVs and EVs.
Pitty that only one manufacterer in the world makes them (MES-DEA in
Switzerland).

I wonder how many patents are still open on ZEBRA technology. Patent
litigation and negotiation could slow down investment and
production of battery-tech.

That is a truly SILLY answer.


Sorry, but which part of my answer do you consider silly and why ?

I think I must have got it confused with another post and clicked on the wrong
one to reply.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rob Dekker wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
...
They are manufactured,

CITE !

About 120 electric (full size 22-30ft) busses are in operation (at least in
2005) in the US (see page 14 of this report).
http://www.navc.org/Electric_Drive_Bus_Analysis.pdf

These busses are produced by a number of manufacturers.
Blue Bird, Electric Fuel Corporation and a spectrum of Chinese companies.

Once again, the market was not ready for full EV busses in 2005 (when this
report was written), but with the recent (since last year) increase in fuel
prices, the market is changing fast. I still expect hybrid-electric drive
busses to do better than full electric, simple because bus operators are
normally slow to change their fleet to something drastically different. And
I don't blame them. Still, as long as the new busses have electric drive,
the step to plug-in and to full EV is fairly minor. Could be done with
retrofit afterwards.

Interesting but 120 buses is still a minute number.

Still poses the problem of how you make the electricity though.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rod Speed wrote:

Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote

And I don't blame them. Still, as long as the new busses have electric drive,

Fuck all of them do.

Quite so. They have gearboxes.

the step to plug-in and to full EV is fairly minor.

And when they aint, it aint.

Could be done with retrofit afterwards.

And when they aint, it cant.

Very true.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Bret Cahill wrote:

And when they aint, it cant.

Hugely pathetic

Not gonna happen

No way

Nuke

BORING

 

[Eeyore]

Rod Speed wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

They didn't implode.

Yes they did.

They suffered cascade failure,

Same thing, different words.

Not even remotely. Suggest you look up the dictionary definition of 'implode'.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rod Speed wrote:

Eeyore wrote

They suffered cascade failure,

Same thing, different words.

a well known engineering phenomenon.

Not with skyscrapers it aint.

In engineering there are always 'first times' when the unexpected happens. It's often called tombstone
engineering. Applied a lot to early passenger airliner designs.

Those towers had only ever been designed to accept the
impact of a Boeing 707, the largest aircraft of its day.

They were always designed to survive more than just the current aircraft.

Simply plain untrue. Read the specs. 757s and 767s are VASTLY larger than a 60s 707. Plus they were
FULL of fuel. As much as something getting on for 60-100 tons IIRC.

And almost no other skyscrapers would get the same result with the planes that were used.

No one's tried have they ? Your point is ? I'll bet Canary Wharf in London would go.

Furthermore, building codes had reduced the effectiveness of
fire protection in the higher levels due to concerns about asbestos.

Nope, its never about asbestos with those.

It very much could be. Asbestos was made illegal for fire protection of support beams about 1/2 way
through their construction. The alernatives were 'supposed' to be as good but those in the know say
they weren't.

I dare say we'll learn from all that.

We did, no one has been able to hijack an aircraft in the US again.

And even if they did, no one is going to stay in their seats and see how it pans out again either.

I agree on both those points.

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:35:46 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

"Rod Speed" wrote:

I doubt that gentle (low temperature) frying does much harm to any food.

The problem aint what it does to the food, the problem is what it does to the humans who eat it.

---
Well, yeah, but it's the acrylamides that are developed in the food
when it's fried (or roasted or grilled) for too long that's the
problem, so it _is_ what it does to the food that's the problem.

Well, decent fish does not need to be fried long at all.

---
Indeed.

We have a place here fancifully named "Catfish Parlour" that serves
deep-fat-fried breaded catfish which is about the best I've ever eaten
and it comes out of the fryer with almost no grease in the breading
only a few minutes after we put in the order.

They also serve complimentary hushpuppies (also fried) with a
delicious tartar sauce and a somewhat suspect (but tasty) Jalapeno
tartar sauce on the side.

Do you have hushpuppies in the UK?
---

Great food, fish. I ought to eat more of it but it's become quite expensive as certain fisheries have
been exhausted. I had some Chinese style once in Hong Kong. It was superb. Obviously being coastal,
fish is a major food there. Didn't like abalone though.

---
Fish is pretty reasonable here, from sashimi grade tuna steak at about
$10/lb to tilapia at about $3/lb for nice filets.

Shellfish varies a lot, with small shrimp (30-40/lb) at around
$3-$4/lb to jumbo shrimp (12-20/lb) going for $10-$12/lb.

Oysters and abalone and all that I don't much care for either.

But scallops? That's a different story!

And salmon croquettes?

I have a recipe to die for. (well, not really, but it's pretty good
and it's for baked, not fried, croquettes.)

If you're interested (and since this is sci.electronics.basics, which
makes it on topic) I'll post it here.


JF

 

[Eeyore]

Rod Speed wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
John Fields wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

Actually, they tried to get some terrorists to blow up the
school bus, but they burned their lips on the exhaust pipe.

Yep, those damned rag heads aint exactly rocket scientist material.

Well, that was supposed to be a joke, but if you want to get serious
about it they blew up, among other things, embassies, ships, and the
world trade towers, so they weren't exactly stupid, were they?

They exploited vulnerabilities (a.k.a. sloppiness) rather than materials technology.

That claim about sloppiness was only true about a small subset of them.

But you do accept it played a part ?

They mostly exploit what terrorism almost always does, no viable protection

i.e the 'vulnerability' I mentioned. The 'a.k.a.' was a poor choice of wording.

against it, most obviously with other mass transport bombings and the use of carbombs
etc.

How far do you want the protection to go ? Make everyone walk or use buses ?

How about addressing the source of the problem ?


Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rod Speed wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Yep, those damned rag heads aint exactly rocket scientist material.

Despite the CIA's best intel and the Iraq war !

Its always possible to do terrorist atrocitys.

In spades when the fools are happy to die in the process.

No doubt there.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Well, decent fish does not need to be fried long at all.

---
Indeed.

We have a place here fancifully named "Catfish Parlour" that serves
deep-fat-fried breaded catfish which is about the best I've ever eaten
and it comes out of the fryer with almost no grease in the breading
only a few minutes after we put in the order.

They also serve complimentary hushpuppies (also fried) with a
delicious tartar sauce and a somewhat suspect (but tasty) Jalapeno
tartar sauce on the side.

Do you have hushpuppies in the UK?

They're a form of footwear !

Great food, fish. I ought to eat more of it but it's become quite expensive as certain >fisheries have
been exhausted. I had some Chinese style once in Hong Kong. It was >superb. Obviously being coastal,
fish is a major food there. Didn't like abalone >though.

---
Fish is pretty reasonable here, from sashimi grade tuna steak at about
$10/lb to tilapia at about $3/lb for nice filets.

Shellfish varies a lot, with small shrimp (30-40/lb) at around
$3-$4/lb to jumbo shrimp (12-20/lb) going for $10-$12/lb.

Oysters and abalone and all that I don't much care for either.

Yup @ oysters too.

But scallops? That's a different story!

Fond of mussels here. The French Moules Frites is especially good. Mussels cooked in a garlic, herb and
wine light sauce and served with fries.

And salmon croquettes?

Salmon in any form ! I adore it raw too. Picked up the taste for that in China.

I have a recipe to die for. (well, not really, but it's pretty good
and it's for baked, not fried, croquettes.)

If you're interested (and since this is sci.electronics.basics, which
makes it on topic) I'll post it here.

Thanks.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rod Speed wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

And then, it's only a problem if the fried food is high in carbohydrates.

Wrong again. The real problem is whats used to fry it in.

Wasnt that what I was saying myself a few posts back ?

Nope, I meant that whatever you fry it in, is bad for you.

Could have been phrased more carefully.

The problem is that whatever you fry it in, some of that ends up in the food you
fried, and that its better for your health to grill it or bake it or poach it instead.

I always thought olive oil WAS healthy for you. Your body does need some oils.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rod Speed wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

I had some Chinese style once in Hong Kong. It was superb.
Obviously being coastal, fish is a major food there.

Plenty of other food is much bigger.

Don't even try Chinese steak.

Besides large animals eat food that humans can eat and are a relatively inefficient food source, esp for
a country of 1 billion people.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rod Speed wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed wrote

You're still stuck with the fat that it collects
when you fry them and thats bad for you.

Vegetable (esp olive) oil is bad for you ?

When its used for frying, yep.

Essentially because breaks down too quickly when heated.

When heated too hot I suspect. I fry at lowish temps.


Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rob Dekker wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Wrong again. The real problem is whats used to fry it in.

---
Short attention span?

That's what I originally stated and what you chose to disagree with.

In case you weren't aware John, 'Rod Speed' is known to be a reknowned troll.


Worse. See "The Rod Speed Virus" thread.

From some of the intelligent comments he made in this thread re: technology I
thought he may have been mispresented. I'll leave you to make your own decision.

Intelligent comments ? You mean about biodiesel ? Did he answer your question about how much biodiesel we can actually produce, and
how much land we need for that ?
My guess is he did not.

I didn't see that post. My guess is that we can't 'bio-diesel' or bio-ethanol our way out of anything, although both may prove useful
as stop-gaps..

Graham