Chip with simple program for Toy

[John Fields]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:09:45 -0700, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com>
wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:488F848B.F8909757@hotmail.com...


Rob Dekker wrote:

Didn't GM already build a hybrid diesel in the 90s that got 70mpg ?

Let me look that up... YES ! The Chrysler ESX-3.
And the Precept got 80mpg.

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

What a terrible shame that we have these vehicle designs already for 10 year, and still don't produce them now.....

---
Much worse than a shame. I'd call it borderline criminal.

How much of an effect do you think big oil had in shutting down the
program?

JF

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
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.

---
Thanks for the heads-up, and to the earlier one from Rob.

You're welcome.

I agree with you and, originally, I thought it may have been a
misrepresentation as well.

However, with the onset of his verbal gymnastics and gratuitous
name-calling it's become abundantly clear that we _do_ have a troll in
our midst.

Not a particularly clever one in that he tries to attribute to himself
values made in statements by others which clearly refute his earlier
stated position(s), (and are easily recalled for evaluation, BTW) but
a somewhat tricky devil, nonetheless, in that he tries to transfer his
losses to the knight what unhorsed him, even though his own lance has
been broken and he's yelling and screaming something about being
undefeated while supine.

It's an intriguing tactic. If he can keep straight and on topic however some of his
posts have been worthwhile.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rob Dekker wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Rob Dekker wrote:

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.

Did you take a look at it btw ? It's like Europe's answer to the the Chevy Volt.

Didn't GM already build a hybrid diesel in the 90s that got 70mpg ?

Let me look that up... YES ! The Chrysler ESX-3.
And the Precept got 80mpg.

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

What a terrible shame that we have these vehicle designs already for 10 year, and still don't produce them now.....

Extraordinary. I never knew about any of those. I wonder why the automakers wanted the programme halted. Maybe they preferred to make
SUVs ? Or were they too expensive to build ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

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

the world trade towers,

Nope. And they didnt expect them to implode like they did either.

They didn't implode.

Yes they did.

They suffered cascade failure,

Same thing, different words.

Not even remotely.

Wrong, as always.

Suggest you look up the dictionary definition of 'implode'.

I order you to watch the video of them imploding.

---
Order?

You have no authority.

Imploding?

Try "collapsing".

Rod seems to have a curious understanding of the word implode.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/implode
1. to burst inward (opposed to explode).

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/collapse
1. to fall or cave in; crumble suddenly: The roof collapsed and buried the
crowd.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rod Speed wrote:

Try letting go of your dick.

PLONK

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:44:10 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

I know that diesels (especially lately) are probably the most efficient ICEs around.
But do you see any efficiency numbers for the new diesels ? Can't find much on detroitdiesel.com.

I don't know the exact details for sure but very large marine diesels are now hitting 50%.

They were always efficient. ?Those incremental increases in efficiency
are like jumping off the Titantic with dry clothes instead of wet.
The effort to buy a tiny bit of time will have a statistically zero
impact on odds of the survival for most people.

That's
impressive, especially when you consider what you might do with the waste 'co-gen' capacity.

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

How much time will going from 30% efficiency to 40% buy?

One year?

How long will it take to develop?

This reminds me of GM working on an engine with 15% better fuel
economy.

It'll take seven years to develop.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, just that it isn't a solution.

This is no time or place for tweakers.

---
It's a fine time _and_ place for tweakers.

It's not the right time for know-nothing idiots who think they have
all the answers but can't substantiate any of their beliefs

Cite?

Show your work.

Huge.

---

Geez, that's clever...

JF

 

[Bret Cahill]

I know that diesels (especially lately) are probably the most efficient ICEs around.
But do you see any efficiency numbers for the new diesels ? Can't find much on detroitdiesel.com.

I don't know the exact details for sure but very large marine diesels are now hitting 50%.

They were always efficient. �Those incremental increases in efficiency
are like jumping off the Titantic with dry clothes instead of wet.
The effort to buy a tiny bit of time will have a statistically zero
impact on odds of the survival for most people.

That's
impressive, especially when you consider what you might do with the waste 'co-gen' capacity.

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

How much time will going from 30% efficiency to 40% buy?

One year?

How long will it take to develop?

This reminds me of GM working on an engine with 15% better fuel
economy.

It'll take seven years to develop.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, just that it isn't a solution.

This is no time or place for tweakers.

---
It's a fine time _and_ place for tweakers.

It's not the right time for know-nothing idiots who think they have
all the answers but can't substantiate any of their beliefs

Cite?

Show your work.

Huge.

 

[Bret Cahill]

On Jul 30, 8:19�am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:44:10 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill





BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
I know that diesels (especially lately) are probably the most efficient ICEs around.
But do you see any efficiency numbers for the new diesels ? Can't find much on detroitdiesel.com.

I don't know the exact details for sure but very large marine diesels are now hitting 50%.

They were always efficient. ?Those incremental increases in efficiency
are like jumping off the Titantic with dry clothes instead of wet.
The effort to buy a tiny bit of time will have a statistically zero
impact on odds of the survival for most people.

That's
impressive, especially when you consider what you might do with the waste 'co-gen' capacity.

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

How much time will going from 30% efficiency to 40% buy?

One year?

How long will it take to develop?

This reminds me of GM working on an engine with 15% better fuel
economy.

It'll take seven years to develop.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, just that it isn't a solution.

This is no time or place for tweakers.

---
It's a fine time _and_ place for tweakers.

It's not the right time for know-nothing idiots who think they have
all the answers but can't substantiate any of their beliefs

Cite?

Show your work.

Huge.

---
Geez, that's clever...

JF- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 05:23:30 +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
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

they blew up, among other things, embassies, ships,

Yes.

and the world trade towers,

Nope. And they didnt expect them to implode like they did either.

They didn't implode.

Yes they did.

They suffered cascade failure,

Same thing, different words.

Not even remotely.

Wrong, as always.

Suggest you look up the dictionary definition of 'implode'.

I order you to watch the video of them imploding.

Order?

Yep, order.

You have no authority.

Wrong, as always.

Imploding?

Yep.

Try "collapsing".

Thats a bit better than your stupid 'they blew up'

Try letting go of your dick.

Let go of it???

LOL, It's so far up your ass I can't even touch it!

Been having those pathetic little deviate fantasys long, child ?

---
You wish...
---

And I dont even have a donkey anyway, fuckwit.

---
I thought from all that braying coming out of your keyboard that you
_were_ one.

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 05:24:55 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Fields wrote:

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

the world trade towers,

Nope. And they didnt expect them to implode like they did
either.

They didn't implode.

Yes they did.

They suffered cascade failure,

Same thing, different words.

Not even remotely.

Wrong, as always.

Suggest you look up the dictionary definition of 'implode'.

I order you to watch the video of them imploding.

---
Order?

You have no authority.

Imploding?

Try "collapsing".

Rod seems to have a curious understanding of the word implode.

You've got your dick in your hand.

---
Hmmm...

That's twice.

What is this fascination you seem to have with handling peni?

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 05:26:28 +1000, "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
Rod Speed wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

they blew up, among other things, embassies, ships,

Yes.

and the world trade towers,

Nope. And they didnt expect them to implode like they did either.

They didn't implode.

Yes they did.

They suffered cascade failure,

Same thing, different words.

Nope.

Yep.

Implosion is what happens when an evacuated volume
pulls in its walls when they're rendered unstable.

Thats just one way of imploding, stupid.

---
The other way which you may have in mind is called 'imploding' but
really isn't; it's explosive demolition where it's generally desired
for the structure to fall in on itself.

In any case, the towers didn't implode, they collapsed.
---

And they certainly didnt BLOW UP as some fool initially claimed anyway.

---
When you use a bomb against something you blow it up, yes?

They blew up the parking garage pretty good, but you were probably
only about 5 tears old back then so you don't remember.

Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing#The_attack

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 05:27:00 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Some terminal fuckwit claiming to be
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com
desperately attempted to bullshit and lie its way out of its
predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

---
Hmm...

That's the third one of those and, lately, Brat's been monotonously
prolific with his banal:

"Huge.

Cite?

Show your calculations."

Is that a new tactic you Google Groupers are trying out; "Death by
Boredom?"

JF

 

[Eeyore]

Rod Speed wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

How about addressing the source of the problem ?

Not even possible. Thats always been the problem with terrorism.

Ever heard of the 'Good Friday Agreement' ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rod Speed wrote:

John Fields wrote

Implosion is what happens when an evacuated volume
pulls in its walls when they're rendered unstable.

Thats just one way of imploding, stupid.

No. That IS implosion exactly.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rod Speed wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Rob Dekker wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
Rob Dekker wrote:

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.

Did you take a look at it btw ? It's like Europe's answer to the the
Chevy Volt.


Didn't GM already build a hybrid diesel in the 90s that got 70mpg ?

Let me look that up... YES ! The Chrysler ESX-3.
And the Precept got 80mpg.

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

What a terrible shame that we have these vehicle designs already for
10 year, and still don't produce them now.....

Extraordinary. I never knew about any of those. I wonder why the
automakers wanted the programme halted. Maybe they preferred to make
SUVs ? Or were they too expensive to build ?

Yep, bet the last is the real reason, given that no one else bothered world wide.

Now that was a sensible, civil response. Why not try more of those ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

"Rod Speed" wrote:
John Fields wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Not with busses it aint.

Have you never heard of "The Grid"?

Tad unlikely I havent seeing as I have used that term a number of times.

---
Whoooooosh...

The grid _is_ a "buss", Mr. Clever.

Or even "bus" in UK English. Hence the UK grid is indeed a big bus.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

"Rod Speed" wrote:
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

Implosion is what happens when an evacuated volume
pulls in its walls when they're rendered unstable.

Thats just one way of imploding, stupid.

---
The other way which you may have in mind is called 'imploding' but
really isn't; it's explosive demolition where it's generally desired
for the structure to fall in on itself.

In any case, the towers didn't implode, they collapsed.

And in such a way that has been examined in minute detail by expert engineers
on account of the implications for all other skyscrapers.

And they certainly didnt BLOW UP as some fool initially claimed anyway.

---
When you use a bomb against something you blow it up, yes?

At 08:46:40, the hijackers deliberately crashed Flight 11 into the northern
facade of the North Tower (Tower 1) of the World Trade Center.[15] The
aircraft, traveling at about 466 miles per hour (750 km/h) and carrying about
10,000 U.S. gallons (38,000 L) of jet fuel, hit between the 93rd and 99th
floors of the North Tower.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_11

At 9:03, Flight 175 crashed into the southern facade of Tower 2 of the World
Trade Center (south tower), traveling at approximately 545 mph and impacting
between floors 77 and 85 with approximately 10,000 gallons of jet fuel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175

Ever heard of the term 'firebomb' ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firebombing

Now those were firebombs without precendent.

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:05:00 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> 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.

---
And to bring those atrocities to an end, you advocate that other
"fools" who willingly give up their lives to end it are wrong?

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:39:18 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
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.

---
Thanks for the heads-up, and to the earlier one from Rob.

You're welcome.


I agree with you and, originally, I thought it may have been a
misrepresentation as well.

However, with the onset of his verbal gymnastics and gratuitous
name-calling it's become abundantly clear that we _do_ have a troll in
our midst.

Not a particularly clever one in that he tries to attribute to himself
values made in statements by others which clearly refute his earlier
stated position(s), (and are easily recalled for evaluation, BTW) but
a somewhat tricky devil, nonetheless, in that he tries to transfer his
losses to the knight what unhorsed him, even though his own lance has
been broken and he's yelling and screaming something about being
undefeated while supine.

It's an intriguing tactic. If he can keep straight and on topic however some of his
posts have been worthwhile.

---
True.

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 05:30:25 +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
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.

Yup.

What I meant was obvious from the context.

You cant manage that ? Your problem.

Backpedaling

Just another of your lies.

---
More backpedaling.
---

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.

Nope.

Yep.

Nope.

Yep.

You need fat in your diet

Much better for you to get that fat without heating it first when frying.

Sez who?

Says the research.

---
Cite?
---

There's a reason the mediteranean diet gets a much
better health result than countrys that do a lot of frying of their food.

---
Then what's the reason?
---

and if you know what you're doing and get some (or all)
of it from food that you've fried, then that's good for you.

Not when everyone gets enough fat from other non heated fat.

Oh, Gawd!

No god is ever gunna help fools like you.

---
My God helps them what helps themselves and, so far, all you've proven
is that you've gotten yourself adrift at sea with a leaky life raft
and contempt for a God that might save your worthless life.

You two work it out.
---

Now you're an authority on everyone's eating habits?

Nope. It is something that might just have been very thoroughly researched tho.

---
Got something concrete, like a relevant link, or is that just some
more of your incessant blather?

JF