Chip with simple program for Toy

[Rod Speed]

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.

"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.

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.

 

[Paul E. Schoen]

"Mark" <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f6d3e4f1-5159-4e42-b9fb-dd040688ec27@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...

re cables to power electric tractors...


see "center pivot irrigation"


If they can do this, they can figure out how to get a cable to a
tractor.

I agree. I posted some specific figures to prove the basic practicality of
using a "low voltage" 480 VAC 3 phase service cable that can drive at least
a 100 HP electric motor on a 250 ft pivot arm, and with a bit of
"Enginuity" a system could be rigged up where the tractor could have more
degrees of freedom than a circular path, if needed.

Figuring out the details, building a prototype, and doing some actual field
testing would be a fascinating and worthwhile challenge, probably well
suited to a college with agricultural and engineering departments. But I
think this entire discussion has degraded to the point of uselessness.

Paul

 

[Rod Speed]

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 04:07:48 +1000, "Rod Speed"
rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

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

Trivially fixed by not doing it for too long.

---
Duh.
---

so it _is_ what it does to the food that's the problem.

Nope, not when you get a clue about how long you do it for.

---
Duh.

I already made that point.
---

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.

---
Short attention span?

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

I meant that whatever its fried in is bad for you, stupid.

 

[Rod Speed]

disgoftunwells <disgoftunwells@yahoo.co.uk> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote

That could drop with cheap PV.

So such thing yet exists.

One plant in San Jose puts out a GW a year.

Nothing like cheap PV.

And it's area is ?

I'ld assume it is the 15% rating applied to the 1kW/m^2 figure,
6.7 m^2/kW X 1 GW X 1,000,000 kW/GW = 6.7 million m^2.
They claim they can print PV at paper mill speeds,
the PV comes flying off the line at 50 mph.

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

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

Thats nothing like it.

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

Still nothing like it.

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

So his claim is pure fantasy, like I said.

They expect $1 / watt.

I expect to be a billionaire too.

But if you've got the batteries, better put the PV cells on a roof top than on a bus top.

Better to use the grid when its available.

 

[Rod Speed]

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 05:03:03 +1000, "Rod Speed"
rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 04:07:48 +1000, "Rod Speed"
rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

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

Trivially fixed by not doing it for too long.

---
Duh.
---

so it _is_ what it does to the food that's the problem.

Nope, not when you get a clue about how long you do it for.

---
Duh.

I already made that point.
---

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.

---
Short attention span?

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

I meant that whatever its fried in is bad for you, stupid.

LOL,

Village eejut imitations cut no mustard, stupid.

you can't even make your meaning clear

Clear from the context, stupid.

and _I'm_ stupid?

Yep.

And, anyway, you're wrong about fried foods.

Nope.

Your body needs fat so,

Doesnt have to come from fried foods, stupid.

as I stated in another post, the trick is to use oil to fry with that's good for you

No such animal, stupid.

and not to use too much of it.

It always gets absorbed by the food you are frying, stupid.

Besides, fried foods are yummy.

Irrelevant to whether they are bad for you, stupid.

 

[Rod Speed]

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 ?

"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.

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.

Ovarian cancer, BTW,

Taint the only cancer thats involved in, stupid.

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

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

YMMV.

RFDE.

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.

and you _need_ fat.

Doesnt have to come from frying, stupid.

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.

Here:

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

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

Salud!

You a wog or sumfin ?

 

[Rob Dekker]

Good points ! Thanks.

You are right : with 3000 charges, capital cost should be around 7cts/kWh, and with lower cost night-time electricity (maybe
7cts/kWh), brings overall cost (excluding maintenance and failure etc) to around 14 cts/kWh (rather than the conservative 33cts/kWh
that I calculated).

Pricing of batteries (wholesale) is always somewhat murky. There are no pricelists on-line, and you have to read between the lines.
For example, the ZEBRA-bus report stated $20,000 for the 107kWh pack ($200/kWh) for ZEBRAs ordered in volume (the report states
order of 30,000 ZEBRAs). In small orders they are still more expensive (around $500/kWh). Lithium-ion seems to be also in that
range, although the Wiki page refers to a Chinese manufacturer that apparently sells 10kWh Li-ion packs for $2000 (in volume).

The ZEBRA indeed has to be kept 'hot', but that might not be too problematic. I read that it requires only 40W to keep the pack hot,
and it takes days before the pack solidifies if left unattended. For bus operators, that should not be a problem, since typically
busses return to their terminal at the end of the day. Instead of filling them up with diesel, they would now just have to be
plugged in. Once plugged the pack keeps itself hot (using 40W).

Either way (lithium-ion or ZEBRA, temp-management or not), the calculations show that electric busses should be quite
cost-competitive with diesel right now.
I'm curious to see how bus operators and manufacturers respond to this.
It's an interesting time.

Thanks again !

Rob


"disgoftunwells" <disgoftunwells@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cde0941c-bc1c-4e2b-a9d2-61274ca0ef0c@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 27 Jul, 06:12, "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote:

"Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote in message

news:g6gsn8$b9i$1@news.parasun.com...





"John Fields" <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:e1nn845fesb3dniesl3chte2let1455k64@4ax.com...
...
If they cycle thousands of times then they are already competitive
with liquid hydrocarbon fuel in a lot of applications.

---
Please elaborate on that quantitatively and show your work.

Let me try something :

The battery (100kWh) costs $20,000 in volume (price in 2003).
Heavily used ZEBRAs can cycle about 1000x before they need to be replaced.
That is a capital write-off of about $0.0002 per kWh.
That's negligent.

So, kind of emberrasing for an engineer : I made a factor 1000 mistake here

No, we always do that. Not 10 or 100, just 1,000.

(
Battery cost of $20,000 for 100kWh is $200/kWh.
With 1000 charges lifetime, that's $0.20/kWh.
That's NOT negligent.

I've read that basic Li-ion batteries are available for $500/Kwhr.

Zebra batteries are meant to be cheaper than that.

However, from Wikipedia:
"The ZEBRA battery has an attractive specific energy and power (90 Wh/
kg and 150 W/kg). The liquid electrolyte freezes at 157 °C, and the
normal operating temperature range is 270-350 °C. The â-alumina solid
electrolyte that has been developed for this system is very stable,
both to sodium metal and the sodium chloroaluminate. Lifetimes of over
1500 cycles and five years have been demonstrated with full-sized
batteries, and over 3000 cycles and eight years with 10- and 20-cell
modules. Vehicles powered by ZEBRA batteries have covered more than 2
million km. Modec Electric Van uses ZEBRA batteries for the 2007
model."

3,000 charges for a $20,000 battery would be 7c plus amortisation
costs.

Even if everything goes wrong, battery hardly gets used, and the battery
fails one day after the warrenty expires, it's still negligent cost.

That means that the main cost (of 'fuel') is electricity.
Assume electricity costs $0.10/kWh.
Cycle efficiency (of this ZEBRA bus) is between 78% and 85% (see report).
That means a cost (of operating this bus) to about $0.13/kWh.

So make that $0.33/kWh. (13cts for electricity + 20cts for capital cost).

You should be able to get night time electricity more cheaply.

...
Diesel has a heating value average of 38.6 MJ/liter, or 146MJ/gallon. That
is 40.7 kWh.
Efficiency of diesel engines, mmm, varies widely, but probably in between
30% and 40% (anyone has any better numbers?) in real life use in a large
vehicle.
That would mean that a diesel engine would release between 12 kWh and 16
kWh
of work from one gallon of diesel.

At close to $5/gallon (current diesel retail price in California), this is
$0.30-$0.40 per kWh.

...

Net savings : $0.17/kWh. Or in different words : fuel cost saving is
certainly more than 56%.

So with $0.33/kWh for battery operation, the (fuel) costs are pretty equal
(w.r.t. diesel).





And this is not even considering regenerative braking (typically another
20%
of fuel cost saved).

That's still the case, so battery operation should still be cost effective.
But it's no longer a no-brainer.

My conclusion for now :
Cost of batteries has to come down a factor of 2 to be truely competitive
(no-brainer sort of thing) w.r.t. diesel.

Or the life has to treble, which is already achievable.

The problem with Zebra is that it needs to be kept at 250C or so. So
it needs to be very well insulated. That's less of a problem for a
100KW (1 ton) battery than a 13KW car battery.

 

[Rod Speed]

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.

 

[Rob Dekker]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:0f5u84t05n5u532mc991qk9e83pd54r9lv@4ax.com...
....

Let me try something :

The battery (100kWh) costs $20,000 in volume (price in 2003).
Heavily used ZEBRAs can cycle about 1000x before they need to be replaced.
That is a capital write-off of about $0.0002 per kWh.
That's negligent.

So, kind of emberrasing for an engineer : I made a factor 1000 mistake here
(
Battery cost of $20,000 for 100kWh is $200/kWh.
With 1000 charges lifetime, that's $0.20/kWh.
That's NOT negligent.

---
True, but the error was.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/negligent

JF

English is not my native language, but I should have known better anyway.
Thanks for pointing out the (other) error.

Rob

 

[Rod Speed]

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.

Great food, fish.

Depends on how polluted it is.

I ought to eat more of it but it's become quite
expensive as certain fisheries have been exhausted.

Yep, fucks the environment much more than some other food.

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.

> Didn't like abalone though.

 

[Rod Speed]

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

 

[Rod Speed]

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.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote:

Good points ! Thanks.

You are right : with 3000 charges, capital cost should be around
7cts/kWh, and with lower cost night-time electricity (maybe
7cts/kWh), brings overall cost (excluding maintenance and failure
etc) to around 14 cts/kWh (rather than the conservative 33cts/kWh
that I calculated).
Pricing of batteries (wholesale) is always somewhat murky. There are
no pricelists on-line, and you have to read between the lines. For
example, the ZEBRA-bus report stated $20,000 for the 107kWh pack
($200/kWh) for ZEBRAs ordered in volume (the report states order of
30,000 ZEBRAs). In small orders they are still more expensive (around
$500/kWh). Lithium-ion seems to be also in that range, although the
Wiki page refers to a Chinese manufacturer that apparently sells
10kWh Li-ion packs for $2000 (in volume).
The ZEBRA indeed has to be kept 'hot', but that might not be too
problematic. I read that it requires only 40W to keep the pack hot,
and it takes days before the pack solidifies if left unattended. For
bus operators, that should not be a problem, since typically busses
return to their terminal at the end of the day. Instead of filling
them up with diesel, they would now just have to be plugged in. Once
plugged the pack keeps itself hot (using 40W).

Either way (lithium-ion or ZEBRA, temp-management or not), the calculations show that electric busses should be quite
cost-competitive with diesel right now.

Nope, pity about the capital cost.

Which might just be why so few bother with any form of electric bus.

I'm curious to see how bus operators and manufacturers respond to this.

Its obvious, they'll keep ignoring it.

It makes much more sense to use LPG or CNG in
gasoline engines if you care about the cost of diesel.

It's an interesting time.

Not with busses it aint.

"disgoftunwells" <disgoftunwells@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cde0941c-bc1c-4e2b-a9d2-61274ca0ef0c@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 27 Jul, 06:12, "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote:
"Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote in message

news:g6gsn8$b9i$1@news.parasun.com...





"John Fields" <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:e1nn845fesb3dniesl3chte2let1455k64@4ax.com...
...
If they cycle thousands of times then they are already competitive
with liquid hydrocarbon fuel in a lot of applications.

---
Please elaborate on that quantitatively and show your work.

Let me try something :

The battery (100kWh) costs $20,000 in volume (price in 2003).
Heavily used ZEBRAs can cycle about 1000x before they need to be
replaced. That is a capital write-off of about $0.0002 per kWh.
That's negligent.

So, kind of emberrasing for an engineer : I made a factor 1000
mistake here

No, we always do that. Not 10 or 100, just 1,000.

o(
Battery cost of $20,000 for 100kWh is $200/kWh.
With 1000 charges lifetime, that's $0.20/kWh.
That's NOT negligent.

I've read that basic Li-ion batteries are available for $500/Kwhr.
Zebra batteries are meant to be cheaper than that.

However, from Wikipedia:
"The ZEBRA battery has an attractive specific energy and power (90 Wh/
kg and 150 W/kg). The liquid electrolyte freezes at 157 °C, and the
normal operating temperature range is 270-350 °C. The â-alumina solid
electrolyte that has been developed for this system is very stable,
both to sodium metal and the sodium chloroaluminate. Lifetimes of over
1500 cycles and five years have been demonstrated with full-sized
batteries, and over 3000 cycles and eight years with 10- and 20-cell
modules. Vehicles powered by ZEBRA batteries have covered more than 2
million km. Modec Electric Van uses ZEBRA batteries for the 2007
model."

3,000 charges for a $20,000 battery would be 7c plus amortisation
costs.




Even if everything goes wrong, battery hardly gets used, and the
battery fails one day after the warrenty expires, it's still
negligent cost.

That means that the main cost (of 'fuel') is electricity.
Assume electricity costs $0.10/kWh.
Cycle efficiency (of this ZEBRA bus) is between 78% and 85% (see
report). That means a cost (of operating this bus) to about
$0.13/kWh.

So make that $0.33/kWh. (13cts for electricity + 20cts for capital
cost).
You should be able to get night time electricity more cheaply.







...
Diesel has a heating value average of 38.6 MJ/liter, or
146MJ/gallon. That is 40.7 kWh.
Efficiency of diesel engines, mmm, varies widely, but probably in
between 30% and 40% (anyone has any better numbers?) in real life
use in a large vehicle.
That would mean that a diesel engine would release between 12 kWh
and 16
kWh
of work from one gallon of diesel.

At close to $5/gallon (current diesel retail price in California),
this is $0.30-$0.40 per kWh.

...

Net savings : $0.17/kWh. Or in different words : fuel cost saving is
certainly more than 56%.

So with $0.33/kWh for battery operation, the (fuel) costs are pretty
equal (w.r.t. diesel).





And this is not even considering regenerative braking (typically
another
20%
of fuel cost saved).

That's still the case, so battery operation should still be cost
effective. But it's no longer a no-brainer.

My conclusion for now :
Cost of batteries has to come down a factor of 2 to be truely
competitive (no-brainer sort of thing) w.r.t. diesel.

Or the life has to treble, which is already achievable.

The problem with Zebra is that it needs to be kept at 250C or so. So
it needs to be very well insulated. That's less of a problem for a
100KW (1 ton) battery than a 13KW car battery.

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:488F8069.1741056F@hotmail.com...

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.

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.

Graham

 

[Rod Speed]

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.

 

[Rod Speed]

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.

a well known engineering phenomenon.

Not with skyscrapers it aint.

In engineering there are always 'first times' when the unexpected happens.

And there have been plenty of skyscrapers for a very long time now,
and that is the first time that has been observed to happen with them.

It's often called tombstone engineering.

Not with the world trade towers.

Applied a lot to early passenger airliner designs.

Irrelevant to the fact that it was the first time that happened with skyscrapers.

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.

Nope.

Read the specs. 757s and 767s are VASTLY larger than a 60s 707.

Irrelevant to what those particular towers were designed to withstand.

Plus they were FULL of fuel.

No they werent.

As much as something getting on for 60-100 tons IIRC.

Irrelevant to what those particular towers were designed to withstand.

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

No one's tried have they ?

They dont need to. It now understood why those particular towers
imploded and that that problem doesnt apply to many other towers.

Your point is ?

That it was the unusual construction of those two towers that produced that implosion.

I'll bet Canary Wharf in London would go.

Not like that it wouldnt. Neither would the Gerkin. Or the Empire State either.

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.

Nope, the main fire protection is actually concrete, not asbestos.

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.

Its perfectly possible to ensure that they have the required fire rating without using asbestos.

If it wasnt, they couldnt be built.

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.

And we now have goons who can execute the hijackers too.

 

[Rod Speed]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

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 ?

Depends on which of them you are talking about.

Its just not practical to ensure that no one can carry
anything thats a risk onto mass transport systems.

And its completely impractical to attempt to ensure that no one
can drive around in a vehicle which has some exposives in it either.

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.

It was just plain wrong. Most of the vulnerabilitys have nothing to do with sloppiness at all.

And even if you do eliminate any sloppiness, they will just
attack the vulnerabilitys that its just not feasible to avoid.

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

How far do you want the protection to go ?

I dont want it to go anywhere. I was just rubbing your nose in the fact that
most of the vulnerabilitys have nothing to do with sloppiness and that even
if you do eliminate all sloppiness, they will just attack the vulnerabilitys that
its just not feasible to avoid.

Make everyone walk or use buses ?

Still wouldnt eliminate the vulnerabilitys, as can be seen from the most recent obscenitys in India.

How about addressing the source of the problem ?

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

In spades when the fools are actually stupid enough to kill themselves in the process.

 

[Rod Speed]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> 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.

Sorry

Liar.

but I'm right .

Nope, never ever.

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

I order you to watch the video of them imploding.

I saw it live on TV. They collapsed vertically. Not imploded.

They imploded vertically.

There was a stunningly good BBC documentary about how
they analysed the failure mode using computer modelling.
Sorry I can't recall the name of it now.

Irrelevant to the fact that they imploded vertically.

 

[Rod Speed]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

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,

Guess again, the Brazillians are already doing it.

although both may prove useful as stop-gaps..

Biodiesel is a lot more than a stop gap.

It certainly makes more sense for most of the rest of the world to use
electricity from nukes to heat with instead of wasting the CNG and LPG
on that and to use that in gasoline engines instead of using bio ethanol.

 

[Rod Speed]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

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.

Yes it is, but its better to use it at room temp, not to use it for frying to get it.

Your body does need some oils.

Most get enough fat without any fried food. Most get that
from spreads and whats used in other food like bread etc.