Chip with simple program for Toy

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
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.
They eat a lot more chicken than fish.

Besides large animals eat food that humans can eat
Most of them actually eat grass that humans cant eat.

and are a relatively inefficient food source,
Who cares about efficiency ?

esp for a country of 1 billion people.
Their problem.
 
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
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.
Still much better for you not heated at all.
 
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed wrote

They imploded vertically.

You must have a very odd dictionary.
Very good video, actually.
 
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

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.

Nobody flew a widebody jet at high speed into any skyscaper before.
The problem wasnt the size of the plane or the speed of it.

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.

Cite ?
No engineering ever just considers JUST the current aircraft.

I dare say the design engineers added a fudge factor
to make it just a little bit more tough, knowing engineers,
More than just a little bit, actually.

but the fundamental problem wasn't impact but fire.
Precisely, so the particular plane is irrelevant.

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.

CITE ?
YOU made that claim.

YOU get to provide the cite.

THATS how it works.

Neither standard models are designed as ultra long range aircraft
Dont need to be.

and would have been almost brimming their tanks for an E-W coast journey.
Wrong again.

And they wouldn't have burnt much of it by the time they were hijacked.
And again.

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

Irrelevant to what those particular towers were designed to withstand.

How can it be irrelevant ?
They werent designed to survive a particular quantity of fuel in the aircraft.

You've gone quite nuts now.
Nope.

You should see what a dropped cigarette did to Kings Cross Tube Station.
I did see.

NO smoking on the tube any more.
Irrelevant to how the world trade towers were designed.

Smoking wasnt banned in them.
 
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:

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.

Nothing like the population density of Europe AIUI
Irrelevant.

plus they can grow sugar cane which is ideal and we can't.
You can grow other things that are fine for producing ethanol.

Even you should have noticed that there is quite a bit of bio ethanol production in Europe already.

although both may prove useful as stop-gaps..

Biodiesel is a lot more than a stop gap.

Demand for biodiesel has already over doubled the price
of ordinary veg cooking oil in the UK in under 6 months.
Just because the production of veg oil hasnt kept up with demand.

Food cost inflation is currently running at ~ 17%.
Mostly for other reasons.

In some countries people are starting to starve as a result of food price inflation
Nope. No one is starving and if someone is actually that stupid, they should eat potatoes.

whilst tropical rain forest is being cut and burnt to provide room for more palm trees to supply the demand.
That was happening long before the hike in the price of diesel.

Estimated recovery time for atmospheric CO2 ~ 200 years.
Trivially fixable to using nukes for electricity generation.

Even the frogs managed to do that.

Not a shred of rocket science whatever required.

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.

I have no objection to modern nukes.
Those do should be summarily excuted for the common good.
 
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.
 
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:488F848B.F8909757@hotmail.com...
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/
Beautiful machine !
I wonder how they even measure the horsepower and torque of such giants.
This machine is in a league of its own.

Thanks for the link !

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

Perfect for ships.
Yep. We are not gonna see any batteries and solar panels replacing that sucker for a while.

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.
Well, just for fun : using diesel exhaust heat :
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/PDF%20files/ArchiveConferenceMaterial/Study_Diesel_Exhaust-UAF.pdf
About 30% of the fuel usage goes to the exhaust.
When we apply that to this monster engine, this is what we get :

At 100 RPM (full power), the engine produces 108,920 hp or 81.2 MW in work, and a similar amount in heat.
That's 81.2 MW in heat produced. Apply the 30% rule of the thumb, and the exhaust produces 24.3 MW of heat.

14 cilinders pump through 14 x 1820 liters of air per rotation (two-stroke).
At 100 RPM (full power), that is 2548 m^3 of exhaust per minute, or 42.5 m^3 per second (quite a blast!).

Air has a specific heat of 1300 J / m^3 / K.
24.3 MW into 42.5 m^3, with 1300 J/m^3/K specific heat means that the exhaust should be about 440 K above ambient (about 700 C)
That's still very, very hot, and should be more than enough for a fairly efficient (>30%) second (steam turbine) cycle.

Potentially that second cycle can then recover 0.3 x 24.3 = 7.3 MW electric power. If used to drive the ship's propeller, it would
boost efficiency 10%, to a whopping 60%+ overall efficient engine. Alternatively speaking, it would save 10% of the fuel cost, which
must be quite astronomical for this engine.

Just for fun. I love these back-of-the-envelope calculations.

.....
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.
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.....

Rob

 
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.

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.

You need fat in your diet
Much better for you to get that fat without heating it first when frying.

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

Breaks down into what,
Look it up for yourself.

and what kind of temperatures are you talking about?
What is used for frying.
 
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

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".
Try letting go of your dick.
 
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> 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.
 
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:843088d9-f681-4925-8b4c-8711583cb65e@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
As fun as the Woody Allen movie.


Bret Cahill


"The indescribable joy of cremation."

-- A careless high voltage experimenter
IFYPFY

Paul :)
 
T. Keating <tkusenet@ktcnslt.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

The reason we don't have more nuclear plants has nothing to do with
environmentalists, it has to do with economics and right-wing ideology.

It has more to do with a mindless reaction to 3 mile island.

Let's see..

TMI Unit 2 went into meltdown less than four months after
going on-line for the first time!!!.. (Dec 1978 ->March 1979)..
That's one hell of a rate of return.. NOT...
And the french had enough of a clue to produce 80% of their electricity
using nukes anyway and got a hell of a lot of advantages from doing that.

We werent actually stupid enough to give up on widebody aircraft when
we did have a few of them go bang and produce a lousy rate of return.

And the operators released over two million curries into the local environment.
Fart in the bath compared with what all those coal fired power stations are doing.

And its India that produces most curries, TMI produced curies.

Sending several thousand area residents to early deaths
Bare faced pig ignorant lie.

and scores of others facing increased occurances of radiation related illnesses.
Bare faced pig ignorant lie.

And even if that was true, the coal fired power stations do that in spades anyway.

> http://www.tmia.com/history/tmilegalhistory.html
 
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in
news:an1194dqj2qulg5jp55155fjurc2l155dt@4ax.com:

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:53:49 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

You do want people to not dismiss you out of hand?

BINGO!

This guy must have an IQ above single digits!

He figgered it out!

Here, I'll spell out the obvious:

If you don't like my posts, then don't read them.

Don't respond to them.

Go to alt.conspiracy with all the other nut jobs.

---
Guess what, Brat?

This is USENET (Well, it is for those of us who don't play baby games
through Google groups) where anyone is free to read your posts and, if
they feel like it, to comment in any way they want to.

And guess what else?

There's not one goddam thing you can do about it except jump up and
down and whine and cry and stamp your little feet and hold your breath
until you turn blue in the face, LOL!

JF
Er, why don't y'all just plonk him...?

You know you can't change his mind, which means that trying to do so is a
waste of time and energy. Life is too short to waste it on such
unconstructive games - and every time you reply, it means you've allowed
him ot get you worked up to some degree, and no matter how small that
degree migh tbe, it means you're allowing him to manipulate you into
playing his games on his terms. Does that really make any sense?

He keeps telling people to stop reading his posts. I figure that the only
polite (and sensible) thing to do is oblige him.
 
T. Keating <tkusenet@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:18:43 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



"T. Keating" wrote:

And the operators released over two million curries into the
local environment. Sending several thousand area residents to
early deaths

Must have been shocking Indian cooks they used !

My data (American Academy of Sciences) says there are NO early deaths
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And what organization is that..

P.S.. The NAS changed their basic position on ionizing radiation in
2005.. Has anyone bothered to take a second look since then???

predicted i

^^^^^^^^^^

Hah... And a doubling of the neonatal mortality rate isn't a clue??
Pure fantasy. That wasnt due to TMI.

That's over a hundred deaths just in that one statistic..
Pity it wasnt due to TMI.

That wasnt even seen with Chernobyle.

> http://www.tmia.com/history/tmilegalhistory.html
 
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 ?

And I dont even have a donkey anyway, fuckwit.
 
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.
 
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.

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

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

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.

Now you're an authority on everyone's eating habits?
Nope. It is something that might just have been very thoroughly researched tho.
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top