The Problem With Faking A Tech Background

[Bret Cahill]

< > > When you are off these interstates you run your hybrid electric
or EV
< > > on gas or batteries respectively and when you are on these
interstates
< > > you run off the grid.

< > > Conventional drive trains could be used along side the newer
until it
< > > is cheaper to upgrade.

< > > Phasing in digital TV is much more difficult.

< > Magnetic induction cable buried in road with pick up coils on
vehicles
< > to run electric and charge batteries. Batteries used on secondary
roads.
< > Total electric transportation.

< At the lowest possible efficiency.

Which is?


Bret Cahill

 

[Eeyore]

Bret Cahill wrote:

You must know all about that problem !

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 13:23:12 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

When you are off these interstates you run your hybrid electric
or EV
on gas or batteries respectively and when you are on these
interstates
you run off the grid.

Conventional drive trains could be used along side the newer
until it
is cheaper to upgrade.

Phasing in digital TV is much more difficult.

Magnetic induction cable buried in road with pick up coils on
vehicles
to run electric and charge batteries. Batteries used on secondary
roads.
Total electric transportation.

At the lowest possible efficiency.

Which is?

---
All in the subject line.

You obviously have no clue as to what losses are incurred in trying to
transfer power inductively through air and are trolling for someone to
do the legwork so you can pretend you did and that you know what you're
talking about.

Interestingly, you've hoisted yourself on your own petard since the
numbers are _all_ bad and you should have known that before you posted
your idiotic proposal.

Which makes one wonder why you post to the technical groups.

Clearly, your bent isn't scientific (which was clearly demonstrated with
the submission of that abominable heat exchanger "design" which JL
effortlessly shot down) and your posture certainly isn't that of a
student seeking enlightenment, so what are we left with?

Someone who's so desperate for attention that he'll make a fool of
himself just to be noticed?

Perhaps the plan is that by playing the fool over and over and over
again and using that persona to garner attention, your name will become
a household word and then, once you've attained some notoriety for being
an idiot, more or less, and have been put in the limelight, you can set
the record straight by revealing your brilliant takeover strategy and
explaining why the end justified the means.

It ain't gonna work.


JF

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Bret Cahill wrote:


It is the only thing you are even half way capable of trying.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

 

[Bret Cahill]

When you are off these interstates you run your hybrid electric
or EV
on gas or batteries respectively and when you are on these
interstates
you run off the grid.

Conventional drive trains could be used along side the newer
until it
is cheaper to upgrade.

Phasing in digital TV is much more difficult.

Magnetic induction cable buried in road with pick up coils on
vehicles
to run electric and charge batteries. Batteries used on secondary
roads.
Total electric transportation.

ďż˝ At the lowest possible efficiency.

Which is?

All in the subject line.

The efficiency is in the subject line?

Are you a complete moron or what?

You obviously have no clue as to what losses are incurred in trying to
transfer power inductively through air

Well? Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.

TELL us the efficiency.

.. . .

It ain't gonna work.

Maybe you can make some money selling Harliquin romance novels but you
ain't fooling anyone except an occasional English major that you have
a tech background without some numbers.

Now what part of "you ain't fooling anyone w/o numbers" do you _not_
unnerstand?


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

You must know all about that problem !

You whine about snipping headers but then you snip the entire text.

Here, we'll apply the lash of reposting text to your cowardly fanny:

<beginning of cut/snip text>

< > > Phasing in digital TV is much more difficult.

< > Magnetic induction cable buried in road with pick up coils on
vehicles
< > to run electric and charge batteries. Batteries used on secondary
roads.
< > Total electric transportation.

< At the lowest possible efficiency.

Which is?


Bret Cahill

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:56:39 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

When you are off these interstates you run your hybrid electric
or EV
on gas or batteries respectively and when you are on these
interstates
you run off the grid.

Conventional drive trains could be used along side the newer
until it
is cheaper to upgrade.

Phasing in digital TV is much more difficult.

Magnetic induction cable buried in road with pick up coils on
vehicles
to run electric and charge batteries. Batteries used on secondary
roads.
Total electric transportation.

? At the lowest possible efficiency.

Which is?

All in the subject line.

The efficiency is in the subject line?

Are you a complete moron or what?

---
PKB
---

You obviously have no clue as to what losses are incurred in trying to
transfer power inductively through air

Well? Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.

TELL us the efficiency.

---
Nope.

_You_ made the claim, so it's up to _you_ to back it up.
---

It ain't gonna work.

Maybe you can make some money selling Harliquin romance novels but you
ain't fooling anyone except an occasional English major that you have
a tech background without some numbers.

---
That may be true, but it certainly doesn't apply to me.
---

Now what part of "you ain't fooling anyone w/o numbers" do you _not_
unnerstand?

---
I understand it perfectly.

You, obviously, don't, since if you did you'd back up your hare-brained
prattle with numbers.

JF

 

[Bret Cahill]

You obviously have no clue as to what losses are incurred in trying to
transfer power inductively through air

Well? �Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.

TELL us the efficiency.

---
Nope.

Of course not. You were caught trying to fake a tech background.

That's almost as dumb as trying to fake a patent.

_You_ made the claim,

What claim?

You are too dysfunctional to debate.

.. . .

Maybe you can make some money selling Harliquin romance novels but you
ain't fooling anyone except an occasional English major that you have
a tech background without some numbers.

---
That may be true, but it certainly doesn't apply to me.
---

The only calculation I've ever seen was the one where some idiot
"proved" hybrids were a waste of money and circular furrows were
impossible.

Do you know who that idiot is?

Now what part of "you ain't fooling anyone w/o numbers" do you _not_
unnerstand?

---
I understand it perfectly.

We're still waiting for numbers.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

< > > When you are off these interstates you run your hybrid electric
or EV
< > > on gas or batteries respectively and when you are on these
interstates
< > > you run off the grid.

< > > Conventional drive trains could be used along side the newer
until it
< > > is cheaper to upgrade.


< > > Phasing in digital TV is much more difficult.


< > Magnetic induction cable buried in road with pick up coils on
vehicles
< > to run electric and charge batteries. Batteries used on secondary
roads.
< > Total electric transportation.


< At the lowest possible efficiency.


Which is?


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

I put out the shoe and the dunces fall over themselves trying to get
their feet to fit.

When you are off these interstates you run your hybrid electric
or EV
on gas or batteries respectively and when you are on these
interstates
you run off the grid.

Conventional drive trains could be used along side the newer
until it
is cheaper to upgrade.

Phasing in digital TV is much more difficult.

Magnetic induction cable buried in road with pick up coils on
vehicles
to run electric and charge batteries. Batteries used on secondary
roads.
Total electric transportation.

ďż˝ At the lowest possible efficiency.

Which is?

Bret Cahill

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 07:28:10 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

You obviously have no clue as to what losses are incurred in trying to
transfer power inductively through air

Well? ?Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.

TELL us the efficiency.

---
Nope.

Of course not. You were caught trying to fake a tech background.

---
How would _you_, one of the least technically astute people on this
planet, know?

That's like a moron (you) saying that a genius (me) is an idiot because
the moron (you) doesn't have the wherewithal to comprehend what the
genius (me) is saying.
---

That's almost as dumb as trying to fake a patent.

---
Back to that shit, huh?

All you need to do to find it is to go to the USPTO web site and search
by inventor.

Think you can do that, Sherlock?
---

_You_ made the claim,

What claim?

---
Short attention span, huh?
---

You are too dysfunctional to debate.

---
Then you're just trolling?
---

Maybe you can make some money selling Harliquin romance novels but you
ain't fooling anyone except an occasional English major that you have
a tech background without some numbers.

---
That may be true, but it certainly doesn't apply to me.
---

The only calculation I've ever seen was the one where some idiot
"proved" hybrids were a waste of money and circular furrows were
impossible.

---
You must read only your own threads then, or else you don't know what a
calculation looks like.
---

Do you know who that idiot is?

---
I know you'd like to think he's an idiot, but just calling someone an
idiot doesn't make it so.

In your case, however, pretending over and over again to technical
acumen which you don't possess and being caught each and every time
seems to me to be pretty idiotic behavior.

Wouldn't you agree?
---

Now what part of "you ain't fooling anyone w/o numbers" do you _not_
unnerstand?

---
I understand it perfectly.

We're still waiting for numbers.

---
Why?

Even if I presented them you'd be incapable of understanding them or
rationally discussing their meaning.

And, "We"???

Since when are you _anyone's_ spokesman?

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 07:31:19 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Magnetic induction cable buried in road with pick up coils on
vehicles
to run electric and charge batteries. Batteries used on secondary
roads.
Total electric transportation.

---
And just what would these "magnetic induction cables" and "pick up
coils" look like?
---

At the lowest possible efficiency.


Which is?

---
Once again, since it's you with the hare-brained scheme it's up to you
to prove it's viable.

Here's a clue:

100 Pout
e = ---------- %
Pin

Once you've determined what the power into the vehicle (Pin) needs to be
(include the losses in the "magnetic induction cable") for a given power
dissipated by the vehicle (Pout) then plug in those numbers and the
efficiency, in % will fall out of the equation.


JF

 

[Eeyore]

Bret Cahill wrote:

Magnetic induction cable buried in road with pick up coils on
vehicles to run electric and charge batteries.

One word you won't understand.

It's called COUPLING. More specifically, Magnetic or Inductive Coupling.

It's a non-starter. It'll NEVER happen from first principles. Ah... but
you don't understand the first principles of physics do you ?

Graham

 

[Bret Cahill]

You obviously have no clue as to what losses are incurred in trying to
transfer power inductively through air

Well? ?Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.

TELL us the efficiency.

---
Nope.

Of course not. �You were caught trying to fake a tech background..

---
How would _you_, one of the least technically astute people on this
planet, know?

Dodging questions on efficiency is a dead giveaway you ain't got no
interest in tech _period_.

On that point alone most wouldn't need an engineering degree to call
your bluff there, just common knowledge and common sense.

If you knew how to set up the problem you could probably get a clue
from an electronics handbook / website -- you won't need to do any
book larnin' on Maxwell's Equations --, but I already know you aren't
functional enough to even set up the problem.

Face reality: you might fool an occasional English major but never
anyone who has had the full 3 years of math including vector calculus,
linear algebra, applied math and thermo required for EEs.

You just ain't no engineer, EE or otherwise.

You are a slow larner but I managed to puppy train you from typing
"LOL!" all day long.

I rolled up the newspaper and rubbed your face into your own poop
until I broke you of that habit.

Now how long is it going to take for you to get a clue that every
engineer with a degree thinks you are as useless here on
sci.electronics.basics as Al Gore in a dust devil?

.. . .

That's almost as dumb as trying to fake a patent.

---
Back to that shit, huh?

I'm just rubbing your face into your own poop.

All you need to do to find it is to go to the USPTO web site and search
by inventor.

Which brings us to the question: What is the name of our inventor?

.. . .

_You_ made the claim,

What claim?

---
Short attention span, huh?

If you cannot remember the claim, well, you are right for once. You
do indeed have a short attention span.

.. . .

Now what part of "you ain't fooling anyone w/o numbers" do you _not_
unnerstand?

---
I understand it perfectly.

We're still waiting for numbers.

---
Why?

To rub your face into your own poop.

That's the only way to puppy train you.

Even if I presented them you'd be incapable of understanding them or
rationally discussing their meaning.

How about this:

Try to fake like you know how to set up the problem.


Bret Cahill

 

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:23:55 -0600, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

That's like a moron (you) saying that a genius (me) is an idiot because
the moron (you) doesn't have the wherewithal to comprehend what the
genius (me) is saying.

)

han't posted here in ages, but had to follow up on your statement here
JF... seems there is scientific evidence BC can't help himself

http://www.luddite.me.uk/newsclipping.jpg

 

[Bret Cahill]

When you are off these interstates you run your hybrid electric
or EV
on gas or batteries respectively and when you are on these
interstates
you run off the grid.

Conventional drive trains could be used along side the newer
until it
is cheaper to upgrade.

Phasing in digital TV is much more difficult.

Magnetic induction cable buried in road with pick up coils on
vehicles
to run electric and charge batteries. Batteries used on secondary
roads.
Total electric transportation.

ďż˝ At the lowest possible efficiency.

Which is?

~~~~~~~~~~~

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_energy_transfer#Size.2C_distance_and_efficiency


Wireless electric energy transfer for experimentally powering electric
automobiles and buses is a higher power application (>10kW) of
resonant inductive energy transfer. High power levels are required for
rapid recharging and high energy transfer efficiency is required both
for operational economy and to avoid negative environmental impact of
the system. An experimental electrified roadway test track built circa
1990 achieved 80% energy efficiency while recharging the battery of a
prototype bus at a specially equipped bus stop <SUP class=reference
id=cite_ref-17>[18] <SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-18>[19]. The bus
could be outfitted with a retractable receiving coil for greater coil
clearance when moving. The gap between the transmit and receive coils
was designed to be less than 10 cm when powered. In addition to buses
the use of wireless transfer has been investigated for recharging
electric automobiles in parking spots and garages as well.

Some of these wireless resonant inductive devices operate at low
milliwatt power levels and are battery powered. Others operate at
higher kilowatt power levels. Current implantable medical and road
electrification device designs achieve more than 75% transfer
efficiency at an operating distance between the transmit and receive
coils of less than 10 cm.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Forget about our dunces working with Maxwell's equations. Apparently
they are too stoopid to even look it up.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

Magnetic induction cable buried in road with pick up coils on
vehicles
to run electric and charge batteries. Batteries used on secondary
roads.
Total electric transportation.

---
And just what would these "magnetic induction cables" and "pick up
coils" look like?

Are you _really_ this stoopid or are you just acting stoopid here on
newsgroups?

Forget about impressing us with your ability to unnerstand Maxwell's
equations.

You are too stoopid to even google "inductive power transfer."


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

Magnetic induction cable buried in road with pick up coils on
vehicles to run electric and charge batteries.

One word you won't understand.

It's called COUPLING. More specifically, Magnetic or Inductive Coupling.

It's a non-starter. It'll NEVER happen from first principles. Ah... but
you don't understand the first principles of physics do you ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_energy_transfer#Size.2C_distance_and_efficiency


Wireless electric energy transfer for experimentally powering electric
automobiles and buses is a higher power application (>10kW) of
resonant inductive energy transfer. High power levels are required for
rapid recharging and high energy transfer efficiency is required both
for operational economy and to avoid negative environmental impact of
the system. An experimental electrified roadway test track built circa
1990 achieved 80% energy efficiency while recharging the battery of a
prototype bus at a specially equipped bus stop <SUP class=reference
id=cite_ref-17>[18] <SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-18>[19]. The bus
could be outfitted with a retractable receiving coil for greater coil
clearance when moving. The gap between the transmit and receive coils
was designed to be less than 10 cm when powered. In addition to buses
the use of wireless transfer has been investigated for recharging
electric automobiles in parking spots and garages as well.

Some of these wireless resonant inductive devices operate at low
milliwatt power levels and are battery powered. Others operate at
higher kilowatt power levels. Current implantable medical and road
electrification device designs achieve more than 75% transfer
efficiency at an operating distance between the transmit and receive
coils of less than 10 cm.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Like I said, I put out the shoe and the dunces fall over themselves
trying to get their feet into it.


Bret Cahill

 

[Jamie]

John Fields wrote:

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 07:28:10 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:


You obviously have no clue as to what losses are incurred in trying to
transfer power inductively through air

Well? ?Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.

TELL us the efficiency.

---
Nope.

Of course not. You were caught trying to fake a tech background.


---
How would _you_, one of the least technically astute people on this
planet, know?

That's like a moron (you) saying that a genius (me) is an idiot because
the moron (you) doesn't have the wherewithal to comprehend what the
genius (me) is saying.
---

I like that John, I can picture you standing in the mirror adjusting
your necktie with a smirk on your face as you were thinking up that
paragraph!

That's almost as dumb as trying to fake a patent.


---
Back to that shit, huh?

All you need to do to find it is to go to the USPTO web site and search
by inventor.

Think you can do that, Sherlock?
---



_You_ made the claim,

What claim?


---
Short attention span, huh?
---


You are too dysfunctional to debate.


---
Then you're just trolling?
---


Maybe you can make some money selling Harliquin romance novels but you
ain't fooling anyone except an occasional English major that you have
a tech background without some numbers.

---
That may be true, but it certainly doesn't apply to me.
---

The only calculation I've ever seen was the one where some idiot
"proved" hybrids were a waste of money and circular furrows were
impossible.


---
You must read only your own threads then, or else you don't know what a
calculation looks like.
---


Do you know who that idiot is?


---
I know you'd like to think he's an idiot, but just calling someone an
idiot doesn't make it so.

In your case, however, pretending over and over again to technical
acumen which you don't possess and being caught each and every time
seems to me to be pretty idiotic behavior.

Wouldn't you agree?
---


Now what part of "you ain't fooling anyone w/o numbers" do you _not_
unnerstand?

---
I understand it perfectly.

We're still waiting for numbers.


---
Why?

Even if I presented them you'd be incapable of understanding them or
rationally discussing their meaning.

And, "We"???

Since when are you _anyone's_ spokesman?

JF

No, just speaking for the other voices he's been hearing
in his head lately.

http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5"

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 09:04:14 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

You obviously have no clue as to what losses are incurred in trying to
transfer power inductively through air

Well? ?Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.

TELL us the efficiency.

---
Nope.

Of course not. ?You were caught trying to fake a tech background.

---
How would _you_, one of the least technically astute people on this
planet, know?

Dodging questions on efficiency is a dead giveaway you ain't got no
interest in tech _period_.

---
You're the one doing the dodging, since you haven't done anything about
defining the input and output power required to provide transportation
in your cockamamie system.

But you're right about the: "no interest in tech _period_". That is, on
your end, since all you seem to be interested in is proving to us
techies that you're something special by trying to get us to buy into
your pseudo scientific crap.

You're not special, you're ordinary, and you aren't even sophisticated
enough to clothe your banal pronouncements in the proper mathematical
raiments.
---

On that point alone most wouldn't need an engineering degree to call
your bluff there, just common knowledge and common sense.

---
What bluff?

I show my work and take the lumps when I make a mistake.

You, on the other hand, show yourself up for the phony you are, without
even knowing about it, every time you post something you can't back up
with numbers.

Larson calls your legion "innumerate".

A good word, I think.
---

If you knew how to set up the problem you could probably get a clue
from an electronics handbook / website -- you won't need to do any
book larnin' on Maxwell's Equations --, but I already know you aren't
functional enough to even set up the problem.

---
Hey, that's not my job, it's yours.

My job is to be critical, and since you proposed the hare-brained scheme
it's up to you to prove that it'll work, not me.
---

Face reality: you might fool an occasional English major but never
anyone who has had the full 3 years of math including vector calculus,
linear algebra, applied math and thermo required for EEs.

---
Fooling?

If you're up to it, search my posting history and you'll find thousands
of solutions (including full electrical schematics) for problems posted
to the electronics newsgroups.

I see nothing like that from you, but instead find only vacuous rhetoric
and troublemaking.
---

You just ain't no engineer, EE or otherwise.

You are a slow larner but I managed to puppy train you from typing
"LOL!" all day long.

I rolled up the newspaper and rubbed your face into your own poop
until I broke you of that habit.

---
LOL, in your fantasy world, maybe, but here, in the real world, I'll
still use it whenever I choose.
---

Now how long is it going to take for you to get a clue that every
engineer with a degree thinks you are as useless here on
sci.electronics.basics as Al Gore in a dust devil?

---
Poppycock.

Unlike you, I post real solutions (which work, BTW) for real problems.

You, OTOH, seem to be interested in garnering attention by posting
hare-brained specious schemes designed to attract negative commentary.

In other words, you're nothing but a troll who really has nothing
worthwhile to offer this group.
---

That's almost as dumb as trying to fake a patent.

---
Back to that shit, huh?

I'm just rubbing your face into your own poop.

All you need to do to find it is to go to the USPTO web site and search
by inventor.

Which brings us to the question: What is the name of our inventor?

---
Don't you know how to read headers?
---

_You_ made the claim,

What claim?

---
Short attention span, huh?

If you cannot remember the claim, well, you are right for once. You
do indeed have a short attention span.

---
IKYABWAI straw man?
---

Now what part of "you ain't fooling anyone w/o numbers" do you _not_
unnerstand?

---
I understand it perfectly.

We're still waiting for numbers.

---
Why?

To rub your face into your own poop.

That's the only way to puppy train you.

Even if I presented them you'd be incapable of understanding them or
rationally discussing their meaning.

How about this:

Try to fake like you know how to set up the problem.

---
How about this:

Nope.

My job is to see through your screen of bullshit and keep shooting you
down, not to do design work, which you're obviously incapable of, for
you.

JF