Alternative Power sources - Re: OT: this is why ideology/ideologues suck

Author

Re: OT: this is why ideology/ideologues suck

Gunner

2006-02-11, 7:21 am

On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 19:56:18 +0100, Roland Mösl <founder@pege.org>
wrote:

>
>"Cliff" <Clhuprich@aol.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>news:i34lu19tt8p43unnu1cjr9teavjq01fq83@4ax.com...
>
>People which are to stupid to use solar energy deserve nothing better.

Please make your case as to how solar will alleviate all of our energy
needs.

Please include a breakdown of cost per KWH of PIV, from the moment the
ore is dug from the ground, though its processing into cells hung in
your back yard. Also include a break down of the cost of the
batteries, from ore to replacement. Be sure to include invironmental
costs, from toxic wastes to energy costs to manufacture.

Then as your coup de grace...give us an amortization of the above
costs (along with maint costs) to energy payoff.
>
>
>The leftist solution is cheap energy

Got a Mr. Fusion in your back pocket?
>
>The intelligent solution is solar energy

So enlighten us.

And just for giggles..how about tossing in wind energy..and why
Democrats keep voting against wind farms. Such august Democrat pols
such as Teddy Kennedy and the proposed Nantucket Wind Farms and the
one the Dems just voted down on the mountain tops in West Virginia

Gunner

"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu

2006-02-11, 8:21 am

Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote:

>Please make your case as to how solar will alleviate all of our energy needs.
>
>Please include a breakdown of cost per KWH of PIV, from the moment the
>ore is dug from the ground, though its processing into cells hung in
>your back yard. Also include a break down of the cost of the
>batteries, from ore to replacement. Be sure to include invironmental
>costs, from toxic wastes to energy costs to manufacture.
>
>Then as your coup de grace...give us an amortization of the above
>costs (along with maint costs) to energy payoff.

"Solar" is not all the same. A 5 cent square foot of cloudy 4-year
greenhouse polyethylene film on a $1/ft^2 greenhouse sunspace can
collect the house heating equivalent of 1 gallon of oil per year.
So can a $1 square foot of clear 20-year polycarbonate glazing.

Nick

Gunner

2006-02-11, 3:21 pm

On 11 Feb 2006 06:19:41 -0500, nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu wrote:

>Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
>
>"Solar" is not all the same. A 5 cent square foot of cloudy 4-year
>greenhouse polyethylene film on a $1/ft^2 greenhouse sunspace can
>collect the house heating equivalent of 1 gallon of oil per year.
>So can a $1 square foot of clear 20-year polycarbonate glazing.
>
>Nick

Yes. Now Im still waiting for the figures I requested in my previous
post.

So Nick..how about giving us a breakdown of the payback on that
plastic sheet..from the moment the oil its made from is pumped from
the ground all the way through the moment it has just been replaced.

Gunner

"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu

2006-02-11, 3:21 pm

Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote:

>
>So Nick..how about giving us a breakdown of the payback on that
>plastic sheet..from the moment the oil its made from is pumped from
>the ground all the way through the moment it has just been replaced.

No thanks. But here are a couple of numbers: the labor cost for replacing
the film is about 2 cents/ft^2, and only 2% of our oil becomes plastic...

Nick

tonyp

2006-02-11, 4:21 pm

<nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu> wrote

> Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
>
> No thanks. But here are a couple of numbers: the labor cost for replacing
> the film is about 2 cents/ft^2, and only 2% of our oil becomes plastic...

Wait a minute. If a square foot of plastic sheet costs 5 cents, that
_includes_ the cost of the petroleum it's made from -- plus all the oil it
took to process it and transport it to the store. What is Gunner driving
at?

-- TP

Stuart Grey

2006-02-11, 8:21 pm

H2-PV NOW wrote:
> tonyp wrote:
>
>
>
> Gunner wants to count every price TWICE to make it look like solutions
> are more expensive than they really are. The RETAIL price includes
> "amortization" but he wants to count that seperately and ADD it to the
> retail price. The cost of "labor" is in the retail price, but he wants
> to count it separately and ADD it to the retail price. The profit
> margin is in the retail price but he wants to ADD it to the retail
> price and count it twice.

Real engineers are familiar with the net present value concept. This
creates a level "apples to apples" comparison for various engineering
solutions.

> In short, "Gunner" is a conman attempting a con-job for reasons
> unexplained.

I don't see him with a website that is trying to sell anything. If
Gunner is not trying to get anything out of anyone, he's not doing a
"con-job".

You, on the other hand, do have just such a website! NO one is calling
you a con-man. I think you're over optimistic, shrill and condescending,
but not a con-man.

> He also is revealing himself as incompetent in research
> and cognitive abilities.

You never explained why. Neither did you provide any back up for your
own claims.

> Why "Gunner" would deliberately embarrass
> himself in public cannot be explained either unless on resorts to some
> desperation for attention and low self-esteem. Really, Gunner wants
> people to feel sorry for his handicaps and defects, even if they are
> self-inflicted.

I feel a little sorry for you right now...

Gunner

2006-02-12, 2:21 am

On 11 Feb 2006 14:04:35 -0500, nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu wrote:

>Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
>
>No thanks. But here are a couple of numbers: the labor cost for replacing
>the film is about 2 cents/ft^2, and only 2% of our oil becomes plastic...
>
>Nick

So you are claiming the labor cost is the sole amount of that piece of
plastic?

You really in manufacturing?????

Gunner

"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

Gunner

2006-02-12, 3:21 am

On 11 Feb 2006 12:33:36 -0800, "H2-PV NOW" <H2.PV@zig-zag.net> wrote:

>tonyp wrote:
>
>Gunner wants to count every price TWICE to make it look like solutions
>are more expensive than they really are. The RETAIL price includes
>"amortization" but he wants to count that seperately and ADD it to the
>retail price. The cost of "labor" is in the retail price, but he wants
>to count it separately and ADD it to the retail price. The profit
>margin is in the retail price but he wants to ADD it to the retail
>price and count it twice.
>
>In short, "Gunner" is a conman attempting a con-job for reasons
>unexplained. He also is revealing himself as incompetent in research
>and cognitive abilities. Why "Gunner" would deliberately embarrass
>himself in public cannot be explained either unless on resorts to some
>desperation for attention and low self-esteem. Really, Gunner wants
>people to feel sorry for his handicaps and defects, even if they are
>self-inflicted.

What HIV2 is attempting to do..is divert from the original claim that
that single piece of plastic will result in its own amortization in
infrastructure and manufacturing/raw material costs, in the solar
energy it captures.

Which of course..it totally bogus.

Notice Nick floated a balloon..but when cornered..had no idea of what
the cost/savings would be.

Typical of those that blow out the trite phrase..Solar Will Save
Us..when they havent a fucking clue what the costs/savings actually
are. I suspect you lads are still in college..first year.

Gunner

"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu

2006-02-12, 5:21 am

Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote:

To clarify, the price of 1 square foot of film is 5 cents. Where I live
near Philadelphia, NREL says 1000 Btu/ft^2 of sun falls on a south wall on
an average 30.4 F January day with a 37.9 daily max, so 1 square foot of R1
vertical south glazing with 90% solar transmission on a low-thermal mass
sunspace would collect 900 Btu/day and lose about 6h(70-34)1ft^2/R1 = 216,
for a net gain of 684. Here's the rest of the picture, approximately:

Month temp max day sun gain loss net gain

Jan 30 F 38 34 1000 900 216 684 Btu
Feb 33 41 37 1080 972 198 774
Mar 42 52 47 1070 963 138 825
Apr 52 63 58 950 855 72 783
May 63 73 68 830 747 12 735
....
Oct 56 66 61 1150 1035 54 981
Nov 46 55 51 990 891 114 777
Dec 36 43 40 900 810 180 630
---
6189 Btu
.... 6189 x 30 days = 185,670 Btu/year.

.... 1 gallon of oil contains about 130K Btu.
[color=darkred]

To clarify, when it wears out in 4 years (or more, if protected from summer
sun by an overhang, unlike many greenhouses), the labor cost to replace it
on-site with another 5 cent square foot is 2 cents.
[color=darkred]
>Notice Nick floated a balloon..but when cornered..had no idea of what
>the cost/savings would be.

No. You just misinterpreted my words and then blamed your confusion on me :-)

>Typical of those that blow out the trite phrase..Solar Will Save
>Us..when they havent a fucking clue what the costs/savings actually are.

Are you often so vulgar and ignorant and arrogant and presumptuous? :-)

Nick

Cliff

2006-02-12, 9:21 am

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 06:51:34 GMT, Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote:

>What HIV2 is attempting to do..is divert from the original claim that
>that single piece of plastic will result in its own amortization in
>infrastructure and manufacturing/raw material costs, in the solar
>energy it captures.

Do the math.
Clearly you have not.
--
Cliff

daestrom

2006-02-12, 11:21 am

"Gunner" <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:b7htu1pvnskhtp8dd49glf0fr1o81dk8rc@4ax.com...
> On 11 Feb 2006 12:33:36 -0800, "H2-PV NOW" <H2.PV@zig-zag.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> What HIV2 is attempting to do..is divert from the original claim that
> that single piece of plastic will result in its own amortization in
> infrastructure and manufacturing/raw material costs, in the solar
> energy it captures.
>
> Which of course..it totally bogus.
>

No, it isn't bogus.

It takes only 5 cents to drill for a tiny bit of oil, refine it, ship it to
a chemical factory, process it into one square foot of plastic sheeting,
then ship the plastic sheeting (in the form of a large roll) to the local
Home Depot. Now, if you did just one square foot that way, it would
certainly cost a lot more. But the economies of scale make it so much
cheaper, that Home Depot is able to buy it from the manufacturer and ship it
to their stores for less 5 cents a square foot, mark up the price to 5 cents
per square foot and sell it at a slight profit. And the manufacturer is
able to buy the materials (oil) and ship transport them to their facility
and turn the material into plastic for less than what they charge Home
Depot, so they too make a small profit.

Unless you think someone along this supply chain is deliberately spending
more money than they receive in sales???

Now, if 5 cents of cheap plastic can be carried from Home Depot and
installed by a couple of guys at the rate of 5 cents per square foot in
labor, then the total investment from the oil well to the solar collector is
10 cents per square foot.

Period. That includes all the costs, labors, amortization of capital
equipment, depreciation of value, government taxes (assuming honest
companies), retirement benefits for the janitor that sweeps the floor at
night, coffee cups used in the break room, stamps used on the government
forms, *everything*. If the price didn't cover any one of those things,
then one or more of those companies would be loosing money on the product
and either raise their price or quite making/carrying it.

If a square foot of said plastic solar collector can collect 10 cents worth
of useful heat before it breaks down in the sunlight, then it's a winner.
(about the only way it wouldn't collect that much useful heat would be if
you installed it underground)

You sound like Don Lancaster, waving your hands about how the retail price
doesn't include 'fully burdened, paid up amortization' bologna. Run a
business for a while, or take some courses in micro-economics and accounting
to learn how the retail prices of items are set.

daestrom

daestrom

2006-02-12, 11:21 am

"Gunner" <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:65htu15f626cgmjp3g27vmo60998hs846j@4ax.com...
> On 11 Feb 2006 14:04:35 -0500, nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
>
>
> So you are claiming the labor cost is the sole amount of that piece of
> plastic?
>
> You really in manufacturing?????
>

No you silly. What he is saying is that to install that 5 cent, square foot
of plastic in a solar collector takes just 2 cents labor. When the plastic
breaks down and needs to be replaced, it costs 2 cents worth of labor to
replace it with another 5 cent piece.

All the labor of manufacturing that square foot of plastic and delivering it
to Home Depot is included it its price of 5 cents.

daestrom

nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu

2006-02-12, 12:21 pm

daestrom <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote:

>... to install that 5 cent, square foot of plastic in a solar collector takes
>just 2 cents labor.

Replacing greenhouse polyethylene is easy on a calm day because it comes
in very large pieces, eg 40'x150' folded rolls. It's only attached at
the greenhouse perimeter, often with labor-saving aluminum extrusions,
eg U-shaped channels with a springy wire to hold the film in. These cost
about $1/linear foot.

>All the labor of manufacturing that square foot of plastic and delivering it
>to Home Depot is included it its price of 5 cents.

This 0.006 inch polyethylene film has UV inhibitors that make the 4-5 year
guarantee possible. It comes from greenhouse suppliers. There's probably
one near you. If might be cheaper if it came from Home Depot :-)

Nick

Solar Flare

2006-02-12, 3:21 pm

Galss jaw case?...LOL

<nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu> wrote in message
news:dsmtpo$8vu@acadia.ece.villanova.edu...
> Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
foot of cloudy 4-year[color=darkred]
greenhouse sunspace can[color=darkred]
gallon of oil per year.[color=darkred]
polycarbonate glazing...[color=darkred]
>
> To clarify, the price of 1 square foot of film is 5
cents. Where I live
> near Philadelphia, NREL says 1000 Btu/ft^2 of sun
falls on a south wall on
> an average 30.4 F January day with a 37.9 daily max,
so 1 square foot of R1
> vertical south glazing with 90% solar transmission on
a low-thermal mass
> sunspace would collect 900 Btu/day and lose about
6h(70-34)1ft^2/R1 = 216,
> for a net gain of 684. Here's the rest of the
picture, approximately:
>
> Month temp max day sun gain loss net gain
>
> Jan 30 F 38 34 1000 900 216 684 Btu
> Feb 33 41 37 1080 972 198 774
> Mar 42 52 47 1070 963 138 825
> Apr 52 63 58 950 855 72 783
> May 63 73 68 830 747 12 735
> ...
> Oct 56 66 61 1150 1035 54 981
> Nov 46 55 51 990 891 114 777
> Dec 36 43 40 900 810 180 630
> ---
> 6189 Btu
> ... 6189 x 30 days = 185,670 Btu/year.
>
> ... 1 gallon of oil contains about 130K Btu.
>
about 2 cents/ft^2.[color=darkred]
>
> To clarify, when it wears out in 4 years (or more, if
protected from summer
> sun by an overhang, unlike many greenhouses), the
labor cost to replace it
> on-site with another 5 cent square foot is 2 cents.
>
cornered..had no idea of what[color=darkred]
>
> No. You just misinterpreted my words and then blamed
your confusion on me :-)
>
phrase..Solar Will Save[color=darkred]
costs/savings actually are.[color=darkred]
>
> Are you often so vulgar and ignorant and arrogant and
presumptuous? :-)
>
> Nick
>

Gunner

2006-02-12, 3:21 pm

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 14:48:20 GMT, "daestrom"
<daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote:

>
>"Gunner" <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>news:65htu15f626cgmjp3g27vmo60998hs846j@4ax.com...
>
>No you silly. What he is saying is that to install that 5 cent, square foot
>of plastic in a solar collector takes just 2 cents labor. When the plastic
>breaks down and needs to be replaced, it costs 2 cents worth of labor to
>replace it with another 5 cent piece.
>
>All the labor of manufacturing that square foot of plastic and delivering it
>to Home Depot is included it its price of 5 cents.
>
>daestrom
>
You seem to be missing the point..does that 5 cent piece of plastic
amortize itself in solar cost benifits over its lifetime..from the
moment its pulled out of the ground via oil well, to the time its
disposed of?

Can you make the case (and back it up) that it saves $0.051 cents in
solar benifits?

Gunner

"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

Gunner

2006-02-12, 3:21 pm

On 12 Feb 2006 04:06:00 -0500, nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu wrote:

>Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
>
>To clarify, the price of 1 square foot of film is 5 cents. Where I live
>near Philadelphia, NREL says 1000 Btu/ft^2 of sun falls on a south wall on
>an average 30.4 F January day with a 37.9 daily max, so 1 square foot of R1
>vertical south glazing with 90% solar transmission on a low-thermal mass
>sunspace would collect 900 Btu/day and lose about 6h(70-34)1ft^2/R1 = 216,
>for a net gain of 684. Here's the rest of the picture, approximately:
>
>Month temp max day sun gain loss net gain
>
>Jan 30 F 38 34 1000 900 216 684 Btu
>Feb 33 41 37 1080 972 198 774
>Mar 42 52 47 1070 963 138 825
>Apr 52 63 58 950 855 72 783
>May 63 73 68 830 747 12 735
>...
>Oct 56 66 61 1150 1035 54 981
>Nov 46 55 51 990 891 114 777
>Dec 36 43 40 900 810 180 630
> ---
> 6189 Btu
>... 6189 x 30 days = 185,670 Btu/year.
>
>... 1 gallon of oil contains about 130K Btu.

What is the cost of that oil delivered so you may use those 130k btus?
Compare it to the total cost of that plastic and do it in scale. I see
you are also forgetting to add in the cost of the rest of the
greenhouse..frame, slab, supports. You tend to think one layer deep.
Pity.
>
>
>To clarify, when it wears out in 4 years (or more, if protected from summer
>sun by an overhang, unlike many greenhouses), the labor cost to replace it
>on-site with another 5 cent square foot is 2 cents.
>
>
>No. You just misinterpreted my words and then blamed your confusion on me :-)
>
>
>Are you often so vulgar and ignorant and arrogant and presumptuous? :-)
>
>Nick

Mooommmmmiieee!! Da bad man be picking on me!!!! Wah!! Wahhhh!!!!

How come you chaps only think in sound bytes/single layers..and not in
total plant?

I take it none of you are practical engineers with any real grasp of
"real world" practicality?

I should further note..that a plastic wrapped greenhouse is largely a
static "device" with only a few energy loss areas.

Now lets say..hummm..you want that green house to be totally solar
powered. This includes the water pumps, the ventilation systems,
lighting, envionmental controls, watering systems and so forth.
Completly off the grid.

What will the costs be by going solar over a 5 yr period producing
say...1 ton of chard, as opposed to powering the plant by conventional
means. Be sure to include the energy costs of making the physical
plant itself..steel, copper, pvc, concrete, our famous sheet plastic,
the environmental controls and so forth.

Remember..solar will save us. So please be precise and make your
case.

And dont forget "economy of scale" (a very generous hint)

Ill be waiting.
Gunner

"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

SJC

2006-02-12, 3:21 pm

Gunner, it might be more useful if you were helpful and constructive.
This is a news and discussion group. It does not help when people are
critical and try to tear people down. I can see now why some news groups
have monitors that can ban people that do not have anything good to say.

"Gunner" <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote in message news:u20vu1hq7dsd12ru2l5inivid8as9n24as@4ax.com...
> On 12 Feb 2006 04:06:00 -0500, nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
>
>
> What is the cost of that oil delivered so you may use those 130k btus?
> Compare it to the total cost of that plastic and do it in scale. I see
> you are also forgetting to add in the cost of the rest of the
> greenhouse..frame, slab, supports. You tend to think one layer deep.
> Pity.
>
> Mooommmmmiieee!! Da bad man be picking on me!!!! Wah!! Wahhhh!!!!
>
> How come you chaps only think in sound bytes/single layers..and not in
> total plant?
>
> I take it none of you are practical engineers with any real grasp of
> "real world" practicality?
>
> I should further note..that a plastic wrapped greenhouse is largely a
> static "device" with only a few energy loss areas.
>
> Now lets say..hummm..you want that green house to be totally solar
> powered. This includes the water pumps, the ventilation systems,
> lighting, envionmental controls, watering systems and so forth.
> Completly off the grid.
>
> What will the costs be by going solar over a 5 yr period producing
> say...1 ton of chard, as opposed to powering the plant by conventional
> means. Be sure to include the energy costs of making the physical
> plant itself..steel, copper, pvc, concrete, our famous sheet plastic,
> the environmental controls and so forth.
>
> Remember..solar will save us. So please be precise and make your
> case.
>
> And dont forget "economy of scale" (a very generous hint)
>
> Ill be waiting.
> Gunner
>
>
>
> "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
> the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
> - Proverbs 22:3

Cliff

2006-02-12, 7:21 pm

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 14:45:02 GMT, "daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com>
wrote:

>If a square foot of said plastic solar collector can collect 10 cents worth
>of useful heat before it breaks down in the sunlight

You could probably find a better plastic film.
Polyethylene (your film) "relatively short life in sun: 9 to 11 months for
regular, one to three years for U.V." Does Home Depot even stock the
U.V. variety?
Acrylic/Polyester "Estimated life 10 years plus".
Polyester (such as Mylar) "U.V. degradable unless treated", "Estimated life 7
to 10 years".

"Greenhouse Coverings"

http://www.engr.uga.edu/service/ext...s/coverings.pdf
--
Cliff

Cliff

2006-02-12, 7:21 pm

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:38:32 GMT, Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote:

>You seem to be missing the point..does that 5 cent piece of plastic
>amortize itself in solar cost benifits over its lifetime..from the
>moment its pulled out of the ground via oil well, to the time its
>disposed of?
>
>Can you make the case (and back it up) that it saves $0.051 cents in
>solar benifits?

CLUE: All those that use it in greenhouses seem to think so.
HTH
--
Cliff

Cliff

2006-02-12, 7:21 pm

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:47:35 GMT, Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote:

>I should further note..that a plastic wrapped greenhouse is largely a
>static "device" with only a few energy loss areas.

I should note that 1+1 confuses you.
--
Cliff

Cliff

2006-02-12, 7:21 pm

Cliff

2006-02-12, 8:21 pm

On 12 Feb 2006 14:48:48 -0800, "H2-PV NOW" <H2.PV@zig-zag.net> wrote:

>People who teach college and teach post graduate levels of university
>understand what energy and power are and how much there is available.
>NASA flew a plastic airplane to 9world-record altitude of 96,863 feet
>and sustaining flight above 96,000 feet for more than 40 minutes during
>a test flight near Hawaii, under 36 kilowatts of solar cells on the
>wings, with 14 motors each only 1.5 horsepower. How high have you flown
>using your favorite power supply? 96863 ft is 18.5 miles high.
>
>http://trc.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/F...S-068-DFRC.html
>http://trc.dfrc.nasa.gov/Research/Erast/helios.html
>
>The thing crashed on a test because they had just loaded it down with
>new systems and didn't strengthen the support members, flown in severe
>turbulence. No propeller-driven aircraft has ever come close to this
>craft's record-breaking feats regardless of fuel and power-plants. Only
>a couple of jets ever reached this height for far shorter duration at
>peak altitudes

[
SR-71 Pilot: "Tower, this is Alpha Tango Four requesting permission to go to
100,000 feet."
Tower: "Haha... roger, Alpha Tango, cleared to 100,000 if you think you can
make it!"
SR-71 Pilot: "Thank you, Alpha Tango Four descending to 100,000."
]

[
SR-71 Blackbird pilot Brian Shul tells of the following exchange: "One day as
Walt (my back-seater) and I were screaming across Southern California 13 miles
high, we were monitoring various radio transmissions from other aircraft as we
entered Los Angeles airspace. Although they didn't really control us, they did
monitor our movement across their scope. I heard a Cessna ask for a readout of
its ground speed. '90 knots,' Center replied. Moments later, a twin engine Beech
requested the same. '120 knots,' Center answered. We weren't the only ones proud
of our ground speed that day as almost instantly an F-18 smugly transmitted,
'Uh, Center, Dusty 52 requests ground speed readout.' There was a slight pause,
then the response, 'Dusty 52, 525 knots on the ground.' Then came another silent
pause. Just as I was thinking to myself how ripe the situation was, I heard the
crackle of our radio as Walt transmitted 'Center, Aspen 20, you got a ground
speed readout for us?' There was a longer than normal pause. 'Aspen 20, I show
you at 1,742 knots.' No further speed inquiries were made after that."
]
--
Cliff

Cliff

2006-02-12, 10:21 pm

Gunner

2006-02-13, 12:21 am

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 19:11:07 GMT, "SJC" <sjc_paul_1@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Gunner, it might be more useful if you were helpful and constructive.
>This is a news and discussion group. It does not help when people are
>critical and try to tear people down. I can see now why some news groups
>have monitors that can ban people that do not have anything good to say.

Sorry buddy..but Im posting from misc.survivalism. Informed
pessimissim is the watchword of the day. When Sammy Twinkletoes
blythly spews that Solar Will Save Us All..he is blathering to an
audience who has studied solar, water, wind and so forth for many
years, and knows the plus's and minuses. If Solar was the great
panacea..you damn betcha most of us survivalists would already be off
the grid and rocking and rolling on solar. Particulary those people
like myself who live in the desert and have narely a cloud in the sky
over most of the year.

Solar is a nice adjunct in its present technological state. I have a
fair amount of solar on my property already, from a solar hotwater
heater to PIV cells to charge small batteries with in case the mains
utilities take a shit. I also have assisted others in getting off the
grid, when utilities were cost prohibited. Many people live a quarter
mile or more beyond the last power pole..and when the utility company
wants $50,000 to run the wire to their place...solar becomes
attractive, as do propane powered gen sets (oh no! Non renewable
resources), water power via Pelton wheel and so forth.

But it appears that few of your buds have actually sat down and
figured the infrastructure costs, from the ground up, to get that
first erg out of the wire via solar. And that is rather sad, given
the grandious claims..snake oil..that Solar Will Save Us All.

At its present state of the art..no..it damned sure wont.
If you live in the ideal areas, and have a shit load of money to
spend, you indeed can get off the grid. But the startup costs and long
term maint costs are killers, unless you want to live in a well
insulated tent and use LEDs for your main source of lighting, and a
Igloo cooler with a peltier junction to keep your vegies from rotting
before you can eat them

Quite frankly..there are currently only two technologies that are
efficent enough to provide power. One is nuclear..and the Left has
been throwing logs in front of that train for years..and the other is
fossil fuels. Period. End program. Full Stop. Endit Endit Endit.

If..and only If...PIV becomes efficent enough to replace a barrel of
oil on a cost for cost basis, will things turn around. Wind power
comes closer that any sustainable application, but the Left again
blathers on and on about bird strikes, and NIMBY. Tidal generators
are also efficent..but then again..the environmentalists have a stroke
when they are discussed.

You want cheap sustainable power? Start pushing for multitudes of
small, area specific pebble bed nuclear reactors. They are safe, easy
to build, cannot melt down. have long life spans and few issues of
safety, waste disposal and so forth. A terrorist can crash a 747 into
one..and it wont blow, melt or poison the neighborhood for a thousand
years.

But..when the word Nuke is mentioned..your ilk goes apeshit.

So dont give me crap about "being helpful" when overaged hippies start
spewing the Solar mantra, least of all when they know dick about the
subject.

Gunner
[color=darkred]
>
>"Gunner" <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote in message news:u20vu1hq7dsd12ru2l5inivid8as9n24as@4ax.com...

"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

Gunner

2006-02-13, 12:21 am

On 12 Feb 2006 14:48:48 -0800, "H2-PV NOW" <H2.PV@zig-zag.net> wrote:

>
>Gunner wrote:
>
>That's H2-PV to you (as in Hydrogen from Solar Photovoltaics)
>
>
>What's to amortize in 2 cents worth of plastic? Are you going to take a
>30 year morgage out on it? The interest on the loan is the
>"amortization". No loan = no amortization; it's included in the retail
>price. Unless you believe in the "industrial fairey" giving away things
>below manufacturing costs, then the mfgr cost is in the retail price,
>and so is the profit margin. It's all included in the retail price.
>Infrastructure is included in the retail price -- it goes by the term
>"economy of scale", or sell many units and the cost per unit decreases
>proportionately to efficiency of manufacturing volumes.
>
>Why do you keep wanting to make $0.02 into big bucks when it's two damn
>cents.
>
>
>
>
>People who teach college and teach post graduate levels of university
>understand what energy and power are and how much there is available.
>NASA flew a plastic airplane to 9world-record altitude of 96,863 feet
>and sustaining flight above 96,000 feet for more than 40 minutes during
>a test flight near Hawaii, under 36 kilowatts of solar cells on the
>wings, with 14 motors each only 1.5 horsepower. How high have you flown
>using your favorite power supply? 96863 ft is 18.5 miles high.
>
>http://trc.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/F...S-068-DFRC.html
>http://trc.dfrc.nasa.gov/Research/Erast/helios.html
>
>The thing crashed on a test because they had just loaded it down with
>new systems and didn't strengthen the support members, flown in severe
>turbulence. No propeller-driven aircraft has ever come close to this
>craft's record-breaking feats regardless of fuel and power-plants. Only
>a couple of jets ever reached this height for far shorter duration at
>peak altitudes, and one helium balloon once rose higher by a small
>amount but could not fly back to it's launch point under power, could
>it? Solar power and plastic wings did what no other craft in the world
>has been able to do, showing how SOLAR and PLASTIC in the hands of
>people with KNOWLEDGE and UNDERSTANDING can accomplish that steel,
>titanium, aluminum, and chemical fuel combustion cannot accomplish.
>
>As far as I am concerned that is all kid's play. My goal is a solar
>assisted Single-Stage-To-Orbit that flies off a runway, docks at the
>space station with 40 ton payload and flies back to land at an airport.
>Solar cells makes a lot of sense, as does new age composite plastics
>for the majority of the spacecraft. Need I remind you that the X-Prize
>winning SpaceShipOne was a plastic rocket ship?
>
>For a guy who cals himself "gunner", you seem particlarly ignorant of
>the bullet-resistent plastics used in body armour, but just all-around
>ignorant about materials science in general.

So..Fed Ex is now flying Saran Wrap cargo haulers using solar motors?

When the state of the art gets to the point that solar powers things
besided toys and test beds designed for real world applications..wake
me up, ok?

We have a very very long way to go before Solar Will Save Us All.
So does hydrogen technology.

So tell me...what sort of cryo tank would you need to fuel a F250
pickup truck? What material will it be made of? Cant be steel of
course. What will its range be? And how much hydrogen will it take
to fuel the earth diggers, the ore haulers, the blast furnaces, the
stamping and casting plants, the personal vehicles of the employees
who perform those tasks, to simply Build that pickup truck? Think
100x100 miles of environmentally protected land will produce enough
hydrogen to float an entire economy as we have today? How much
hydrogen will it take to produce the solar gizmos to produce that
much hydrogen? The basic infrastructure needed?

Get back to me when State of the Art is a hell of a lot better.

Gunner

"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

Gunner

2006-02-13, 12:21 am

On 12 Feb 2006 15:28:31 -0800, "Ken" <wistworx@dodo.com.au> wrote:

>Just a couple of points;
>
>solar in most of it's forms doesn't exclude other uses for the area
>required - having it on a roof doesn't stop that area from other uses
>ie a power company ought to be able to rent unused roof and external
>wall space without having to rent the floor space as well. Solar
>awnings over roads or car parks don't exclude use for driving and
>parking cars. Thus costs will be much less than buying the entire area
>outright.
>
>I think there are enough studies showing the benefits in energy and
>money terms for solar thermal energy for water and space heating with
>existing technologies, particularly in places where it's sunny much of
>the time - which is much of the world and this is world issue. By
>itself not the solution, just one of many solutions. Same for the
>benefits of building design and retrofitting with insulation.
>
>comparing real costs with real costs is a genuine issue, and solar is
>not unique in having proponents that take the best case and extrapolate
>from there - when you compare the costs of stuff like coal that you
>just dig up and burn without ever counting the environmental costs or
>nuclear and oil with their environmental and security costs, you
>aren't necessarily proving solar is cost ineffective.
>
>What we have now is not what we are going to always have - so far solar
>(or wind or batteries) has not had R&D budgets in line with the
>importance of secure, environmentally benign energy suppy for our
>future. I can assure you that Australia (where I live) spends far more
>promoting coal sales than goes to renewables, far more subsidising oil
>exploration than goes on renewables and coal power plants have a long
>history of subsidy, from prime real estate and easements for
>transmission lines to direct subsidies and grants for R&D.
>
>It's important to develop and deploy benign energy systems - more
>important than protecting an unsustainable "status quo".
>
>Ken

Bravo Ken!! Finally a well thought out and cogent post on the subject.
And no grand Solar Will Save Us All spew.

You are to be congratulated. Now teach the rest of the buffoons who
spew the facts of life.

Gunner

"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

Gunner

2006-02-13, 12:21 am

On 12 Feb 2006 16:30:31 -0800, "H2-PV NOW" <H2.PV@zig-zag.net> wrote:

>And was that a PROPELLER-driven aircraft? And was it capable of
>spending 40 minutes at that altitude? And was it made out of plastic
>sheet covered wings? And did it have 28 horsepower of engines? And did
>it get it's power from sunlight alone?
>
>Well did it?

Who the fuck cares? Your Saran Wrap aircraft is a nice test bed for
future innovations. And thats all. Period.

Wake me up when you can fly cargo from New York to Singapore, ok?

Gunner
[color=darkred]
>
>
>Cliff wrote:

"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

Anthony Matonak

2006-02-13, 2:21 am

Gunner wrote:
<presumably nick wrote...>
> Now lets say..hummm..you want that green house to be totally solar
> powered. This includes the water pumps, the ventilation systems,
> lighting, envionmental controls, watering systems and so forth.
> Completly off the grid.

Gunner, who ever said there had to be plants, water or any of the
rest of that junk in a sunspace made from greenhouse plastic? It's
a bit like asking what kind of fish are swimming in your solar pond.

Anthony

H2-PV NOW

2006-02-13, 4:21 am

Gunner wrote:
> On 12 Feb 2006 16:30:31 -0800, "H2-PV NOW" <H2.PV@zig-zag.net> wrote:
>
>
> Who the fuck cares? Your Saran Wrap aircraft is a nice test bed for
> future innovations. And thats all. Period.
>
> Wake me up when you can fly cargo from New York to Singapore, ok?

Can't wake the dead, and braindead is the standard definition of dead.
You can lay down now -- you're dead.

Gunner

2006-02-13, 7:21 am

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 21:52:49 -0800, Anthony Matonak
<anthonym40@nothing.like.comcast.net> wrote:

>Gunner wrote:
><presumably nick wrote...>
>
>Gunner, who ever said there had to be plants, water or any of the
>rest of that junk in a sunspace made from greenhouse plastic? It's
>a bit like asking what kind of fish are swimming in your solar pond.
>
>Anthony

So you are building a "sunspace" simply for the hell of it? With no
reason or rational in using solar to simply heat dead air?

Then why not paint a surplus water tank black and park it out in the
sun?

Gunner

"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

Gunner

2006-02-13, 7:21 am

On 12 Feb 2006 23:47:11 -0800, "H2-PV NOW" <H2.PV@zig-zag.net> wrote:

>
>
>What you think is irrelevent. You squandered your credibility a long
>time ago and are discredited permanently. Nobody cares the slightest
>what you think about things. You too are a conman attempting to sel an
>obsolte energy economy based on fraudulent claims and lies about
>alternatives. You also are well known to be a liar on the detrimemental
>effects of the systems you do espouse.
>
>You talk about fossil fuels as if there was no associated body count
>mounting daily, in Iraq and in the US for these choices. You hide that
>reality instead of discuss ALL the pros and all the CONS.
>
>http://h2-pv.us/wind/strip_mining/strip_mining.html
>
>It takes citizens like me to keep liars like you from getting away with
>your dirty business.

Oh oh...suddenly we go from solar wishful thinking to Leftwing
political rants.

Oddly enough...Im not surprised.

A hint for you...many things can use the term of art "amortization"
with other associations besides money.

Energy for one thing.

If it takes 10,000 kwh worth of mains power to manufacture a device
that will only generate 5,000 kwh of power during its life span... it
will never amortize itself. (Quanties used are for examples only.)

When you can generate 11,000 kwh with your new gizmo..wake me, ok?

You really ARE a buffoon. Tsk tsk tsk

Gunner

"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu

2006-02-13, 9:21 am

Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote:

>Anthony Matonak <anthonym40@nothing.like.comcast.net> wrote:

[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
>... So you are building a "sunspace" simply for the hell of it? With no
>reason or rational in using solar to simply heat dead air?

No. Warm air naturally thermosyphons between the sunspace and living space
during the day, and the airflow stops at night, with a lean-to structure
over the insulated south wall of a house and ventilation holes (eg house
windows) near the top and bottom and one-way lightweight plastic film
dampers in the holes to prevent reverse thermosyphoning at night.

If 0.9x1000x8x16 = 115K Btu enters an 8'tall x 16' long 100 F sunspace on
a 34 F January day near Phila and the glazing loses 6h(100-34)8x16/R1 = 51K
Btu to the outdoors, 115K-51K = 64K Btu ends up in the house. An 8' height
diff between A ft^2 vents makes 64K/6h = 16.6Asqrt(8)(100F-70F)^1.5, so
A = 1.4 ft^2, eg 2 1'x2' holes with 64K/6/(100-70) = 355 cfm of airflow.

As an alternative, a $12 window box fan with living and sunspace thermostats
can provide fine room temp control. A dark mesh curtain (eg 80% greenhouse
shadecloth) can raise the solar collection efficiency with cooler air near
the glazing and make the sunspace more comfortable for people.

>Then why not paint a surplus water tank black and park it out in the sun?

That won't heat the house. It will lose lots of heat at night and on cloudy
days. We might store and distribute space heat and preheat water for showers
with some fin-tube pipe in the living space near a sunspace supply vent near
the ceiling, with a large unpressurized water tank in the basement and a
pressurized $60 1" x 300' PE pipe coil heat exchanger. During the day, pump
water up through the fin-tube to avoid overheating the room. At night and
on cloudy days, unpressurized tank water thermosyphons up through the fins
and a slow ceiling fan with a room temp thermostat and an occupancy sensor
warms the room as required. This can provide close to 100% space and water
heating for a house.

Nick

wmbjk

2006-02-13, 11:21 am

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 03:47:29 GMT, Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net>
wrote:

>I also have assisted others in getting off the
>grid, when utilities were cost prohibited.

Sounds like BS to me. How the heck could you be helping anyone get off
grid given that a few months ago you were baffled by the simplest of
calculations for energy costs? Or by "helping" did you mean
schlepping, etc.?

>given
>the grandious claims..snake oil..that Solar Will Save Us All.

All you're doing here is exaggerating. You never seems to have time to
get your facts straight because you spend it all spinning them.

>At its present state of the art..no..it damned sure wont.
>If you live in the ideal areas, and have a shit load of money to
>spend, you indeed can get off the grid. But the startup costs and long
>term maint costs are killers, unless you want to live in a well
>insulated tent and use LEDs for your main source of lighting, and a
>Igloo cooler with a peltier junction to keep your vegies from rotting
>before you can eat them

Baloney. The fact is that even off-grid, the cost of a home power
setup is about on par with an SUV. Depending on location, proportion
of consumption shifted to fuel, etc, some people will need the
equivalent of a ten-year old model, others a new Escalade. I'd say
that the average cost in my area is about 10 grand. Now consider the
cost of two similar parcels recently sold nearby: one near-grid for
$170k, the other a few miles away off-grid for $115k.

>Quite frankly..there are currently only two technologies that are
>efficent enough to provide power. One is nuclear..and the Left has
>been throwing logs in front of that train for years..and the other is
>fossil fuels. Period. End program. Full Stop. Endit Endit Endit.

So now in a single post you've gone from giving us the Dan Quayle
potato lecture on home power, all the way to pontificating about a
national energy strategy. Do you ever think about what you write, and
your qualifications to even have an opinion, much less blurt it out on
Usenet?

>You want cheap sustainable power? Start pushing for multitudes of
>small, area specific pebble bed nuclear reactors. They are safe, easy
>to build, cannot melt down.

I see.... home power difficult and expensive, pebble bed reactor safe
and easy. So when will we see one in your backyard?

>So dont give me crap about "being helpful" when overaged hippies start
>spewing the Solar mantra, least of all when they know dick about the
>subject.

Ah, so you *do* believe that one should be qualified to editorialize
about alternative energy economics. Then why is the insolvent staff of
Gunnervision broaching the topic?

Wayne

Cliff

2006-02-13, 11:21 am

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 03:57:31 GMT, Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote:

>So tell me...what sort of cryo tank would you need to fuel a F250
>pickup truck? What material will it be made of? Cant be steel of
>course.

http://nanotechweb.org/articles/news/4/2/9/1
--
Cliff

Cliff

2006-02-13, 11:21 am

On 12 Feb 2006 23:47:11 -0800, "H2-PV NOW" <H2.PV@zig-zag.net> wrote:

>He's conning people that his way is the only way. Anybody who believes
>his phoney accunting is being conned. There's no amortization costs
>until after you take out a loan.

Incorrect.
--
Cliff

Gunner

2006-02-13, 2:21 pm

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:43:43 GMT, wmbjk <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net>
wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 03:47:29 GMT, Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>Sounds like BS to me. How the heck could you be helping anyone get off
>grid given that a few months ago you were baffled by the simplest of
>calculations for energy costs? Or by "helping" did you mean
>schlepping, etc.?
>

Baffled? The only baffled ones I see are the Solar Will Save Us All
crowd.

>
>All you're doing here is exaggerating. You never seems to have time to
>get your facts straight because you spend it all spinning them.

Right. Got cites?
>
>
>Baloney. The fact is that even off-grid, the cost of a home power
>setup is about on par with an SUV. Depending on location, proportion
>of consumption shifted to fuel, etc, some people will need the
>equivalent of a ten-year old model, others a new Escalade. I'd say
>that the average cost in my area is about 10 grand. Now consider the
>cost of two similar parcels recently sold nearby: one near-grid for
>$170k, the other a few miles away off-grid for $115k.

So..off grid in Maine, not using fossil fuels and having a "normal"
lifestyle will cost $10k? Interesting.
Put your money where your mouth is.

>
>
>So now in a single post you've gone from giving us the Dan Quayle
>potato lecture on home power, all the way to pontificating about a
>national energy strategy. Do you ever think about what you write, and
>your qualifications to even have an opinion, much less blurt it out on
>Usenet?
>

National Energy Policy? You certainly do have reading comprehension
issues that are Still unresolved. You really really need to work on
that.

>
>I see.... home power difficult and expensive, pebble bed reactor safe
>and easy. So when will we see one in your backyard?

Economy of scale again. When one can supply utilities to 50,000
homes...the costs certainly come down.
>
>
>Ah, so you *do* believe that one should be qualified to editorialize
>about alternative energy economics. Then why is the insolvent staff of
>Gunnervision broaching the topic?
>
>Wayne

See me claiming Solar Will Save Us All? Get real, fuckwit. Float a
balloon full of hot air past my AO..and I get to shoot it down. Thats
the way it works.

Did you notice my comment to Ken on his post?

Btw..got your air car yet? After all..its been over 70 yrs since
folks have been claiming that we will all have an air car in our
garages.

Gunner

"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

Gunner

2006-02-13, 2:21 pm

On 13 Feb 2006 06:55:45 -0800, "Tony Wesley" <tonywesley@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Gunner wrote:
>
>
>You sure you've helped people get off the grid?

Yes I have.
>
>CFL are more efficient LEDs. And peltiers suck for power consumption.
>They're nie for portable cheap solutions. But a 12 volt bona fide
>freezer (see
>http://www.roadtrucker.com/koolatro...reezer-f-86.htm) draws
>2.5 amps while my feeble Vector cooler (see
>http://www.thecellarstore.com/vec223.html) draws 5 amps.

Gee..just the thing for storing a hog in. Well..maybe 20 of them.

Hummm...gosh..thats 100 amps isnt it?

Sure you dont live in a sleeper cab?

Gunner

"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

Gunner

2006-02-13, 3:21 pm

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:43:43 GMT, wmbjk <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net>
wrote:

>
>All you're doing here is exaggerating. You never seems to have time to
>get your facts straight because you spend it all spinning them.

IM exaggerating???? Im not the one thats claiming Solar Will Save Us
All. Evidently..you are.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

wmbjk

2006-02-13, 7:21 pm

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:07:06 GMT, Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net>
wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:43:43 GMT, wmbjk <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>Baffled?

Big time. Here's an example of you flummoxed by the most basic of home
power concepts http://tinyurl.com/d96qy. It appears you've learned
nothing about the subject since. But if you think you have, then you
might detail a few of those setups you've "helped" on.

>The only baffled ones I see are the Solar Will Save Us All
>crowd.

What "crowd" would that be? All I see is you taking one guy's balloon,
filling it with your own hot air, and then shooting it down. What's
the point? The thread is cross-posted to some energy newsgroups where
dozens of regulars are already doing what you claim is so difficult,
and where most readers know that someone who yaks about LED lighting
doesn't know what he's talking about.

>
>So..off grid in Maine, not using fossil fuels and having a "normal"
>lifestyle will cost $10k?

Nobody said any such thing. But it wouldn't make any difference to
*you* if it was the North Pole or the equator, because arm chair
critics are out of the game either way. And, if we asked a bunch of
desert rats with trailers and car batteries whether it's more "normal"
to live on the cheap off-grid, or to post dozens of times per day on
Usenet, guess what they'd say?

>Economy of scale again. When one can supply utilities to 50,000
>homes...the costs certainly come down.

Not necessarily. For instance, about 50 miles from me is a development
of several thousand large parcels. No one is going to spring for any
"economy of scale" power there, so it's unlikely there will ever be a
grid serving the area. The fact is that in some circumstances
distributed generation is the cheapest solution. Check out the
implementation of wireless-only communication in newly developed areas
for examples of a similar concept.

>See me claiming Solar Will Save Us All? Get real, fuckwit. Float a
>balloon full of hot air past my AO..and I get to shoot it down. Thats
>the way it works.

All I see is you pretending to know something about yet another topic.
The more you write about it, the clearer it will be that you don't
know diddly. Imagine that you'd spent the time you've wasted in this
thread reading up on the basics instead. I predict that you'll never
do that, because of the need for the "doing" part.

Wayne

wmbjk

2006-02-13, 7:21 pm

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:09:16 GMT, Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net>
wrote:

>On 13 Feb 2006 06:55:45 -0800, "Tony Wesley" <tonywesley@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>Yes I have.
>
>
>Gee..just the thing for storing a hog in. Well..maybe 20 of them.
>
>Hummm...gosh..thats 100 amps isnt it?

LOL Why are you *asking*? If you can lecture on the economics of
nuclear energy, then surely you already know the answer to your own
question. But just to make sure, show us how to calculate how many
Watts it is.

Wayne

Solar Flare

2006-02-13, 9:21 pm

YOU are playing with the biggest supertroll most people
have ever seen on Usenet. He changes nicknames, servers
and browsers faster than you can type. He has lost more
accounts than you have sperm cells. He only attacks for
the sake of a response. Notice never any actual subject
matter and editorial grandstanding. Do a search for
some of these and be educated on this matter. Be
advised and take action accordingly.

Here are some of the names he has been terrorizing NGs
with over the last two years.

//A{nty?//Me//You//ferret//lé.ÞeemÞ//®Hæress//ï¿½Hï¿½ss
//PurriePrPr//colin//.Hfress//wmbjk//frug//Taz//Tazoar/
/T@z//dob.a.TROLL//P.BENGI//Digi//5feet-24inches//JohnT
uttle//.Haress//GimmieButt//John Latelee//Eunty
JEck//Aunty Jack//Bunty Jack//Thunnus Albacarus//Gimmie
Bob//Pizza Girl//M II//Mrs
Marples//anonymous//helga//wingnut//Nemisis.0.GimmeButt
//JimmyB0ND//Paul
Vader//windows.embroidery.Gymmy//Shylork//Shyl0rk//Hatu
nen//Lectron_Nuis//LectronNuis//Lectr0Nuis//LectroQuis/
/slew_m//BugHunter//fant0m//KazAdz//Gabriel//tictactoe/
/guesswho//f00//nope//stuphn.Tulip.Bulbs.up.de.Dyke.Div
er//windows.embroidery.Gymmy//Judge_Dread//de.troll.is/
/snuph.m//AND a miriad of other munged versions of the
above//

"Gunner" <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:2ai1v11gkpa3ta9rf69uv26us0r30jmlcl@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:43:43 GMT, wmbjk
<wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net>
> wrote:
>
<gunner@lightspeed.net>[color=darkred]
helping anyone get off[color=darkred]
the simplest of[color=darkred]
you mean[color=darkred]
>
> Baffled? The only baffled ones I see are the Solar
Will Save Us All
> crowd.
>
Save Us All.[color=darkred]
seems to have time to[color=darkred]
spinning them.[color=darkred]
>
> Right. Got cites?
wont.[color=darkred]
load of money to[color=darkred]
startup costs and long[color=darkred]
live in a well[color=darkred]
lighting, and a[color=darkred]
vegies from rotting[color=darkred]
a home power[color=darkred]
location, proportion[color=darkred]
will need the[color=darkred]
Escalade. I'd say[color=darkred]
Now consider the[color=darkred]
one near-grid for[color=darkred]
$115k.[color=darkred]
>
> So..off grid in Maine, not using fossil fuels and
having a "normal"
> lifestyle will cost $10k? Interesting.
> Put your money where your mouth is.
>
technologies that are[color=darkred]
nuclear..and the Left has[color=darkred]
years..and the other is[color=darkred]
Endit Endit.[color=darkred]
the Dan Quayle[color=darkred]
pontificating about a[color=darkred]
what you write, and[color=darkred]
less blurt it out on[color=darkred]
>
> National Energy Policy? You certainly do have reading
comprehension
> issues that are Still unresolved. You really really
need to work on
> that.
>
multitudes of[color=darkred]
They are safe, easy[color=darkred]
bed reactor safe[color=darkred]
>
> Economy of scale again. When one can supply utilities
to 50,000
> homes...the costs certainly come down.
overaged hippies start[color=darkred]
know dick about the[color=darkred]
to editorialize[color=darkred]
insolvent staff of[color=darkred]
>
>
> See me claiming Solar Will Save Us All? Get real,
fuckwit. Float a
> balloon full of hot air past my AO..and I get to
shoot it down. Thats
> the way it works.
>
> Did you notice my comment to Ken on his post?
>
> Btw..got your air car yet? After all..its been over
70 yrs since
> folks have been claiming that we will all have an air
car in our
> garages.
>
> Gunner
>
>
>
> "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and
prepares for them;
> the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the
consequences."
> - Proverbs 22:3

wmbjk

2006-02-13, 9:21 pm

On 13 Feb 2006 15:05:57 -0800, "Tony Wesley" <tonywesley@gmail.com>
wrote:

>wmbjk wrote:
>
>
>Did you help them by selecting LEDs and peltiers?
>
>
>
>
>heh heh. I notice the gunner did a "duck and cover" rather than
>address the efficiencies of peltier cooling.

That's classic Gunner. Before this thread is over he'll probably claim
that we helped Teddy at Chappaquiddick, and he'll write a hundred
irrational posts with a thousand non sequiturs in order to avoid any
possibility of critical thinking. Can't call it a total loss though,
at least we got the chuckle of reading about his concern for the
shortage of hog-freezing space. That's a debating point you don't see
every day. :-) And lookout! He's got Gymmy Bob, AKA the Solar Fake to
help him out now. You won't see a tag team like that anywhere else
unless Quayle and Fife get together.

Wayne

Cliff

2006-02-13, 10:21 pm

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 22:54:20 GMT, wmbjk <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:07:06 GMT, Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>Big time. Here's an example of you flummoxed by the most basic of home
>power concepts http://tinyurl.com/d96qy. It appears you've learned
>nothing about the subject since. But if you think you have, then you
>might detail a few of those setups you've "helped" on.

He probably helped with the fetch & carry.
--
Cliff

Cliff

2006-02-13, 10:21 pm

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 19:22:12 +0930, "Solar Flare" <sfl@hutmail.notvalid> wrote:

>YOU are playing with the biggest supertroll most people
>have ever seen on Usenet. He changes nicknames, servers
>and browsers faster than you can type. He has lost more
>accounts than you have sperm cells. He only attacks for
>the sake of a response. Notice never any actual subject
>matter and editorial grandstanding. Do a search for
>some of these and be educated on this matter. Be
>advised and take action accordingly.
>
>Here are some of the names he has been terrorizing NGs
>with over the last two years.
>
>//A{nty?//Me//You//ferret//lé.ÞeemÞ//®Hæress//ï¿½Hï¿½ss
>//PurriePrPr//colin//.Hfress//wmbjk//frug//Taz//Tazoar/
>/T@z//dob.a.TROLL//P.BENGI//Digi//5feet-24inches//JohnT
>uttle//.Haress//GimmieButt//John Latelee//Eunty
>JEck//Aunty Jack//Bunty Jack//Thunnus Albacarus//Gimmie
>Bob//Pizza Girl//M II//Mrs
>Marples//anonymous//helga//wingnut//Nemisis.0.GimmeButt
>//JimmyB0ND//Paul
>Vader//windows.embroidery.Gymmy//Shylork//Shyl0rk//Hatu
>nen//Lectron_Nuis//LectronNuis//Lectr0Nuis//LectroQuis/
>/slew_m//BugHunter//fant0m//KazAdz//Gabriel//tictactoe/
>/guesswho//f00//nope//stuphn.Tulip.Bulbs.up.de.Dyke.Div
>er//windows.embroidery.Gymmy//Judge_Dread//de.troll.is/
>/snuph.m//AND a miriad of other munged versions of the
>above//
>
>
>"Gunner" <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>news:2ai1v11gkpa3ta9rf69uv26us0r30jmlcl@4ax.com...
><wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net>
><gunner@lightspeed.net>
>helping anyone get off
>the simplest of
>you mean
>Will Save Us All
>Save Us All.
>seems to have time to
>spinning them.
>wont.
>load of money to
>startup costs and long
>live in a well
>lighting, and a
>vegies from rotting
>a home power
>location, proportion
>will need the
>Escalade. I'd say
>Now consider the
>one near-grid for
>$115k.
>having a "normal"
>technologies that are
>nuclear..and the Left has
>years..and the other is
>Endit Endit.
>the Dan Quayle
>pontificating about a
>what you write, and
>less blurt it out on
>comprehension
>need to work on
>multitudes of
>They are safe, easy
>bed reactor safe
>to 50,000
>overaged hippies start
>know dick about the
>to editorialize
>insolvent staff of
>fuckwit. Float a
>shoot it down. Thats
>70 yrs since
>car in our
>prepares for them;
>consequences."
>

Solar Flare

2006-02-13, 11:21 pm

Thanx

"Cliff" <Clhuprich@aol.com> wrote in message
news:u5e2v1t6t126p3vnpeei5p7g2c8jl536vb@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 19:22:12 +0930, "Solar Flare"
<sfl@hutmail.notvalid> wrote:
>
people[color=darkred]
servers[color=darkred]
more[color=darkred]
for[color=darkred]
subject[color=darkred]
NGs[color=darkred]
>
>//A{nty?//Me//You//ferret//lé.ÞeemÞ//®Hæress//ï¿½Hï¿½s
s
>
>//PurriePrPr//colin//.Hfress//wmbjk//frug//Taz//Tazoar
/
>
>/T@z//dob.a.TROLL//P.BENGI//Digi//5feet-24inches//John
T
Albacarus//Gimmie[color=darkred]
>
>Marples//anonymous//helga//wingnut//Nemisis.0.GimmeBut
t
>
>Vader//windows.embroidery.Gymmy//Shylork//Shyl0rk//Hat
u
>
>nen//Lectron_Nuis//LectronNuis//Lectr0Nuis//LectroQuis
/
>
>/slew_m//BugHunter//fant0m//KazAdz//Gabriel//tictactoe
/
>
>/guesswho//f00//nope//stuphn.Tulip.Bulbs.up.de.Dyke.Di
v
>
>er//windows.embroidery.Gymmy//Judge_Dread//de.troll.is
/
the[color=darkred]
by[color=darkred]
did[color=darkred]
sure[color=darkred]
of[color=darkred]
your[color=darkred]
of[color=darkred]
grand.[color=darkred]
Endit[color=darkred]
us[color=darkred]
reading[color=darkred]
really[color=darkred]
for[color=darkred]
reactors.[color=darkred]
pebble[color=darkred]
backyard?[color=darkred]
utilities[color=darkred]
qualified[color=darkred]
the[color=darkred]
over[color=darkred]
air[color=darkred]
>

Gunner

2006-02-14, 1:21 am

On 13 Feb 2006 15:05:57 -0800, "Tony Wesley" <tonywesley@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>wmbjk wrote:
>
>
>Did you help them by selecting LEDs and peltiers?
>
>
>
>
>heh heh. I notice the gunner did a "duck and cover" rather than
>address the efficiencies of peltier cooling.

I noticed Tony suggested that one live out of a beer chest..which goes
back to my original comment about living in a well insulated igloo
with LEDs for a lighting source.

While it may be neat to have one in the cab of your truck...it sure as
hell isnt going to store much victuals for the real world. He suggests
that this is the Way Solar Will Save Us All..using beer chests for
keeping your food from rotting.

However..this does not address the real world, down in the dirt, day
to day way to store a deer or hog you just shot. You had best be
really good at smoking or jerking, or that meat will turn into maggot
food in short order.

As I, and others have pointed out..Solar is a nice adjunct, and in
some cases, a decent short term or small scale work around, but at its
current state of art..unless you have certain well defined location
requrements..it simply isnt going to Save Us All. It wont even Save
Most Of Us. At best..its Solar May Save a Few.

Until I and most other people can live our normal lives, not some
minimalist existance, using Solar..it aint happening dude.

I have great expectations for the future advancement of solar..but
until they discover the Magic Black Body Genset, that converts every
watt of every sort of radiation that strikes it at 99.99999999999%
efficency...it aint Gonna Save Us All. At best..it will be one
tool..one of many..that will assist in providing us energy,
Personally..Hydrogen powered fuel cells appears to be the next best
thing, but the Hydrogen Infrastructre is a decade away from being in
place..a decade at best

Btw..one doesnt need to discuss Peltier Cooling efficenceies, if the
best it can do is keep a beer chest cold. Or the overclocked CPU on
your gaming puter. And frankly..that at present..is about all its
good for.

Gunner

"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

Gunner

2006-02-14, 1:21 am

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 22:55:43 GMT, wmbjk <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net>
wrote:

>
>LOL Why are you *asking*? If you can lecture on the economics of
>nuclear energy, then surely you already know the answer to your own
>question. But just to make sure, show us how to calculate how many
>Watts it is.
>
>Wayne

So Whine...are you actually suggesting that 100 amps of the above
coolers is a viable solar option ?

Laugh laugh laugh

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

Gunner

2006-02-14, 2:21 am

On 13 Feb 2006 15:05:57 -0800, "Tony Wesley" <tonywesley@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>wmbjk wrote:
>
>
>Did you help them by selecting LEDs and peltiers?

Nope. By welding and engineering and laying cable and so forth. I
designed the systems around what they aquired. Ever try to change out
a forklift battery by hand? There are indeed ways to do it.
But..solar wont help much.

Btw again...one can get a pretty good deal on used 48volt forklift
battery packs if one searches a bit. A few cells may be dead, so they
can be bypassed or even replaced. Beats the shit out of a stack of
deep cycle bats. Fork Lift bats tend to run to 2volt cells, or 6 volt
cells. Last 2 I bought, were less than $150 each for a god awful
number of amp hours.
>
>
>
>
>heh heh. I notice the gunner did a "duck and cover" rather than
>address the efficiencies of peltier cooling.

When did the question of peltier cooling efficencies get brought up?
The wanker posted two links to a couple beer chests. This is supposed
to replace a chest freezer and double door reefer or something
actually useful????

Right.

You really do have the wild eyed look of the true believer. Much like
those buddhist monks who set themselves on fire on a regular basis.

Didnt help much though. They didnt think things through very well.
Like you and your ilk.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

Cliff

2006-02-14, 6:21 am

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 04:37:14 GMT, Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote:

>He suggests
>that this is the Way Solar Will Save Us All..using beer chests for
>keeping your food from rotting.

As contrasted with living in a bunker eating kibble?
--
Cliff

wmbjk

2006-02-14, 12:21 pm

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 04:37:14 GMT, Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net>
wrote:

>On 13 Feb 2006 15:05:57 -0800, "Tony Wesley" <tonywesley@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>I noticed Tony suggested that one live out of a beer chest.

He suggested no such thing, and your claim that he did is pathetic.

>He suggests
>that this is the Way Solar Will Save Us All..using beer chests for
>keeping your food from rotting.

No, you made up that statement as well.

>However..this does not address the real world, down in the dirt, day
>to day way to store a deer or hog you just shot. You had best be
>really good at smoking or jerking, or that meat will turn into maggot
>food in short order.

Oh yeah, the "real world". What the hell would you know about it? In
the real real-world whole hog storing is a problem for very few. But
playing along here, a good-sized freezer consumes about 1 kWhr per
day. About the same as 6 hours of desktop computer use, and slightly
less than a standard fridge/freezer, which lots of off-gridders
(including me) own. To add some additional perspective... the last
week or so here has been breezy, and our solar power is throttled when
wind power is available. So we've lost about 5kWhr of production per
day that could have gone to additional loads if we needed them. Say, 5
whole-hog sized freezers.

>As I, and others have pointed out..Solar is a nice adjunct, and in
>some cases, a decent short term or small scale work around, but at its
>current state of art..unless you have certain well defined location
>requrements..it simply isnt going to Save Us All. It wont even Save
>Most Of Us. At best..its Solar May Save a Few.

Let's see you show the quote where anybody said that solar could save
us all. I think it's just something else you made up. In fact, of
those who might have been be "saved" by solar, *you* could have been
one *if* you'd focused your efforts in that direction back when
off-grid land was more affordable. Unfortunately, while you've been
tied up making Gunnervision the success it is <snorf>, a great
opportunity passed you by.

>Until I and most other people can live our normal lives, not some
>minimalist existance, using Solar..it aint happening dude.

Anybody who can afford an SUV can afford solar. It's cheaper to do it
on-grid unless one can take advantage of off-grid land prices. And
*you* live a more "minimalist existence" than anyone I know, on grid
or off.

>I have great expectations for the future advancement of solar..but
>until they discover the Magic Black Body Genset, that converts every
>watt of every sort of radiation that strikes it at 99.99999999999%
>efficency...it aint Gonna Save Us All. At best..it will be one
>tool..one of many..that will assist in providing us energy

No, solar is doable right now with existing technology. For example,
there isn't a damned thing stopping you from building a solar
water-heating setup. I suggested exactly that to you here
http://tinyurl.com/ahd87 10 months ago. Now, which do you think made
better economic sense, taking that advice, or using your time instead
on the 8000+ posts http://tinyurl.com/dcltc you've written since?
That's about 27 per day. Figure a two-week layoff from posting to work
part time on the solar instead, which means we'd have missed out on
about 380 of your posts, an average of about 1.25 posts per day less.
Quite the sacrifice eh?

>Personally..Hydrogen powered fuel cells appears to be the next best
>thing,

Personally? LOL Show us that fuel cell you've had your eye on, and
tell us about membrane life, cost, etc.

> but the Hydrogen Infrastructre is a decade away from being in
>place..a decade at best

Oh, it's the "infrastructure" that's holding you back. Dang.

>Btw..one doesnt need to discuss Peltier Cooling efficenceies, if the
>best it can do is keep a beer chest cold. Or the overclocked CPU on
>your gaming puter. And frankly..that at present..is about all its
>good for.

Gunner, you can't even spell efficiency much less discuss it
intelligently.

Wayne

wmbjk

2006-02-14, 4:21 pm

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:28:34 GMT, Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net>
wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:38:05 GMT, wmbjk <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>Actually Whine....Its the cost.

Nope, that one won't fly either. You're supposed to be a big bad DIYer
right? Well here's just what you need to get started with home
hydrogen generation and storage on the cheap http://tinyurl.com/7s2rn.
Or more correctly, it's what you need to get started thinking up a new
excuse. BTW, I'm going to love it when you become the poster boy for
the author's comments about the feebleness of naysayers in post #4425.

> And until the costs and efficencies
>become what Joe Sixpack can afford...spew all you want..oil is still
>cheaper, because the infrastructure is already there.

Don't you consider yourself a "joe sixpack"? I already showed you that
it isn't cost, efficiency or infrastructure that's holding you back on
solar water-heating. Anyway, speaking of efficiency, what use have you
made of that KillaWatt I told you to buy ten months ago? I'm thinking
it's not the oil infrastructure that's preventing joe one-short-of-a
sixpack from spending 30 bucks. Should we complain to the friendly
folks at Big Tobacco and Pepsico?

>I can have 500 gal of propane delivered a hell of a lot cheaper than
>the equivelent btus worth of hydrogen. And I can store the propane in
>a common tank the propane co. charges a minimum rent on.

Another pearl from the Gunnervision energy-wisdom oyster! So how come
you have to be told that you can heat your space and water with solar
for even less?

>"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
> the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
>- Proverbs 22:3

"A simpleton blindly suffering consequences". Finally a subject you
can speak of with authority from personal experience. Never fear, your
ship is sure to come in eventually. Best to sit by the phone in case
it arrives in the form of a call from the Springer show.

Wayne

Gunner

2006-02-20, 1:21 pm

On 20 Feb 2006 08:04:46 -0800, "john fernbach"
<fernbach1948@yahoo.com> wrote:

>H2-PV -- I love your eco-politics, I agree with them entirely, but do
>you need to insult the other side? Because I don't think it's
>effective.
>
>I have no idea whether Gunner has "handicaps and defects" or is a shill
>for the coal and oil industry, or what his problem is. I somehow
>doubt that he's actually "incompetent in .. cognitive abilities," as
>you claim in your post. I think he may be a coal industry apologist
>with plenty of cognitive abilities, but also with a hidden agenda.
>
>But in any case I don't think you help the green/renewable energy
>movement -- our side -- to be more credible or more attractive when you
>engage in "ad hominem" attacks on Gunner. Or when you attack the
>mental abilities -- rather than the bad arguments -- of any other
>fossil fuel apologist.
>
>Please don't get me wrong, H2-PV. It's wonderful that you're trying to
>clobber these people in debate. They deserve to be clobbered, in fact
>their whole arguments deserve to be demolished, because they're dead
>wrong. If the American political elite and the voters heed their BS
>apologies for greenhouse gas buildup as usual, we're all going to be
>"dead" wrong, too.
>
>But let's demolish their bad logic, skewed facts and deliberate lies --
>not call them names.
>
>Name-calling just doesn't prove our case -- not as effectively as it
>needs to be proved, and in a fashion that will attract the public to
>the logic of the green position. With truth on our side, and no
>particular economic biases to skew our thinking, we can afford to
>maintain the debate at a high, scrupulously honest intellectual level.
>The fossil fuel people really can't. So let's be completely polite,
>and scrupulously honest, and give them every benefit of the doubt --
>and destroy their excuses for the inexcusable.
>
>--------------------
>
>"We strive not against men, but against principalities and powers ...."
> -- St. Paul
>
>"Only the truth is revolutionary."
> -- Antonio Gramsci, "The Prison Diaries"

Good post.

Gunner

"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

Guido

2006-02-20, 3:21 pm

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 16:17:55 GMT, Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net>
wrote:

>On 20 Feb 2006 08:04:46 -0800, "john fernbach"
><fernbach1948@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>Good post.
>
>Gunner

1 minute later:

>You are still a dick.
>
>Gunner

HTH

J. Clarke

2006-02-20, 4:21 pm

john fernbach wrote:

> H2-PV -- I love your eco-politics, I agree with them entirely, but do
> you need to insult the other side? Because I don't think it's
> effective.
>
> I have no idea whether Gunner has "handicaps and defects" or is a shill
> for the coal and oil industry, or what his problem is. I somehow
> doubt that he's actually "incompetent in .. cognitive abilities," as
> you claim in your post. I think he may be a coal industry apologist
> with plenty of cognitive abilities, but also with a hidden agenda.
>
> But in any case I don't think you help the green/renewable energy
> movement -- our side -- to be more credible or more attractive when you
> engage in "ad hominem" attacks on Gunner. Or when you attack the
> mental abilities -- rather than the bad arguments -- of any other
> fossil fuel apologist.
>
> Please don't get me wrong, H2-PV. It's wonderful that you're trying to
> clobber these people in debate. They deserve to be clobbered, in fact
> their whole arguments deserve to be demolished, because they're dead
> wrong. If the American political elite and the voters heed their BS
> apologies for greenhouse gas buildup as usual, we're all going to be
> "dead" wrong, too.
>
> But let's demolish their bad logic, skewed facts and deliberate lies --
> not call them names.
>
> Name-calling just doesn't prove our case -- not as effectively as it
> needs to be proved, and in a fashion that will attract the public to
> the logic of the green position. With truth on our side, and no
> particular economic biases to skew our thinking, we can afford to
> maintain the debate at a high, scrupulously honest intellectual level.
> The fossil fuel people really can't. So let's be completely polite,
> and scrupulously honest, and give them every benefit of the doubt --
> and destroy their excuses for the inexcusable.

There's also the little matter that he assumes that anyone who disagrees
with him is anti-hydrogen and anti-solar. Personally I am of the opinion
that a hydrogen economy of some kind is inevitable. What part solar will
play in it is less certain--I wouldn't discount it but I wouldn't call it a
certainty either--the sunlight is free but the hardware to make use of it
certainly isn't, at least not for large scale use no matter what someone
may be able to scrounge for his own personal small scale use.

I find little percentage in berating others who have better things to do
than nurse some Frankensystem based on junk-yard generators and used
airplane inner tubes, or who have better sense than to trust it to not
blow them to Hell and back at the first opportunity.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Jeff McCann

2006-02-20, 4:21 pm

"Guido" <reuters@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ht3kv1d9obec913ppqm25jpruhf30skpkk@4ax.com...[color=darkred]
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 16:17:55 GMT, Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> 1 minute later:
>

I defense of Gunner, IIRC, he was replying to the infamous "Tim May," who,
by reputation, actually is a "dick," as I understand the usage. Sort of a
special case, our Timbo, so it isn't actually name-calling, but rather an
accurate restatement of a widely held and generally accepted opinion.

Jeff

wmbjk

2006-02-20, 4:21 pm

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 13:23:28 -0600, "Jeff McCann"
<NoSpam@NoThanks.org> wrote:

>"Guido" <reuters@nospam.net> wrote in message
>news:ht3kv1d9obec913ppqm25jpruhf30skpkk@4ax.com...
>
>I defense of Gunner, IIRC, he was replying to the infamous "Tim May," who,
>by reputation, actually is a "dick," as I understand the usage. Sort of a
>special case, our Timbo, so it isn't actually name-calling, but rather an
>accurate restatement of a widely held and generally accepted opinion.

No, he was replying to me, wmbjk. And that was after he claimed that
I'd been escaping his filter by nymshifting. BS on both counts, and
you can bet he doesn't have the guts to apologize for it. But if you
or Gunner think I'm Tim May, then I invite you both to put some money
on that, lots of money. Well, you at least, Gunner doesn't have any to
bet. How much are you in for?

Wayne

Jeff McCann

2006-02-20, 4:21 pm

"wmbjk" <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:ii6kv1555ud4gaouj3u6dd3r6o8rtd0so4@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 13:23:28 -0600, "Jeff McCann"
> <NoSpam@NoThanks.org> wrote:
>
who,[color=darkred]
a[color=darkred]
>
> No, he was replying to me, wmbjk. And that was after he claimed that
> I'd been escaping his filter by nymshifting. BS on both counts, and
> you can bet he doesn't have the guts to apologize for it. But if you
> or Gunner think I'm Tim May, then I invite you both to put some money
> on that, lots of money. Well, you at least, Gunner doesn't have any to
> bet. How much are you in for?

My apologies. It was my faulty memory, Sorry.

Jeff

Cliff

2006-02-20, 7:21 pm

On 20 Feb 2006 08:04:46 -0800, "john fernbach" <fernbach1948@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Gunner

A bit of research may be in order.
He has one of the worst cases of Winger's Disease ...

HTH
--
Cliff

Cliff

2006-02-25, 7:21 am

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 08:16:23 GMT, Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote:

>Its for those who look into gas tanks with lit matches.

How empty was it?
--
Cliff

Cliff

2006-02-25, 7:21 am

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 08:16:23 GMT, Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote:

>Or manufacturing your own home made explosives by
>reading the Anarchists Cookbook.

Where do you get yours?
--
Cliff

Cliff

2006-02-25, 7:21 am

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 08:16:23 GMT, Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote:

http://www.nhgazette.com/news/chickenhawks/

>Jeff..they are both dicks..interchangable fucktards. Dweebs.
>Nebbishes. Armchair warriors. Shit for brains. Pond scum.

HTH
--
Cliff

wmbjk

2006-02-25, 11:21 am

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 08:16:23 GMT, Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net>
wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 14:04:09 -0600, "Jeff McCann"
><NoSpam@NoThanks.org> wrote:

[color=darkred]
>Shrug... it really wasnt a mistake on your part.

Apparently when the question of "spin or spine" comes up, Jeff knows
the correct answer and you don't.

Wayne

Gunner

2006-02-25, 3:23 pm

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 14:35:24 GMT, wmbjk <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net>
wrote:

>On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 08:16:23 GMT, Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>Apparently when the question of "spin or spine" comes up, Jeff knows
>the correct answer and you don't.
>
>Wayne

Apparently a autisitic child shit a steaming heap on the internet.
Then named it Wayne.

You have worn out your entertainment value finally. Shrug..or Im testy
from a full weeks worth of dealing with machine tools "prefixed" by
thumbfingered maintainence departments. No matter, the end result is
the same.

<plink>

Gunner

"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3

2006-02-25, 5:21 pm

In article <25c0029haihtfd4h55b049cmo255ur6nbp@4ax.com>,
Cliff <Clhuprich@aol.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 08:16:23 GMT, Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
>
> Where do you get yours?

I get mine from Hercules Powder Co. I have the education and experience
to make my own, but it is cheaper and easier to just purchase my
explosives from a distributer......

Me

Solar Flare

2006-02-25, 5:21 pm

A troll by any other name is still a troll:

In reverse chronological order of usage:
//<.>" <<.>@mine.net//Anty?/
/Me//You//ferret//lé.ÞeemÞ//®Hæress//ï¿½Hï¿½ss
//PurriePrPr//colin//.Hfress//wmbjk//frug//Taz//Tazoar//T@z//dob.a.TRO
LL//P.BENGI//Digi//5feet-24inches//JohnTuttle//.Haress//GimmieButt//Jo
hn Latelee//Eunty JEck//Aunty Jack//Bunty Jack//Thunnus
Albacarus//Gimmie Bob//Pizza Girl//M II//Mrs
Marples//anonymous//helga//wingnut//Nemisis.0.GimmeButt//JimmyB0ND//Pa
ul
Vader//windows.embroidery.Gymmy//Shylork//Shyl0rk//Hatunen//Lectron_Nu
is//LectronNuis//Lectr0Nuis//LectroQuis//slew_m//BugHunter//fant0m//Ka
zAdz//Gabriel//tictactoe//guesswho//f00//nope//stuphn.Tulip.Bulbs.up.d
e.Dyke.Diver//windows.embroidery.G