Science and Technology news... :: View topic - Who Will Stand This Mighty Destroyer of Pretend Engineers?

tg · Guest

On Jul 31, 10:02 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
[quote]tg wrote:

On Jul 31, 12:58 am, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:
Show us some stuff you>ve designed.

www.BretCahill.com

Bret Cahill

I think you>ve made your point Bret. It should be easy for any of
these guys to critique your proposal, particularly John Larkin who is
in the coffee processing business.

You are a stupid as you buddy. John>s website is well known on the
electronics newsgroups, but you two can>t find it.

Do either of you ever get ANYTHING right? John owns a electronics
design & manufacturing business in San Francisco. All you idiots do is
spin useless ideas, while John is designing & building things to complex
for your small, lying minds. He is right downtown, and has shown
pictures of his nw business location and new products on another
newsgroup. All you two do is a pathetic troll dance.

[/quote]
What exactly is your problem? I>m offering a critique of Bret>s
designs since you guys are obviously not up to it---although T Keating
has at least chimed in with something on topic.

As for John The Designer, why don>t you stop acting childish and give
the reference? Surely any advertising is good advertising if you have
a worthwhile product.

-tg

[quote]--http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

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

Sporadic E is the Earth>s aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.[/quote]

dlzc · Guest

On Jul 30, 9:10 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
[quote]I>m taking all comers.
[/quote]
You slept through thermodynamics class. You are no big deal.

David A. Smith

Bret Cahill · Guest

DeTocqueville pointed out that the vices of the politicians don>t
really damage a democracy. The reason is there>s no coherence in
their vices.

Being around people as worthless as Al Gore in a dust devil might not
be lofty but it>s better than having a lot of nazis focused on killing
you.

The same is true here.

Bret Cahill

tg · Guest

On Jul 31, 11:23 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
[quote]I think you>ve made your point Bret.

Which is?

It should be easy for any of
these guys to critique your proposal,

Why aren>t they doing it?

Uh, oh, now they are going to start saying,

"Cite?"

"Huge!"

"Show your work."

particularly John Larkin who is
in the coffee processing business.

Then we can forget about him saving any quads, not that their was ever
any hope for him.

But as usual, I>m the one who has
to pick up the burden...
Referring to picture 2:

Before we get into the actual physics of it, where would you apply
this? Why are we heating up liquids and then transferring the heat to
a gas?

Because it>s easier than trying to transfer directly from a gas to a
gas.

Well that>s one place where I don>t agree. It is obviously always more
efficient to avoid the intermediate step, unless you are talking about
transport, where the liquid covers some distance.

Are you talking about something like auto radiators when you
say radiator?

Yes. With fluidization all you need is a single pipe.

Yeah I think you are wrong on that.

No reasoning?

Your particles are going to be
separated by the moving air, so it isn>t clear how you expect to get
improved heat transfer.

The reason it isn>t clear is because you never studied fluidization
or, for that matter, anything science or tech related.

You need to get the Pell grant. Write your congressman to expand the
program.

Here>s an easy experiment to get a "feeling" for a heat transfer
coefficient in the same range as condensation.

Cap the bottom of a 4" PVC sewer pipe. Drill a 1/8" hole near the
bottom and run a line to shop compressor. Fill the T with ice water
including some crushed ice or small ice cubes.

Place you hand into the ice water and crank up the compressed air for
40 seconds.

That will cool a drink faster than liquid N2 or CO2 from a fire
extinguisher.

Bret Cahill
[/quote]
You>ve been bottom-feeding too long Bret, arguing with Fundatarians
and people who 'design' electronics. You forget what it>s like to be
taken to school by a scholar. And now you have become a Snipatarian---
very sad.

-tg

John Fields · Guest

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 21:10:20 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

[quote]I>m taking all comers.
[/quote]
---
Really?

Do you swallow?

JF

Guest

At first I thought you wanted to discuss tech.

Are you going to build the emergency beer chiller or not?

I use a T with clear plastic Si rubbered to the front porthole for a
window.

Bret Cahill

Guest

On Jul 31, 6:08 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
[quote]I think you>ve made your point Bret.

Which is?

It should be easy for any of
these guys to critique your proposal,

Why aren>t they doing it?
[/quote]
Because they don>t do crackpottery?

rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com · Guest

On Jul 31, 7:15 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
[quote]At least someone is on topic.

Commercially available stacked flat plat heat exchangers are far more
efficient.. (no need for a working fluid, greater surface area,

Fins work in fluidization as well

higher
heat transfer coefficient.) .

The heat transfer coefficient is an order of magnitude greater with
particle bed fluidization.

I thought I made that clear.

Bret Cahill
[/quote]

Cite?

Huge!

Show your work.

Then you will have made yourself clear.

Guest

On Jul 31, 9:11 am, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 31, 11:23 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

I think you>ve made your point Bret.

Which is?

It should be easy for any of
these guys to critique your proposal,

Why aren>t they doing it?

Uh, oh, now they are going to start saying,

"Cite?"

"Huge!"

"Show your work."

particularly John Larkin who is
in the coffee processing business.

Then we can forget about him saving any quads, not that their was ever
any hope for him.

But as usual, I>m the one who has
to pick up the burden...
Referring to picture 2:

Before we get into the actual physics of it, where would you apply
this? Why are we heating up liquids and then transferring the heat to
a gas?

Because it>s easier than trying to transfer directly from a gas to a
gas.

Well that>s one place where I don>t agree. It is obviously always more
efficient to avoid the intermediate step, unless you are talking about
transport, where the liquid covers some distance.

Are you talking about something like auto radiators when you
say radiator?

Yes. With fluidization all you need is a single pipe.

Yeah I think you are wrong on that.

No reasoning?

Your particles are going to be
separated by the moving air, so it isn>t clear how you expect to get
improved heat transfer.

The reason it isn>t clear is because you never studied fluidization
or, for that matter, anything science or tech related.

You need to get the Pell grant. Write your congressman to expand the
program.

Here>s an easy experiment to get a "feeling" for a heat transfer
coefficient in the same range as condensation.

Cap the bottom of a 4" PVC sewer pipe. Drill a 1/8" hole near the
bottom and run a line to shop compressor. Fill the T with ice water
including some crushed ice or small ice cubes.

Place you hand into the ice water and crank up the compressed air for
40 seconds.

That will cool a drink faster than liquid N2 or CO2 from a fire
extinguisher.

Bret Cahill

You>ve been bottom-feeding too long Bret, arguing with Fundatarians
and people who 'design' electronics. You forget what it>s like to be
taken to school by a scholar. And now you have become a Snipatarian---
very sad.
[/quote]
You really are an idiot. KKKahill has always
been a snipittarian, and a dodger. Maybe you
just don>t really read.

No wonder you believe the State owns (or
should own) everything.

"But the state tells lies in all the tongues of
good and evil; and whatever it says it lies --
and whatever it has it has stolen. Everything
about it is false; it bites with stolen teeth, and
bites easily. Even its entrails are false.
-Nietzsche

Guest

On Jul 31, 8:35 am, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 31, 10:02 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:

tg wrote:

On Jul 31, 12:58 am, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:
Show us some stuff you>ve designed.

www.BretCahill.com

Bret Cahill

I think you>ve made your point Bret. It should be easy for any of
these guys to critique your proposal, particularly John Larkin who is
in the coffee processing business.

You are a stupid as you buddy. John>s website is well known on the
electronics newsgroups, but you two can>t find it.

Do either of you ever get ANYTHING right? John owns a electronics
design & manufacturing business in San Francisco. All you idiots do is
spin useless ideas, while John is designing & building things to complex
for your small, lying minds. He is right downtown, and has shown
pictures of his nw business location and new products on another
newsgroup. All you two do is a pathetic troll dance.

What exactly is your problem?
[/quote]
They are obviously better at spotting an idiot than
you are, O pretentious and pedantic one.

Guest

On Jul 31, 8:34 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
[quote]I saw the exact same thing on misc.legal where someone legal beagle
claimed it was possible to get arrested for trespassing on a public
road.
[/quote]
But Justice Black said this:

"The State, no less than a private owner of property,
has power to preserve the property under its control
for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated.”

The Supreme Court has spoken. Case closed.
Game over. You lose.

[quote]You cannot _find_ people that dumb in real life.
[/quote]
The knowledge you seek is within, Seeker.

Guest

On Jul 31, 8:23 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
[quote]I think you>ve made your point Bret.

Which is?

It should be easy for any of
these guys to critique your proposal,

Why aren>t they doing it?

Uh, oh, now they are going to start saying,

"Cite?"

"Huge!"

"Show your work."

particularly John Larkin who is
in the coffee processing business.

Then we can forget about him saving any quads, not that their was ever
any hope for him.

But as usual, I>m the one who has
to pick up the burden...
Referring to picture 2:

Before we get into the actual physics of it, where would you apply
this? Why are we heating up liquids and then transferring the heat to
a gas?

Because it>s easier than trying to transfer directly from a gas to a
gas.

Well that>s one place where I don>t agree. It is obviously always more
efficient to avoid the intermediate step, unless you are talking about
transport, where the liquid covers some distance.

Are you talking about something like auto radiators when you
say radiator?

Yes. With fluidization all you need is a single pipe.

Yeah I think you are wrong on that.

No reasoning?

Your particles are going to be
separated by the moving air, so it isn>t clear how you expect to get
improved heat transfer.

The reason it isn>t clear is because you never studied fluidization
or, for that matter, anything science or tech related.

You need to get the Pell grant. Write your congressman to expand the
program.
[/quote]
Poor Bret can>t see that tg is just trying to help
him. Of course, for his part, tg can>t see KKKahill
for the idiot he is. For tg, it>s probably an ideological
blind spot. For KKKahill, it>s a psychopathological
one

Guest

On Jul 31, 9:01 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
[quote]DeTocqueville pointed out that the vices of the politicians don>t
really damage a democracy. The reason is there>s no coherence in
their vices.

Being around people as worthless as Al Gore in a dust devil might not
be lofty but it>s better than having a lot of nazis focused on killing
you.

The same is true here.
[/quote]
You are right, though. People seem to be attracted
to horseshit.

Guest

Now that BATF has beam weapons and can yer gun out of your live warm
hands, shouldn>t you be inventing a countermeasure to make sure your
hands are cold and dead first?

Guest

On Jul 31, 10:04 am, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:
[quote]Now that BATF has beam weapons
[/quote]
Don>t forget the CIA>s corpwhore mind control neutrino ray gun.
It has already turned all the leftards into philosophical zombies
who are not even Turing-complete.


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Electronics - Basics Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3