From: G-S on
jlittler(a) wrote:
> On Feb 14, 12:32 pm, Hammo <hbaj2...(a)> wrote:
>> "jlitt...(a)" <jlitt...(a)> wrote:
>>> On Feb 14, 12:40 am, Hammo <hbaj2...(a)> wrote:
>>>> "Knobdoodle" <knobdoo...(a)> wrote:
>>>>> "Hammo" <hbaj2...(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>> <i...(a)> wrote:
>>>>>>> G-S wrote:
>>>>>>>> Repeatable yes... accurate no.
>>>>>>> How do you know ?
>>>>>> By his own assertion, contradicted himself!
>>>>> [yawn]
>>>>> Gee the obfuscator seems to be getting a bit dim there Hammo.
>>>>> Maybe you need to divert some more of that magic non-fuelled power to it!
>>>> Perhaps you'd like to consider what accurate and repeatable mean?
>>>> Would you like a book on statistics, or will JL help you out? Feel free to
>>>> make it easier for Nev to highlight his results, as, that is what you are
>>>> doing!!! Thanks also to GS!!
>>> <reluctantly> Yes Hammo, on that one you and Nev are right (although
>>> there's a whole heaps of if ands and buts to add to that statement. I
>>> got 3 lines into responding to the GB/Nev thread on that and said
>>> "stuff it")
>>> His results are indeed repeatable. That doesn't mean the principle
>>> under discussion is wrong, just that the test isn't providing data
>>> that will allow a the different options to be eliminated(1). More
>>> testing required.
>>> JL
>>> (1) Yes Hammo, I'm short cutting a discussion of hypothesis testing,
>>> methodology etc not relevant or useful
>> I was pointing out that you have studied these theories and will therefore
>> be able to acknowledge that there is no diversion involved.
>> This type of "measuring" is the crux of analytical chemistry (as well as
>> other fields), and as you know, is more than adequately explained in the
>> theory. That is, confirmation of true measurement will always be an
>> approximation.
> Errm, I was agreeing with you Hammo (albeit reluctantly on principle).
> See above.Similarly G-S's post which basically says "if your data
> doesn't fit my theory it's wrong" is bad science methodology.

It isn't 'science methodology' at all actually, and I never claimed that
it was.

It was and is 'servicing methodology'.

From: Johno on
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 07:59:59 GMT, Hammo <hbaj2006(a)> wrote:

>On 14/2/07 2:26 PM, in article slrnet50aa.33n.sharkey(a),
>"sharkey" <sharkey(a)> wrote:
>> Knobdoodle <knobdoodle(a)> wrote:
>>> Now go look under the bonnet and see if anything is glowing cherry-red.
>>> If not; your assumption about how your charging-system works must be wrong.
>> You poor deluded fool Clemmo! Heatsinks are made of aluminium, and
>> every schoolchild knows that aluminum melts at 660�C so the heatsink
>> cannot possibly be glowing cherry red!
>> Nev, go and look under your car for a pool of molten aluminium ...
>...and what temp does it combust at?
>Hammo (No wonder they ain't insulated by Kevlar).

3.5 degrees..... anna kitzs inna nutzs?


Beer mate?

From: sharkey on
Hammo <hbaj2006(a)> wrote:
> > Look again Hammo, I don't even mention engine speed anywhere in my
> > calculations, just energy used over time - I don't care if you idle your
> > car for an hour or if you run it at redline in top gear up a hill for an
> > hour, the headlights will use an extra ~0.12L either way...
> No. Thanks for trying to bluff that one. Remember the discussion re:
> torque......

Torque is cheap, Hambone! Which particular point do you think is

> GS mentioned speed as a way to suggest that the figures were in agreeance.
> Perhaps you missed that? Perhaps you missed the 12 v vs 24 v comment as
> well?

Doesn't make any difference.

> Yeah, I mean, lets *not* consider efficiency..... Obfuscation ahoy!!

The efficiency of the lightbulb at producing light is irrelevant to the
matter at hand.

Du verschwendest �bertragungskapazit�ten.
From: sharkey on
jlittler(a) <jlittler(a)> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 2:30 pm, sharkey <shar...(a)> wrote:
> > jlitt...(a) <jlitt...(a)> wrote:
> >
> > > > I'd say buy an X L V8 if you were inclined to towing loads where vehicle
> > > > mass and torque were concerns.
> >
> > > XLV 8, hey, is that the new Honda replacement for the transalp ?
> > > 800cc's ?
> >
> > I'd buy one (but I'd be checking the regulator first!)
> I assume you'll find it in a small pool underneath the bike ! :-)

With an XLV, that's typically the bigend bearings and the 2/4 selector

Du verschwendest �bertragungskapazit�ten.
From: sharkey on
Johno <varcs45(a)> wrote:
> Sharkey.... mate... no more beers for you! Hare dare you (in this
> particular thread) say that Al melts at 660 C!
> We all know (right Hammo) that is melts at 660.37 C

And I neglected to consider the range of alloys available!
Could be anywhere from 620ish to 700ish!

> now get in that corner and don't come out until we say so!
> Ok, no beer is a bit rough..... Beer mate?

Fortunately, there's a beer fridge in this here corner ...

Du verschwendest �bertragungskapazit�ten.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93
Prev: new tv project
Next: Honda VTR coolant boiling ?