From: Theo Bekkers on 15 Feb 2007 17:55
> I'm voting for "Hammoflage" (meaning "true but irrelevant details
> introduced into a debate in an attempt to divert the debate away from
> the point you're losing") to be included in the aus.moto lexicon.
> I reckon I'm on a winner too!
I'm happy to adopt that..
From: Theo Bekkers on 15 Feb 2007 17:56
> I've "landed". Will get round to it in the next while....
You have been a bit 'up in the air' lately.
From: Theo Bekkers on 15 Feb 2007 18:00
Dale Porter wrote:
> "Hammo" wrote
>> Feel free to engage, though I have never really had anything to talk
>> to you about.
> Yes, we're from two very different worlds. And that fact doesn't
> upset me in the slightest.
Well, I know _you're_ from earth. Hammo, I still haven't figured out. I know
it's not Mars because my uncle Martin says he's never hears of him.
From: Theo Bekkers on 15 Feb 2007 18:11
> I have typed up 4 ish pages of the chemistry thus far and part of the
> explanation was going to be on RON, which throws many more cats
> amongst the clich�s. At least with that motor it is a well defined
> in its parameters and has substantial references to its application.
Your figures will show that the electrical power is immeasurable? Or free?
Immeasurable only because it is so small as a percentage of fuel use that
nobody cares in that vehicular system? Does that mean it is zero? I think
not. My domestic electricity supplier has no difficulty noticing, and
billing me for, the power draw of my ceiling smoke detectors. They consume
well under a watt each and probably cost me a cent or two per year to run.
But they _do_ use power and therfore consume some fuel.
From: Theo Bekkers on 15 Feb 2007 18:13
> RON now eh? [chortle]
Who's this Ron bloke and which side of the argument is he on? I must have
him kill-filed as being a mate of Hammo's.