eer

[John Miller]

Bill Bowden wrote:

So, if my truck runs at optimum RPM on a flat road, without
braking, I should get a 60% increase in milage.

Just one thing missing -- to achieve optimum MPG, the engine needs to be
running at full throttle. Replace the engine with a smaller one, and
you've got it.

--
John Miller
Email address: domain, n4vu.com; username, jsm

If it's worth doing, it's worth doing for money.

 

[Tim Auton]

wrongaddress@att.net (Bill Bowden) wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message news:<413ACA09.3ACE@armory.com>...
[snip]
Hybrids are able to operate their engine at its optimum performance
at all times, and recover some energy by regenerative braking. Together
these offer about 60% increases in efficiency over your truck, which
doesn't get those conditions, but must vary its efficiency and operate
at various rpm's and torques.

So, if my truck runs at optimum RPM on a flat road, without
braking, I should get a 60% increase in milage.

You have a larger engine than would be required in a hybrid, which
adds friction, inertia and mass. It also means the optimum engine rpm
is unlikely to be matched to the optimum vehicle speed as well as it
can be in a hybrid, as you need more power in reserve not having the
electric motor to help out.

I don't get why vegetable oil isn't considered the fuel of the future.
It's carbon-neutral, so no global warming. It's entirely renewable. It
doesn't put anything worse out the back than a fossil-fuelled engine.
Energy density is comparable to fossil oil. The engine technology is
practically identical to existing engines (diesels at least). The
distribution channels would require minimal modification. Perhaps once
the fossil oil has run out Shell et al. will suddenly think it's a
great idea...


Tim
--
Guns Don’t Kill People, Rappers Do.

 

[Bob Myers]

"CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote in message
news:0KK_c.237499$tt1.12230793@phobos.telenet-ops.be...

Hybrids won't really delay the day
that the oil runs out.

Not as they're currently being made, now - meaning EVs
running off power generated by a more-efficient-than-usuall,
but still gasoline-burning, IC engine. But the beauty of the
hybrid model is that it really doesn't care what fuel, or what
type of engine, is being used to generate the electricity.
Once you've got a hybrid drive train in large-scale production,
it's not THAT big a step to move to another (but still
chemically based) generator system.

For instance - and I'm NOT really proposing this is better,
because I simply have NOT looked further into this and
am not expert in this field - perhaps a gas-turbine hybrid
might eventually come to the market. Turbines are pretty
good at handling a wide range of fuels and operating at
a constant speed...

Bob M.

 

[Jeff]

But so what? If I drive my little truck at 65 MPH for 2 hours
at optimum RPM without using the brakes, I get maybe 25 miles
per gallon, which is nowhere near the 70 MPG of the hybrid at
the same speed.

If I can throw in a question here, has anyone got real world experience
of the hybrid ( specifically prius) mpg?

My neighbor has a 2003 prius and is disappointed that she gets a yearly
average of 46mpg, daily driving including around town and some
interstate. She complained to the dealer and spoke to other owners at the
dealer. All basically say that's what they will do on average or it's
down to 'driving style'. This lady is early sixties and no lead foot.

My wife has a VW beetle diesel. Same conditions, mixed town and
interstate average last year was 49.6 mpg, even with me driving (with a
lead foot).

So - are these hybrids really as efficient as claimed?

Sure diesel has more specific energy per gallon than gas, but the bug is
nearly 350lbs heavier, a lot less aerodynamic and tyre with more rolling
resistance too...

 

[Bob Myers]

"Bill Bowden" <wrongaddress@att.net> wrote in message
news:ad025737.0409061546.171612a7@posting.google.com...

Yes, aerodynamics and tire friction are big factors, but the question
is, why do hybrid engines obtain so much better efficiency with
changing loads? Do they change RPM to compensate for load?

The gasoline engine part of the hybrid power train
doesn't actually SEE that dramatically changing load;
that's the whole point. The battery (or, in some cases
a "supercapacitor" array) does just what the energy
storage or "main filter" caps do in a power supply -
smooth out instantaneous changes in the load such that
the primary power source sees a more-or-less steady
demand.

My truck always runs between 2000 and 3000 RPM, as do most other
cars, so that must be close to optimum, and it's a fairly narrow range.

But the question you need to ask here is what "optimum"
means in this context. It's pretty much guaranteed that
this range is NOT where your truck's engine is putting out
its maximum power output (that would occur much higher).
But since the truck doesn't NEED the maximum power of
the engine very often, "optimum" in this case means that it's
loafing along. It's burning the least amount of gas that it
could while still being capable of the flexibility you need of
it, but it's NOT as efficient as using a much smaller engine
that IS operating at or near its peak output all the time.

Which do you think is more efficient, overall - a
conventional engine of, say, 150 HP max output that's
"loafing" at 2200 RPM (vs., say, a 5500 or higher RPM
point where that peak power is actually produced), or
a smaller, lighter, 30 or 40 HP engine that's running at
max output whenever it's running at all?

Bob M.

 

[CWatters]

"Jeff" <jeff@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns955CE378BBB0Bjeffnospamcom@199.45.49.11...

But so what? If I drive my little truck at 65 MPH for 2 hours
at optimum RPM without using the brakes, I get maybe 25 miles
per gallon, which is nowhere near the 70 MPG of the hybrid at
the same speed.


If I can throw in a question here, has anyone got real world experience
of the hybrid ( specifically prius) mpg?

45-52 seem typical. Search for MPG on this forum...

http://priusonline.com/index.php?sid=e3fa38e41d13b0fe27745435a30291b0

You could tell her to pump the tyres up see....

http://priusonline.com/viewtopic.php?t=2138&highlight=mpg&sid=e3fa38e41d13b0fe27745435a30291b0

 

[Bob Myers]

"Bill Bowden" <wrongaddress@att.net> wrote in message
news:ad025737.0409072032.54a0006c@posting.google.com...

Yes, but the battery or capacitor will not sustain the
load of going uphill very far. The full load will
eventually be on the gas engine, which may not be
capable of climbing hills very fast.

You're right - it won't sustain it very far. Properly
sizing the battery/capacitor/whatever - the "flywheel"
in the hybrid system - is one of the tradeoffs that has
to be made in the design of such vehicles.

That's why we need eer, so we have infinate storage capacity
and don't have to worry about climbing hills.

ROTFL...yeah, RIGHT. Don't tell me YOU'VE
gone over the dark side of Frank's delusions, too?

Good explanation, I wasn't thinking a big engine operating at
low power would be much different than a smaller engine
operating at full power, other than friction and weight.
The smaller engine would weigh less which would improve milage
and the larger engine probably has more internal friction which
decreases efficiency. Maybe there other factors.

But friction and weight are big deals! Look at the overall
efficiency of a typical IC engine, in terms of the total energy
released through the combustion of gasoline, and how much
actually makes it out of the engine in the form of mechanical
energy delivered to the rest of the drive train - and then see
where the losses occur. There's a LOT to be gained there.

I vote for the smaller engine, but how long will it last
running at full power all the time? Isn't it subjected to
(more than normal) wear and tear running at full speed?

Well, that would depends on what it's designed for
and how well it was designed in the first place, right?
And while "running flat out all the time" might at first
glance seem to be a Really Bad Thing for an engine,
consider the problems the engine faces in stop-and-start
driving as well.

Consider further some examples from those applications
in which engine weight and efficiency have been the
primary considerations, and NOT great flexibility in
operating speed and load - such as aircraft engines.
Both reciprocating (piston) and turbine (engines) in
aviation applications generally follow the "run flat out
all the time" model (well, not really "flat out," but
certainly close to the point of maximum overall
efficiency while cruising, and at a pretty constant speed.
Typical TBOs (time between overhaul) for piston
engines in light aircraft are generally in the 1500-2000
hour range; even if the AVERAGE speed of travel
over that period is only 100 MPH, you've wrung
150-200,000 miles of travel out of the engine. Yes,
this IS a very oversimplified look at this, but it does show,
I think, that running engines in such a regime is not
necessarily something that kills off the engine in short
order.

Bob M.

 

[CWatters]

"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:OCm%c.9876$Eb3.1404@news.cpqcorp.net...

It will still have some efficiency gains, but there's no
"magic bullet" that will let you extract 2-3X more MPG out
of a gallon of gas if you're already doing the rest of it right.

I don't think we expect 2x or 3x but the MPG figures seem to be almost the
same (perhaps only 10% better?). You can get better MPG by changing to a
diesel.

I can only think of three reasons to buy a hybrid car...

1) You care for the environment

...except if the MPG is the same it must be poluting the environment the same
(worse if you have heavy metals in the battery at the end of it's life?)

2) It saves you money

....except the saving doesn't seem to cover the increased cost.

3) You think they are cool.

....well I think all electric is cooler.

 

[FEerguy9]

That's why we need eer, so we have infinate storage capacity
and don't have to worry about climbing hills.

ROTFL...yeah, RIGHT. Don't tell me YOU'VE
gone over the dark side of Frank's delusions, too?

BOOOOO!!


fRANK

 

[R. Steve Walz]

FEerguy9 wrote:

Electronic electricity repository is an energy concept that aims to
------------------------------------------------------

Electronic electricity repository is an utterly unworkable, crackpot
energy
"concept" that apprently aims to entertain the readers of this group by
being
posted over and over and over again, despite it having been completely
discredited ten ways to Christmas a long, long time ago. It has
absolutely
no validity at all, and is about as likely to be used for "storing
electrical energy
from any source" as, say, an elephant is of flying to the Moon on
Cavorite
wings. EER is supposedly intended to accommodate such things as
electric
vehicles, home heating, etc., but since it's being proposed by someone
who
already admits that he knows nothing at all about this field, we really,
really
do have to assume that it's being presented here mostly as a weak
attempt at
humor. The funniest example of where "EER" would utterly fail to work
is
the
EV - Frank's crazy notion of an electric car that would run on an "ever-
accumulating" power source. That is to say, this nutcase - but
fortunately,
no
one else who possesses two brain cells to rub together, thinks that any
and
all
sources of electrical energy -- including "diffuse sources", whatever
the
hell
THOSE are supposed to be -- could be collected, combined and stored in
the
form of capacitance. Never mind that Frank doesn't understand that
energy
isn't stored "in the form of capacitance" in the first place, or even
the
first thing
about how capacitive storage actually works - this is HIS IDEA, by Gawd,
and
it just seems SO damned attractive (to him) that it simply MUST be
right!
But, wouldn't the capacitor plates be bigger than the vehicle? Well,
yes
they would,
but that's just the first in a long, long line of both practical and
theoretical objections
to this absurd idea. Of course, Frank has some idea - how this idea was
obtained
is unclear, although we can't put recreational pharmaceuticals out of
consideration
at this point - that a way to increase the surface area of the plates
*within a small
perimeter* could be fashioned. Never mind that this wouldn't have the
slightest
impact on the energy density capabilities of the capacitor in question,
something
that can easily be demonstrated by anyone who even barely passed
freshman
geometry - again, this idea is one which Frank is clearly in love with,
and
therefore
it MUST be right. And apparently, there simply isn't room within
Frank's
brain
for troublesome trivia like basic algebra, geometry, or physics. Some
might
suggest that Scanning Tunneling Microscope Technology might be used to
find
those locations within Frank's cerebrum where such things might still
reside, or
we could possible even employ nanotechnology to accomplish this
(although
this seems like a very cruel thing to do to a nanobot) -- but clearly,
to
locate
his understanding of these topics, we'll have to use SOME methods that
could
identify items roughly halfway to the molecular level. Doing this --
identifying
such massive ignorance within a small perimeter -- is the heart of any
attempt
to understand the source of "eer". Such a project is undoubtedly
needing a
commitment of funds roughly equal to that of the Human Genome Project,
which admittedly is taken on faith - and success could be many years
away.

I mean, just consider the level of absurdity we're up against here.
Frank
believes that "the object is to configure the plates and dielectric so
they
all
fit like Jell-O in a mold, and to make these all small in perimeter --
while
yielding
enormous surface area" - as if, again, that is somehow going to increase
the
amount of energy one could store in a given volume. We would also have
to
somehow understand how a statement like "it is expected that about 15
sources of renewable energy (solar, wind, wave, etc.) would be able to
contribute to the 'eer pool' of stored electrical energy" has anything
at
all
to do with the problems, no, the impossibilities, in what is being
discussed
here. In time, though, an examination of how stupidity and ignorance
can be stored in this way could effectively replace Saturday Night Live
and
Comedy Central combined as a source of much of the nation's
entertainment.

NOTE: EER absolutely, in no way, breaks the Second Law! It doesn't
have to, since there so many OTHER laws that it would have to break
to get even halfway toward being a viable concept.

If you're as tired of seeing this nonsense as some have claimed, you may
want to take it up with:

Frank Lincoln
FEerguy9@cs.com
eerguy9@aol.com
eerguy2000@yahoo.com

....but don't expect the rest of us to join you in this. We're having
too much fun laughing at this stuff!

By the way, In case you hadn't noticed, Frank is VERY weak
with computers. And physics. And math. And just about any
other subject you'd have to understand in order to actually make
a contribution in the field of energy generation and storage.


But, as he says, "this is no more than a guess from a novice"
and "there are some mistakes in here", showing that, if nothing
else, he is truly a master of extreme understatement.

In one sentence, he is saying that, despite all evidence and
arguments presented by those who actually DO understand
these subjects, that a very, very advanced capacitor is possible,
regardless of what those stupid ol' physics texts would have
you believe.

But it's by no means an energy concept.

And no, there is no 21st Law of Thermodynamics. Once again,
we already have more than sufficient laws to show what
nonsense this whole EER thing is.

But there IS a 21st Century Law of Crackpot Behavior.
Simply stated, it is, "No energy concept involving capacitance
shall ever be considered as unworthy of posting over and over
and over again, no matter how silly it is or how many times it
has been utterly discredited."

Freud could not have seen this coming, but then in his day, there
was not the multitude of diffuse (and obtuse) forms of crackpot
thinking that we are forced to contend with today.

There is NO way around this Law. By that, I mean that there is
apparently nothing we can do but continue to be subjected to
Frank's endless postings, and take whatever meager enjoyment
we can from them. There is simply no way to begin solving the
"diffuse" (at best!) nature of his understanding of the subjects
at hand before we would be able to put the energy behind his
constant posting to work in any effective way. Say, basket weaving
or bowling-ball polishing.


Just remeber that, in Frank's little world, and no matter what any
of us say, this will remain "A goal......an idea......a
prediction......."
Crackpotism is easy, and there is no shortage of such here.

After all, we ARE talking about someone who seriously believes
that, thanks SOLELY to his Marvelous Invention,

"We don't need oil.
We don't need batteries.
We don't need internal combustion engines.
We don't need fusion.
We don't need hybrids.
We don't need hydrogen-powered cars.
We don't need ethanol.
We don't need natural gas.
We don't need methane.
We don't even need efficiency.
We don't even need conservation."

I ask you - could one even hope for better evidence of the
absurdity of this whole idea than THAT?

 

[Bob Myers]

Electronic electricity repository is an utterly unworkable, crackpot energy
"concept" that apprently aims to entertain the readers of this group by
being posted over and over and over again, despite it having been completely
discredited ten ways to Christmas a long, long time ago. It has absolutely
no validity at all, and is about as likely to be used for "storing
electrical energy from any source" as, say, an elephant is of flying to the
Moon
on Cavorite wings. EER is supposedly intended to accommodate such
things as electric vehicles, home heating, etc., but since it's being
proposed
by someone who already admits that he knows nothing at all about this
field, we really, really do have to assume that it's being presented here
mostly as a weak attempt at humor. The funniest example of where
"EER" would utterly fail to work is the EV - Frank's crazy notion of an
electric car that would run on an "ever-accumulating" power source. That
is to say, this nutcase - but fortunately, no one else who possesses two
brain
cells to rub together, thinks that any and all sources of electrical
energy --
including "diffuse sources", whatever the hell THOSE are supposed to be
-- could be collected, combined and stored in the form of capacitance.
Never mind that Frank doesn't understand that energy isn't stored "in the
form of capacitance" in the first place, or even the first thing
about how capacitive storage actually works - this is HIS IDEA, by
Gawd, and it just seems SO damned attractive (to him) that it simply
MUST be right! But, wouldn't the capacitor plates be bigger than the
vehicle? Well, yes they would, but that's just the first in a long, long
line of both practical and theoretical objections
to this absurd idea. Of course, Frank has some idea - how this
idea was obtained is unclear, although we can't put recreational
pharmaceuticals out of consideration at this point - that a way to increase
the surface area of the plates *within a small perimeter* could be
fashioned. Never mind that this wouldn't have the slightest
impact on the energy density capabilities of the capacitor in question,
something that can easily be demonstrated by anyone who even barely
passed freshman geometry - again, this idea is one which Frank is
clearly in love with, and therefore it MUST be right. And apparently,
there simply isn't room within Frank's brain for troublesome trivia
like basic algebra, geometry, or physics. Some might suggest that
Scanning Tunneling Microscope Technology might be used to find
those locations within Frank's cerebrum where such things might still
reside, or we could possible even employ nanotechnology to accomplish
this (although this seems like a very cruel thing to do to a nanobot) -- but
clearly, to locate his understanding of these topics, we'll have to use SOME
methods that could identify items roughly halfway to the molecular level.
Doing this -- identifying such massive ignorance within a small perimeter
-- is the heart of any attempt to understand the source of "eer". Such
a project is undoubtedly needing a commitment of funds roughly equal
to that of the Human Genome Project, which admittedly is taken on faith
- and success could be many years away.

I mean, just consider the level of absurdity we're up against here. Frank
believes that "the object is to configure the plates and dielectric so they
all fit like Jell-O in a mold, and to make these all small in perimeter --
while yielding enormous surface area" - as if, again, that is somehow
going to increase the amount of energy one could store in a given
volume. We would also have to somehow understand how a statement
like "it is expected that about 15 sources of renewable energy
(solar, wind, wave, etc.) would be able to contribute to the 'eer pool'
of stored electrical energy" has anything at all
to do with the problems, no, the impossibilities, in what is being
discussed here. In time, though, an examination of how stupidity
and ignorance can be stored in this way could effectively replace
Saturday Night Live and Comedy Central combined as a source
of much of the nation's entertainment.

NOTE: EER absolutely, in no way, breaks the Second Law! It doesn't
have to, since there so many OTHER laws that it would have to break
to get even halfway toward being a viable concept.

If you're as tired of seeing this nonsense as some have claimed, you may
want to take it up with:

Frank Lincoln
FEerguy9@cs.com
eerguy9@aol.com
eerguy2000@yahoo.com

....but don't expect the rest of us to join you in this. We're having
too much fun laughing at this stuff!

By the way, In case you hadn't noticed, Frank is VERY weak
with computers. And physics. And math. And just about any
other subject you'd have to understand in order to actually make
a contribution in the field of energy generation and storage.


But, as he says, "this is no more than a guess from a novice"
and "there are some mistakes in here", showing that, if nothing
else, he is truly a master of extreme understatement.

In one sentence, he is saying that, despite all evidence and
arguments presented by those who actually DO understand
these subjects, that a very, very advanced capacitor is possible,
regardless of what those stupid ol' physics texts would have
you believe.

But it's by no means an energy concept.

And no, there is no 21st Law of Thermodynamics. Once again,
we already have more than sufficient laws to show what
nonsense this whole EER thing is.

But there IS a 21st Century Law of Crackpot Behavior.
Simply stated, it is, "No energy concept involving capacitance
shall ever be considered as unworthy of posting over and over
and over again, no matter how silly it is or how many times it
has been utterly discredited."

Freud could not have seen this coming, but then in his day, there
was not the multitude of diffuse (and obtuse) forms of crackpot
thinking that we are forced to contend with today.

There is NO way around this Law. By that, I mean that there is
apparently nothing we can do but continue to be subjected to
Frank's endless postings, and take whatever meager enjoyment
we can from them. There is simply no way to begin solving the
"diffuse" (at best!) nature of his understanding of the subjects
at hand before we would be able to put the energy behind his
constant posting to work in any effective way. Say, basket weaving
or bowling-ball polishing.


Just remeber that, in Frank's little world, and no matter what any
of us say, this will remain "A goal......an idea......a prediction......."
Crackpotism is easy, and there is no shortage of such here.

After all, we ARE talking about someone who seriously believes
that, thanks SOLELY to his Marvelous Invention,

"We don't need oil.
We don't need batteries.
We don't need internal combustion engines.
We don't need fusion.
We don't need hybrids.
We don't need hydrogen-powered cars.
We don't need ethanol.
We don't need natural gas.
We don't need methane.
We don't even need efficiency.
We don't even need conservation."

I ask you - could one even hope for better evidence of the
absurdity of this whole idea than THAT?

 

[FEerguy9]

feerguy9@cs.com (FEerguy9) wrote in message
news:<20040915034456.07779.00000497@mb-m25.news.cs.com>...

But, wouldn't the capacitor plates be bigger than the vehicle?
Well, yes they would, unless a way to increase the surface area of
the plates *within a small perimeter* could be fashioned.
The plates (and the dielectric) *must* match exactly, to gain
optimum charge.

No, the capacitor plates will not be bigger than the vehicle
because smaller plates will store much more energy for the same
charge. Why do you want to use big plates?

I do not.

I was just setting the stage for cap use+.+.+.+.+.read on, and I go to LENGTHS
TO EXPlain how to keep the pLATE SMAlL+.

One coulomb of charge in a 1 farad capacitor will give you
1/2 joule of energy. The same charge (1 coulomb) in a 1/2 farad
capacitor (which has smaller plates in the same perimeter) will
be 1 joule of energy, which is twice as much as the capacitor
with the bigger plates.

So, why are you using the big plates when smaller plates
will work better?

sEE ABOVE+.

fRANK

 

[CWatters]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20040918044818.27462.00000234@mb-m01.news.cs.com...

I was just setting the stage for cap use+.+.+.+.+.read on, and I go to
LENGTHS
TO EXPlain how to keep the pLATE SMAlL+.

I've never seen you explain HOW to make the plates smaller. What do you
think capacitor manufacturers do all day? They are constantly trying to make
capacitors smaller. If they can't do it you can't either.

 

[FEerguy9]

feerguy9@cs.com (FEerguy9) wrote in message
news:<20040918044818.27462.00000234@mb-m01.news.cs.com>...
feerguy9@cs.com (FEerguy9) wrote in message
news:<20040915034456.07779.00000497@mb-m25.news.cs.com>...

But, wouldn't the capacitor plates be bigger than the vehicle?
Well, yes they would, unless a way to increase the surface area of
the plates *within a small perimeter* could be fashioned.
The plates (and the dielectric) *must* match exactly, to gain
optimum charge.

No, the capacitor plates will not be bigger than the vehicle
because smaller plates will store much more energy for the same
charge. Why do you want to use big plates?

I do not.

I was just setting the stage for cap use+.+.+.+.+.read on, and I go to
LENGTHS
TO EXPlain how to keep the pLATE SMAlL+.


Good one Frank, you got me. I should have said "big capacitances"
instead of "big plates". The point is that large capacitances
such as you suggest using large surface area plates, store LESS energy
for the same charge than small capacitances with less plate surface area.
In other words, your theory of increasing capacitance to increase energy
in the same perimeter is pure Bull S@#$.

Do you have a problem with that?

Yes -- I am getting totaLly LOST IN THIS+.


fRANK

 

[FEerguy9]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20040918044818.27462.00000234@mb-m01.news.cs.com...

I was just setting the stage for cap use+.+.+.+.+.read on, and I go to
LENGTHS
TO EXPlain how to keep the pLATE SMAlL+.

I've never seen you explain HOW to make the plates smaller. What do you
think capacitor manufacturers do all day? They are constantly trying to make
capacitors smaller. If they can't do it you can't either.

i JUST CLaim that it is possibLE+.


fRANK

 

[CWatters]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20040920073949.16600.00000801@mb-m16.news.cs.com...

i JUST CLaim that it is possibLE+.

I claim it isn't then.

 

[FEerguy9]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20040920073949.16600.00000801@mb-m16.news.cs.com...

i JUST CLaim that it is possibLE+.


I claim it isn't then.

WeLl, then - you are out on a much thinner LIMB THAN i AM+.


fRANK

 

[Bob Myers]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20040920073642.16600.00000800@mb-m16.news.cs.com...

Yes -- I am getting totaLly LOST IN THIS+.

But then, you always have been, Frank.

And yet you still, for some reason, believe that you
have something worthwhile to say on the subject.

How do you reconcile these two?

Bob M.

 

[Bob Myers]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20040920073949.16600.00000801@mb-m16.news.cs.com...

i JUST CLaim that it is possibLE+.

Well, I claim that it is possible to put an elephant
into an ordinary aspirin bottle, too.

Both of us seem to have about the same amount of
reasoning and evidence in support of our statements.

Bob M.

 

[FEerguy9]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20040920073642.16600.00000800@mb-m16.news.cs.com...
Yes -- I am getting totaLly LOST IN THIS+.

But then, you always have been, Frank.

And yet you still, for some reason, believe that you
have something worthwhile to say on the subject.

How do you reconcile these two?

Bob M.

Because I make a fist, and LOOK AT IT+.

wITHIN THE VOlume of that fist, I just KNOW that enough energy coulD BE
ElectronicaLly stored to run an EV+.


Frank