Please stop calling them apps!

On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 17:32:35 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 12:15:40 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 20:19:09 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

You need a course in physics and mechanics.

I've done one. And I know horsepower is accurate.

Irrespective of what you think you know, you seem to understand
damn-all.

Why do you think HP would have an inherent error margin?

That's not what I think at all. Horse power is not the determinant of
whether or not you can climb the hill. I've already told you that.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 17:32:14 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 12:16:58 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 22:46:58 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

I have common sense, which means I think in terms of power output. Torque means precisely **** all, because depending on the revs, you can have a completely different output.

Exactly. One will let you climb a hill. With another you haven't got a
dogs show.

And all I need to know is the horsepower available. I want to know if it equates to enough to lift the mass of the car up the hill at the speed I want.

And how do you determine that?

From the HP graph of the engine.

Never mind. I've already given you the answer.

Which you have either not read or understood.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 06/06/2019 21.24, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 01:47:07 +0100, Carlos E.R.
wrote:

On 05/06/2019 21.24, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jun 2019 19:57:17 +0100, Carlos E.R.
wrote:

On 03/06/2019 21.15, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jun 2019 08:16:12 +0100, Carlos E.R.
wrote:

On 01/06/2019 16.26, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jun 2019 14:06:52 +0100, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On 5/31/19 5:53 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

[snip]

That's because they speak legalese and not English, they live
in the
last century.* At least.

I remember when I looked at a will and saw the word "decedent"
(DEE-CEE-DENT). It took awhile to notice that the word was NOT
"decadent" (DECK-UH-DUNT).

Indeed, they either make words up or use ones that were taken from
common usage 100s of years ago.

Same thing here. But my guess is they use words that have specific
legal
meaning in whatever idiom. Using everyday language would need them
first
defining what each word means.

They ought to buy a dictionary.

They do, they certainly do. A legal dictionary.

There is only one language in use, English.

LOL!* Certainly not.

Are you being childish and pedantic and bringing in foreign countries?

All languages have different, lets call them, languages, inside. In this
case, the legal language. They use different words than the rest, they
have a different dictionary. It is still the same main language, lets
say, English, but different. They use words that for them they have an
specific meaning.

I can give you an actual example translated from my language. There was
a media that gave some information that was false. The affected sued,
and lost. The court said the information was "veracious". The meaning of
the word for the justice system is that the media did try sufficiently
and within their means to verify the information, no matter if it was
actually true or false as proven later. So that particular media now
insists to repeat that false information on every occasion they are on
TV, saying that the court decreed it was veracious and that the other
part lost the case, knowing that the watchers will translate it as
"truthful", when it is not. But the media stays clear of ever saying
that the information is "truthful", knowing that if the say so they will
be sued instantly, and this time they'd loose.


I'm sure that if you dig enough, you know that English also has a legal
language, and that they can not use normal English.


--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 07/06/2019 18.33, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 12:13:29 +0100, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 20:43:26 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

* --- snip ---

What exactly is the point in torque measurements?* It changes with
revs, just like horsepower does.* You can't say "this engine has x
torque, now multiply that by revs to give horsepower", because the
graph is never linear.* You need the graph.

I've just given you the answer in another post.

Do you think you could learn to snip?

Do you think you could learn not to?* There's no ****ing context above.*
Nobody can follow the discussion.

Sure we can.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Sat, 08 Jun 2019 09:54:12 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 07/06/2019 18.33, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 12:13:29 +0100, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 20:43:26 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

--- snip ---

What exactly is the point in torque measurements? It changes with
revs, just like horsepower does. You can't say "this engine has x
torque, now multiply that by revs to give horsepower", because the
graph is never linear. You need the graph.

I've just given you the answer in another post.

Do you think you could learn to snip?

Do you think you could learn not to? There's no ****ing context above.Nobody can follow the discussion.

Sure we can.

How do you follow what does not exist?

On Sat, 08 Jun 2019 09:51:37 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 06/06/2019 21.24, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 01:47:07 +0100, Carlos E.R.
wrote:

On 05/06/2019 21.24, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jun 2019 19:57:17 +0100, Carlos E.R.
wrote:

On 03/06/2019 21.15, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jun 2019 08:16:12 +0100, Carlos E.R.
wrote:

On 01/06/2019 16.26, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jun 2019 14:06:52 +0100, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On 5/31/19 5:53 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

[snip]

That's because they speak legalese and not English, they live
in the
last century. At least.

I remember when I looked at a will and saw the word "decedent"
(DEE-CEE-DENT). It took awhile to notice that the word was NOT
"decadent" (DECK-UH-DUNT).

Indeed, they either make words up or use ones that were taken from
common usage 100s of years ago.

Same thing here. But my guess is they use words that have specific
legal
meaning in whatever idiom. Using everyday language would need them
first
defining what each word means.

They ought to buy a dictionary.

They do, they certainly do. A legal dictionary.

There is only one language in use, English.

LOL! Certainly not.

Are you being childish and pedantic and bringing in foreign countries?

All languages have different, lets call them, languages, inside. In this
case, the legal language. They use different words than the rest, they
have a different dictionary. It is still the same main language, lets
say, English, but different. They use words that for them they have an
specific meaning.

I can give you an actual example translated from my language. There was
a media that gave some information that was false. The affected sued,
and lost. The court said the information was "veracious". The meaning of
the word for the justice system is that the media did try sufficiently
and within their means to verify the information, no matter if it was
actually true or false as proven later. So that particular media now
insists to repeat that false information on every occasion they are on
TV, saying that the court decreed it was veracious and that the other
part lost the case, knowing that the watchers will translate it as
"truthful", when it is not. But the media stays clear of ever saying
that the information is "truthful", knowing that if the say so they will
be sued instantly, and this time they'd loose.


I'm sure that if you dig enough, you know that English also has a legal
language, and that they can not use normal English.

For one of two reasons. Either they're stupid, or they realise that if the legal profession spoke real English we wouldn't need lawyers anymore and they all be out of a job.

On Sat, 08 Jun 2019 05:33:08 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 17:32:14 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 12:16:58 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 22:46:58 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

I have common sense, which means I think in terms of power output. Torque means precisely **** all, because depending on the revs, you can have a completely different output.

Exactly. One will let you climb a hill. With another you haven't got a
dogs show.

And all I need to know is the horsepower available. I want to know if it equates to enough to lift the mass of the car up the hill at the speed I want.

And how do you determine that?

From the HP graph of the engine.

Never mind. I've already given you the answer.

Which you have either not read or understood.

I don't have time to read every post, if you want to discuss something, you need to put it here. In this post.

On Sat, 08 Jun 2019 05:32:05 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 17:32:35 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 12:15:40 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 20:19:09 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

You need a course in physics and mechanics.

I've done one. And I know horsepower is accurate.

Irrespective of what you think you know, you seem to understand
damn-all.

Why do you think HP would have an inherent error margin?

That's not what I think at all. Horse power is not the determinant of
whether or not you can climb the hill. I've already told you that.

Of course it is. You need x amount of joules to lift y amount of weight up z amount of height. HP tells you how many joules you can get.

On Sat, 08 Jun 2019 05:24:04 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 17:32:47 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 12:14:31 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 20:18:51 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

He claims an honours degree in physics. I find it hard to believe.

Google for it. Dundee University, Peter Hucker, graduated 1997.

I still find it hard to believe.

Accuse Google of lying then.

Is your name really Peter Hucker?

Yes, but I've never played for Queens Park Rangers.

Now, why did you ask that question?

On Sat, 08 Jun 2019 05:23:22 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 17:33:15 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 12:13:29 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 20:43:26 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

--- snip ---

What exactly is the point in torque measurements? It changes with revs, just like horsepower does. You can't say "this engine has x torque, now multiply that by revs to give horsepower", because the graph is never linear. You need the graph.

I've just given you the answer in another post.

Do you think you could learn to snip?

Do you think you could learn not to? There's no ****ing context above. Nobody can follow the discussion.

Nor can anyone be bothered trying to with that long trail of
introductory garbage.

Buy a wheelmouse. It takes a fraction of a second for me to spool to the bit I want to read, and I can go back several levels if necessary to see what was being talked about.

On 08/06/2019 19.06, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jun 2019 09:54:12 +0100, Carlos E.R.
wrote:

On 07/06/2019 18.33, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 12:13:29 +0100, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 20:43:26 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

* --- snip ---

What exactly is the point in torque measurements?* It changes with
revs, just like horsepower does.* You can't say "this engine has x
torque, now multiply that by revs to give horsepower", because the
graph is never linear.* You need the graph.

I've just given you the answer in another post.

Do you think you could learn to snip?

Do you think you could learn not to?* There's no ****ing context
above.Nobody can follow the discussion.

Sure we can.

How do you follow what does not exist?

We can look on the posts made hours or days earlier and read the
original post, no problem.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Sat, 08 Jun 2019 18:28:02 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 08/06/2019 19.06, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jun 2019 09:54:12 +0100, Carlos E.R.
wrote:

On 07/06/2019 18.33, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 12:13:29 +0100, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 20:43:26 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

--- snip ---

What exactly is the point in torque measurements? It changes with
revs, just like horsepower does. You can't say "this engine has x
torque, now multiply that by revs to give horsepower", because the
graph is never linear. You need the graph.

I've just given you the answer in another post.

Do you think you could learn to snip?

Do you think you could learn not to? There's no ****ing context
above.Nobody can follow the discussion.

Sure we can.

How do you follow what does not exist?

We can look on the posts made hours or days earlier and read the
original post, no problem.

Why on earth would I bother consulting other posts to make sense of this one? Anything referred to in this post should be quoted above.

On 08/06/2019 19.40, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jun 2019 18:28:02 +0100, Carlos E.R.
wrote:

....

We can look on the posts made hours or days earlier and read the
original post, no problem.

Why on earth would I bother consulting other posts to make sense of this
one?* Anything referred to in this post should be quoted above.

And anything not referred should be deleted, which was the point Eric
made. If you find you need more, search :-P

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Sat, 08 Jun 2019 22:29:39 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 08/06/2019 19.40, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jun 2019 18:28:02 +0100, Carlos E.R.
wrote:

...

We can look on the posts made hours or days earlier and read the
original post, no problem.

Why on earth would I bother consulting other posts to make sense of this
one? Anything referred to in this post should be quoted above.

And anything not referred should be deleted, which was the point Eric
made. If you find you need more, search :-P

No, I can't be bothered. Quote properly or **** off.

On Sat, 08 Jun 2019 22:46:32 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Sat, 08 Jun 2019 22:29:39 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 08/06/2019 19.40, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jun 2019 18:28:02 +0100, Carlos E.R.
wrote:

...

We can look on the posts made hours or days earlier and read the
original post, no problem.

Why on earth would I bother consulting other posts to make sense of this
one? Anything referred to in this post should be quoted above.

And anything not referred should be deleted, which was the point Eric
made. If you find you need more, search :-P

No, I can't be bothered. Quote properly or **** off.

Some threads are extraordinarily long and complicated. You would not
want the contents of such threads in one post. Especially when you
have already read the contents of the previous 127 posts in preceding
posts.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens