Please stop calling them apps!

On Sat, 08 Jun 2019 18:09:31 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

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?

Because while I accept that Peter ucker has a degree repated
discussions with you give me the impression youi wouldn't even make
the entrance exams. This therefore raises the question of whether or
not you are Peter Hucker. Sorry.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 08 Jun 2019 18:09:06 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

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.

Please tell me the unit of power. (hint: its not joules).
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 08 Jun 2019 18:08:25 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

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.

I have already posted the following and you have responded. Never
mind. Here we go again:

Your car moves because it is being pushed along by the tractive effort
exerted by the wheels on on the road. This has to be enough to
overcome friction and the effects of gradient. If the tractive effort
is not sufficient the car will not move.

The tractive effort comes from the twisting force (torque) applied to
the centre of the driving wheels. The torque arrives from the engine
via trains of gears, the differential etc. If one is arithmetically
inclined the torque which has to be supplied by the engine by
calculating back from the tractive effort which has to be applied by
the wheels. If the engine is not capable of supplying that torque then
the car will not move. The car will move if the engine can supply the
necessary torque. This is always the case irrespective of how much
power the engine has.

The only effect of power is that it determines how fast the
torque-producing engine can drive the car.

2 x pi x rpm x torque
Power = -----------------------
33,000
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 04:37:59 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sat, 08 Jun 2019 18:08:25 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

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.

I have already posted the following and you have responded. Never
mind. Here we go again:

Your car moves because it is being pushed along by the tractive effort
exerted by the wheels on on the road. This has to be enough to
overcome friction and the effects of gradient. If the tractive effort
is not sufficient the car will not move.

The tractive effort comes from the twisting force (torque) applied to
the centre of the driving wheels. The torque arrives from the engine
via trains of gears, the differential etc. If one is arithmetically
inclined the torque which has to be supplied by the engine by
calculating back from the tractive effort which has to be applied by
the wheels. If the engine is not capable of supplying that torque then
the car will not move. The car will move if the engine can supply the
necessary torque. This is always the case irrespective of how much
power the engine has.

The only effect of power is that it determines how fast the
torque-producing engine can drive the car.

2 x pi x rpm x torque
Power = -----------------------
33,000

Yes, torque is something used in calculating how strong your engine is, but it's something in the middle of an equation. When I buy a battery, I want to know the amp hours, not the surface area of lithium inside it, although that will be required to calculate the amp hours.

On 09/06/2019 05.01, Eric Stevens wrote:
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.


Indeed. Quoting properly is leaving the bare minimum.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 18:54:19 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 09/06/2019 05.01, Eric Stevens wrote:
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.

Indeed. Quoting properly is leaving the bare minimum.

What you have quoted there is about right. 5 levels. When I see it reach 10, I cut it down to 5.

In article , Commander Kinsey
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.

Indeed. Quoting properly is leaving the bare minimum.

What you have quoted there is about right. 5 levels. When I see it reach 10, I
cut it down to 5.

no you don't.

On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 04:35:00 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sat, 08 Jun 2019 18:09:06 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

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.

Please tell me the unit of power. (hint: its not joules).

To lift something up a certain height, you need energy, not power.

And the unit of power certainly isn't in pound feet. It's watts, which is very easily obtainable from joules.

On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 04:33:56 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sat, 08 Jun 2019 18:09:31 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

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?

Because while I accept that Peter ucker has a degree repated
discussions with you give me the impression youi wouldn't even make
the entrance exams. This therefore raises the question of whether or
not you are Peter Hucker. Sorry.

I got in with a bursary actually (as in they paid me to enter). Tell me how to prove it to you and I will.

On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 19:00:48 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 18:54:19 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 09/06/2019 05.01, Eric Stevens wrote:
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.

Indeed. Quoting properly is leaving the bare minimum.

What you have quoted there is about right. 5 levels. When I see it reach 10, I cut it down to 5.

Balls! I'm not aware of you cutting anything down in any thread you
have particiated in. I'm not saying you haven't but its far from your
usual practise.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 21:15:17 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 04:35:00 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sat, 08 Jun 2019 18:09:06 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

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.

Please tell me the unit of power. (hint: its not joules).

To lift something up a certain height, you need energy, not power.

Please note your last sentence.

And how much energy is required to climb a hill?

And the unit of power certainly isn't in pound feet.

"pound feet" is a moment, a torque. You may mean foot.pounds which is
something quite different.

It's watts, which is very easily obtainable from joules.

And which is as relelvant to the fundamental hill-climbing question as
are the watts in your electricity bill.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 18:51:48 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 04:37:59 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sat, 08 Jun 2019 18:08:25 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

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.

I have already posted the following and you have responded. Never
mind. Here we go again:

Your car moves because it is being pushed along by the tractive effort
exerted by the wheels on on the road. This has to be enough to
overcome friction and the effects of gradient. If the tractive effort
is not sufficient the car will not move.

The tractive effort comes from the twisting force (torque) applied to
the centre of the driving wheels. The torque arrives from the engine
via trains of gears, the differential etc. If one is arithmetically
inclined the torque which has to be supplied by the engine by
calculating back from the tractive effort which has to be applied by
the wheels. If the engine is not capable of supplying that torque then
the car will not move. The car will move if the engine can supply the
necessary torque. This is always the case irrespective of how much
power the engine has.

The only effect of power is that it determines how fast the
torque-producing engine can drive the car.

2 x pi x rpm x torque
Power = -----------------------
33,000

Yes, torque is something used in calculating how strong your engine is, but it's something in the middle of an equation. When I buy a battery, I want to know the amp hours, not the surface area of lithium inside it, although that will be required to calculate the amp hours.

How Bizarre! (I'm referring to your answer).
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 6/9/19 12:54 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

[snip]

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.


Indeed. Quoting properly is leaving the bare minimum.

I agree with that, and find proper quoting much more important than
top-posting or bottom-posting.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Sensible men no longer believe in miracles; they were invented by
priests to humbug the peasants." [King Alfonso]

On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 01:38:51 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 18:51:48 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 04:37:59 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sat, 08 Jun 2019 18:08:25 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

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.

I have already posted the following and you have responded. Never
mind. Here we go again:

Your car moves because it is being pushed along by the tractive effort
exerted by the wheels on on the road. This has to be enough to
overcome friction and the effects of gradient. If the tractive effort
is not sufficient the car will not move.

The tractive effort comes from the twisting force (torque) applied to
the centre of the driving wheels. The torque arrives from the engine
via trains of gears, the differential etc. If one is arithmetically
inclined the torque which has to be supplied by the engine by
calculating back from the tractive effort which has to be applied by
the wheels. If the engine is not capable of supplying that torque then
the car will not move. The car will move if the engine can supply the
necessary torque. This is always the case irrespective of how much
power the engine has.

The only effect of power is that it determines how fast the
torque-producing engine can drive the car.

2 x pi x rpm x torque
Power = -----------------------
33,000

Yes, torque is something used in calculating how strong your engine is, but it's something in the middle of an equation. When I buy a battery, I want to know the amp hours, not the surface area of lithium inside it, although that will be required to calculate the amp hours.

How Bizarre! (I'm referring to your answer).

What's bizarre about my answer?

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 19:21:41 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 01:38:51 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 18:51:48 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 04:37:59 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sat, 08 Jun 2019 18:08:25 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

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.

I have already posted the following and you have responded. Never
mind. Here we go again:

Your car moves because it is being pushed along by the tractive effort
exerted by the wheels on on the road. This has to be enough to
overcome friction and the effects of gradient. If the tractive effort
is not sufficient the car will not move.

The tractive effort comes from the twisting force (torque) applied to
the centre of the driving wheels. The torque arrives from the engine
via trains of gears, the differential etc. If one is arithmetically
inclined the torque which has to be supplied by the engine by
calculating back from the tractive effort which has to be applied by
the wheels. If the engine is not capable of supplying that torque then
the car will not move. The car will move if the engine can supply the
necessary torque. This is always the case irrespective of how much
power the engine has.

The only effect of power is that it determines how fast the
torque-producing engine can drive the car.

2 x pi x rpm x torque
Power = -----------------------
33,000

Yes, torque is something used in calculating how strong your engine is, but it's something in the middle of an equation. When I buy a battery, I want to know the amp hours, not the surface area of lithium inside it, although that will be required to calculate the amp hours.

How Bizarre! (I'm referring to your answer).

What's bizarre about my answer?

What part of it is relevant to the point I was making?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens