Please stop calling them apps!

On 30/05/2019 21.48, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2019 04:49:38 +0100, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Wed, 29 May 2019 18:14:05 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:


....

For what it is worth, if I am travelling at a
steady 50kph and suddenly plant my foot on the
accelerator, the car will not accelerate
imediately. Certainly the engine revs increase as
the engine speeds up to match 2nd gear at 50kph.
Only when it gets there does the car start to
accelerate.

You must have a really **** car.* My autos were 1988, 1998 and
1999.* Every one of them accelerated instantly I pressed the
pedal.

Rubbish! No engine has instant acceleration.

Of course it does.* As soon as more fuel is available and/or a lower
gear is selected, more power is applied to the wheels.

Right. So you haven't studied applied mechanics. Infinite acceleration
requires infinite force. No engine can go from 1200rpm to 4000rpm
instantaneously.

When did I say it changed instantly to 4000?* I said instant
acceleration, which means the car begins speeding up immediately.* Of
course this is possible.

That's also what I understand by "instant acceleration". There is
acceleration instantly, and it takes some time to get to the desired
speed. The acceleration can also take some time to grow, maybe
milliseconds for an electric motor. The magnetic fields take time to
build up, the gases take time to burn inside the motor.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2019 20:07:54 +0100, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
Which makes perfect sense, when your car moves, it's because you've
engaged the clutch, not killed it.

Actually if you *engage* the clutch you will *not* move, you have to
*disengage* a clutch in order to link engine output shaft to drive
shaft. Been driving a standard transmission for over 45 years...

Wrong wrong wrong.* When you press the pedal you DISengage the clutch.*
Engaging the clutch brings the plates together so power passes to the
wheels.

Concede you are correct. However executables can be executed just like
duties and procedures. Nothing wrong with synonyms.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

On 30/05/2019 22.57, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2019 20:24:57 +0100, Carlos E.R.
wrote:

On 29/05/2019 19.14, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2019 04:15:13 +0100, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2019 20:50:51 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:



For what it is worth, if I am travelling at a steady 50kph and
suddenly plant my foot on the accelerator, the car will not
accelerate
imediately. Certainly the engine revs increase as the engine
speeds up
to match 2nd gear at 50kph. Only when it gets there does the car
start
to accelerate.

You must have a really **** car.* My autos were 1988, 1998 and
1999.* Every one of them accelerated instantly I pressed the
pedal.

Rubbish! No engine has instant acceleration.

Of course it does.* As soon as more fuel is available and/or a lower
gear is selected, more power is applied to the wheels.

Lower gear does not apply more power, it applies more torque. The power
output from the engine is basically the same for the same fuel. If there
is more power, there is more pressure on the accelerator.

Lower gear means higher revs for the same car speed, thus you have more
power from the engine.* Higher revs means more fuel burning cycles, so
more power.* Think about encountering a steep hill in 5th gear, your car
will not go up it.* Select 3rd and it will, because there's more power.

Not really. With my car I have done the experiment, as it has a display
saying the instant amount of fuel it uses per 100 Km. It is traditional
manual shift, as typical here. I change from 5th to 4th while climbing
and the fuel flow is roughly the same.

There is some difference because as the motor turns faster the turbo is
more efficient and the engine should use less fuel at a lower gear...
which is not intuitive.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Thu, 30 May 2019 22:19:34 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 30/05/2019 22.57, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2019 20:24:57 +0100, Carlos E.R.
wrote:

On 29/05/2019 19.14, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2019 04:15:13 +0100, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2019 20:50:51 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:



For what it is worth, if I am travelling at a steady 50kph and
suddenly plant my foot on the accelerator, the car will not
accelerate
imediately. Certainly the engine revs increase as the engine
speeds up
to match 2nd gear at 50kph. Only when it gets there does the car
start
to accelerate.

You must have a really **** car. My autos were 1988, 1998 and
1999. Every one of them accelerated instantly I pressed the
pedal.

Rubbish! No engine has instant acceleration.

Of course it does. As soon as more fuel is available and/or a lower
gear is selected, more power is applied to the wheels.

Lower gear does not apply more power, it applies more torque. The power
output from the engine is basically the same for the same fuel. If there
is more power, there is more pressure on the accelerator.

Lower gear means higher revs for the same car speed, thus you have more
power from the engine. Higher revs means more fuel burning cycles, so
more power. Think about encountering a steep hill in 5th gear, your car
will not go up it. Select 3rd and it will, because there's more power.

Not really. With my car I have done the experiment, as it has a display
saying the instant amount of fuel it uses per 100 Km. It is traditional
manual shift, as typical here. I change from 5th to 4th while climbing
and the fuel flow is roughly the same.

There is some difference because as the motor turns faster the turbo is
more efficient and the engine should use less fuel at a lower gear...
which is not intuitive.

Surely an engine can burn x amount of fuel per cycle. If you change down to 4th, you're revving higher, so it can take more fuel. If that wasn't true, how do you explain a car being able to climb a hill in 4th that it can't in 5th?

On Thu, 30 May 2019 22:18:21 +0100, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2019 20:07:54 +0100, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
Which makes perfect sense, when your car moves, it's because you've
engaged the clutch, not killed it.

Actually if you *engage* the clutch you will *not* move, you have to
*disengage* a clutch in order to link engine output shaft to drive
shaft. Been driving a standard transmission for over 45 years...

Wrong wrong wrong. When you press the pedal you DISengage the clutch.Engaging the clutch brings the plates together so power passes to the
wheels.

Concede you are correct. However executables can be executed just like
duties and procedures. Nothing wrong with synonyms.

I would never say I executed my duty, I'd say I carried it out, or did it.

On Thu, 30 May 2019 22:14:26 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:


On 30/05/2019 21.48, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2019 04:49:38 +0100, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Wed, 29 May 2019 18:14:05 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:


...

For what it is worth, if I am travelling at a
steady 50kph and suddenly plant my foot on the
accelerator, the car will not accelerate
imediately. Certainly the engine revs increase as
the engine speeds up to match 2nd gear at 50kph.
Only when it gets there does the car start to
accelerate.

You must have a really **** car. My autos were 1988, 1998 and
1999. Every one of them accelerated instantly I pressed the
pedal.

Rubbish! No engine has instant acceleration.

Of course it does. As soon as more fuel is available and/or a lower
gear is selected, more power is applied to the wheels.

Right. So you haven't studied applied mechanics. Infinite acceleration
requires infinite force. No engine can go from 1200rpm to 4000rpm
instantaneously.

When did I say it changed instantly to 4000? I said instant
acceleration, which means the car begins speeding up immediately. Of
course this is possible.

That's also what I understand by "instant acceleration". There is
acceleration instantly, and it takes some time to get to the desired
speed. The acceleration can also take some time to grow, maybe
milliseconds for an electric motor. The magnetic fields take time to
build up, the gases take time to burn inside the motor.

The longest time is probably for the engine to increase revs. But that's "instant" when viewing from the speed of the human brain.

On 5/30/2019 5:18 PM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2019 20:07:54 +0100, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
Which makes perfect sense, when your car moves, it's because you've
engaged the clutch, not killed it.

Actually if you *engage* the clutch you will *not* move, you have to
*disengage* a clutch in order to link engine output shaft to drive
shaft. Been driving a standard transmission for over 45 years...

Wrong wrong wrong.* When you press the pedal you DISengage the clutch.
Engaging the clutch brings the plates together so power passes to the
wheels.

Concede you are correct. However executables can be executed just like
duties and procedures. Nothing wrong with synonyms.

....and then, in judged sports:
[gymnastics example]
Execution Score (E)

The B Panel judges execution faults, artistry, falls and any other
mistakes made. The score starts at 10 and points are deducted
accordingly to form the gymnast’s “E Score”. The B Panel consists of six
judges.

The final score is determined by adding the Difficulty Score (D Score)
and the Execution Score (E Score).
--
==
Later...
Ron C
--

On Thu, 30 May 2019 21:15:55 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 29/05/2019 12.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2019 08:03:48 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 29/05/2019 03.44, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2019 22:07:20 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2019 14:22:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 5/24/19 5:36 PM, Peter Jason wrote:


anyone buying an electric vehicle would likely upgrade their garage
wiring.

Why bother. A petrol engine is cheaper to buy & run, has proven
technology, and a longer range by far.

Where are they getting the fuel to generate all the electricity for
electric cars. Coal? Nuclear?

They claim that the generating plants are much more efficient than car
engines. I don't know if that's true or not.

Electric cars allow the use of renewable energy sources (solar, wind,
hydro, etc) thereby reducing carbon emissions, plus reduce pollution in
cities.

Yes. Charging your car overnight with the solar power cells on the
roof of your house makes particular sense.

Snark noted. There are other forms of renewable energy that work in the
dark. Also cars are charged at all times of the day. You may have noticed
that cars spend most of the time parked.

Are you aware that wind power requires that a usually fuel burning
power plant remains on line to keep it backed up through wind
fluctuations? That doesn't make it cheaper or reduce carbon emissions.

Of course it does. Uk carbon intensity has dropped 17% since 2016.
http://www.mygridgb.co.uk/last-12-months/

Its only cheaper if you dont count the cost of maintaining a spinning
reserve.

Even if you do. An iddling engine uses little fuel.

The mix passes on all costs.

It might not be using much fuel but it is still incurring capital
charges, maintenance, depreciation and staff salaries and wages. It
wouldn't cost much more to run even if it was at full power.

They know all that when they bid.

For the sake of clarity, who is 'they' and what are they bidding for?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 29 May 2019 23:13:08 -0400, Paul
wrote:

--- snip ---

So what. The net result is still a reduction in CO2 emissions per unit of
energy generated. That is what's relevant and important.

Its marginal. Some calculations of lifetime carbon suggest that wind
generators in particular generate more CO2 over their lifetime than is
saved by their use.

To be generous, 5% of the lifecycle is needed to pay back
real and imaginary costs. 20 year lifetime for a wind generator,
1 year payback. The materials in the wind generator are 80
percent recyclable.

Not all that GRP/Carbon structure. Not the massive reinforced concrete
base in the ground.

https://www.saskwind.ca/blogbackend/...a-wind-turbine

And that's from a province in Canada that still uses a lot
of coal, because they have no hydro, and the place is as
flat as a plank. (It would be hard to build a pumped
storage system there. There's no natural formation suitable
for building one.)

https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pm...-56-turbines-2

"The Canadian Wind Energy Association says Saskatchewan
had 221 megawatts of installed wind energy capacity as of August.

Ontario generates the most with 5,076 megawatts followed
by Quebec at 3,882 and Alberta at 1,483."

"Saskatchewan currently has 143 wind turbines that make up
around three per cent of the total generation fleet."

And Quebec and Ontario base loads are provided by hydro (Quebec)
and nuclear (Ontario).

You are going to see a massive increase in network costs.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 30 May 2019 17:12:05 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2019 10:46:29 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2019 09:20:16 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2019 22:07:20 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2019 14:22:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 5/24/19 5:36 PM, Peter Jason wrote:


anyone buying an electric vehicle would likely upgrade their garage
wiring.

Why bother. A petrol engine is cheaper to buy & run, has proven
technology, and a longer range by far.

Where are they getting the fuel to generate all the electricity for
electric cars. Coal? Nuclear?

They claim that the generating plants are much more efficient than car
engines. I don't know if that's true or not.

Electric cars allow the use of renewable energy sources (solar, wind,
hydro, etc) thereby reducing carbon emissions, plus reduce pollution in
cities.

Yes. Charging your car overnight with the solar power cells on the
roof of your house makes particular sense.

Snark noted. There are other forms of renewable energy that work in the
dark. Also cars are charged at all times of the day. You may have noticed
that cars spend most of the time parked.

Are you aware that wind power requires that a usually fuel burning
power plant remains on line to keep it backed up through wind
fluctuations? That doesn't make it cheaper or reduce carbon emissions.

Of course it does. Uk carbon intensity has dropped 17% since 2016.
http://www.mygridgb.co.uk/last-12-months/

Its only cheaper if you dont count the cost of maintaining a spinning
reserve.

Nope. There's always been a spinning reserve to cope with sudden surges.
Renewables don't change that. There's always going to be mix as each type
of generator has pros and cons. Nuclear is cheap, but slow; hydro is very
fast, but limited; renewables are very cheap, but unreliable.

Both solar and wind have a highre demand on spinning reserve than just
about anything else.

So what. The net result is still a reduction in CO2 emissions per unit of
energy generated. That is what's relevant and important.

Its marginal.

No it's not. I provided a link that shows a 17% improvement in carbon
efficiency.

There is nothing to say that is attributable to wind or solar. It is
likely that a considerable part of the reduction comes from switching
from coal to gas as a fuel.

Some calculations of lifetime carbon suggest that wind
generators in particular generate more CO2 over their lifetime than is
saved by their use.

Evidence?

It was a while ago and if I could have found a link I would already
have given it to you. In anycase, the nett liftime CO2 depends upon
the network in which the wind generators are being used.


--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 30 May 2019 21:18:58 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 30/05/2019 03.00, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2019 10:46:29 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2019 09:20:16 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2019 22:07:20 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2019 14:22:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 5/24/19 5:36 PM, Peter Jason wrote:


anyone buying an electric vehicle would likely upgrade their garage
wiring.

Why bother. A petrol engine is cheaper to buy & run, has proven
technology, and a longer range by far.

Where are they getting the fuel to generate all the electricity for
electric cars. Coal? Nuclear?

They claim that the generating plants are much more efficient than car
engines. I don't know if that's true or not.

Electric cars allow the use of renewable energy sources (solar, wind,
hydro, etc) thereby reducing carbon emissions, plus reduce pollution in
cities.

Yes. Charging your car overnight with the solar power cells on the
roof of your house makes particular sense.

Snark noted. There are other forms of renewable energy that work in the
dark. Also cars are charged at all times of the day. You may have noticed
that cars spend most of the time parked.

Are you aware that wind power requires that a usually fuel burning
power plant remains on line to keep it backed up through wind
fluctuations? That doesn't make it cheaper or reduce carbon emissions.

Of course it does. Uk carbon intensity has dropped 17% since 2016.
http://www.mygridgb.co.uk/last-12-months/

Its only cheaper if you dont count the cost of maintaining a spinning
reserve.

Nope. There's always been a spinning reserve to cope with sudden surges.
Renewables don't change that. There's always going to be mix as each type
of generator has pros and cons. Nuclear is cheap, but slow; hydro is very
fast, but limited; renewables are very cheap, but unreliable.

Both solar and wind have a highre demand on spinning reserve than just
about anything else.

So what. The net result is still a reduction in CO2 emissions per unit of
energy generated. That is what's relevant and important.

Its marginal. Some calculations of lifetime carbon suggest that wind
generators in particular generate more CO2 over their lifetime than is
saved by their use.

What about the energy needed to build the coal or gas generators?

Assuming its a steam plant experience shows that the lifetime is about
40 years. Likewise, experience is now showing that the average life
expectancy of wind generators is about 10 years. That tends to
equalize the amortizing of the initial input.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 31 May 2019 00:57:37 +0100, Ron C wrote:

On 5/30/2019 5:18 PM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2019 20:07:54 +0100, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
Which makes perfect sense, when your car moves, it's because you've
engaged the clutch, not killed it.

Actually if you *engage* the clutch you will *not* move, you have to
*disengage* a clutch in order to link engine output shaft to drive
shaft. Been driving a standard transmission for over 45 years...

Wrong wrong wrong. When you press the pedal you DISengage the clutch.
Engaging the clutch brings the plates together so power passes to the
wheels.

Concede you are correct. However executables can be executed just like
duties and procedures. Nothing wrong with synonyms.

...and then, in judged sports:
[gymnastics example]
Execution Score (E)

The B Panel judges execution faults, artistry, falls and any other
mistakes made. The score starts at 10 and points are deducted
accordingly to form the gymnast’s “E Score�. The B Panel consists of six
judges.

The final score is determined by adding the Difficulty Score (D Score)
and the Execution Score (E Score).

What's wrong with "implementation", "performance", etc? I don't believe in gymnastics there's any fights breaking out and extra points for removing your competitors from the line-up by death.

On 2019-05-31, Eric Stevens wrote:
It was a while ago and if I could have found a link I would already
have given it to you. In anycase, the nett liftime CO2 depends upon
the network in which the wind generators are being used.

The net lifetime of CO2 is irrelevant because CO2 is not a pollutant.

The "global warming/climate change" scam has nothing to do with the
environment. It's about greedy governments and elites grabbing even more
power and money for themselves and making fundamental changes in society
using the manufactured excuse of "saving the planet". For the rank and
file "climate change" useful idiots it is a religion.

The Faithful continue to drink the kool-aid even when those involved
in pushing the scam admit what they are doing. You'll have an easier
time convincing an evangelical Christian of Biblical errancy than
getting a Climate Cultist to recognize that they've being played.

https://www.investors.com/politics/e...oy-capitalism/

For myself I will not do a thing to lower my so-called "carbon footprint".

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
Don't talk to cops! -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 5/30/19 12:15 PM, T.K wrote:

[snip]

In the 80's we Commodore computer users used the word "run". We loaded the
program into the computer and then issued the "run" command. I still prefer
to say "run the (whatever)program".

That's what I'm used to.

I remember one computer book that talked about the 3 R's: Ready. run return

"Execute", it just sounds so out of place, capital punishment for a
program...

Most of the time people learn words by hearing them in context, and can
still get it wrong. I've forgotten when I learned that the meaning of
"execute" had nothing to do with killing (possibly in relation to the
space program).

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

"Inspired? The Bible is not even intelligent. It is not even good
craftsmanship, but is full of absurdities and contradictions." -- E.
Haldeman-Julius, The Meaning Of Atheism

On 5/30/19 12:48 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

[snip]

Indeed.* And if your neighbour tells you to do something, he says "do
it", not "execute it".

"Execute" here seems to be a "h-form", a more official-sounding word
used by businesses and government. Seldom by ordinary people.

Other h-forms include "parcel" and "carton", which you'd probably call a
package and a box when talking to people.

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

"Inspired? The Bible is not even intelligent. It is not even good
craftsmanship, but is full of absurdities and contradictions." -- E.
Haldeman-Julius, The Meaning Of Atheism