"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong - Page 14

02-04-2007, 09:24 AM

> Or, if your inner barbie's trichotillomania is starting to kick in,
> what's your point?
>
> .max

I think the point should be and another variable would be to compare it to
having two cyclists driving two cars versus taking the bus with bicycles on
a rack. Who uses more gas then a) bus without racks and two drivers in two
cars or b) a rack equipped bus with two bikes and no cars.
Bus system benefits and other drivers benefit not to mention you gained two
happy customers.

Should overweight people taking two seats at rush hr. pay 2 fares? Just a
joke folks.

02-04-2007, 09:55 AM

Christianity = delusion

(for that matter, substitue any other organised religion for
"Christianity" - we are an equal opportunities debunker)

Fruit loops are plentiful these days - and gaining power for some strange
reason

Any arguments ?

"Mark Hickey" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>>Christians seem to base their life on whatever the pope interprets the
>>Bible to mean, and will commit any act that is harmful to the planet as
>>their way of following God's will.
>>
>>Total Bull****. Remember the Crusades? Become Christian or we will kill
>>you type stuff.
>>
>>So if the church says to kill all non-Christians it is not sanctioned
>>murder?
>
> Bill, you obviously don't have a clue what Christianity is about.
> Anyone who does would read the above and feel sorry for your lack of
> knowledge on the subject. You used the term "fruit loop detected"...
> believe me, it applies to your comments even more than the windmill
> tilter.
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> Home of the $795 ti frame

02-04-2007, 11:53 AM

Wayne Pein wrote:
> Don Klipstein wrote:
>
>> What I see as the best use of bike racks on buses is for getting bike
>> users through bike-unfriendly bridges, also a few tunnels that I think are
>> no better for bikes than plenty of bridges!
>
> There is no such thing as a bike unfriendly bridge or road. It's people
> who are friendly or unfriendly, and they choose be either way.

I don't think that's true. To accommodate more and more traffic, a
number of roads have been widened just enough to provide two lanes of
traffic each way with NO additional space between the cars and the curb.
No matter how friendly a driver might be, there isn't enough space to
pass a bicyclist without moving into the next lane, which is probably
already occupied by a car. This is dangerous for everybody, and most
bicyclists stay off such roads.

--
Cheers, Bev
===================================
New sig on order, watch this space.

02-04-2007, 11:59 AM

nash wrote:

>> Side note: I have heard of people getting off the bus and trying to pull
>> a fast one by grabbing the bike off the rack while the driver, usually
>> clueless, waits.
>> Kind of like car jacking but the cyclist usually figures it out before the
>> bike is history.
>> There are all types of petty thieves running around.
>> Life in the city is not automagically civilized.
>
> That has happened to me. The bus driver was not clueless, but I always ride
> in front anyway.

I have to wonder what the driver is expected to do or actually would do
if he DID notice a bikejacking. Stop the bus, run out and grab the
thief? Not likely.

On a different note, husband walks in the middle of the night. He
notices lots of normal size buses traveling with no passengers, just the
driver. Might it not make a lot of sense to run vans during
ultra-low-usage hours instead of behemoth buses that get good
passenger-mileage only when there actually are passengers?

--
Cheers, Bev
===================================
New sig on order, watch this space.

02-04-2007, 12:12 PM

The Real Bev <bashley101+[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> Wayne Pein wrote:
>> Don Klipstein wrote:
>>
>>> What I see as the best use of bike racks on buses is for getting
>>> bike users through bike-unfriendly bridges, also a few tunnels that
>>> I think are no better for bikes than plenty of bridges!
>>
>> There is no such thing as a bike unfriendly bridge or road. It's
>> people who are friendly or unfriendly, and they choose be either way.
>
> I don't think that's true. To accommodate more and more traffic, a
> number of roads have been widened just enough to provide two lanes of
> traffic each way with NO additional space between the cars and the
> curb. No matter how friendly a driver might be, there isn't enough
> space to pass a bicyclist without moving into the next lane, which is
> probably already occupied by a car. This is dangerous for everybody,
> and most bicyclists stay off such roads.

And they are banned on any sensibly organised freeway etc.

02-04-2007, 01:18 PM

adm wrote:
> Christianity = delusion
>
> (for that matter, substitue any other organised religion for
> "Christianity" - we are an equal opportunities debunker)
>
> Fruit loops are plentiful these days - and gaining power for some strange
> reason
>
> Any arguments ?

Not from me.
More people have been killed in the name of religion than any other cause.
1. Romans killing Christians. Pushy bastards, those Christians.
2. The Crusades
3. The Spanish Inquisition
4. Our very own witch hunt, "Burn em at the stake!".
5. Muslims versus everybody
That's just the short list.
Bill Baka
>
> "Mark Hickey" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
> news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>
>>> Christians seem to base their life on whatever the pope interprets the
>>> Bible to mean, and will commit any act that is harmful to the planet as
>>> their way of following God's will.
>>>
>>> Total Bull****. Remember the Crusades? Become Christian or we will kill
>>> you type stuff.
>>>
>>> So if the church says to kill all non-Christians it is not sanctioned
>>> murder?
>> Bill, you obviously don't have a clue what Christianity is about.
>> Anyone who does would read the above and feel sorry for your lack of
>> knowledge on the subject. You used the term "fruit loop detected"...
>> believe me, it applies to your comments even more than the windmill
>> tilter.
>>
>> Mark Hickey
>> Habanero Cycles
>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>> Home of the $795 ti frame
>
>

02-04-2007, 01:53 PM

Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Bill Z.) wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:
>>>> Why not? Even at only 20% efficiency they are better than fossil
>>>> fuel. That is the sticking point for right now. All kinds of money is
>>>> being spent on research to find a solar cell that goes to even 30%. If
>>>> we would just start buying what is available now instead of waiting
>>>> for the Nirvana of more efficient solar cells we might be digging out
>>>> of our oil problem.
>>> The problem is the capital cost versus the power you get out of it.
>>> Right now, buying electricity from a utility costs you less than
>>> interest + depreciation on a solar-panel installation. It is
>>> improving each year, but we are not at the break-even point yet. One
>>> thing being done to help things along is to provide tax credits, with
>>> a goal of increasing demand in order to get economies of scale.
>>
>> Yeah, but that's just because the rest of us are stuck in a universe
>> with different physics than Bakaworld... y'see, Bill's got if figgered
>> out. He's just going to stick a 100:1 transformer in series with the
>> solar cells and then they'll produce 100x as much power (reference
>> gearing vs. gas mileage threads). ;-)
>
>You don't want to even try to cut down on coal/oil burning plants?

Sure, but not by using more resources to build solar panels that won't
return the energy (much less the cost) for many years to come.

>Signs of a hard core Repuglican are starting to show.

If by that you mean "pragmatic and practical, rooted firmly in
reality", yup. The fact I agree with others that the solar panels are
no solution at this point is inarguable.

>I have a 5" solar panel that powers my portable AM/FM/Shortwave radio
>quite nicely. That was a small effort on my part to obtain the
>mini-panel to power the radio, even up to LOUD, and I never have to
>worry about buying batteries and adding to the dumps overflowing mess of
>disposables.

Or you can simply use a radio that's plugged into the wall and
probably consume no more than a few cents worth of electricity a month
to power that portable radio (even at very loud volumes). Try funding
a solar panel on that (after looking up "opportuntity cost" and
understanding the concept, which may be a "Republican thing", of
course, since it's not subject to debate or spin).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Home of the $795 ti frame

02-04-2007, 01:58 PM

Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>
>>> Christians seem to base their life on whatever the pope interprets the
>>> Bible to mean, and will commit any act that is harmful to the planet as
>>> their way of following God's will.
>>>
>>> Total Bull****. Remember the Crusades? Become Christian or we will kill
>>> you type stuff.
>>>
>>> So if the church says to kill all non-Christians it is not sanctioned
>>> murder?
>>
>> Bill, you obviously don't have a clue what Christianity is about.
>
>I'm not stupid enough to believe the crap the comes out of religion of
>any kind and definitely don't read the fiction book known as the Bible.

That much is obvious (since you obviously don't have the first idea
about what the doctrines are). I notice that doesn't stop you from
spouting opinions about it though - kind of like someone coming into
the bicycle newgroups, only never having actually having been near a
bicycle.

>Are you one of those fruits who claims to be "Born again?".
>I already have you pegged as a Republican.

I'm more of an independent, but do register GOP so I can vote in the
primaries. And yup, I'm a "born again Christian", though I thought
"fruit" was a term that applied to someone's sexual preference.

>> Anyone who does would read the above and feel sorry for your lack of
>> knowledge on the subject. You used the term "fruit loop detected"...
>> believe me, it applies to your comments even more than the windmill
>> tilter.

Yeah, what I said.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Home of the $795 ti frame

02-04-2007, 02:18 PM

Eeyore wrote:
>
> Bill Baka wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> Bill Baka wrote:
>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>> Bill Baka wrote:
>>>>>> LEDs are better than incandescent lights,
>>>>> What do you mean by better ?
>>>> Much more mechanically robust, smaller, new and evolving technology, and
>>>> little thermal wasted on a hot filament.
>>> Why does 'new technology' = better ? Keeping powerful LEDS cool is actually a > serious concern ! The big ones need heatsinks.
>> I am thinking of my CatEye and it puts out a decent beam at very low
>> power. Not a search light but enough.
>
> Enough to illuminate your house with ? No !
>
> And you failed to address this one. Why does 'new technology' = better ?

It can be better if used for things other than I-Pods, cell phones, and
play stations. If a better LED comes out then new technology is good,
but there is a lot of research going into super efficient LEDs.
>
>
>>>>>> maybe on par with fluorescents, Their efficiency in lumens / watt is currently >>>>typically no better than 50% of that of CFLs
>>>> Even fluorescents make the light as a secondary effect.
>>> So what ?
>> I'm trying to educate you, if possible.
>
> You pompus ****. I know exactly how they work.
>
> As I said before.... So ? The method by which light is produced is irrelevant.

Pompous? Maybe. The problem I have with HID lights is that they take a
lot more electronics to strike the arc and to maintain it. It takes
maybe a thousand volts to start then maybe 50 volts once it is going.
Complexity makes for lower MTBF.
>
>
>>>>>> and don't need a minimum voltage to run the electronic ballasts.
>>>>> In exactly what way don't they ?
>>>> The ballasts have a minimum workable voltage. Transistors optimized for
>>>> 110 VAC rectified don't like low voltages.
>>> Nonsense.
>> Try running at half voltage and see what happens.
>
> Your statement " Transistors optimized for 110 VAC rectified don't like low voltages." is utter bollocks. Only a half wit would try running a lamp rated
> for mains voltage on half that. If you *wanted* one that'll run on a wide variety of voltage it's easy enough to do.
>
You bit. The Europeans are ahead of the Americans on power supply
requirements. Auto sense and power factor control make it easier to just
plug into any voltage available.
> Try running your LED on 'half voltage' btw and see what hapepns.

Half voltage on the LEDs themselves gets you dark. My Cat eye white LEDs
run at 3.3 volts through about 20 ohms of resistor to the batteries.
Simple and not that efficient with the resistor waste but I get enough
light from 4.8 volts of NiMh and quite a bit more if I use alkalines and
use 6 volts. Any more waste than that and I might design a circuit to
control the light intensity. If I got lucky maybe I could sell the idea
to Cat eye.
>
>
>>>> Just look at the back of your computer and see if there is a 110/220 switch.
>>> If there was a demand computers could run on 12V too. Laptops actually run off 19V > typically and you can also get 12V DC CFLs.
>>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>>>
>>> The line voltage is not even remotely the issue.
>> It was just one example.
>
> It was an example of you talking out of your backside.

Forget line voltage then and I will stick to DC.
>
>
>>>>>> I think 100 watts would be the output for an average person
>>>>>> and even that might be pushing it for a person in a developing country
>>>>>> who may not have enough good nutrition. At 100 watts, solar panels start
>>>>>> to be a major investment and don't work too good at night or on hazy
>>>>>> overcast days.
>>>>> I don't rate solar panels as an intelligent solution to today's energy issues either for >>> ppl who live on-grid.
>>>> Why not? Even at only 20% efficiency they are better than fossil fuel.
>>> No they're not. Not remotely in any way practical for most of the world.
>> Some of the newer types are getting cheaper to produce, but they need
>> sales volume to knock down the cost.
>
> Not true. Solar panels are being produced in such numbers that they're way past being costly just because they're 'new'. The simple truth is that they're
> expensive because they use lots of expensive semiconductor grade silicon.

This is where technology comes in. I know for a fact that there are some
innovative things going on. One process involves a roller that makes
flexible sandwiches out of different materials but is still in development.
>
>
>>>> That is the sticking point for right now. All kinds of money is being
>>>> spent on research to find a solar cell that goes to even 30%.
>>> Even that doesn't solve the problem that no sun = no power output !
>> I think I mentioned that. Most places have sun most of the time.
>
> Most places in the USA have a daily average of no more than 4-5 hours worth of decent insolation that provides the panel's rated output.
>
Better 4-5 hours than none at all.

> Have you not heard of dawn, dusk and nighttime btw ?

Yes, and the moon makes for some interesting riding with the light off.
>
>
>> The effort should be made, starting with sunny areas.
>
> Made by whom ?

The government if nobody else, and that is what I don't want. Joe
consumer is just clueless about ROI spread over the next ten years or so.
>
>
>>>> If we would just start buying what is available now instead of waiting for the
>>>> Nirvana of more efficient solar cells we might be digging out of our oil
>>>> problem.
>>> You'be making it worse more likely.
>> Please explain your logic.
>
> Making those solar cells is energy intensive.

Better them than more time wasting games.
>
>
>>>> Not enough windy spots for windmills, unless of course they could be
>>>> utilized in a hurricane and suck up the power of nature on a rampage.
>>>> I know I'm dreaming on this one.
>>> Plenty of places that can (and do) produce wind power in Europe. Offshore generation > is becoming very popular.
>>>
>>> You've completely failed to address the isue that most leds just produce a single colour > btw. Great for traffic lights. Not so good for lighting your
>> house.
>>> Graham
>>>
>> There is a grain of truth in that, since the cheapest LEDs put out only
>> one wavelength.

All single mode LEDs put out a single and very precise wavelength. If
you look at the specs you will see things like 532 microns, etc.
The color is absolutely tied to the materials making the light, no
variances.
>
> Wrong again. They put out a spectrum of wavelengths but centred round one colour. It's nothing to do with whether they're cheap or not either. The same
> happens with expensive LEDs.

See above.
>
>
>> Green or yellow would be adequate for most purposes
>> since that is where the human eye is most sensitive.
>
> Idiot. You want your house illuminated with yellow light ?

Cool man, pass me another joint.
The idea was that you can see enough to navigate with only one color,
not have brilliant Dolby surround technicolor light. If yellow light
makes me see an obstacle then I will use yellow.
>
>
>> Pure white LEDs have 3 colors that mix into white as seen bye the eyes.
>
> Absolute rubbish.
>
> They have blue LEDs that shine on a phosphor that then produces what looks like white light. YES ! A phosphor - just like in fluorescent tubes !
>
> Nor is the white 'pure'.
>
> " Most "white" LEDs in production today are based on an InGaN-GaN structure, and emit blue light of wavelengths between 450 nm – 470 nm blue GaN. These
> GaN-based, InGaN-active-layer LEDs are covered by a yellowish phosphor coating usually made of cerium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Ce3+:YAG) crystals
> which have been powdered and bound in a type of viscous adhesive. The LED chip emits blue light, part of which is efficiently converted to a broad spectrum
> centered at about 580 nm (yellow) by the Ce3+:YAG. The single crystal form of Ce3+:YAG is actually considered a scintillator rather than a phosphor. Since
> yellow light stimulates the red and green receptors of the eye, the resulting mix of blue and yellow light gives the appearance of white, the resulting
> shade often called "lunar white". This approach was developed by Nichia and was used by them from 1996 for manufacturing of white LEDs. "
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
>
>> I haven't looked nto the technology all that thoroughly
>
> You're telling me !

You win. I get tired of reading electronics magazines for the last
little detail. The holy grail would be to get an LED to emit the light
without a booster phosphor.
>
>
>> but I do know that white is perceived when you shoot out a mix or red green and blue.
>
> That's about the first thing you've got correct.

It's how color televisions work, faking the eye into think that a color
is present.
>
>
>> Another fact
>> is that around here the traffic lights have all gone to LEDs. They don't
>> burn out like the old incandescent lights so they don't need the bulb
>> changed every six months.
>
> That's because the cost and inconvenience of replacing them is high. Irrelevant to home use.

That actually was the reason, labor.
>
> Don't prattle about stuff you don't understand ever again.

I understand it but I admit to being a bit off the mark on what is being
produced today. The troll technique never fails.
Cheers,
Bill Baka
>
> Graham
>

02-04-2007, 02:22 PM

Eeyore wrote:
>
> Bill Baka wrote:
>
>> I have a 5" solar panel that powers my portable AM/FM/Shortwave radio
>> quite nicely. That was a small effort on my part to obtain the
>> mini-panel to power the radio, even up to LOUD,
>
> WOW ! What a hero !

It's a start.
>
>> and I never have to worry about buying batteries and adding to the dumps
>> overflowing mess of disposables.
>
> Is your radio incapable of being mains powered ?

Yes, but the mains don't run to all the points I take the radio.
It's more of a show and tell thing that gets the kids to learn something
about solar power. I play the radio and it goes off every time the kids
get in front of it. It got to be a game with them but also showed them
that you don't need batteries.
Bye,
Bill Baka
>
> Graham
>