Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

He's asking you to explain Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, you dumbass!

Emperor's New Clothes.

I've noticed that a number of you are defiantly sinking deeper and deeper into your own little fantasy world, despite an increasing number of people seeing through your charade. It's very sad.

I seemed to have upset you. Shame. Hahaha...

You appear to be having another adrenaline dump - a condition unknown to medical science.

You mean when he asked if there were any takers? Yeah, I noticed the fearful silence.

Again, I think you've said too much, but you never seem to learn.

No one will judge, Dobby, but Noone will. After all, Noone was the fella that edited your post.

So, you admit he did.

NUFF SAID!

You are such a little worm. intentionally avoiding the topic. The question is ... What do you think Androcles is proposing on his website?

State it.

I haven't expressed any reluctance to do so. I did it last time, and I do it now.

Hahaha... *Trembles*

No he's not. He believes he already understands the theory. He doesn't want an explanation, of the theory itself. He wants a discussion of some commentary.

So, you are admitting that he has not published this *theory* of his, in a peer reviewed journal.

Not even close.

Sorry charlie, no dice. The question was specifically pertaining to him yapping to himself on his website. You agreed, heartily.

So dobbie, what exactly do you think his views on Einstein are? And do you agree with him?

-Mike K.

Yeah, that's the essence of dobbie's deceptive games. Noone v. No one.

Andro, you're a coward, and a phraud.

-Mike K.

TQ? What does a Thermoquad carburetor have to do with anything.

I'm not going to argue with you, Travis. ANYONE here can validate what I'm saying by just hooking up a diagnostic scan tool and monitoring the TC lockup circuit, or by reading various SAE papers in recent years on how transmission controllers operate. I've got nothing to prove.

Please do. That should be interesting.

then what is your point?

Go out on the road, shift to N, see the difference in engine braking.

Just go fkin do it and stop arguing with me.

Trav

Do you REALLY think that in 30+ years of driving I've never done that?

You just KEEP missing the point. Given a current production vehicle (pretty much everything made after ~1990-1995): When you shift to "N" the engine starts consuming fuel to keep idling. Fuel that was SHUT THE HELL OFF when you were coasting IN gear before you shifted to N. Yes, there's a very slight drag on the car to keep the engine spinning in gear, but OVERALL its more efficient to do that than to shift to N and make the computer turn the fuel flow back on. IF it were more efficient to do it your way, then every automaker struggling to meet CAFE requirements would have computer tell the auto trans drop to neutral instead of just minimizing the reverse coupling (unlocking the TCC) and going into idle-shut-off mode, which is what they actually do.

Hi,

This is not the same "Mike" that was earlier involved in the engine efficiency part of this thread.

But anyways,

Can you estimate the benefits in mpg of coasting down a hill in idle, vs. coasting down in gear? Have you ever actually down the experiment with your own car?

-Mike K.

Haha... You illiterate prick! I thought I was mocking a typo, but it appears that I'm arguing with a dunce.

Quite.

Dumbass!

No. Just as you didn't post a link when I asked you before, you haven't done it now. You are clearly weary of anyone seeing the whole context. You are grasping at straws, trying to attack me with fluff.

Isn't it time to invoke the full power of the kill-file, Dobbie? As another poster often said: When you argue with a fool, the chances are you are doing the same. I add to that: When you agree with a fool, the guarantee is you are doing the same.

"Androcles" wrote in message news:GfIYj.43439$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe17.ams... | | "Wayne Dobson" wrote in message | news:W6IYj.6917$ snipped-for-privacy@text.news.virginmedia.com... || Mike wrote: || > On May 18, 5:21 pm, "Wayne Dobson" wrote: || > || >>> Well, in just the past few days, Travis has riduled you on more than || >>> one occasion. So, you're *nobody* is incorrect. || >> || >> Despite having riduled me in the past few days || > || > So, you admit he did. || || Haha... You illiterate prick! I thought I was mocking a typo, but it || appears that I'm arguing with a dunce. || || > NUFF SAID! || || Quite. || || >>> Then state exactly what you think Andro is proposing. || >> || >> That *you* are an intellectual coward. || > || > You are such a little worm. intentionally avoiding the topic. The || > question is ... What do you think Androcles is proposing on his || > website? || > || > State it. || || Dumbass! || || >>> Your *trembling* is proof enough. You typed it. Noone edited your || >>> post. || >> || >> Then post a link. For some strange reason you are very reluctant to || >> do || > || > I haven't expressed any reluctance to do so. I did it last time, and || > I do it now. || > || > **** || > Feb 23,2007 8:22 AM || > || >> If not, f*ck off or I shall plonk you. || > || > Hahaha... *Trembles* || || No. Just as you didn't post a link when I asked you before, you haven't || done it now. You are clearly weary of anyone seeing the whole context. | You || are grasping at straws, trying to attack me with fluff. || || -- || Wayne Dobson || AKA "Dobbie The House Elf" | | Isn't it time to invoke the full power of the kill-file, Dobbie? | As another poster often said: When you argue with a fool, | the chances are you are doing the same. | I add to that: When you agree with a fool, the guarantee is | you are doing the same. | | -- | Why did Einstein say | the speed of light from A to B is c-v, | the speed of light from B to A is c+v, | the "time" each way is the same? | | Androcles | |

Clearly, you are the fool.

Trav

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Never wrestle with a pig. You wind up covered in sh*t, but the pig enjoys it.

There are many variants, all applicable.

Oh, another poster that calls himself "no-spam". How terribly original.

Actually, I think Steve was agreeing with you. Ah, nevermind.

We have enough "no-spams" to last till the end of the century. Still, if I plonked him unfairly then I'll unplonk him. I doubt he'll feel anything. Now, which no-spam is he? Oh, I know, the last one in the list.

That's nothing compared to desperation exhibited by a *cough* "scientist", who is not brave enough to publish his views in a peer reviewed venue. But must exist in his own little webverse.

-Mike K.