JRStern

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:46:38 -0800, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>> back atcha.
>
>eh? you make the factual misstatements, but i'm the one that needs to
>do the homework? you've got yourself a significant reality problem
>there guy.

the question my good man is to just who is making misstatements.

J.

jim beam

On 12/21/2009 06:07 PM, JRStern wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:46:38 -0800, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>> back atcha.
>>
>> eh? you make the factual misstatements, but i'm the one that needs to
>> do the homework? you've got yourself a significant reality problem
>> there guy.
>
> the question my good man is to just who is making misstatements.
>
> J.
>

if your reality problems persist, and if google isn't working for you
[carefully snipped of course], you should try wikipedia. for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional

Dave Kelsen

On 12/22/2009 9:37 AM jim beam spake these words of knowledge:

> On 12/21/2009 06:07 PM, JRStern wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:46:38 -0800, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> back atcha.
>>>
>>> eh? you make the factual misstatements, but i'm the one that needs to
>>> do the homework? you've got yourself a significant reality problem
>>> there guy.
>>
>> the question my good man is to just who is making misstatements.
>>
>> J.
>>
>
> if your reality problems persist, and if google isn't working for you
> [carefully snipped of course], you should try wikipedia. for example:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional
>

Wow. Just wow. I've lived to hear Muhammed Ali call George Foreman a
scientific boxer.

Awesome.


RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
You just can't fix stupid.

jim beam

On 12/22/2009 02:20 PM, Dave Kelsen wrote:
> On 12/22/2009 9:37 AM jim beam spake these words of knowledge:
>
>> On 12/21/2009 06:07 PM, JRStern wrote:
>>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:46:38 -0800, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> back atcha.
>>>>
>>>> eh? you make the factual misstatements, but i'm the one that needs to
>>>> do the homework? you've got yourself a significant reality problem
>>>> there guy.
>>>
>>> the question my good man is to just who is making misstatements.
>>>
>>> J.
>>>
>>
>> if your reality problems persist, and if google isn't working for you
>> [carefully snipped of course], you should try wikipedia. for example:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional
>>
>
> Wow. Just wow. I've lived to hear Muhammed Ali call George Foreman a
> scientific boxer.
>
> Awesome.
>
>
> RFT!!!
> Dave Kelsen

yet another one unable to differentiate style from content. are you
susceptible to advertising dave? how about politics?

bottom line, you may not /like/ the fact that i'm a pedantic ,
but if the peak power of a motor is only 100rpm below a 7100rpm red
line, it's ridiculous to be bleating about "lack of power" at less than
4000rpm.

now, you go ahead and waste some more electrons, but try not to get too
confused.

JRStern

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:11:06 -0800, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>bottom line, you may not /like/ the fact that i'm a pedantic ,
>but if the peak power of a motor is only 100rpm below a 7100rpm red
>line, it's ridiculous to be bleating about "lack of power" at less than
>4000rpm.

If the curve is flat the peak doesn't matter, what if the engine puts
out 1 hp at 1000 rpm and 1.1 hp at 7100 rpm?

Have a nice day.

J.

jim beam

On 12/22/2009 07:16 PM, JRStern wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:11:06 -0800, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> bottom line, you may not /like/ the fact that i'm a pedantic ,
>> but if the peak power of a motor is only 100rpm below a 7100rpm red
>> line, it's ridiculous to be bleating about "lack of power" at less than
>> 4000rpm.
>
> If the curve is flat the peak doesn't matter, what if the engine puts
> out 1 hp at 1000 rpm and 1.1 hp at 7100 rpm?
>
> Have a nice day.
>
> J.
>
>

that's stunning.

why do you post on subjects about which you clearly don't have the
slightest clue? do you write nasa with thruster design critique on
ares? i mean, knot even knowing what you don't know appears to be no
barrier.

JRStern

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:23:46 -0800, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>On 12/22/2009 07:16 PM, JRStern wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:11:06 -0800, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> bottom line, you may not /like/ the fact that i'm a pedantic ,
>>> but if the peak power of a motor is only 100rpm below a 7100rpm red
>>> line, it's ridiculous to be bleating about "lack of power" at less than
>>> 4000rpm.
>>
>> If the curve is flat the peak doesn't matter, what if the engine puts
>> out 1 hp at 1000 rpm and 1.1 hp at 7100 rpm?
>>
>> Have a nice day.
>>
>> J.
>>
>>
>
>that's stunning.
>
>why do you post on subjects about which you clearly don't have the
>slightest clue? do you write nasa with thruster design critique on
>ares? i mean, knot even knowing what you don't know appears to be no
>barrier.

you want more?

it's torque that equates to acceleration, not horsepower.

comment?



I had a link ... has preentered values for S2000, chose S2000 have it
draw the curve down to 2000rpm, press calculate, scroll up to the
curves. torque peaks earlier than power, and that's the same general
shape I can feel the Accord doing.

http://vlsicad.ucsd.edu/~sharma/Potpourri/perf_est.html


Y'know, your ignorance (and hysteria) is one thing, but googling
around, I can't find a single clear and accurate explanation of this
stuff. Waaay back in the day, Road and Track published power and
torque curves, Car and Driver didn't, but Car and Driver had more
entertaining writers. I guess nobody today groks numbers, you sure
don't. But it was common knowledge out on the streets, too, it didn't
take a physics degree or even high school math to parrot, "torque is
acceleration". what depressing times we are living in.

J.

jim beam

On 12/22/2009 08:58 PM, JRStern wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:23:46 -0800, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On 12/22/2009 07:16 PM, JRStern wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:11:06 -0800, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> bottom line, you may not /like/ the fact that i'm a pedantic ,
>>>> but if the peak power of a motor is only 100rpm below a 7100rpm red
>>>> line, it's ridiculous to be bleating about "lack of power" at less than
>>>> 4000rpm.
>>>
>>> If the curve is flat the peak doesn't matter, what if the engine puts
>>> out 1 hp at 1000 rpm and 1.1 hp at 7100 rpm?
>>>
>>> Have a nice day.
>>>
>>> J.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> that's stunning.
>>
>> why do you post on subjects about which you clearly don't have the
>> slightest clue? do you write nasa with thruster design critique on
>> ares? i mean, knot even knowing what you don't know appears to be no
>> barrier.
>
> you want more?
>
> it's torque that equates to acceleration, not horsepower.
>
> comment?
>
>
>
> I had a link ... has preentered values for S2000, chose S2000 have it
> draw the curve down to 2000rpm, press calculate, scroll up to the
> curves. torque peaks earlier than power, and that's the same general
> shape I can feel the Accord doing.
>
> http://vlsicad.ucsd.edu/~sharma/Potpourri/perf_est.html
>
>
> Y'know, your ignorance (and hysteria) is one thing, but googling
> around, I can't find a single clear and accurate explanation of this
> stuff. Waaay back in the day, Road and Track published power and
> torque curves, Car and Driver didn't, but Car and Driver had more
> entertaining writers. I guess nobody today groks numbers, you sure
> don't. But it was common knowledge out on the streets, too, it didn't
> take a physics degree or even high school math to parrot, "torque is
> acceleration". what depressing times we are living in.
>
> J.
>
>

me dude - < 20 seconds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque

"I can't find a single clear and accurate explanation of this stuff"

that's because you're /waaaaay/ out of your depth - you don't understand
it when it's right in front of you.

Wade

Hey Guys [you know who you are],

I have a silly little suggestion .....

JUST STOP IT !!!

For crying out loud, who wants to read all of your _________? Why not
take it private between yourselves?
Do you think most of us want to read your snide comments to each
other. Do you think we care?

ENOUGH ALREADY !!!

Can we go back to talking about Hondas?

Thank you in advance,
Peace on earth and in this group.


On Dec 22, 11:27 pm, jim beam <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On 12/22/2009 08:58 PM, JRStern wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:23:46 -0800, jim beam<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >> On 12/22/2009 07:16 PM, JRStern wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:11:06 -0800, jim beam<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> bottom line, you may not /like/ the fact that i'm a pedantic ,
> >>>> but if the peak power of a motor is only 100rpm below a 7100rpm red
> >>>> line, it's ridiculous to be bleating about "lack of power" at less than
> >>>> 4000rpm.
>
> >>> If the curve is flat the peak doesn't matter, what if the engine puts
> >>> out 1 hp at 1000 rpm and 1.1 hp at 7100 rpm?
>
> >>> Have a nice day.
>
> >>> J.
>
> >> that's stunning.
>
> >> why do you post on subjects about which you clearly don't have the
> >> slightest clue? do you write nasa with thruster design critique on
> >> ares? i mean, knot even knowing what you don't know appears to be no
> >> barrier.
>
> > you want more?
>
> > it's torque that equates to acceleration, not horsepower.
>
> > comment?
>
> > I had a link ... has preentered values for S2000, chose S2000 have it
> > draw the curve down to 2000rpm, press calculate, scroll up to the
> > curves. torque peaks earlier than power, and that's the same general
> > shape I can feel the Accord doing.
>
> >http://vlsicad.ucsd.edu/~sharma/Potpourri/perf_est.html
>
> > Y'know, your ignorance (and hysteria) is one thing, but googling
> > around, I can't find a single clear and accurate explanation of this
> > stuff. Waaay back in the day, Road and Track published power and
> > torque curves, Car and Driver didn't, but Car and Driver had more
> > entertaining writers. I guess nobody today groks numbers, you sure
> > don't. But it was common knowledge out on the streets, too, it didn't
> > take a physics degree or even high school math to parrot, "torque is
> > acceleration". what depressing times we are living in.
>
> > J.
>
> me dude - < 20 seconds.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque
>
> "I can't find a single clear and accurate explanation of this stuff"
>
> that's because you're /waaaaay/ out of your depth - you don't understand
> it when it's right in front of you.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -