Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 2 Feb 2007 11:41 In article <45C20088.5A632901(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> >"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> > >> >> >> Why is it that so many Americans seem to believe in perpetual motion >> >> >> devices / free energy / cars that run on water btw ? >> >> > >> >> >Habishi isn't American. >> >> >> >> And he got his training in England. >> > >> >Do you have any evidence for this ? >> >> He said so. > >When was this ? > Best estimate is about two years before Franz Heymann died. Something tells me that I spelled his name wrong. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 2 Feb 2007 11:48 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >krw wrote: > >> rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > >> > unsettled wrote: > >> > > Eeyore wrote: > >> > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> > > >>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> > > >>>>MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: > >> > > >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>You don't need an anechoic chamber btw. > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>How do you measure the EMF in "noisy" environments? > >> > > >>>>>>Or don't you need numbers anymore? > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> Device off, sensors read baseline noise reading. > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> Device on, sensors read local differential. Extrapolations get > >> > > >>>>>made, figures get arrived at. Task complete. > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>>Your test has a big huge unfixable flaw. > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>>Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on that assertion ? > >> > > >> > >> > > >>The device has to be unplugged to get the baseline reading. > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > That's what "device off" MEANS ! > >> > > > > >> > > > Good Lord ! How daft are you ? > >> > > > >> > > LOL > >> > > > >> > > These days "device off" isn't really off. > >> > > >> > It is when the power cord isn't plugged in you cretin. > >> > >> Dumb donkey, that's what "unplugged" means. Wow, you are dense! > > > >The standards do not use the word 'unplugged'. > > Exactly. So the techs measure an incorrect baseline. No they *don't* ! > [gleeful emoticon] Man! I've figured out the procedure bug. No you haven't. You've simply misundersatood something AGAIN. The equipment under test is completely unpowered when any baseline readings are made. Graham
From: T Wake on 2 Feb 2007 11:49 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epvp8o$8ss_005(a)s930.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <PuKdnc4y8bbF017YnZ2dnUVZ8turnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:epvc02$8qk_012(a)s893.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <877iv1n7xs.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, >>> Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>>>> The US started with no knowledge and built bombs within 3 years. >>>>> This included all of the infrastructure required. >>>>> The knowledge has been around for five decades so nobody >>>>> has to do that work. >>>> >>>>It also includes the requirement that you think 6 is 3. >>>> >>>>BAH maths is BAD maths. >>>> >>>>It also presumes that Szil�rd, Teller, Einstein and Oppenheimer, >>>>had no knowledge before they started working on the projects. >>>>Weird, as Szil�rd was researching the matter at about the same >>>>time as the Erm�chtigungsgesetz was kicking in (but not publishing >>>>his work for that very reason). >>>> >>>>BAH history is BAD history. >>> >>> There is a huge difference between theory and playing in the labs >>> and putting something into production. >>> >>> With the bomb, both were happening at the same time. It's still >>> an amazing managment effort. Unfortunately, it takes war >>> to get everybody to aim at the same goal. >> >>(sorry pressed send before typing last time) >> >>Another reason not to declare war on everything. > > Sure. Now that we have a real one, nobody believes it. > I think you missed my point.
From: Eeyore on 2 Feb 2007 11:50 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >Eeyore wrote: > > > >> The standards do not use the word 'unplugged'. > > > >What word meaning unplugged do you find in your standards then? > > According to MP, the specs say 'power off'. Power is never > off unless not-plugged-in in these days of computer boards. Your ability to misunderstand is quite remarkable. Graham
From: T Wake on 2 Feb 2007 11:51
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epvpdu$8ss_006(a)s930.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <88371$45c345d4$49ecf7f$10679(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>Eeyore wrote: >>> >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>> >>>>>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>What part of "not having an atomic bomb for quite some years" do you >>>>>>>not >>>>>>>understand? >>>>>> >>>>>>The US started with no knowledge and built bombs within 3 years. >>>>>>This included all of the infrastructure required. >>>>>>The knowledge has been around for five decades so nobody >>>>>>has to do that work. >>>>>> >>>>>>Why does everybody assume that countries have to take longer to >>>>>>assemble a bomb? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Interesting. Before we even begin to think about this new question, are > you >>>>>saying (now) that Iran has a competent industrialised system which is >>>>>capable of the manufacturing required? >>>> >>>>I think it's a shame that they are pouring their resources into >>>>bomb manufacturing rather than more useful stuff. The more >>>>useful stuff would have a side effect of acquiring the power and >>>>world respect that Iran wants. >>> >>> >>> All of which completely fails to address the question asked of you. >> >>LOL, she answered it better than you have the capacity >>to understand. > > Thanks. I thought I had answered it, too. A "yes" or "no" would have sufficed. Even reading it now, I don't know what your answer was meant to be. Previous posts *you* have made have stated that Arabs and Persians are not capable of setting up the manufacturing infrastructure required for "useful stuff." Are you now saying they are capable but choose not to? |