makes no sense to me
in [Design]
|
From: Nico Coesel on 21 Jun 2010 13:49 Perenis <Perenis(a)hereforlongtime.org> wrote: >On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 19:29:41 GMT, nico(a)puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote: > >>John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 09:32:51 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET >>><kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >>> >>>>On Jun 20, 1:16 am, John Larkin >>>><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>> Kevin Costner is going to centrifuge the Gulf of Mexico at 200 GPM? >>>> >>>>It is 200 GPM times N of the water taken up from the slick. It is a >>>>very >>>>effective way to reduce the total volume of what is scooped up to be >>>>only the oil part. >>>> >>> >>>Three numbers: >>> >>>200 GPM. One barge holds almost half a million gallons. >> >>With 32 centrifuges it takes about 13 hours to process the entire >>barge. Without knowing how long it takes to scoop that amount of slick >>from the water it is impossible to say whether it is fast enough or >>not. > > > You cannot even do math right. It would at the very most take only FOUR >for a 500,000 gallon job to be done in 13 hrs. It takes longer than that >to put that much into the barge from the slick. The point I wanted to make is proven: the centrifuges are a viable technology to help cleaning the oil spill. -- Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply indicates you are not using the right tools... nico(a)nctdevpuntnl (punt=.) --------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perenis on 21 Jun 2010 13:58 On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 09:58:23 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >Well, I have all these kids running around, having nerf-gun wars when >they're not laying out boards and designing FPGAs. As stupid as your are? I hardly think that your kids are doing electronics when you stumble so often in the realm.
From: Perenis on 21 Jun 2010 14:11 On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 17:49:27 GMT, nico(a)puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote: >Perenis <Perenis(a)hereforlongtime.org> wrote: > >>On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 19:29:41 GMT, nico(a)puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote: >> >>>John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 09:32:51 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET >>>><kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Jun 20, 1:16 am, John Larkin >>>>><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>> Kevin Costner is going to centrifuge the Gulf of Mexico at 200 GPM? >>>>> >>>>>It is 200 GPM times N of the water taken up from the slick. It is a >>>>>very >>>>>effective way to reduce the total volume of what is scooped up to be >>>>>only the oil part. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Three numbers: >>>> >>>>200 GPM. One barge holds almost half a million gallons. >>> >>>With 32 centrifuges it takes about 13 hours to process the entire >>>barge. Without knowing how long it takes to scoop that amount of slick >>>from the water it is impossible to say whether it is fast enough or >>>not. >> >> >> You cannot even do math right. It would at the very most take only FOUR >>for a 500,000 gallon job to be done in 13 hrs. It takes longer than that >>to put that much into the barge from the slick. > >The point I wanted to make is proven: the centrifuges are a viable >technology to help cleaning the oil spill. That does not appear to be the point you were trying to make. It appeared that you were trying to declare it as implausible. Either way, your numbers were off, and the 'better' numbers others gave show "your point" better. So if you indeed was trying to show them as viable, we have shown them to be more so than you even did. I apologize for thinking that you were with the idiot crowd that has been putting the equipment down.
From: JW on 22 Jun 2010 05:41 On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:17:27 -0700 DrParnassus <DrParnassus(a)hereforlongtime.org> wrote in Message id: <bj7v16t1h4nmucha2u7k98j7c1oihdoqct(a)4ax.com>: >On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 07:37:42 -0400, JW <none(a)dev.null> wrote: > >>It'd. Before he spell lames me. > > > "It'd"? Hahahaha! You do the lame thing just fine, all by yourself. Never heard of a contraction eh? Probably why your other nick name is Dimbulb.
From: DrParnassus on 22 Jun 2010 08:56
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 05:41:43 -0400, JW <none(a)dev.null> wrote: >On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:17:27 -0700 DrParnassus ><DrParnassus(a)hereforlongtime.org> wrote in Message id: ><bj7v16t1h4nmucha2u7k98j7c1oihdoqct(a)4ax.com>: > >>On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 07:37:42 -0400, JW <none(a)dev.null> wrote: >> >>>It'd. Before he spell lames me. >> >> >> "It'd"? Hahahaha! You do the lame thing just fine, all by yourself. > >Never heard of a contraction eh? Probably why your other nick name is >Dimbulb. Of course I have heard of them. I, however, am also aware of 'the list' of accepted contractions, and making one up on the fly doesn't cut it, regardless of what you think, you gang boy lingo retard. "It would" isn't on the list. ^^^^^ isn't >IS< on 'the list'. |