02 May 2008 21:17:03

Rabid Weasel

Stupid "free energy" idea

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news4.28.08b.html Apparently no one told him that the "energy" he's "recovering" isn't waste energy but comes directly from the petrol that the vehicles are using and that his siphoning off this mechanical energy is actually making the vehicles less efficient and burn more fuel. Maybe if they *only* put it on down-hill slopes where people have to brake anyway, but nowhere else. Certainly not in relatively flat areas next to shipping and receiving points like he's envisioning. :P Peace favor your sword (IH), Kirk -- FREE historic Western Martial Arts manuals: http://www.lulu.com/lawson Western Martial Arts - http://cbd.atspace.com/ "...it's the nature of the media and the participants. A herd of martial artists gets together and a fight breaks out; quelle surprise." -Chas Speaking of rec.martial-arts

03 May 2008 06:13:05

Wayne Dobson

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

Rabid Weasel wrote: > http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news4.28.08b.html > > Apparently no one told him that the "energy" he's "recovering" isn't > waste energy but comes directly from the petrol that the vehicles are > using and that his siphoning off this mechanical energy is actually > making the vehicles less efficient and burn more fuel. Dumbass! The plates aren't fitted to the trucks; they are plates under the road. > Maybe if they *only* put it on down-hill slopes where people have to > brake anyway, but nowhere else. Certainly not in relatively flat > areas next to shipping and receiving points like he's envisioning. :P The only flat area is the line displayed on the brain-wave monitor, attached to your slap-head. -- Wayne Dobson AKA "Dobbie The House Elf"

03 May 2008 14:47:58

travisgod@aol.cominyrface

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

> Dumbass! =A0The plates aren't fitted to the trucks; they are plates under = the > road. Um...OK...the trucks roll over the plates. They compress a fluid with their weight. So, they are now slightly downhill of the existing road...so, how do they get back uphill? This idea is a GOOD one for recapture of kinetic energy in a braking zone. > > Maybe if they *only* put it on down-hill slopes where people have to > > brake anyway, but nowhere else. =A0Certainly not in relatively flat > > areas next to shipping and receiving points like he's envisioning. =A0:P= > > The only flat area is the line displayed on the brain-wave monitor, attach= ed > to your slap-head. > > -- > Wayne Dobson > AKA "Dobbie The House Elf" Wane, are you COMPLETELY fucking stupid? Where do you suppose the energy comes from that is transferred into the hydraulic fluid?? ANY mechanism by which kinetic energy can be recaptured instead of going to heat brake pads is a GREAT ONE. So long as these devices are in a zone where a truck would otherwise be decelerating or moving downhill, it is ingenious. But, the "downhill" must not create an additional net negative gravitational potential or else it is just less efficient. I hope you how hybrid cars work...the increased mileage comes from the decrease in wastage of kinetic energy through regenerative braking. Trav

03 May 2008 22:38:16

Wayne Dobson

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

travisadog@aol.com wrote: >> Dumbass! The plates aren't fitted to the trucks; they are plates >> under the road. > > Um...OK...the trucks roll over the plates. They compress a fluid with > their weight. So, they are now slightly downhill of the existing > road...so, how do they get back uphill? I imagine that requires energy. > This idea is a GOOD one for recapture of kinetic energy in a braking > zone. Correct, but how does siphoning off this mechanical energy make any vehicle which passes over it less efficient and cause it to burn more fuel? So if your vehicle becomes 10% less efficient compared to it's initial maximum, on passing over speed humps, does it grind to a halt after passing over 10? It's all very confusing. >>> Maybe if they *only* put it on down-hill slopes where people have to >>> brake anyway, but nowhere else. Certainly not in relatively flat >>> areas next to shipping and receiving points like he's envisioning. >>> :P >> >> The only flat area is the line displayed on the brain-wave monitor, >> attached to your slap-head. >> >> -- >> Wayne Dobson >> AKA "Dobbie The House Elf" > > Wane, are you COMPLETELY fucking stupid? Where do you suppose the > energy comes from that is transferred into the hydraulic fluid?? Is that a trick question? > ANY mechanism by which kinetic energy can be recaptured instead of > going to heat brake pads is a GREAT ONE. So long as these devices are > in a zone where a truck would otherwise be decelerating or moving > downhill, it is ingenious. But, the "downhill" must not create an > additional net negative gravitational potential or else it is just > less efficient. > > I hope you how hybrid cars work...the increased mileage comes from the > decrease in wastage of kinetic energy through regenerative braking. You mean this isn't the first viable example along the lines of a perpetual motion machine? Shame, I was thinking of taking out shares. -- Wayne Dobson AKA "Dobbie The House Elf"

03 May 2008 17:06:24

travisgod@aol.cominyrface

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

> I imagine that requires energy. For a truck, where would you think that energy would come from? > Correct, but how does siphoning off this mechanical energy make any vehicl= e > which passes over it less efficient and cause it to burn more fuel? =A0So = if > your vehicle becomes 10% less efficient compared to it's initial maximum, = on > passing over speed humps, does it grind to a halt after passing over 10? > It's all very confusing. Did I say it made a vehicle less efficient in such a circumstance? The device works ONLY to siphon off kinetic energy. If the truck were in level drive at any speed, that would mean the truck would need to burn more fuel! If the truck is braking, this device would siphon off the kinetic energy the same as the brakes would. It's a great idea, where vehicles need to slow down. Instead of applying brakes, they can let this system siphon off their kinetic energy. It's a good idea for that. A car toll lane is another. Border crossings, stop signs, traffic lights that are red, port lanes, etc., where any vehicle needs to slow down, we could siphon off kinetic energy there instead of letting it go to heat via the brakes. Large trucks are HUGELY wasteful of kinetic energy. Some kind of compressed air, battery, or inertial flywheel system could recapture some of this and make these trucks far more efficient for stops and starts. > Is that a trick question? > You mean this isn't the first viable example along the lines of a perpetua= l > motion machine? =A0Shame, I was thinking of taking out shares. > > -- > Wayne Dobson > AKA "Dobbie The House Elf" Who the hell said it was a perpetual motion machine? Kook is the one who objected without understanding what the thing's intended purpose was. Trav

04 May 2008 07:53:27

Wayne Dobson

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

travisgod@aol.com wrote: >> I imagine that requires energy. > > For a truck, where would you think that energy would come from? Your whole objection is based on a strawman. The truck wouldn't be downhill of the existing road, looking ahead; only downhilll of the road behind it. You'd naturally place such a device on an existing slope. The truck is going to lose height by one means or another. The sloping road prevents it from falling straight down, instead translating much of that potential energy into forward motion. Where do you suppose the excess energy which this device captures, would normally end up? >> Correct, but how does siphoning off this mechanical energy make any >> vehicle which passes over it less efficient and cause it to burn >> more fuel? So if your vehicle becomes 10% less efficient compared to >> it's initial maximum, on passing over speed humps, does it grind to >> a halt after passing over 10? It's all very confusing. > > Did I say it made a vehicle less efficient in such a circumstance? Your argument amounts to suggesting that every time the vehicle loses energy, it becomes less efficient, like it has a memory. > The device works ONLY to siphon off kinetic energy. Yes. But what's your point? > If the truck were > in level drive at any speed, that would mean the truck would need to > burn more fuel! You think that the only way to implement this energy capture measure is to hollow out a trough in a level stretch of road and lay this device across it? > If the truck is braking, this device would siphon off the kinetic > energy the same as the brakes would. No, the truck doesn't have to be braking. > It's a great idea, where vehicles need to slow down. Trucks don't need to slow down at the bottom of slopes? > Instead of applying brakes, they can let > this system siphon off their kinetic energy. It's a good idea for > that. A car toll lane is another. Border crossings, stop signs, > traffic lights that are red, port lanes, etc., where any vehicle needs > to slow down, we could siphon off kinetic energy there instead of > letting it go to heat via the brakes. Maybe we could implement it as a special kind of brick-wall, to slow down vehicles and capture their energy by that means. > Large trucks are HUGELY wasteful of kinetic energy. Some kind of > compressed air, battery, or inertial flywheel system could recapture > some of this and make these trucks far more efficient for stops and > starts. Yes, in the truck, not on the road. >> Is that a trick question? >> You mean this isn't the first viable example along the lines of a >> perpetual motion machine? Shame, I was thinking of taking out shares. >> >> -- >> Wayne Dobson >> AKA "Dobbie The House Elf" > > Who the hell said it was a perpetual motion machine? Your suggestion was that it was along the same lines. Sorry if you don't see the connection between one mooted energy out of nowhere device and another. > Kook is the one who objected without understanding what the thing's > intended purpose was. Haha... Quite. -- Wayne Dobson AKA "Dobbie The House Elf"

04 May 2008 20:12:43

Grimm Riffer

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

"Wayne Dobson" <noname@noaddress.com > wrote in message news:XXdTj.19478$yD2.16371@text.news.virginmedia.com... > travisgod@aol.com wrote: >>> I imagine that requires energy. >> >> For a truck, where would you think that energy would come from? > > Your whole objection is based on a strawman. The truck wouldn't be > downhill of the existing road, looking ahead; only downhilll of the road > behind it. You'd naturally place such a device on an existing slope. Yep, and you could be forgiven for assuming this is how it's going to be used cos otherwise it makes no sense, but it doesn't actually say that in the article. In fact, depressingly, it states "As the trucks power at low speeds across the plates". This sentence suggests to me that they're actually *accelerating* over the device. Well, lets hope the article was badly done and the device is actually used as you assumed. Other wise we have a bunch of guys doing the equivalent of using sun lamps to run solar panels...

04 May 2008 16:38:56

travisgod@aol.cominyrface

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

> Your whole objection is based on a strawman. =A0The truck wouldn't be down= hill > of the existing road, looking ahead; only downhilll of the road behind it.= > You'd naturally place such a device on an existing slope. =A0The truck is > going to lose height by one means or another. =A0The sloping road prevents= it > from falling straight down, instead translating much of that potential > energy into forward motion. =A0Where do you suppose the excess energy whic= h > this device captures, would normally end up? I think I already explained that, doofus. > Your argument amounts to suggesting that every time the vehicle loses > energy, it becomes less efficient, like it has a memory. I never said any such fucking thing, you idiot. > > The device works ONLY to siphon off kinetic energy. > > Yes. =A0But what's your point? That WAS my point, jackass. > You think that the only way to implement this energy capture measure is to= > hollow out a trough in a level stretch of road and lay this device across > it? No, you fuckin moron, I was explaining the fucking thing to you. > No, the truck doesn't have to be braking. Wow...really? I pretty clearly said they should use this IN LIEU of braking. > Trucks don't need to slow down at the bottom of slopes? Who the fuck do you think you are arguing against here and over what?? > Maybe we could implement it as a special kind of brick-wall, to slow down > vehicles and capture their energy by that means. Hopefully, they use you as a test case. > Yes, in the truck, not on the road. NO SHIT SHERLOCK. > Your suggestion was that it was along the same lines. =A0Sorry if you don'= t > see the connection between one mooted energy out of nowhere device and > another. Good god, you are so incredibly dense that it's not even worth conversing with you. Trav

05 May 2008 12:19:16

Wayne Dobson

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

travisgod@aol.com wrote: >> Your whole objection is based on a strawman. The truck wouldn't be >> downhill of the existing road, looking ahead; only downhilll of the >> road behind it. You'd naturally place such a device on an existing >> slope. The truck is going to lose height by one means or another. >> The sloping road prevents it from falling straight down, instead >> translating much of that potential energy into forward motion. Where >> do you suppose the excess energy which this device captures, would >> normally end up? > > I think I already explained that, doofus. Then that would make it your petard. >> Your argument amounts to suggesting that every time the vehicle loses >> energy, it becomes less efficient, like it has a memory. > > I never said any such fucking thing, you idiot. Then I don't know what your contention is, my contention is that the vehicle does not become less efficient, causing it to burn more fuel, as the OP stated. >>> The device works ONLY to siphon off kinetic energy. >> >> Yes. But what's your point? > > That WAS my point, jackass. Your position is confused. >> You think that the only way to implement this energy capture measure >> is to hollow out a trough in a level stretch of road and lay this >> device across it? > > No, you fuckin moron, I was explaining the fucking thing to you. Then it would help if you understood how it works. >> No, the truck doesn't have to be braking. > > Wow...really? I pretty clearly said they should use this IN LIEU of > braking. Nope. It has nothing to do with braking. >> Trucks don't need to slow down at the bottom of slopes? > > Who the fuck do you think you are arguing against here and over what?? Just say, if you are getting confused. I'm very tolerant of lesser intellects. >> Maybe we could implement it as a special kind of brick-wall, to slow >> down vehicles and capture their energy by that means. > > Hopefully, they use you as a test case. I'll supply the truck and nominate you as the crash test dummy. >> Yes, in the truck, not on the road. > > NO SHIT SHERLOCK. > >> Your suggestion was that it was along the same lines. Sorry if you >> don't see the connection between one mooted energy out of nowhere >> device and another. > > Good god, you are so incredibly dense that it's not even worth > conversing with you. If you're still looking for your tail, I think you'll find it between your legs. -- Wayne Dobson AKA "Dobbie The House Elf"

05 May 2008 12:27:17

Wayne Dobson

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

Grimm Riffer wrote: > "Wayne Dobson" <noname@noaddress.com> wrote in message > news:XXdTj.19478$yD2.16371@text.news.virginmedia.com... >> travisgod@aol.com wrote: >>>> I imagine that requires energy. >>> >>> For a truck, where would you think that energy would come from? >> >> Your whole objection is based on a strawman. The truck wouldn't be >> downhill of the existing road, looking ahead; only downhilll of the >> road behind it. You'd naturally place such a device on an existing >> slope. > > Yep, and you could be forgiven for assuming this is how it's going to > be used cos otherwise it makes no sense, but it doesn't actually say > that in the article. In fact, depressingly, it states "As the trucks > power at low speeds across the plates". This sentence suggests to me > that they're actually *accelerating* over the device. Well, lets > hope the article was badly done and the device is actually used as > you assumed. Other wise we have a bunch of guys doing the equivalent > of using sun lamps to run solar panels... You're right, it doesn't make sense as it was written up. If the piece had been written by the inventor, himself, I would have dissmissed him as a kook. As it is, in principle, the idea looks like it has some merit. That said, I still don't know whether it is worth doing. -- Wayne Dobson AKA "Dobbie The House Elf"

05 May 2008 06:39:34

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

On Mon, 05 May 2008 12:19:16 GMT, "Wayne Dobson" <noname@noaddress.com > wrote: >travisgod@aol.com wrote: >>> Your whole objection is based on a strawman. The truck wouldn't be >>> downhill of the existing road, looking ahead; only downhilll of the >>> road behind it. You'd naturally place such a device on an existing >>> slope. The truck is going to lose height by one means or another. >>> The sloping road prevents it from falling straight down, instead >>> translating much of that potential energy into forward motion. Where >>> do you suppose the excess energy which this device captures, would >>> normally end up? >> >> I think I already explained that, doofus. > >Then that would make it your petard. > >>> Your argument amounts to suggesting that every time the vehicle loses >>> energy, it becomes less efficient, like it has a memory. >> >> I never said any such fucking thing, you idiot. > >Then I don't know what your contention is, my contention is that the vehicle >does not become less efficient, causing it to burn more fuel, as the OP >stated. first of all, remember the OP was Kirk who is not very bright. I don't see what the controversy is. There is absolutely nothing in this article to suggest the device would make trucks have to work harder therefore using more energy. It is merely the weight of the trucks compressing hydraulic plates and the hydraulics being used to create energy. Compressing the plates does NOT slow the trucks, therefore no extra energy is required. Hal

05 May 2008 06:55:38

travisgod@aol.cominyrface

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

> I don't see what the controversy is. =A0There is absolutely nothing in > this article to suggest the device would make trucks have to work > harder therefore using more energy. =A0It is merely the weight of the > trucks compressing hydraulic plates and the hydraulics being used to > create energy. =A0Compressing the plates does NOT slow the trucks, > therefore no extra energy is required. > > Hal Good lord, you are exceptionally stupid. Where does the energy come from to compress the hydraulic fluid? Trav

05 May 2008 14:01:42

Jerry B. Altzman

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

on 2008-05-05 08:39 hal@nospam.org said the following: > I don't see what the controversy is. There is absolutely nothing in > this article to suggest the device would make trucks have to work > harder therefore using more energy. It is merely the weight of the > trucks compressing hydraulic plates and the hydraulics being used to > create energy. Compressing the plates does NOT slow the trucks, > therefore no extra energy is required. My God, you've discovered a perpetual motion machine! Notify _Physical Review Letters_ immediately! > Hal //jbaltz -- jerry b. altzman jbaltz@altzman.com www.jbaltz.com thank you for contributing to the heat death of the universe.

05 May 2008 14:11:45

Greendistantstar

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

"Jerry B. Altzman" <jbaltz@altzman.com > wrote in message news:arETj.15465$qW.1736@trnddc06... > on 2008-05-05 08:39 hal@nospam.org said the following: >> I don't see what the controversy is. There is absolutely nothing in >> this article to suggest the device would make trucks have to work >> harder therefore using more energy. It is merely the weight of the >> trucks compressing hydraulic plates and the hydraulics being used to >> create energy. Compressing the plates does NOT slow the trucks, >> therefore no extra energy is required. > > My God, you've discovered a perpetual motion machine! Notify _Physical Review > Letters_ immediately! I suspect Chi is at the bottom of all this....... -- GDS "Let's roll!"

05 May 2008 07:45:28

travisgod@aol.cominyrface

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

> Then that would make it your petard. That would make you a retard. > Then I don't know what your contention is, my contention is that the vehic= le > does not become less efficient, causing it to burn more fuel, as the OP > stated. I further clarified this. > Your position is confused. Your sexuality is confused. > Then it would help if you understood how it works. In how much detail would you like it explained, moron? > Nope. =A0It has nothing to do with braking. OMG. It has EVERYTHING to do with braking. If the truck is not going to be slowing down then you are wasting kinetic energy that would save fuel. The ONLY time to use this device is when the truck NEEDS to slow down. > Just say, if you are getting confused. =A0I'm very tolerant of lesser > intellects. You ARE a lesser intellect. > If you're still looking for your tail, I think you'll find it between your= > legs. > > -- > Wayne Dobson > AKA "Dobbie The House Elf" I know my dick is large enough that this is a very common mistake. Trav

05 May 2008 07:53:14

Renli

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

On May 5, 8:39 pm, h...@nospam.org wrote: > > Compressing the plates does NOT slow the trucks, > therefore no extra energy is required. I think the entire point is that it *does* slow the trucks. Not very much, mind you, but enough that it's probably more fuel efficient to just run a gas powered generator. -

05 May 2008 07:54:09

Renli

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

On May 5, 10:11 pm, "Greendistantstar" <pde63539removet...@bigpond.net.au > wrote: > "Jerry B. Altzman" <jba...@altzman.com> wrote in messagenews:arETj.15465$qW.1736@trnddc06... > > > on 2008-05-05 08:39 h...@nospam.org said the following: > >> I don't see what the controversy is. There is absolutely nothing in > >> this article to suggest the device would make trucks have to work > >> harder therefore using more energy. It is merely the weight of the > >> trucks compressing hydraulic plates and the hydraulics being used to > >> create energy. Compressing the plates does NOT slow the trucks, > >> therefore no extra energy is required. > > > My God, you've discovered a perpetual motion machine! Notify _Physical Review > > Letters_ immediately! > > I suspect Chi is at the bottom of all this....... Just a thought, but this may be why why nobody with any credibility respects your position on the subject of Chi. -

05 May 2008 15:08:46

Greendistantstar

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

"Renli" <oliver.richman@gmail.com > wrote in message news:ea112624-0834-4ae9-9c17-85beca25773a@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On May 5, 10:11 pm, "Greendistantstar" > <pde63539removet...@bigpond.net.au> wrote: >> "Jerry B. Altzman" <jba...@altzman.com> wrote in >> messagenews:arETj.15465$qW.1736@trnddc06... >> >> > on 2008-05-05 08:39 h...@nospam.org said the following: >> >> I don't see what the controversy is. There is absolutely nothing in >> >> this article to suggest the device would make trucks have to work >> >> harder therefore using more energy. It is merely the weight of the >> >> trucks compressing hydraulic plates and the hydraulics being used to >> >> create energy. Compressing the plates does NOT slow the trucks, >> >> therefore no extra energy is required. >> >> > My God, you've discovered a perpetual motion machine! Notify _Physical >> > Review >> > Letters_ immediately! >> >> I suspect Chi is at the bottom of all this....... > > Just a thought, but this may be why why nobody with any credibility > respects your position on the subject of Chi. Plenty of people with credibilty share my opinion about Chi. You don't share that opinion, and have no credibilty. It also seems you don't have a sense of humour. -- GDS "Let's roll!"

05 May 2008 08:11:55

Renli

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

On May 5, 11:08 pm, "Greendistantstar" <pde63539removet...@bigpond.net.au > wrote: > "Renli" <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:ea112624-0834-4ae9-9c17-85beca25773a@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On May 5, 10:11 pm, "Greendistantstar" > > <pde63539removet...@bigpond.net.au> wrote: > >> "Jerry B. Altzman" <jba...@altzman.com> wrote in > >> messagenews:arETj.15465$qW.1736@trnddc06... > > >> > on 2008-05-05 08:39 h...@nospam.org said the following: > >> >> I don't see what the controversy is. There is absolutely nothing in > >> >> this article to suggest the device would make trucks have to work > >> >> harder therefore using more energy. It is merely the weight of the > >> >> trucks compressing hydraulic plates and the hydraulics being used to > >> >> create energy. Compressing the plates does NOT slow the trucks, > >> >> therefore no extra energy is required. > > >> > My God, you've discovered a perpetual motion machine! Notify _Physical > >> > Review > >> > Letters_ immediately! > > >> I suspect Chi is at the bottom of all this....... > > > Just a thought, but this may be why why nobody with any credibility > > respects your position on the subject of Chi. > > Plenty of people with credibilty share my opinion about Chi. > > You don't share that opinion, and have no credibilty. > > It also seems you don't have a sense of humour. No, you're wrong. Look: Lol See? I said lol. Therefore you are wrong. Again. -

05 May 2008 15:23:20

Greendistantstar

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

"Renli" <oliver.richman@gmail.com > wrote in message news:ed1ebb9c-c59a-4c67-96e1-9dc53d5b95da@y18g2000pre.googlegroups.com... > On May 5, 11:08 pm, "Greendistantstar" > <pde63539removet...@bigpond.net.au> wrote: >> "Renli" <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:ea112624-0834-4ae9-9c17-85beca25773a@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On May 5, 10:11 pm, "Greendistantstar" >> > <pde63539removet...@bigpond.net.au> wrote: >> >> "Jerry B. Altzman" <jba...@altzman.com> wrote in >> >> messagenews:arETj.15465$qW.1736@trnddc06... >> >> >> > on 2008-05-05 08:39 h...@nospam.org said the following: >> >> >> I don't see what the controversy is. There is absolutely nothing in >> >> >> this article to suggest the device would make trucks have to work >> >> >> harder therefore using more energy. It is merely the weight of the >> >> >> trucks compressing hydraulic plates and the hydraulics being used to >> >> >> create energy. Compressing the plates does NOT slow the trucks, >> >> >> therefore no extra energy is required. >> >> >> > My God, you've discovered a perpetual motion machine! Notify _Physical >> >> > Review >> >> > Letters_ immediately! >> >> >> I suspect Chi is at the bottom of all this....... >> >> > Just a thought, but this may be why why nobody with any credibility >> > respects your position on the subject of Chi. >> >> Plenty of people with credibilty share my opinion about Chi. >> >> You don't share that opinion, and have no credibilty. >> >> It also seems you don't have a sense of humour. > > No, you're wrong. Look: > > Lol > > See? I said lol. Therefore you are wrong. Again. Too late for that now I'm afraid. But let's set the record straight. I was being humorous when I suggested chi as an explanation for the energy involved. And as chi explains nothing in any other circumstances either, this was hardly a revelation..... -- GDS "Let's roll!"

05 May 2008 15:41:02

Wayne Dobson

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

Greendistantstar wrote: > "Renli" <oliver.richman@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> I suspect Chi is at the bottom of all this....... >>> >>>> Just a thought, but this may be why why nobody with any credibility >>>> respects your position on the subject of Chi. >>> >>> Plenty of people with credibilty share my opinion about Chi. >>> >>> You don't share that opinion, and have no credibilty. >>> >>> It also seems you don't have a sense of humour. >> >> No, you're wrong. Look: >> >> Lol >> >> See? I said lol. Therefore you are wrong. Again. > > Too late for that now I'm afraid. But let's set the record straight. > > I was being humorous when I suggested chi as an explanation for the > energy involved. The whole problem stems from the fact that you're not funny. -- Wayne Dobson AKA "Dobbie The House Elf"

05 May 2008 08:48:27

Renli

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

On May 5, 11:23 pm, "Greendistantstar" <pde63539removet...@bigpond.net.au > wrote: > > And as chi explains nothing in any other circumstances either, this was hardly a > revelation..... See what I mean? You're talking out your ass again :) Remember Peter. I study Judo now. Although frankly I'd rather be doing aikido. *shrug* -

05 May 2008 12:30:08

David L. Burkhead

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

<hal@nospam.org > wrote in message news:hqvt14h4hojd191jqq94nae9pavlcmo7r4@4ax.com... > On Mon, 05 May 2008 12:19:16 GMT, "Wayne Dobson" > <noname@noaddress.com> wrote: > > >travisgod@aol.com wrote: > >>> Your whole objection is based on a strawman. The truck wouldn't be > >>> downhill of the existing road, looking ahead; only downhilll of the > >>> road behind it. You'd naturally place such a device on an existing > >>> slope. The truck is going to lose height by one means or another. > >>> The sloping road prevents it from falling straight down, instead > >>> translating much of that potential energy into forward motion. Where > >>> do you suppose the excess energy which this device captures, would > >>> normally end up? > >> > >> I think I already explained that, doofus. > > > >Then that would make it your petard. > > > >>> Your argument amounts to suggesting that every time the vehicle loses > >>> energy, it becomes less efficient, like it has a memory. > >> > >> I never said any such fucking thing, you idiot. > > > >Then I don't know what your contention is, my contention is that the vehicle > >does not become less efficient, causing it to burn more fuel, as the OP > >stated. > > first of all, remember the OP was Kirk who is not very bright. > > I don't see what the controversy is. There is absolutely nothing in > this article to suggest the device would make trucks have to work > harder therefore using more energy. It is merely the weight of the > trucks compressing hydraulic plates and the hydraulics being used to > create energy. Compressing the plates does NOT slow the trucks, > therefore no extra energy is required. More "give" underneath the truck's tires "looks" to the truck exactly the same as lower air pressure in the tires--the truck's drivetrain cannot tell the difference between "give" because of flex in the tire (low air pressure) or flex in the road. You are aware, are you not, that low pressure in the tires decreases fuel efficiency, right? -- -- David L. Burkhead -- Cold Servings, a webcomic mailto:dburkhead@sff.net -- http://www.coldservings.com http://www.cafepress.com/oshaforcriminal<- OSHA for Criminals Consistencey: It's only a virtue if you're not a screwup."

05 May 2008 19:45:03

Wayne Dobson

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

Travisgod@aol.com wrote: >> Then that would make it your petard. > > That would make you a retard. > >> Then I don't know what your contention is, my contention is that the >> vehicle does not become less efficient, causing it to burn more >> fuel, as the OP stated. > > I further clarified this. No, you said that if the truck were braking then the plates would siphon off kinetic energy, the same as the brakes would, when in fact, you are presenting a scenario where the brakes are still being applied. Where is the excess coming from? You appear to think that the brakes play a part in transferring the energy. >> Your position is confused. > > Your sexuality is confused. Thanks for the offer, but I'm straight. >> Then it would help if you understood how it works. > > In how much detail would you like it explained, moron? I don't need it explained. You are wrong. >> Nope. It has nothing to do with braking. > > OMG. It has EVERYTHING to do with braking. > > If the truck is not going to be slowing down then you are wasting > kinetic energy that would save fuel. The ONLY time to use this device > is when the truck NEEDS to slow down. Nope. >> Just say, if you are getting confused. I'm very tolerant of lesser >> intellects. > > You ARE a lesser intellect. It doesn't seem to affect me. Maybe it's a recessive gene. I suspect you got both pairs. >> If you're still looking for your tail, I think you'll find it >> between your legs. > > I know my dick is large enough that this is a very common mistake. Didn't you think it strange when your dick started wagging from side to side, all by itself? -- Wayne Dobson AKA "Dobbie The House Elf"

05 May 2008 20:07:20

Wayne Dobson

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

David L. Burkhead wrote: > <hal@nospam.org> wrote in message >> I don't see what the controversy is. There is absolutely nothing in >> this article to suggest the device would make trucks have to work >> harder therefore using more energy. It is merely the weight of the >> trucks compressing hydraulic plates and the hydraulics being used to >> create energy. Compressing the plates does NOT slow the trucks, >> therefore no extra energy is required. > > More "give" underneath the truck's tires "looks" to the truck exactly > the same as lower air pressure in the tires--the truck's drivetrain > cannot tell the difference between "give" because of flex in the tire > (low air pressure) or flex in the road. > > You are aware, are you not, that low pressure in the tires decreases > fuel efficiency, right? The two are not equivalent. Next you will be saying that an unladen vehicle is more fuel efficient than a laden one. Please stop smoking the crack. -- Wayne Dobson AKA "Dobbie The House Elf"

05 May 2008 14:16:47

I can't believe it's not a Bad

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

On May 3, 8:06 pm, "travis...@aol.cominyrface" <travis...@aol.com > wrote: > Kook is the one who objected without understanding what the thing's > intended purpose was. I assume you just failed to read the part where I said, "Maybe if they *only* put it on down-hill slopes [or] where people have to brake anyway, but nowhere else. Certainly not in relatively flat areas next to shipping and receiving points like he's envisioning. :P " Note that, in my hasty posting, I neglected to include an "or" and I have added in in brackets. I kinda thought it was an assumed place but I guess not. :P Peace favor your sword, Kirk

05 May 2008 17:12:52

Rabid Weasel Lawson

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

On Mon, 05 May 2008 06:39:34 -0600, hal wrote: > On Mon, 05 May 2008 12:19:16 GMT, "Wayne Dobson" > <noname@noaddress.com> wrote: > >>travisgod@aol.com wrote: >>>> Your whole objection is based on a strawman. The truck wouldn't be >>>> downhill of the existing road, looking ahead; only downhilll of the >>>> road behind it. You'd naturally place such a device on an existing >>>> slope. The truck is going to lose height by one means or another. >>>> The sloping road prevents it from falling straight down, instead >>>> translating much of that potential energy into forward motion. Where >>>> do you suppose the excess energy which this device captures, would >>>> normally end up? >>> >>> I think I already explained that, doofus. >> >>Then that would make it your petard. >> >>>> Your argument amounts to suggesting that every time the vehicle loses >>>> energy, it becomes less efficient, like it has a memory. >>> >>> I never said any such fucking thing, you idiot. >> >>Then I don't know what your contention is, my contention is that the vehicle >>does not become less efficient, causing it to burn more fuel, as the OP >>stated. > > first of all, remember the OP was Kirk who is not very bright. It's not my fault that you don't know where the energy comes from hal. > I don't see what the controversy is. That's because you're not very bright. > There is absolutely nothing in > this article to suggest the device would make trucks have to work > harder therefore using more energy. It is merely the weight of the > trucks compressing hydraulic plates and the hydraulics being used to > create energy. Compressing the plates does NOT slow the trucks, > therefore no extra energy is required. TANSTAFL hal. Where do the trucks get the oomph to go forward and roll over those plates? You *do* know that the plates siphon off energy from the trucks, right? Where to you suppose that energy comes from and is replenished from? (IH)

05 May 2008 17:50:10

Sam the Bam

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

On May 3, "travis...@aol.cominyrface" <travis...@aol.com > wrote: > I hope you how hybrid cars work...the increased mileage > comes from the decrease in wastage of kinetic energy > through regenerative braking. Only a small part of the overall increased efficiency. It's mostly from operating at constant, optimal engine speed. Also from the energy saved on the transmission, engine cooling, and emissions control. Sam

06 May 2008 01:57:07

Greendistantstar

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

"Renli" <oliver.richman@gmail.com > wrote in message news:157291b0-88b1-4412-86a9-1c5712cd595a@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com... > On May 5, 11:23 pm, "Greendistantstar" > <pde63539removet...@bigpond.net.au> wrote: >> >> And as chi explains nothing in any other circumstances either, this was hardly >> a >> revelation..... > > See what I mean? You're talking out your ass again :) > > Remember Peter. I study Judo now. When you get your black belt, let me know and we can have a chat. -- GDS "Let's roll!"

06 May 2008 02:22:45

Greendistantstar

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

"Wayne Dobson" <noname@noaddress.com > wrote in message news:iUFTj.20147$yD2.15712@text.news.virginmedia.com... > Greendistantstar wrote: >> "Renli" <oliver.richman@gmail.com> wrote in message > >>>>>> I suspect Chi is at the bottom of all this....... >>>> >>>>> Just a thought, but this may be why why nobody with any credibility >>>>> respects your position on the subject of Chi. >>>> >>>> Plenty of people with credibilty share my opinion about Chi. >>>> >>>> You don't share that opinion, and have no credibilty. >>>> >>>> It also seems you don't have a sense of humour. >>> >>> No, you're wrong. Look: >>> >>> Lol >>> >>> See? I said lol. Therefore you are wrong. Again. >> >> Too late for that now I'm afraid. But let's set the record straight. >> >> I was being humorous when I suggested chi as an explanation for the >> energy involved. > > The whole problem stems from the fact that you're not funny. Well, well...if it isn't our resident MMA (Mirror Martial Arts) expert, following me around again like a lost puppy. Haven't you got some Giros to deliver? Now fuck off. -- GDS "Let's roll!"

05 May 2008 21:10:31

Renli

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

On May 6, 9:57 am, "Greendistantstar" <pde63539removet...@bigpond.net.au > wrote: > "Renli" <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:157291b0-88b1-4412-86a9-1c5712cd595a@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com... > > > On May 5, 11:23 pm, "Greendistantstar" > > <pde63539removet...@bigpond.net.au> wrote: > > >> And as chi explains nothing in any other circumstances either, this was hardly > >> a > >> revelation..... > > > See what I mean? You're talking out your ass again :) > > > Remember Peter. I study Judo now. > > When you get your black belt, let me know and we can have a chat. > -- > GDS > > "Let's roll!" So I should require you to study Tai Chi then? It's only fair. -

06 May 2008 08:04:20

Wayne Dobson

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

Greendistantstar wrote: > "Wayne Dobson" <noname@noaddress.com> wrote in message > news:iUFTj.20147$yD2.15712@text.news.virginmedia.com... >> Greendistantstar wrote: >>> "Renli" <oliver.richman@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> I was being humorous when I suggested chi as an explanation for the >>> energy involved. >> >> The whole problem stems from the fact that you're not funny. > > Well, well...if it isn't our resident MMA (Mirror Martial Arts) > expert, following me around again like a lost puppy. > > Haven't you got some Giros to deliver? > > Now fuck off. You really have lost your sense of humour, haven't you? Hahaha... -- Wayne Dobson AKA "Dobbie The House Elf"

06 May 2008 14:06:59

Greendistantstar

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

"Wayne Dobson" <noname@noaddress.com > wrote in message news:8iUTj.20406$yD2.4279@text.news.virginmedia.com... > Greendistantstar wrote: >> "Wayne Dobson" <noname@noaddress.com> wrote in message >> news:iUFTj.20147$yD2.15712@text.news.virginmedia.com... >>> Greendistantstar wrote: >>>> "Renli" <oliver.richman@gmail.com> wrote in message > >>>> I was being humorous when I suggested chi as an explanation for the >>>> energy involved. >>> >>> The whole problem stems from the fact that you're not funny. >> >> Well, well...if it isn't our resident MMA (Mirror Martial Arts) >> expert, following me around again like a lost puppy. >> >> Haven't you got some Giros to deliver? >> >> Now fuck off. > > You really have lost your sense of humour, haven't you? According to you, I haven't got one to lose. You're a very confused little elf, aren't you? -- GDS "Let's roll!"

06 May 2008 14:08:35

Greendistantstar

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

"Renli" <oliver.richman@gmail.com > wrote in message news:15b6aa82-5605-4b18-ae56-5d759c353e8b@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com... > On May 6, 9:57 am, "Greendistantstar" > <pde63539removet...@bigpond.net.au> wrote: >> "Renli" <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:157291b0-88b1-4412-86a9-1c5712cd595a@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On May 5, 11:23 pm, "Greendistantstar" >> > <pde63539removet...@bigpond.net.au> wrote: >> >> >> And as chi explains nothing in any other circumstances either, this was >> >> hardly >> >> a >> >> revelation..... >> >> > See what I mean? You're talking out your ass again :) >> >> > Remember Peter. I study Judo now. >> >> When you get your black belt, let me know and we can have a chat. >> -- >> GDS >> >> "Let's roll!" > > So I should require you to study Tai Chi then? > > It's only fair. I don't purport to have any great knowledge of Tai Chi, nor do I wish to acquire said knowledge. I'm really only interested in martial arts that improve my fighting abilities. -- GDS "Let's roll!"

06 May 2008 08:23:21

travisgod@aol.cominyrface

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

> No, you said that if the truck were braking then the plates would siphon o= ff > kinetic energy, the same as the brakes would, when in fact, you are I said NO SUCH FUCKING THING. I said that THIS DEVICE could siphon off energy IN LIEU OF THE BRAKES. > > If the truck is not going to be slowing down then you are wasting > > kinetic energy that would save fuel. =A0The ONLY time to use this device= > > is when the truck NEEDS to slow down. > > Nope. Listen, chump...have you not made ENOUGH of a fool of yourself already in this thread? The ONLY time you should use this device is when the truck NEEDS to slow down. PERIOD. It is SOLELY a device for kinetic energy recapture IN LIEU of having said energy go to heat brake pads or compress atmospheric air. > It doesn't seem to affect me. =A0Maybe it's a recessive gene. =A0I suspect= you > got both pairs. I got a pair of nuts that you lack too. > Didn't you think it strange when your dick started wagging from side to > side, all by itself? > > -- > Wayne Dobson > AKA "Dobbie The House Elf" It was because there was two bitches fightin over whose mouth it was gonna go into Trav

06 May 2008 08:28:04

travisgod@aol.cominyrface

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

On May 5, 8:50=A0pm, Sam the Bam <samtheb...@lycos.com > wrote: > On May 3, "travis...@aol.cominyrface" <travis...@aol.com> wrote: > > > I hope you how hybrid cars work...the increased mileage > > comes from the decrease in wastage of kinetic energy > > through regenerative braking. > > Only a small part of the overall increased > efficiency. =A0It's mostly from operating at > constant, optimal engine speed. =A0Also > from the energy saved on the transmission, > engine cooling, and emissions control. > > Sam LOL. Totally wrong, but don't let that fucking stop you, man. Hybrid cars operating on the highway do NO BETTER than non hybrids with equivalent drag coefficients and powertrains. The hybrid drive system is a kinetic energy recapture device...that is ALL IT IS. The hybrids also shut off at stoplights which saves a bit of fuel. They coast downhill with the engine off and do not use compression braking, which adds a few mpg. I've tested this shit in a non hybrid car, btw, coasting downhill or on flats versus running against the engine's compression. You'd can recover 10% mpg just by aggressive coasting. But, again, the hybrid system, the batteries and motors, are there to reclaim kinetic energy and then reapply that. That is BY FAR the largest advantage, and it is moronic to claim otherwise, especially when you can SEE the city/hwy mpg splits. Trav

06 May 2008 08:44:31

Renli

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

On May 6, 10:08 pm, "Greendistantstar" <pde63539removet...@bigpond.net.au > wrote: > "Renli" <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:15b6aa82-5605-4b18-ae56-5d759c353e8b@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On May 6, 9:57 am, "Greendistantstar" > > <pde63539removet...@bigpond.net.au> wrote: > >> "Renli" <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:157291b0-88b1-4412-86a9-1c5712cd595a@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com... > > >> > On May 5, 11:23 pm, "Greendistantstar" > >> > <pde63539removet...@bigpond.net.au> wrote: > > >> >> And as chi explains nothing in any other circumstances either, this was > >> >> hardly > >> >> a > >> >> revelation..... > > >> > See what I mean? You're talking out your ass again :) > > >> > Remember Peter. I study Judo now. > > >> When you get your black belt, let me know and we can have a chat. > >> -- > >> GDS > > >> "Let's roll!" > > > So I should require you to study Tai Chi then? > > > It's only fair. > > I don't purport to have any great knowledge of Tai Chi, nor do I wish to acquire > said knowledge. > > I'm really only interested in martial arts that improve my fighting abilities. Then perhaps Tai Chi is the 2nd martial art for you! Notice I said "Tai Chi", not you - that means I am referring to the real Tai Chi, not whatever you *think* it is. You should try it Peter. I mean really try it, not this useless pussyfooting around like what most people do, like frazer for example - 2 weeks and 10 years ago - wtf, you got an opinion you feel is credible from that? Seriously? Wow. -

06 May 2008 13:55:41

Sam the Bam

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

On May 5, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com > wrote: > > I suspect Chi is at the bottom of all this....... > > Just a thought, but this may be why why nobody with any credibility > respects your position on the subject of Chi. Point. GDS has no cred on chi. Also none on unicorns, leprechauns, Tarot cards, or crystal healing. For such things, we rely on you, Ollie. Sam

06 May 2008 19:56:50

travisgod@aol.cominyrface

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

> Point. =A0GDS has no cred on chi. =A0Also none on unicorns, > leprechauns, Tarot cards, or crystal healing. =A0For such > things, we rely on you, Ollie. > > Sam GDS does have significant expertise on giving blowjobs though. Trav

07 May 2008 03:58:04

Greendistantstar

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

"Renli" <oliver.richman@gmail.com > wrote in message news:2d475be2-518d-44e2-a51c-e89fb5d6361c@y18g2000pre.googlegroups.com... > On May 6, 10:08 pm, "Greendistantstar" > <pde63539removet...@bigpond.net.au> wrote: >> "Renli" <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:15b6aa82-5605-4b18-ae56-5d759c353e8b@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On May 6, 9:57 am, "Greendistantstar" >> > <pde63539removet...@bigpond.net.au> wrote: >> >> "Renli" <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:157291b0-88b1-4412-86a9-1c5712cd595a@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On May 5, 11:23 pm, "Greendistantstar" >> >> > <pde63539removet...@bigpond.net.au> wrote: >> >> >> >> And as chi explains nothing in any other circumstances either, this was >> >> >> hardly >> >> >> a >> >> >> revelation..... >> >> >> > See what I mean? You're talking out your ass again :) >> >> >> > Remember Peter. I study Judo now. >> >> >> When you get your black belt, let me know and we can have a chat. >> >> -- >> >> GDS >> >> >> "Let's roll!" >> >> > So I should require you to study Tai Chi then? >> >> > It's only fair. >> >> I don't purport to have any great knowledge of Tai Chi, nor do I wish to >> acquire >> said knowledge. >> >> I'm really only interested in martial arts that improve my fighting abilities. > > Then perhaps Tai Chi is the 2nd martial art for you! Why? > Notice I said "Tai Chi", not you - that means I am referring to the > real Tai Chi, not whatever you *think* it is. 'Real' Tai Chi is apparently a definition YOU hold. >You should try it Peter. Tai Chi's combat effectiveness has been proven how? > I mean really try it, not this useless pussyfooting around like what > most people do, like frazer for example - 2 weeks and 10 years ago - > wtf, you got an opinion you feel is credible from that? Seriously? > Wow. I've no idea what you're talking about. -- GDS "Let's roll!"

06 May 2008 21:14:53

Renli

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

On May 7, 11:58 am, "Greendistantstar" <pde63539removet...@bigpond.net.au > wrote: > "Renli" <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:2d475be2-518d-44e2-a51c-e89fb5d6361c@y18g2000pre.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On May 6, 10:08 pm, "Greendistantstar" > > <pde63539removet...@bigpond.net.au> wrote: > >> "Renli" <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:15b6aa82-5605-4b18-ae56-5d759c353e8b@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com... > > >> > On May 6, 9:57 am, "Greendistantstar" > >> > <pde63539removet...@bigpond.net.au> wrote: > >> >> "Renli" <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:157291b0-88b1-4412-86a9-1c5712cd595a@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On May 5, 11:23 pm, "Greendistantstar" > >> >> > <pde63539removet...@bigpond.net.au> wrote: > > >> >> >> And as chi explains nothing in any other circumstances either, this was > >> >> >> hardly > >> >> >> a > >> >> >> revelation..... > > >> >> > See what I mean? You're talking out your ass again :) > > >> >> > Remember Peter. I study Judo now. > > >> >> When you get your black belt, let me know and we can have a chat. > >> >> -- > >> >> GDS > > >> >> "Let's roll!" > > >> > So I should require you to study Tai Chi then? > > >> > It's only fair. > > >> I don't purport to have any great knowledge of Tai Chi, nor do I wish to > >> acquire > >> said knowledge. > > >> I'm really only interested in martial arts that improve my fighting abilities. > > > Then perhaps Tai Chi is the 2nd martial art for you! > > Why? > > > Notice I said "Tai Chi", not you - that means I am referring to the > > real Tai Chi, not whatever you *think* it is. > > 'Real' Tai Chi is apparently a definition YOU hold. Yes, I do hold it. Not you. Notably a large number of people who actually do tai chi also hold this definition. > >You should try it Peter. > > Tai Chi's combat effectiveness has been proven how? I've used it on da str33t. Come on Peter. We all know it's the man and not the art anyways. Someone like you would do great at Tai Chi. Don't sell yourself short. > > I mean really try it, not this useless pussyfooting around like what > > most people do, like frazer for example - 2 weeks and 10 years ago - > > wtf, you got an opinion you feel is credible from that? Seriously? > > Wow. > > I've no idea what you're talking about. Well for example, you, who hasn't ever done any tai chi - or fraser, who did tai chi for what, 2 or 3 weeks ten years ago.. and the sum of your experience with the art is that and a bunch of fake videos off the 'net... And somehow you know "all about" it? Come on Peter, surely you realize you've been duped. If you had access to the right info, the right people, and an open mind, you could do very well in Tai Chi. For real, not the arm waving version. You should think about it. -

06 May 2008 21:15:30

Renli

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

On May 7, 10:56 am, "travis...@aol.cominyrface" <travis...@aol.com > wrote: > > Point. GDS has no cred on chi. Also none on unicorns, > > leprechauns, Tarot cards, or crystal healing. For such > > things, we rely on you, Ollie. If you choose to Sam. but that's your problem, not mine. -

07 May 2008 04:57:12

Greendistantstar

Re: Stupid "free energy" idea

"Renli" <oliver.richman@gmail.com > wrote in message news:ff29606a-338b-4656-851a-e22c6b08310f@1g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > On May 7, 11:58 am, "Greendistantstar" > <pde63539removet...@bigpond.net.au> wrote: >> "Renli" <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:2d475be2-518d-44e2-a51c-e89fb5d6361c@y18g2000pre.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On May 6, 10:08 pm, "Greendistantstar" >> > <pde63539removet...@bigpond.net.au> wrote: >> >> "Renli" <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:15b6aa82-5605-4b18-ae56-5d759c353e8b@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On May 6, 9:57 am, "Greendistantstar" >> >> > <pde63539removet...@bigpond.net.au> wrote: >> >> >> "Renli" <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:157291b0-88b1-4412-86a9-1c5712cd595a@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On May 5, 11:23 pm, "Greendistantstar" >> >> >> > <pde63539removet...@bigpond.net.au> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> And as chi explains nothing in any other circumstances either, this >> >> >> >> was >> >> >> >> hardly >> >> >> >> a >> >> >> >> revelation..... >> >> >> >> > See what I mean? You're talking out your ass again :) >> >> >> >> > Remember Peter. I study Judo now. >> >> >> >> When you get your black belt, let me know and we can have a chat. >> >> >> -- >> >> >> GDS >> >> >> >> "Let's roll!" >> >> >> > So I should require you to study Tai Chi then? >> >> >> > It's only fair. >> >> >> I don't purport to have any great knowledge of Tai Chi, nor do I wish to >> >> acquire >> >> said knowledge. >> >> >> I'm really only interested in martial arts that improve my fighting >> >> abilities. >> >> > Then perhaps Tai Chi is the 2nd martial art for you! >> >> Why? >> >> > Notice I said "Tai Chi", not you - that means I am referring to the >> > real Tai Chi, not whatever you *think* it is. >> >> 'Real' Tai Chi is apparently a definition YOU hold. > > Yes, I do hold it. Not you. Notably a large number of people who > actually do tai chi also hold this definition. > >> >You should try it Peter. >> >> Tai Chi's combat effectiveness has been proven how? > > I've used it on da str33t. Gee, that's proof enough, eh? > Come on Peter. We all know it's the man and > not the art anyways. Someone like you would do great at Tai Chi. Don't > sell yourself short. > >> > I mean really try it, not this useless pussyfooting around like what >> > most people do, like frazer for example - 2 weeks and 10 years ago - >> > wtf, you got an opinion you feel is credible from that? Seriously? >> > Wow. >> >> I've no idea what you're talking about. > > Well for example, you, who hasn't ever done any tai chi - That's not so. > or fraser, > who did tai chi for what, 2 or 3 weeks ten years ago.. and the sum of > your experience with the art is that and a bunch of fake videos off > the 'net... And somehow you know "all about" it? Where did I say that? >Come on Peter, surely > you realize you've been duped. Look Ollie...YOU are the one who has been duped. YOU believe chi exists, and YOU believe Tai Chi is a worthy combat art. How about a few clips of Tai Chi guys beating up mma guys, or Bjj'ers, or high level judoka. THERE ARE NONE. So I'm supposed to waste my time on Tai Chi? I'd rather take up knitting. > If you had access to the right info, > the right people, and an open mind, you could do very well in Tai Chi. > For real, not the arm waving version. You should think about it. I know what works and what doesn't. I've never seen anything in Tai Chi that would be of any benefit to me fight-wise. I'm not going to waste my time searching for some tiny nugget of use in a large pile of arm-waving. But you stick with it Ollie. If it makes you feel as though you could actually use it in a fight against someone with a clue, fine. -- GDS "Let's roll!"