Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

12-Volt CFLs - Page 11

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by wmbjkREMOVE on January 21, 2010, 4:18 pm


Repeating the same simpleminded hogwash won't make it any more true.

I ask again, have you any credible evidence for your belief? Of course
you don't or we'd have seen it years ago.

Here are some facts: a mesh structure can have almost the same wind
loading as a solid structure at high wind speeds. That's because
turbulence restricts flow through the holes. Spaces between modules
will suffer the same effect to some degree. Manufacturers have
considered all that and much more, and have decided that only small
spaces between modules are generally required. If you believe that's
incorrect, and that you have sufficient knowledge to prove that your
cockamamie recommendation trumps both actual engineering and decades
of experience with a successful and well-proven concept, then let's
see your calculations and references. Prediction: you won't post
anything other than more weaseling such as your outright lie about 4"
spacing being "industry standard".
So let's boil it down to some simple questions that you should be able
to answer:

Why have manufacturers ignored your advice for so many years?
Considering that virtually all installations didn't follow your
advice, why don't we constantly hear about modules flying off? How do
you account for the high-wind survival of closely-spaced modules on
trackers which are often more exposed than roof mounts?

There is no evidence that you "understand" anything about module
mounting or "design". As with every other subject, your comments
amount to ill-considered piffle mixed with transparent exaggeration,
hideously-wrong calculations, an unwillingness to accept simple
concepts or even reality, and a complete inability to think logically.
On that last point, take another look at the common-sense questions
above. They're what you should have asked yourself *before* repeatedly
spreading foolishness about module spacing. Clearly that kind of
critical thinking escapes you. But why not learn? How is it better to
cling to silly notions and defend them tenaciously until you haven't
an iota of credibility?

The most amazing thing here is that your module-spacing advice is only
about half as quacky as much of your other wisdumb.


http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/tbfduwisdumb.htm  Your one-stop
collection of most flavors of ghinius wisdumb

Search bots --> george Ghio, bealiba, Renegade writing, mount Moliagul

Posted by ghio on January 21, 2010, 9:51 pm

On Jan 22, 3:18am, wmbjkREM...@citlink.net wrote:

As it is a foregone conclusion that it will all end in you, at your
base state, running away crying, why bother.

Posted by wmbjkREMOVE on January 21, 2010, 11:10 pm



IOW, exactly as predicted, and exactly as with all the rest of your
bizarre recommendations, you don't have one credible word to back up
your feeble-minded notion. Nor can you give any coherent explanation
for why you alone have found the need to be contrary yet again.
Clinging to an indefensible belief is bad enough, but promoting it is
worse. Apparently this guy knows you well enough to have written an
article. http://www.helium.com/items/1466163-irrationality   Here's his
advice on how to cure yourself: "demonstrating a willingness to make
corrections can save us much pain and embarrassment". Notice that it's
pretty much what dozens of people in these newsgroups have told you
over the years.


Posted by ghio on January 22, 2010, 4:28 am

On Jan 22, 10:10am, wmbjkREM...@citlink.net wrote:

Yes wayne

Posted by ghio on January 16, 2010, 8:33 pm

On Jan 17, 1:44am, wmbjkREM...@citlink.net wrote:
Drivel removed.

Sorry wayne but you have some unfinished business;

If Watts are independent of voltage(wayne's law) then;

If - 100Whs / 240V = .416Ahrs
100Whrs / 48V = 2.08Ahrs
2.08Ahrs X 240V should equal 100Whrs.

Make your law work wayne.

This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread