ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Bikes > Battle scooters
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 05-11-2012, 09:37 AM   #46
topless
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Oddometer: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivercreep View Post
Your scooters either run on water or leg power (even if you only fart = you pollute!)

...and I suggest your learn about BATTERIES for storing electrical energy.
I'd like to see you store enough electricity in batteries to run a manufacturing facility, dumabass. I'm not talikng about your treehouse, I'm talking about a city of a couple million people. You got enough batteries for that?
Stupid people like you just annoy the tar out of me. You live in a little bubble and know nothing about any other part of the rest of the world.

hugemoth Today 09:48 AM
For the last 24 years 10 golf cart batteries have powered my whole house and shop, charged by the sun. Among other things they run 2 refrigerators, washing machine, microwave, vacuum cleaner, TV, stereo, DVR, computer, printer, all lights, bench grinder, air compressor, drill press, wire welder, etc..... Lead acid batteries were invented in 1859 so I wouldn't call them new technology.

Great, try running an air conditioner in 100 degree heat. Living on a mountain up North makes a lot of things possible that won't work in warmer climates. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like having a couple thousand people up on your mountain as neighbors. Besides the noise, you'd find at least one of them would steal your batteries and sell them for scrap.
Damn, people in Oregon are self-centered greenies.
topless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2012, 09:57 AM   #47
hugemoth
Beastly Adventurer
 
hugemoth's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Location: Bend, Oregon summer, Snowbird in winter
Oddometer: 2,574
Topless,

Sounds like you're stuck in a hellish place. Hope you can eventually find a better place and a better state of mind.


Quote:
Originally Posted by topless View Post
I'd like to see you store enough electricity in batteries to run a manufacturing facility, dumabass. I'm not talikng about your treehouse, I'm talking about a city of a couple million people. You got enough batteries for that?
Stupid people like you just annoy the tar out of me. You live in a little bubble and know nothing about any other part of the rest of the world.

hugemoth Today 09:48 AM
For the last 24 years 10 golf cart batteries have powered my whole house and shop, charged by the sun. Among other things they run 2 refrigerators, washing machine, microwave, vacuum cleaner, TV, stereo, DVR, computer, printer, all lights, bench grinder, air compressor, drill press, wire welder, etc..... Lead acid batteries were invented in 1859 so I wouldn't call them new technology.

Great, try running an air conditioner in 100 degree heat. Living on a mountain up North makes a lot of things possible that won't work in warmer climates. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like having a couple thousand people up on your mountain as neighbors. Besides the noise, you'd find at least one of them would steal your batteries and sell them for scrap.
Damn, people in Oregon are self-centered greenies.
hugemoth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2012, 05:40 PM   #48
CaseyJones
Ridin' that train
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: Northern Wisconsin
Oddometer: 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivercreep View Post
Ummmn...well....ok...WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS AND NUMBERS, to the contrary?
Uh, duh, I just gave you some. Forty miles a Leaf-charge in real-world conditions.

Solar panels...around thirty years. You want someone to confirm this?

Do you need CONFIRMATION that they've never been anything but a novelty item? They're low-yield and high-maintenance. They need to be kept clean and wear out in less than a decade.

You can argue this, but you cannot credibly argue that they've been rejected. And will be again, too, once it's seen how abysmal they are for serious need.

The problems with wind turbines would fill up much more than the space we have here; they decimate bird flocks; they do NOT function well in extreme temperatures or wind velocities; they do not replace generating plants as winds can cease without notice at any time and there is no storage in the electrical grid. Plants must be up and running and ready to supplant lost power from wind farms at any time.

I don't have numbers handy; and I'm not going to convince anyone who is not willing to consider these. If you're open to learning, you can research these and other assertions - which don't make it onto political Talking Points bullets.
__________________
2007 Burgman 650 Executive...my last hurrah
2011 Xingyue XY300t-4 - Rust in pieces, all over my garage floor. Make me an offer!
2005 Honda BigRuckus...The Last Word; the Armageddon AdventureRide.
CaseyJones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2012, 06:33 PM   #49
rivercreep
Banned
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Location: S.E. Pennsylvania (Reading)
Oddometer: 3,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by topless View Post
I'd like to see you store enough electricity in batteries to run a manufacturing facility, dumabass. I'm not talikng about your treehouse, I'm talking about a city of a couple million people. You got enough batteries for that?
Stupid people like you just annoy the tar out of me. You live in a little bubble and know nothing about any other part of the rest of the world.

hugemoth Today 09:48 AM
For the last 24 years 10 golf cart batteries have powered my whole house and shop, charged by the sun. Among other things they run 2 refrigerators, washing machine, microwave, vacuum cleaner, TV, stereo, DVR, computer, printer, all lights, bench grinder, air compressor, drill press, wire welder, etc..... Lead acid batteries were invented in 1859 so I wouldn't call them new technology.

Great, try running an air conditioner in 100 degree heat. Living on a mountain up North makes a lot of things possible that won't work in warmer climates. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like having a couple thousand people up on your mountain as neighbors. Besides the noise, you'd find at least one of them would steal your batteries and sell them for scrap.
Damn, people in Oregon are self-centered greenies.
Since you can't even take a little good natured ribbing (which is what my response was really all about) and respond the way you do...please allow me to give you the response you deserve...
rivercreep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2012, 07:36 PM   #50
rv-rick
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: East Central VA
Oddometer: 209
[QUOTE=seraph;18661313]based on what Saudi Arabia needs to fund their government. I think we can all agree that giving them less of our money is beneficial for the US. Oil companies and oil speculators make billions of dollars a year in profits - from us. We could keep that money for ourselves if we needed less gas. Screw them. Now, cars and motorbikes are such a tiny fraction of this that they're barely worth discussing.



QUOTE]

Only one small point. Not all speculators make money. A lot of them lose money. Kinda balances out.
__________________
If you think getting old is bad;
consider the alternative.
rv-rick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2012, 07:40 PM   #51
rv-rick
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: East Central VA
Oddometer: 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaseyJones View Post
Probably - judging by your level of information - you don't know this.

There's a helluva lot of carbon monoxide in wood smoke. Yes, even campfires. And wood-stove fires.

That, too, is a natural part of burning the cellulose that is "wood."
In point of fact, some jurisdictions have actually banned wood burning stoves. Nice fat fines if caught.
__________________
If you think getting old is bad;
consider the alternative.
rv-rick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2012, 01:46 AM   #52
thumpty dumpty
Adventurer
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Location: NW Montana
Oddometer: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaseyJones View Post
Solar panels...around thirty years. You want someone to confirm this?

Do you need CONFIRMATION that they've never been anything but a novelty item? They're low-yield and high-maintenance. They need to be kept clean and wear out in less than a decade. - I'm starting to feel like you get your information from newspapers from the 80's. Have you read anything about the German engineer (don't remember the name) that's making solar power from transparent film? Sure, the technology isn't perfect, but it's come a long way. And what maintenance are you writing about? It's not like they need an oil change. And keeping them clean? Maybe we should build houses without windows...don't wanna be washing those twice a year.

The problems with wind turbines would fill up much more than the space we have here; they decimate bird flocks; they do NOT function well in extreme temperatures or wind velocities; they do not replace generating plants as winds can cease without notice at any time and there is no storage in the electrical grid. Plants must be up and running and ready to supplant lost power from wind farms at any time. - Oddly there's thousands of these in North Dakota and northern Montana...places with the greatest temperature extremes in the US, and the only places in the inland US that can generate windspeeds comparable to a cat5 hurricane. The argument about decimating flocks of birds is a little off-handed. Wind power in its current form is there to supplement power generation, not replace it. I'm not going to support or defend the technology in its current form, but the idea is sound.

I don't have numbers handy; and I'm not going to convince anyone who is not willing to consider these. If you're open to learning, you can research these and other assertions - which don't make it onto political Talking Points bullets.- I think "assertions" is the key word. You're entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
"The world's going to hell anyway. Recycling just insures we'll spend our last days using inferior products." - Bart Simpson

thumpty dumpty screwed with this post 05-12-2012 at 12:47 PM Reason: added some color
thumpty dumpty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2012, 05:09 AM   #53
Ken OBSC
-6.12, -7.64
 
Ken OBSC's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Ada, Ohio
Oddometer: 37,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaseyJones View Post
How about the scientists who've declared it a hoax?

If you take a list of "scientists" who're on the Global "Warming" bandwagon; and a list of climate scientists who are taking government money for their work...you'll find pretty much the same list.

Scientists are like anyone else that way - many of them can be bought.
Total bullshit.

But I found your picture on the Internet.



You might want to think about who would finance this research if the government wasn't. Most basic research is funded by the government, while most practical applications of the basic findings is financed by businesses.

Further, talking about individual seasons, or individual days, is silly. The issue is defined in trends. It's no crime to be ignorant about a topic, but to both brag about your ignorance and try to reach conclusions based on your ignorance is the height of foolishness.

__________________
Ken

Old Bastards Scooter Club (Yahoo)
----------
With Age comes Wisdom


More Intellectual Fire Power than the entire wing-nuttery.

Ken OBSC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2012, 05:17 AM   #54
Ken OBSC
-6.12, -7.64
 
Ken OBSC's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Ada, Ohio
Oddometer: 37,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaseyJones View Post
Don't confuse me with the New Luddite crowd. Before we had SUVs, we had steam locomotives - belching black smoke all over the place. And before THAT, we had uncontrolled forest fires...and volcanoes.

The Earth somehow managed to survive. Point I'm making is, certain factions with ill designs are trying to whip up the idiots into a frenzy - with remarkable success. What these persons want, is not abolishment of big cars or barbecues...but the power of saying WHEN, saying who can have and who cannot.

I'm not buying it; because the whole premise is false. The data has been skewed or calculated incorrectly; and we have had hot - and cold - periods before this.
Interesting point of view. Is all science political, or is this a new phenomenon? How does this work? Is Atomic Energy just a figment of Roosevelt's politics? Was the moon walk just performed on a secret government stage? Is the teflon in your favorite skillet just a figment of some politician's imagination? Are Pacemaker's just placebo devices?

I think you're on to some great truthiness here. Street drugs or some personal concoction?

__________________
Ken

Old Bastards Scooter Club (Yahoo)
----------
With Age comes Wisdom


More Intellectual Fire Power than the entire wing-nuttery.

Ken OBSC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2012, 05:27 AM   #55
rivercreep
Banned
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Location: S.E. Pennsylvania (Reading)
Oddometer: 3,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by knucklehead90 View Post
Since you seem to have the facts concerning batteries why didn't you provide a link to those superior batteries? Batteries are not currently the answer - until we're all living in caves and need only lighting batteries aren't the answer. Doesn't mean they won't in the future but for now batteries won't run my heat pump - and my home theater equipment along with the microwave - TV and lights. I'm all about convenience. Lets keep things simple - and convenient.
You're too funny!
Nowhere did I state any "facts" about any superior types of batteries.

My response was a type of response to a guy saying his scooter didn't pollute and that you couldn't store electrical energy.
....and I yet I get called stupid (not by you!) by a guy who couldn't see this was all good natured ribbing who goes on an insult rampage.

F.W.I.W. You guys can have all of your convienances and be as selfish as you want fighting against making things "greener" as I have no kids that I'm leaving a future for. Let your own suffer the sins of the father.
All I see as "signs of the times" is complete selfishness based on personal convienance, as well as a degenerate society that doesn't communicate well with others. (based on the response I received due to good natured humor)

Damn! = I feel for future generations and what they're being left to deal with.
rivercreep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2012, 05:39 AM   #56
Ken OBSC
-6.12, -7.64
 
Ken OBSC's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Ada, Ohio
Oddometer: 37,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by knucklehead90 View Post
Sorry about the edit job - doesn't cussing just make one look unwashed and uneducated?

Anyway - ever heard the term 'hide the decline'? Maybe you haven't - but those boys over in England at CRU certainly have - after all they wrote that very phrase in their very own emails that were outed in 2009 discussing how they were going to 'hide the decline'. Now these boys are 'scientists' if you believe what they say. I say any scientist worth their salt doesn't hide anything - good or bad. Why try to hide the decline? Because it did not fit their agenda. And whats the decline they were discussing? Why the decline in average world temps of course. I linked to Wikipedia so you could familiarize yourself with CRU - and justs for sh*ts and giggles I've linked to an article in ConservaPedia so you could read some of the many examples of how Wikipedia is often biased when it comes to Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Do try to read it. After all - I read that Wiki article.

So...is the world warming? By any measure - yes - just not recently. Has the warming taken a 15 year hiatus? Seems it has - and even declined a bit. Is there any reason to lie about it? Only if your vested interests lay in AGW being fact. Since the groups most likely to gain from AGW are scientists politicians and their cronies (taxes and business and grants) does it make sense that these two groups would work hand-in-hand to 'hide the decline'? Of course - there is just too much money in it for each group.

For the record I'm as equally skeptical when it comes to oil funded AGW. They also have their agenda. Neither group seems to have my agenda in mind - the TRUTH.

Real scientists don't make up numbers to hide anything. The facts are CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen from .034 to .039 parts per million the past 30 years - warming has declined almost one degree Celsius since 1996. The Pacific Ocean temperatures are on a slight decline over all. The Arctic ice is melting as we speak - and have been for the past 10,000 years - ever since that last ice age ended. The sun didn't come out with a BANG suddenly and temps rise to exactly an average of what we find 100 years ago - hardly - but you know these things.

These are facts - along with the CRU's attempts to 'hide the decline'. If you wish to 'offset your carbon footprint' be my guest - but don't expect me to follow - its a fools errand. And Al Gore knows it. He just wanted to be the richest man in the world and is/was willing to screw every man woman and child in the USA to achieve his goals. He's a con man - why else does he avoid debating 'settled science'? Cause he's got a losing hand and he knows it.

Want to discuss warming? Don't come up with 'well there was this guy who was a kid living in Phoenix in the 50's and 60's' crap - subjective memory is just that - subjective. Scrap book stuff at best. Facts are what is important in a discussion - 'hiding the decline' is a distortion of facts - more precisely it should be called lying - fraud if you get public money for distorting 'facts'. Put the CRU crew in jail - that'll cure the 'hiding the decline'. Lets deal in facts - even though they may end a few careers.

And to avoiding breathing exhaust fumes - move out of Seattle. The most liberal city in the state. Why do you think I avoid visiting there whenever I can? And I have two kids living there.
Well, you read it in Wiki. Apparently you didn't understand what you read.

Here's the commentary about the documents. I've taken the liberty of highlighting the parts you had difficulty with.

Quote:
Most of the emails concerned technical and mundane aspects of climate research, such as data analysis and details of scientific conferences.[30] The Guardian's analysis of the emails suggests that the hacker had filtered them. Four scientists were targeted and a concordance plot shows that the words "data", "climate", "paper", "research", "temperature" and "model" were predominant.[21] The controversy has thus focused on a small number of emails.[30] Skeptic websites picked out particular phrases, including one in which Kevin Trenberth stated, "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t".[20] This was actually part of a discussion on the need for better monitoring of energy flows involved in short-term climate variability,[31] but was grossly mischaracterised by critics.[32][33]

Many commentators quoted one email referring to "Mike's Nature trick" which Jones used in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization, to deal with the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem "to hide the decline" that a particular proxy showed for modern temperatures after 1950, when measured temperatures were rising. These two phrases from the emails were also taken out of context by climate change sceptics including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin as though they referred to a decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[33] John Tierney, writing in the New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[34] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion., [35][36] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and was not hiding or concealing them.[
By the Way, do you understand the difference between "proxy measures" and "direct measures"?
__________________
Ken

Old Bastards Scooter Club (Yahoo)
----------
With Age comes Wisdom


More Intellectual Fire Power than the entire wing-nuttery.

Ken OBSC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2012, 05:43 AM   #57
hugemoth
Beastly Adventurer
 
hugemoth's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Location: Bend, Oregon summer, Snowbird in winter
Oddometer: 2,574
I can only assume you are getting your information from some obscure right wing web site rather than looking for well documented facts. Please post your sources.

Since my house has been powered by photovoltaic solar panels for over 20 years I'm very familiar with them.

The photovoltaic principal was discovered in 1839 so it's not new technology. I purchased my first little panel as a kid in the early 1960s so that makes commercially available panels at least 50 years old. Saying they're low yield is meaningless, compared to what? These same "novelty item" solar panels that "wear out in less than a decade" have been powering my house for over 20 years with zero maintenance, cleaned only by rain. Most panels come with a 20 year manufacturers warranty.



Quote:
Originally Posted by CaseyJones View Post
Uh, duh, I just gave you some. Forty miles a Leaf-charge in real-world conditions.

Solar panels...around thirty years. You want someone to confirm this?

Do you need CONFIRMATION that they've never been anything but a novelty item? They're low-yield and high-maintenance. They need to be kept clean and wear out in less than a decade.

You can argue this, but you cannot credibly argue that they've been rejected. And will be again, too, once it's seen how abysmal they are for serious need.

The problems with wind turbines would fill up much more than the space we have here; they decimate bird flocks; they do NOT function well in extreme temperatures or wind velocities; they do not replace generating plants as winds can cease without notice at any time and there is no storage in the electrical grid. Plants must be up and running and ready to supplant lost power from wind farms at any time.

I don't have numbers handy; and I'm not going to convince anyone who is not willing to consider these. If you're open to learning, you can research these and other assertions - which don't make it onto political Talking Points bullets.
hugemoth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2012, 06:58 AM   #58
topless
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Oddometer: 121
Gee, having worked around all types of electrical generating stations for over 20 years, just means that I don't understand anything about living with a patch of solar panels and a handful of batteries. It might be great to not send off money to a electric utility, but 95% of the population isn't living like that. In the rest of our country, people have to use a utility companies and have no choice. I've worked in coal fired, gas, nuclear, hydro-electric plants and the idea that our society can live off solar panels and batteries is ludicrous.
I've listened to ignorant fools preach about all manner of hazards that are then broadcast to the general public that repeats the exagerations until it becomes the truth. Then, using that, the greenies pass regulations that choke the life out of industries, one after another. Not to say that many things do by various industries were bad for the enviornment, many were and although most were started by people with no bad intentions, they were continued and coved up by companies that knew what they were doing was bad, but didn't want to spend money to fix. But, there are many things that are over regulated. Example: asbestos, it is a danger to breath, but so is breathing any type of particulate, our lungs don't like to be filled with dust of any kind. The stupid part comes in disposal, it must placed in special containers and stored in a hazardous waste site. asbestos is a mineral, mined out of the ground. Other examples: light bulbs and toilets.
Whenever the government gets involved stupid things happen. Not saying everything that has been done is bad, but they go beyond common sense.
Back to my scooters, of course there is a small amount of pollution, but compared to a 2 stroke weed wacker, it's nothing.
I run my own business, have for over 20 years and buttheads preaching about things they don't understand are all to common and my skin is a little thin and they are getting on my last nerve.
topless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2012, 08:30 PM   #59
CaseyJones
Ridin' that train
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: Northern Wisconsin
Oddometer: 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by hugemoth View Post
I can only assume you are getting your information from some obscure right wing web site rather than looking for well documented facts. Please post your sources.
You think I'm parroting some website with Talking Points, like leftist idiots do? I LIVED through the "energy crisis" of the 1970s. I remember the "targeted tax breaks" for people who bought "alternate energy." At the time my old man had a summer home; he kept some heat on inside it in the winter. He looked into solar panels; and saw a payback, even with the tax breaks, as somewhere between the next millenium and "never."

Solar panels simply didn't exist prior to the 1970s, as far as I know. You had some ten years earlier? Who made them?

Quote:
Since my house has been powered by photovoltaic solar panels for over 20 years I'm very familiar with them.
How much power do you get out of them?

How do you STORE this power? What form of power do you USE? Twelve volts DC? ...I guess that would be convenient; that's what your camper-home was wired for.

Where do you do this? The Mojave Desert? You know, of course, in most places in the nation there isn't enough sunlight, strong enough or long enough, to make even modern solar panels practical.

That's WHY THEY'RE NOT USED HERE. Except, of course, in government buildings and schools, where costs don't count - only ideology.

Quote:
The photovoltaic principal was discovered in 1839 so it's not new technology. I purchased my first little panel as a kid in the early 1960s so that makes commercially available panels at least 50 years old. Saying they're low yield is meaningless, compared to what? These same "novelty item" solar panels that "wear out in less than a decade" have been powering my house for over 20 years with zero maintenance, cleaned only by rain. Most panels come with a 20 year manufacturers warranty.
Now I KNOW you're full of excrement.

Cleaned only by rain? Ever see a greenhouse? An old-style one; with the glass panes in the roof instead of the corrugated fiberglass panels.

That glass gets FILTHY. For that matter, even clear skylights get filthy. NO place in this world is free of dust or dust borne by rain.

From what I've heard on public discussions, keeping rooftop panels clean is a big maintenance job.
__________________
2007 Burgman 650 Executive...my last hurrah
2011 Xingyue XY300t-4 - Rust in pieces, all over my garage floor. Make me an offer!
2005 Honda BigRuckus...The Last Word; the Armageddon AdventureRide.
CaseyJones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2012, 12:52 AM   #60
thumpty dumpty
Adventurer
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Location: NW Montana
Oddometer: 45
thumpty dumpty is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

.
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


Times are GMT -7.   It's 04:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014