Author: Bret CahillDate: 00:10 31-07-08
|
|
I'm taking all comers.
Bret Cahill
|
|
|
|
Author: John LarkinDate: 00:51 31-07-08
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 21:10:20 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
>I'm taking all comers.
>
>
>Bret Cahill
>
Show us some stuff you've designed.
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: John LarkinDate: 01:22 31-07-08
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> >> Show us some stuff you've designed.
> >www.BretCahill.com
> >Bret Cahill
> Cartoons. How about some hardware?
You want it delivered?
For what purpose?
Anyway you are already down one straw. You have never generated a
single novel idea in your entire life.
Since you have no IP or web page, perhaps you'ld like to try something
else?
Maybe you want to impress someone with your proficiency in vector
calculus?
Maybe you unnerstand Maxwell's equations.
Show us what you got.
Bret Cahill
|
|
|
|
Author: Michael A. TerrellDate: 01:57 31-07-08
|
|
BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:
>
> > >> Show us some stuff you've designed.
>
> > >www.BretCahill.com
>
> > >Bret Cahill
>
> > Cartoons. How about some hardware?
>
> You want it delivered?
>
> For what purpose?
>
> Anyway you are already down one straw. You have never generated a
> single novel idea in your entire life.
>
> Since you have no IP or web page, perhaps you'ld like to try something
> else?
Yes John has his corporate web page, and it shows some very
interesting products he designed,. Just because you are too stupid to
find it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
> Maybe you want to impress someone with your proficiency in vector
> calculus?
>
> Maybe you unnerstand Maxwell's equations.
>
> Show us what you got.
>
> Bret Cahill
--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html
If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm
Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.
|
|
|
|
Author: John FieldsDate: 07:17 31-07-08
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 21:10:20 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
>I'm taking all comers.
---
Really?
Do you swallow?
JF
|
|
|
|
Author: tgDate: 07:47 31-07-08
|
|
On Jul 31, 12:58=A0am, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:
> > Show us some stuff you've designed.
>
> www.BretCahill.com
>
> Bret Cahill
I think you've made your point Bret. It should be easy for any of
these guys to critique your proposal, particularly John Larkin who is
in the coffee processing business. But as usual, I'm the one who has
to pick up the burden...
Referring to picture 2:
Before we get into the actual physics of it, where would you apply
this? Why are we heating up liquids and then transferring the heat to
a gas? Are you talking about something like auto radiators when you
say radiator?
-tg
|
|
|
|
Author: T. KeatingDate: 08:28 31-07-08
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 21:10:20 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
>I'm taking all comers.
>
Commercially available stacked flat plat heat exchangers are far more
efficient.. (no need for a working fluid, greater surface area, higher
heat transfer coefficient.) .
http://www.flatplate.com/?gclid=COnUk8KQ6pQCFQpzHgod-lP-RQ
Or just google
"stacked flat plate heat exchangers"
|
|
|
|
Author: Bret CahillDate: 08:58 31-07-08
|
|
All ya gotta do is put out the shoe and the idiots step right in to
demonstrate it fits:
> > > >> Show us some stuff you've designed.
>
> > > >www.BretCahill.com
>
> > > >Bret Cahill
>
> > > Cartoons. How about some hardware?
>
> > You want it delivered?
>
> > For what purpose?
>
> > Anyway you are already down one straw. =EF=BF=BDYou have never generate=
d a
> > single novel idea in your entire life.
> > Since you have no IP or web page, perhaps you'ld like to try something
> > else?
> =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDYes John has his corporate web page,
Is he ashamed of it or what?
This is remins me of the looneytarian posting under the handle
"Caliban."
He said he was running for office but he wouldn't post his name.
Bret Cahill
|
|
|
|
Author: Bret CahillDate: 09:08 31-07-08
|
|
> I think you've made your point Bret.
Which is?
> It should be easy for any of
> these guys to critique your proposal,
Why aren't they doing it?
Uh, oh, now they are going to start saying,
"Cite?"
"Huge!"
"Show your work."
> particularly John Larkin who is
> in the coffee processing business.
Then we can forget about him saving any quads, not that their was ever
any hope for him.
> But as usual, I'm the one who has
> to pick up the burden...
> Referring to picture 2:
>
> Before we get into the actual physics of it, where would you apply
> this? Why are we heating up liquids and then transferring the heat to
> a gas?
Because it's easier than trying to transfer directly from a gas to a
gas.
> Are you talking about something like auto radiators when you
> say radiator?
Yes. With fluidization all you need is a single pipe.
Only the application is new on that one.
Bret Cahill
|
|
|
|
Author: Bret CahillDate: 09:09 31-07-08
|
|
Cite?
Huge!
Show your work.
|
|
|
|
Author: Bret CahillDate: 09:15 31-07-08
|
|
At least someone is on topic.
> Commercially available stacked flat plat heat exchangers are far more
> efficient.. (no need for a working fluid, greater surface area,
Fins work in fluidization as well
> higher
> heat transfer coefficient.) .
The heat transfer coefficient is an order of magnitude greater with
particle bed fluidization.
I thought I made that clear.
Bret Cahill
|
|
|
|
Author: John FieldsDate: 09:38 31-07-08
|
|
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 06:15:21 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
>I thought I made that clear.
All you've ever made clear is that you don't know what you're talking
about.
JF
|
|
|
|
Author: John FieldsDate: 09:53 31-07-08
|
|
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 06:09:11 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
>Cite?
>
>Huge!
>
>Show your work.
---
Run away?
JF
|
|
|
|
Author: Michael A. TerrellDate: 10:02 31-07-08
|
|
tg wrote:
>
> On Jul 31, 12:58 am, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:
> > > Show us some stuff you've designed.
> >
> > www.BretCahill.com
> >
> > Bret Cahill
>
> I think you've made your point Bret. It should be easy for any of
> these guys to critique your proposal, particularly John Larkin who is
> in the coffee processing business.
You are a stupid as you buddy. John's website is well known on the
electronics newsgroups, but you two can't find it.
Do either of you ever get ANYTHING right? John owns a electronics
design & manufacturing business in San Francisco. All you idiots do is
spin useless ideas, while John is designing & building things to complex
for your small, lying minds. He is right downtown, and has shown
pictures of his nw business location and new products on another
newsgroup. All you two do is a pathetic troll dance.
--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html
If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm
Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.
|
|
|
|
Author: Bret CahillDate: 10:04 31-07-08
|
|
I start a thread for braggarts and who appears?
A loser in his own mind.
> >I thought I made that clear.
> All you've ever made clear is that
You cut/snip dodge tech issues like the plague.
On the other hand every time you try to comment on tech issues you
look like a complete idiot, denial of the circular furrows, fields
take 3 months and $100,000 worth of diesel to plow, etc.
The best you can do is post:
LOL!
Cite?
Huge!
|
|
|
|
Author: Tim WescottDate: 10:20 31-07-08
|
|
John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 21:10:20 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
> <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm taking all comers.
>>
>>
>> Bret Cahill
>>
>
> Show us some stuff you've designed.
>
> John
>
Please don't feed the troll.
--
Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com
Do you need to implement control loops in software?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" gives you just what it says.
See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html
|
|
|
|
Author: tgDate: 10:25 31-07-08
|
|
On Jul 31, 9:08=A0am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
> > I think you've made your point Bret.
>
> Which is?
>
> > It should be easy for any of
> > these guys to critique your proposal,
>
> Why aren't they doing it?
>
> Uh, oh, now they are going to start saying,
>
> "Cite?"
>
> "Huge!"
>
> "Show your work."
>
> > particularly John Larkin who is
> > in the coffee processing business.
>
> Then we can forget about him saving any quads, not that their was ever
> any hope for him.
>
> > But as usual, I'm the one who has
> > to pick up the burden...
> > Referring to picture 2:
>
> > Before we get into the actual physics of it, where would you apply
> > this? Why are we heating up liquids and then transferring the heat to
> > a gas?
>
> Because it's easier than trying to transfer directly from a gas to a
> gas.
>
Well that's one place where I don't agree. It is obviously always more
efficient to avoid the intermediate step, unless you are talking about
transport, where the liquid covers some distance.
> > Are you talking about something like auto radiators when you
> > say radiator?
>
> Yes. =A0With fluidization all you need is a single pipe.
Yeah I think you are wrong on that. Your particles are going to be
separated by the moving air, so it isn't clear how you expect to get
improved heat transfer. Perhaps one of the mechanical engineers will
correct me, but I would visualize it as follows:
Consider a thin section perpendicular to the airflow, such that the
liquid 'pipe' is in the center, and welded to the pipe is some
perforated metal. Heat flows through the metal around the holes, which
means the whole thing will heat up and give up heat to the airflow.
But you are suggesting that we have the 'photographic negative' of
that, with little discs of metal surrounded by air. This would result
in *less* surface area with a high delta-T with respect to the moving
air.
-tg
>
> Only the application is new on that one.
>
> Bret Cahill
|
|
|
|
Author: Bret CahillDate: 11:23 31-07-08
|
|
> > > I think you've made your point Bret.
>
> > Which is?
>
> > > It should be easy for any of
> > > these guys to critique your proposal,
>
> > Why aren't they doing it?
>
> > Uh, oh, now they are going to start saying,
>
> > "Cite?"
>
> > "Huge!"
>
> > "Show your work."
>
> > > particularly John Larkin who is
> > > in the coffee processing business.
>
> > Then we can forget about him saving any quads, not that their was ever
> > any hope for him.
>
> > > But as usual, I'm the one who has
> > > to pick up the burden...
> > > Referring to picture 2:
>
> > > Before we get into the actual physics of it, where would you apply
> > > this? Why are we heating up liquids and then transferring the heat to
> > > a gas?
>
> > Because it's easier than trying to transfer directly from a gas to a
> > gas.
>
> Well that's one place where I don't agree. It is obviously always more
> efficient to avoid the intermediate step, unless you are talking about
> transport, where the liquid covers some distance.
>
> > > Are you talking about something like auto radiators when you
> > > say radiator?
>
> > Yes. =EF=BF=BDWith fluidization all you need is a single pipe.
>
> Yeah I think you are wrong on that.
No reasoning?
> Your particles are going to be
> separated by the moving air, so it isn't clear how you expect to get
> improved heat transfer.
The reason it isn't clear is because you never studied fluidization
or, for that matter, anything science or tech related.
You need to get the Pell grant. Write your congressman to expand the
program.
Here's an easy experiment to get a "feeling" for a heat transfer
coefficient in the same range as condensation.
Cap the bottom of a 4" PVC sewer pipe. Drill a 1/8" hole near the
bottom and run a line to shop compressor. Fill the T with ice water
including some crushed ice or small ice cubes.
Place you hand into the ice water and crank up the compressed air for
40 seconds.
That will cool a drink faster than liquid N2 or CO2 from a fire
extinguisher.
Bret Cahill
|
|
|
|
|
