General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Paddlewheel and steam engine efficiency

Started by jtaylor · · Last activity · 18 posts · 1,103 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
17 June 2005
Last activity
21 June 2005
Original author
jtaylor
Posts
18
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,103
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–18 of 18
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Stalwart readers of this newgroup may recall a recent thread where an
    intermittent participant claimed variously that

    a) paddlewheels were more efficient than propellors;
    b) steam engines were more efficient than internal combustion piston engines
    of the diesel cycle;
    c) the combination of steam and paddlewheel was more efficient than the
    combination of diesel and propellor; and

    d) the incontrovertable source for such revelations to the world of naval
    engineering was "Discovery Channel"

    These first three of those statements are completely at odds with accepted
    engineering understanding & practice, and the laws of thermodynamics (and
    quite how, as was argued, one would get from a) and b) being wrong but c)
    was not is perhaps just one of those examples of usenet being the great
    leveller).

    But d) was intriguing.

    Serendipitously, it seems that that particular Discovery Channel show is on
    at this very moment. I've been watching it assiduously, waiting for these
    dramatic announcements.

    Nada.

    Nothing.

    Well, it was mentioned that at the time the American Queen (a reconstructed
    paddlewheel steamer now plying the tourist trade on the Missippi waterway)
    was built, large diesel engines where not available.

    It was also mentioned that the American Queen, as currently powered, would
    not be able to make headway upstream with steam power & paddlewheel alone,
    but that it also needed a number of diesel powered propellors mounted in
    under-hull pods to be both manoeverable and capable of upstream traffic.

    Now, I missed the first few minutes of that episode of "Super Ships:
    American Queen", so it might be that Martin's road-to-Damascus moment
    occured in that part of the show. The Discovery Channel website has the
    following schedule for this episode - if any newsgroup readers are
    interested would they please take especial note of anything he might have
    believed was relevatory:

    Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 2:00 PM (ET)
    Fri, Jul 1, 2005 at 6:00 PM (ET)
    Sat, Jul 9, 2005 at 7:00 AM (ET)

  2. jtaylor said:

    Serendipitously, it seems that that particular Discovery Channel show is on
    at this very moment. I've been watching it assiduously, waiting for these
    dramatic announcements.

    Nada.

    Nothing.

    Well, it was mentioned that at the time the American Queen (a reconstructed
    paddlewheel steamer now plying the tourist trade on the Missippi waterway)
    was built, large diesel engines where not available.

    It was also mentioned that the American Queen, as currently powered, would
    not be able to make headway upstream with steam power & paddlewheel alone,
    but that it also needed a number of diesel powered propellors mounted in
    under-hull pods to be both manoeverable and capable of upstream traffic.

    Now, I missed the first few minutes of that episode of "Super Ships:
    American Queen", so it might be that Martin's road-to-Damascus moment
    occured in that part of the show. The Discovery Channel website has the
    following schedule for this episode - if any newsgroup readers are
    interested would they please take especial note of anything he might have
    believed was relevatory:

    Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 2:00 PM (ET)
    Fri, Jul 1, 2005 at 6:00 PM (ET)
    Sat, Jul 9, 2005 at 7:00 AM (ET)

    I never saw that show, j. I never saw any show about Super Ships, not
    on the Discovery Channel, not anywhere else.

    And what was that five pounds you claimed a few days ago? I suppose
    that had nothing to do with me either?

  3. "Otis B. Driftwood" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    jtaylor said:

    Serendipitously, it seems that that particular Discovery Channel show is


    on

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    at this very moment. I've been watching it assiduously, waiting for


    these

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    dramatic announcements.

    Nada.

    Nothing.

    Well, it was mentioned that at the time the American Queen (a


    reconstructed

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    paddlewheel steamer now plying the tourist trade on the Missippi


    waterway)

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    was built, large diesel engines where not available.

    It was also mentioned that the American Queen, as currently powered,


    would

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    not be able to make headway upstream with steam power & paddlewheel


    alone,

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    but that it also needed a number of diesel powered propellors mounted in
    under-hull pods to be both manoeverable and capable of upstream traffic.

    Now, I missed the first few minutes of that episode of "Super Ships:
    American Queen", so it might be that Martin's road-to-Damascus moment
    occured in that part of the show. The Discovery Channel website has the
    following schedule for this episode - if any newsgroup readers are
    interested would they please take especial note of anything he might have
    believed was relevatory:

    Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 2:00 PM (ET)
    Fri, Jul 1, 2005 at 6:00 PM (ET)
    Sat, Jul 9, 2005 at 7:00 AM (ET)

    I never saw that show, j. I never saw any show about Super Ships, not
    on the Discovery Channel, not anywhere else.

    Which discovery show was it, then, that told you that the paddlewheel:

    "But in terms of efficiency, as defined in physics, is more efficient than
    the propeller. If I'm not mistaken, the paddle wheel steamer was the most
    efficient surface ship. "

  4. jtaylor said:


    "Otis B. Driftwood" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    jtaylor said:

    Serendipitously, it seems that that particular Discovery Channel show is


    on

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    at this very moment. I've been watching it assiduously, waiting for


    these

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    dramatic announcements.

    Nada.

    Nothing.

    Well, it was mentioned that at the time the American Queen (a


    reconstructed

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    paddlewheel steamer now plying the tourist trade on the Missippi


    waterway)

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    was built, large diesel engines where not available.

    It was also mentioned that the American Queen, as currently powered,


    would

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    not be able to make headway upstream with steam power & paddlewheel


    alone,

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    but that it also needed a number of diesel powered propellors mounted in
    under-hull pods to be both manoeverable and capable of upstream traffic.

    Now, I missed the first few minutes of that episode of "Super Ships:
    American Queen", so it might be that Martin's road-to-Damascus moment
    occured in that part of the show. The Discovery Channel website has the
    following schedule for this episode - if any newsgroup readers are
    interested would they please take especial note of anything he might have
    believed was relevatory:

    Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 2:00 PM (ET)
    Fri, Jul 1, 2005 at 6:00 PM (ET)
    Sat, Jul 9, 2005 at 7:00 AM (ET)

    I never saw that show, j. I never saw any show about Super Ships, not
    on the Discovery Channel, not anywhere else.

    Which discovery show was it, then, that told you that the paddlewheel:

    "But in terms of efficiency, as defined in physics, is more efficient than
    the propeller. If I'm not mistaken, the paddle wheel steamer was the most
    efficient surface ship. "

    I don't remember the name. It was about steam engines. It was part of
    that series of documentaries with the British guy who is really into
    machines of all kinds.

    Keep in mind that efficiency here refers to percentage of energy
    consumed that is delivered to the drive. These days that would be the
    steam turbine. I don't recall why the paddle wheel steamer was said to
    be the most efficient, but, again, if I'm not mistaken, I would think
    it had to do with the amound of energy that had to be released to
    actually turn the paddle wheel. In any case, the efficiency of these
    engines had nothing to do with the speed of the boat, as far as I
    recall.

    It's disappointing to see your ad hominem argument technique has not
    diminished in the months I've been away, but I guess I didn't expect
    anything different.

  5. "Otis B. Driftwood" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >Now, I missed the first few minutes of that episode of "Super Ships:
    >American Queen", so it might be that Martin's road-to-Damascus moment
    >occured in that part of the show. The Discovery Channel website has


    the

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >following schedule for this episode - if any newsgroup readers are
    >interested would they please take especial note of anything he might


    have

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >believed was relevatory:
    >
    >Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 2:00 PM (ET)
    >Fri, Jul 1, 2005 at 6:00 PM (ET)
    >Sat, Jul 9, 2005 at 7:00 AM (ET)

    I never saw that show, j. I never saw any show about Super Ships, not
    on the Discovery Channel, not anywhere else.

    Which discovery show was it, then, that told you that the paddlewheel:

    "But in terms of efficiency, as defined in physics, is more efficient


    than

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    the propeller. If I'm not mistaken, the paddle wheel steamer was the most
    efficient surface ship. "

    I don't remember the name. It was about steam engines. It was part of
    that series of documentaries with the British guy who is really into
    machines of all kinds.

    Keep in mind that efficiency here refers to percentage of energy
    consumed that is delivered to the drive.

    Is the the same king of "efficiency" you were talking about earlier in that
    thread where you said:

    "...a sprinter's kick is always efficient..."

    Quoted message said:


    It's disappointing to see your ad hominem argument technique has not
    diminished in the months I've been away, but I guess I didn't expect
    anything different.

    An "ad hominem" argument is one directed at the _qualities_ of the person.
    All of my questions have been directed to your _statements_.
    They are not, by definition, ad hominem.

    If you cannot support your statements with facts or reasoning, we might
    expect ad hominem attacks, such as

    "You are a fool"

    or

    "jtaylor the banana"

    or

    "Gosh, what an ass"

  6. jtaylor said:


    "Otis B. Driftwood" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > >Now, I missed the first few minutes of that episode of "Super Ships:
    > >American Queen", so it might be that Martin's road-to-Damascus moment
    > >occured in that part of the show. The Discovery Channel website has


    the

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > >following schedule for this episode - if any newsgroup readers are
    > >interested would they please take especial note of anything he might


    have

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > >believed was relevatory:
    > >
    > >Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 2:00 PM (ET)
    > >Fri, Jul 1, 2005 at 6:00 PM (ET)
    > >Sat, Jul 9, 2005 at 7:00 AM (ET)
    >
    > I never saw that show, j. I never saw any show about Super Ships, not
    > on the Discovery Channel, not anywhere else.
    >

    Which discovery show was it, then, that told you that the paddlewheel:

    "But in terms of efficiency, as defined in physics, is more efficient


    than

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    the propeller. If I'm not mistaken, the paddle wheel steamer was the most
    efficient surface ship. "

    I don't remember the name. It was about steam engines. It was part of
    that series of documentaries with the British guy who is really into
    machines of all kinds.

    Keep in mind that efficiency here refers to percentage of energy
    consumed that is delivered to the drive.

    Is the the same king of "efficiency" you were talking about earlier in that
    thread where you said:

    "...a sprinter's kick is always efficient..."

    Quoted message said:


    It's disappointing to see your ad hominem argument technique has not
    diminished in the months I've been away, but I guess I didn't expect
    anything different.

    An "ad hominem" argument is one directed at the _qualities_ of the person.
    All of my questions have been directed to your _statements_.
    They are not, by definition, ad hominem.

    If you cannot support your statements with facts or reasoning, we might
    expect ad hominem attacks, such as

    "You are a fool"

    or

    "jtaylor the banana"

    or

    "Gosh, what an ass"

    ....or, your actual attack today:

    "Now, you've a long history of posting completey wrong information,
    changing threads, using big words (like efficiency) and claiming they
    mean something other than what their definitions say they mean,
    denying what you've said, and sundry other unpleasantries; and when
    anyone points these things out, you (not always in this order):

    "a) complain about their spelling
    b) question their qualifications
    c) state that you have been swimming for longer than they have and so
    must be correct
    d) begin using bigger and bigger words that mean less and less
    e) call them names
    f) say you've put them in your killfile
    g) threaten to leave the group"

    "Can we please just skip to g)?"

    That's an ad hominem attack, j. Your entire purpose in life seems to
    be to tear me down. Knock yourself out. I don't mind except when you
    lie, and all of the above are lies. I didn't threaten to leave the
    group; I left the group.

  7. "Otis B. Driftwood" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    An "ad hominem" argument is one directed at the _qualities_ of the


    person.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    All of my questions have been directed to your _statements_.
    They are not, by definition, ad hominem.

    If you cannot support your statements with facts or reasoning, we might
    expect ad hominem attacks, such as

    "You are a fool"

    or

    "jtaylor the banana"

    or

    "Gosh, what an ass"

    ...or, your actual attack today:

    "Now, you've a long history of posting completey wrong information,
    changing threads, using big words (like efficiency) and claiming they
    mean something other than what their definitions say they mean,
    denying what you've said, and sundry other unpleasantries; and when
    anyone points these things out, you (not always in this order):

    "a) complain about their spelling
    b) question their qualifications
    c) state that you have been swimming for longer than they have and so
    must be correct
    d) begin using bigger and bigger words that mean less and less
    e) call them names
    f) say you've put them in your killfile
    g) threaten to leave the group"

    "Can we please just skip to g)?"

    That's an ad hominem attack, j.

    No it's not - those are all ACTIONS that you have done, not QUALITIES of
    your character.

    Saying it is an ad hominem attack is an example of "...using big words (like
    efficiency) and claiming they mean something other than what their
    definitions say they mean.

  8. "Otis B. Driftwood" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >
    >Which discovery show was it, then, that told you that the


    paddlewheel:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >
    >"But in terms of efficiency, as defined in physics, is more efficient


    than

    Quoted message said:

    >the propeller. If I'm not mistaken, the paddle wheel steamer was the


    most

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >efficient surface ship. "

    I don't remember the name. It was about steam engines. It was part of
    that series of documentaries with the British guy who is really into
    machines of all kinds.

    Keep in mind that efficiency here refers to percentage of energy
    consumed that is delivered to the drive.

    Is the the same king of "efficiency" you were talking about earlier in


    that

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    thread where you said:

    "...a sprinter's kick is always efficient..."

    Do you have an answer to this question?

  9. "Otis B. Driftwood" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >Which discovery show was it, then, that told you that the


    paddlewheel:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >
    >"But in terms of efficiency, as defined in physics, is more efficient


    than

    Quoted message said:

    >the propeller. If I'm not mistaken, the paddle wheel steamer was the


    most

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >efficient surface ship. "

    I don't remember the name. It was about steam engines. It was part of
    that series of documentaries with the British guy who is really into
    machines of all kinds.

    Can you supply us with some more details, so that we might perhaps find this
    show and verify that it indeed said what you claim?

  10. jtaylor said:

    "Otis B. Driftwood" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    An "ad hominem" argument is one directed at the _qualities_ of the


    person.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    All of my questions have been directed to your _statements_.
    They are not, by definition, ad hominem.

    If you cannot support your statements with facts or reasoning, we might
    expect ad hominem attacks, such as

    "You are a fool"

    or

    "jtaylor the banana"

    or

    "Gosh, what an ass"

    ...or, your actual attack today:

    "Now, you've a long history of posting completey wrong information,
    changing threads, using big words (like efficiency) and claiming they
    mean something other than what their definitions say they mean,
    denying what you've said, and sundry other unpleasantries; and when
    anyone points these things out, you (not always in this order):

    "a) complain about their spelling
    b) question their qualifications
    c) state that you have been swimming for longer than they have and so
    must be correct
    d) begin using bigger and bigger words that mean less and less
    e) call them names
    f) say you've put them in your killfile
    g) threaten to leave the group"

    "Can we please just skip to g)?"

    That's an ad hominem attack, j.

    No it's not - those are all ACTIONS that you have done, not QUALITIES of
    your character.

    That's what your message is, j. Grow up. They aren't actions I have
    done.

    Quoted message said:

    Saying it is an ad hominem attack is an example of "...using big words (like
    efficiency) and claiming they mean something other than what their
    definitions say they mean.

    Why are you doing this? Why did you dredge up the off topic thread on
    steam engine efficiency? You didn't even try to relate it to swimming.
    You started a new thread, the purpose of which was to complain about
    me.

    And in the thread referred to above, you deliberately attack my
    character. That's ad hominem. The words aren't big, j. They are the
    same size words everyone else uses here.

    Just grow up.

    And you haven't expressed your thoughts about that amazing coincidence
    I wrote about. No opinion? Has it got you stumped? It sure has me
    stumped. Since you and Man O'Man must be right that "back crawl" and
    "front crawl" are common terms in wide use, how could I swim for
    nearly fifty years in seven countries on three continents and never
    hear them used except in this newsgroup and in other mails and musings
    posted on the internet?

    I have no idea how that could happen, but I guess it is just one of
    those things, like life spontaneously emerging out of the primordial
    ooze. That must be it.

  11. jtaylor said:


    "Otis B. Driftwood" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > >
    > >Which discovery show was it, then, that told you that the


    paddlewheel:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > >
    > >"But in terms of efficiency, as defined in physics, is more efficient
    than
    > >the propeller. If I'm not mistaken, the paddle wheel steamer was the


    most

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > >efficient surface ship. "
    >
    > I don't remember the name. It was about steam engines. It was part of
    > that series of documentaries with the British guy who is really into
    > machines of all kinds.
    >
    > Keep in mind that efficiency here refers to percentage of energy
    > consumed that is delivered to the drive.

    Is the the same king of "efficiency" you were talking about earlier in


    that

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    thread where you said:

    "...a sprinter's kick is always efficient..."

    Do you have an answer to this question?

    That isn't a question, j. If you meant to ask was I talking about the
    same kind of efficiency, then I don't know, but I don't think I was,
    since a flutter kick is not like a paddle wheel. The armstroke is like
    a paddlewheel. I think I was talking about the efficiency of a six
    beat kick compared to that of a two beat kick, but it was so long ago,
    and you didn't provide the context, so I can't say.

    Why is it important? What are you trying to prove about swimming here?

  12. jtaylor said:


    "Otis B. Driftwood" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > >Which discovery show was it, then, that told you that the


    paddlewheel:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > >
    > >"But in terms of efficiency, as defined in physics, is more efficient
    than
    > >the propeller. If I'm not mistaken, the paddle wheel steamer was the


    most

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > >efficient surface ship. "
    >
    > I don't remember the name. It was about steam engines. It was part of
    > that series of documentaries with the British guy who is really into
    > machines of all kinds.
    >

    Can you supply us with some more details, so that we might perhaps find this
    show and verify that it indeed said what you claim?

    No, I can't, but it's a waste of time, j, because we don't use
    paddlewheels anymore, and I don't see what the subject has to do with
    swimming. What is your interest in the point?

  13. "Otis B. Driftwood" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    And in the thread referred to above, you deliberately attack my
    character. That's ad hominem. The words aren't big, j. They are the
    same size words everyone else uses here.

    Please quote the parts of the thread where I say anything about your
    character.

  14. "Otis B. Driftwood" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >> >
    >> >Which discovery show was it, then, that told you that the


    paddlewheel:

    Quoted message said:

    >> >
    >> >"But in terms of efficiency, as defined in physics, is more


    efficient

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >than
    >> >the propeller. If I'm not mistaken, the paddle wheel steamer was


    the

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    most

    Quoted message said:

    >> >efficient surface ship. "
    >>
    >> I don't remember the name. It was about steam engines. It was part


    of

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >> that series of documentaries with the British guy who is really into
    >> machines of all kinds.
    >>
    >> Keep in mind that efficiency here refers to percentage of energy
    >> consumed that is delivered to the drive.
    >
    >Is the the same king of "efficiency" you were talking about earlier in


    that

    Quoted message said:

    >thread where you said:
    >
    >"...a sprinter's kick is always efficient..."

    Do you have an answer to this question?

    That isn't a question, j.

    Here it is again:

    Is the the same kind of "efficiency" you were talking about earlier in that
    thread where you said: "...a sprinter's kick is always efficient..."

  15. "Otis B. Driftwood" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    No, I can't, but it's a waste of time, j, because we don't use
    paddlewheels anymore, and I don't see what the subject has to do with
    swimming.

    Well, you made numerous references to it being related to swimming - tempo,
    action, and construction of the arms:

    "but the tempo we are talking about relates more to the rpm of a paddle
    wheel being like the rpm of the arms during crawlstroke, backstroke, and
    butterfly"

    " I brought up the paddle wheel steamer because of its paddle wheels, which
    are like the action of the arms during crawlstroke, backstroke, and
    butterfly"

    "...I brought up the paddle wheel steamer. I brought it up because of the
    paddle wheel, which is applicable to swimming, since the arms are like
    paddle wheels. Nothink in swimming has anything to do with propellers. "

    (this last part, about propellors, is incorrect)

  16. "Otis B. Driftwood" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    "Now, you've a long history of posting completey wrong information,
    changing threads, using big words (like efficiency) and claiming they
    mean something other than what their definitions say they mean,
    denying what you've said, and sundry other unpleasantries; and when
    anyone points these things out, you (not always in this order):

    "a) complain about their spelling
    b) question their qualifications
    c) state that you have been swimming for longer than they have and so
    must be correct
    d) begin using bigger and bigger words that mean less and less
    e) call them names
    f) say you've put them in your killfile
    g) threaten to leave the group"

    "Can we please just skip to g)?"

    That's an ad hominem attack, j.

    No it's not - those are all ACTIONS that you have done, not QUALITIES of
    your character.

    That's what your message is, j. Grow up. They aren't actions I have
    done.

    Are you saying that you have NOT done a) to g) above?

    A recent example of c) follows below:

    "As you may know, I have been swimming for nearly fifty years now. I have
    trained and competed in, I think, seven states of the union, and in seven
    different countries on three continents. I have swum for nine different
    clubs or teams. I have competed in hundreds of races, and I must have swum
    over ten thousand workouts for a dozen different coaches, a few of them
    quite well known."

    This in support of your statement that the term "Back Crawl" has never been
    used, to your knowledge, "until I joined this newsgroup a year or two ago.
    And to this day I have never heard them used outside the internet."

  17. jtaylor said:


    "Otis B. Driftwood" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > >> >
    > >> >Which discovery show was it, then, that told you that the
    paddlewheel:
    > >> >
    > >> >"But in terms of efficiency, as defined in physics, is more


    efficient

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > >than
    > >> >the propeller. If I'm not mistaken, the paddle wheel steamer was


    the

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    most
    > >> >efficient surface ship. "
    > >>
    > >> I don't remember the name. It was about steam engines. It was part


    of

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > >> that series of documentaries with the British guy who is really into
    > >> machines of all kinds.
    > >>
    > >> Keep in mind that efficiency here refers to percentage of energy
    > >> consumed that is delivered to the drive.
    > >
    > >Is the the same king of "efficiency" you were talking about earlier in
    that
    > >thread where you said:
    > >
    > >"...a sprinter's kick is always efficient..."

    Do you have an answer to this question?

    That isn't a question, j.

    Here it is again:

    Is the the same kind of "efficiency" you were talking about earlier in that
    thread where you said: "...a sprinter's kick is always efficient..."

    That isn't a question, j. It isn't even a sentence.

    I'll make the decision then. In the interest of group harmony, and
    harm reduction, I'm adding you to my killfile. Note: I'm not
    threatening to add you to my killfile. You're in. But if I change
    computers or newsreaders, or if get a new account or my killfile gets
    erased, you might suddenly not be in my killfile anymore. So don't
    accuse me of lying again if that happens. But for now, you're in.

  18. "Otis B. Driftwood" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >> >Is the the same king of "efficiency" you were talking about earlier


    in

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >that
    >> >thread where you said:
    >> >
    >> >"...a sprinter's kick is always efficient..."
    >
    >Do you have an answer to this question?

    That isn't a question, j.

    Here it is again:

    Is the the same kind of "efficiency" you were talking about earlier in


    that

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    thread where you said: "...a sprinter's kick is always efficient..."

    That isn't a question, j. It isn't even a sentence.

    It has a subject, predicate, and object, and it parses correctly.

    Why do you have trouble

    a) understanding it; and

    b) answering it?

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.