Well Done!

That's four examples of Smith's dishonesty nuxxy.

And his complete, blind bias.

you know? said:

Is the wrong answer. The journo was looking at Smith's claims and
was expecting to find them rebutted by TRL, but TRL simply ignored
them because they were so fatuous. They set out to put both sides
of the story, I can't help it if Smith came across as a loon.

This is a problem when non-expert claims are so ludicrous that the
experts just ignore them but the incorrect claims are emotionally very
satisfying.

Here's one (ludicrous claim) that won an award:
http://pesn.com/2008/02/19/9500471_Gravity_Lamp/

There is a rebuttal at the end and the "inventor" admits his mistake -
but notice there's still a bit about efficiency of LEDs improving with
time. "What if there's a lighting source that is efficient enough?"

However, this can NEVER work. Rigging everything to give the best
possible numbers you cannot exceed 2000lm/W (actually a bit less but I
can't remember if it's nearer 1500 or 2000). In practice the magic
number for lighting is 683lm/W (the higher number assumes a dark
adapted eye).

But even at 2000lm/W we still need 1/3W for four hours which is 5kJ.
So the lamp still needs to be 19m tall (for a 25kg weight)

Scientists haven't invented lamps with more than 100% efficiency
because it cannot be done. Not because they haven't got around to
thinking about it yet.

Electric cars are simple. Just take a battery that will store 30MJ/kg
at 30MV and wrap all the electrics in an insulator that won't break
down at fields strengths below about 30GV/m.

A 50kg battery will give about the same energy as a typical petrol
tank. And it can be charged in about 50s with a charging current of
just 1A. I'll design it tomorrow - I'll make sure it looks good!

Tim.

you know? said:

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:12:49 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

show me where Brakes evidence is peer reviewed. Chapmans web-site is
his own opinion and isn't peer reviewed. Safespeed hasn't been peer
reviewed and is only attacked beacuse [censored] like you and Chapman
don't like facing (a) the truth and (b) the fact that your opinions
are unpopular and ignored by the poplace in general.

Um, actually, I never pretended that my site was anything other than
my opinion.  Smith used "we" to mean "I", but I don't and never did.

That's never stopped that half-wit Spindrift quoting you as an
authority

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 02:25:41 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
<[email hidden]> wrote:

We admit cameras cost lives, we support them because we hate motorists
and because they subsidise cyclists.

Good bye!

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 01:55:37 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

This is what's so laughable about the trolls: They make
out that *everything* that Paul Smith said was completely wrong,

No, not *everything*, only most of it, and all the conclusions.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 02:25:41 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

So admit that cameras cost lives,

As soon as someone publishes credible evidence to support that
claim, I will give it my consideration.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 01:52:52 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I always respected Which? until that article.

Translation: I would rather believe a delusional speedophile than a
magazine with a decades-long reputation for offering impartial
advice.

This did not actually add any information to the debate, though,
since we already know that in your own funny little world, anything
that conflicts with Smith's ravings is automatically wrong, even
when he's explicitly relied on it to draw his conclusions.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On 16 Apr, 17:45, Tom Crispin <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 02:25:41 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar

<[email hidden]> wrote:

We admit cameras cost lives, we support them because we hate motorists
and because they subsidise cyclists.

Good bye!

Are you going somewhere?

Sir Jeremy said:

On 16 Apr, 17:45, Tom Crispin <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 02:25:41 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar

<[email hidden]> wrote:

We admit cameras cost lives, we support them because we hate motorists
and because they subsidise cyclists.

Good bye!

Are you going somewhere?

No. Nuxx has promised to go.