Reply #93: Thank you, I couldn't have asked for a better sample...

[kristopher]

to confirm my characterization of your writings as "bizarre, incoherent screeds".

My statement regarding waste heat is one in a series of ideas that go together to form a sentence, which, when taken with other ideas in other sentences form the matrix of meaning within which my use of "waste heat" is placed.

What actually happened is that you were completely and utterly incorrect about the relative efficiencies of an auto with an ICE and one with electric drive and you have tried to gluff and bluff your way through it with the same type of hysterical rant we were just treated to. I think they might have meds that could help you BTW.

The "waste heat" from an internal combustion engine and the transfer of usable power to the wheels represents energy not being applied to perform the work we are trying to accomplish - it is precisely labeled as such in both common parlance and in countless scientific publications of every discipline -including physics. Your diversion attempts to play on a lack of awareness of how boundaries are set for an analysis; it fails.


Now, what *was* that other brilliant pronouncement you made that involved 90%? I do seem to remember it was something where "you demonstrate a level of knowledge of physics and science that an elementary school student should be ashamed of."

For some reason the details escape me at the moment, but I'm sure they'll come back to me. I'll let you know when they do. There have been so damned many times you've proven beyond doubt that you are a sham that it is hard to keep them all straight.