Book recommendation

[George Ghio]

OK now.

Hydraulics and the fantasy of Wayne:

A spool valve is a block of steel or iron. It has a hole in it. The
spool resides in this hole.

The hole has annular ports in it. The spool has lands spaced along it.

The spool slides inside the hole, as the spool is moved in one dierction
or the other the lands open and close the annular prots in the body of
the valve.
(See 3.jpg <http://community.webshots.com/album/197368503CupbKm>

This type of valve has a seal at each end of the body. These seals keep
the oil inside the valve (mostly). There are no seals between the
annular ports. If there were they would be damaged by the passage of the
lands on the spool.

There is a constant internal leakage between the spool and the body of
the valve.

If a spool valve is used to extend a piston vertically and then the
valve is returned to its neutral position the internal leakage will
allow the piston to retract. The speed of this downward movement depends
on several factors:

1) The tolerances between the body and spool

2) The viscosity of the oil

3) The temperature of the oil (hot oil gets thiner)

4) The weight on the piston

As can be seen these factors all affect the internal leakage of this
type of valve. It cannot be otherwise because there are no seals between
the annular ports in this type of valve.

The only way to stop the piston fram slowly decending is to use a pilot
opreated check valve. A check valve is a positive seal. A spool valve is
not.

As much as Wayne twists and weasels and makes silly statements about the
pressure relief valve, a spool valve is a constant loss system.

The fact that (nearly) all the losses are due to internal leakage makes
no difference.

Once you return the valve to its neutral position any pressure in the
ports fades away.

This is the nature of spool valves. There is no positive sealing between
the ports.

Have a look at;

http://community.webshots.com/album/197368503CupbKm

I am afraid that Waynes grasp of the mechanics of hydraulics is as
tenuous as his grasp of his solar power system, welding, writing and
fencing.

I am sorry that Wayne can't accept his limitations and insists on
pursuing his nonsense trying to score points here. The fact remains that
he is spreading dangerous misinformation.

This has been a public service safety announcement.

George

 

[wmbjk]

Guess he is not man enough. eh

Oh sure, putting *your* photos on *my* site makes a whole lot of
sense... to you. Because you didn't want to remove the doubt about
your ability to post photos whenever you feel like it. So what's your
newest excuse for not posting photos of your home, shop, projects,
etc.?

Two seals. One at each end of the spool. This of course does not stop
internal leaking. Would you like to prove otherwise

Your statement was "spool valves do not hold pressure". You got on
that train to nowhere while attempting to prove that the cylinders on
my project would leak down, even though it's clear from the photos
that a standard control valve (spools, bypass and load checks
included) was used.

A spool valve will not hold up a
cylinder in the centre position.

<sigh> What does the center position of the cylinder have to do with
anything Shakespeare? Here, let me help you - "a spool valve without
internal sealing or check valve will not maintain output pressure once
pump pressure is removed".

Opreational pressure is a
different thing. Which brings us back to my question of What is the
relief is set at." Should not be too hard a question for you. Except you
could nor answer it the first time around. Can't answer it now.

It's set at 1500 psi. Not that telling you that then or now could or
does prove anything beyond the fact that you'll grasp at any straw in
your quest to criticize.

Now let's cut to the chase.... you've claimed that the cylinders on my
project leak down. You've even claimed that it's a safety issue. So
when are you going to post some photos that prove that claim, or admit
you were wrong (or "lying" to use your preferred term) instead?

Wayne

 

[wmbjk]

I know about your site. Which is why I make it a point to warn people
about your nonsense.

You're deluded to think you're "warning" people about anything. You're
just pissed because like most everyone in this group, I refuse to show
you any respect. Your obsessive campaign costs me nothing, and shows
you for the deceptive twit you are.

Thank you for proving the absence of any charactor in you makeup.

You are such a weak little pussy. Are you so afraid of my pics that you
can't take the chance to be a man and face the hard fact that you have
no idea about hydraulics.

My information is straight from the Sperry Vickers Industrial Hydraulics
Manual.

Unfortunately you were too busy with that textbook to look at the
photos I posted previously, which clearly show a standard control
valve. All your "warnings" about those cylinders leaking down are just
more of your self-destructive smear.

Wayne

 

[wmbjk]

On purpose? You bet.

Incredible. Do you actually think that *anyone* believes that?

Wayne

 

[wmbjk]

(See 3.jpg <http://community.webshots.com/album/197368503CupbKm>

This type of valve has a seal at each end of the body. These seals keep
the oil inside the valve (mostly). There are no seals between the
annular ports. If there were they would be damaged by the passage of the
lands on the spool.

The key point you should have gleaned from your textbook is "this
*type* of valve will not hold pressure". In fact, there are many
"types", and of those, many have built in load check-valves. Here is
the pertinent part of Daestrom's post on the subject -

"Must be some sort of defective Australian version then. US spool
valves have an O-ring sealing each end cap to be sure. But they *do*
have O-rings on the spool itself to seal between the ports. If the
ends of the spool are vented, or shuffled with oil from a smaller
pilot, there could be three or more O-rings on the spool (each with
backing rings too). I've seen spools with 5 rings used quite a lot.
Any spool valve that doesn't have O-rings on the spool, isn't a real
hydraulic valve, just a cheap 'wannabe'. The O-rings on the spool
typically have nylon backing rings on both sides while the end cap
rings only have backing on the outer side. The hydraulics used in
turbine control valves have about a dozen spool valves, some of which
'hold pressure' quite nicely. Submarine hydraulic plants are another
situation where many of the valves are 'spool valves' and they hold
pressure for all sorts of things, like hatches, periscopes (heavier
than you might think), steam valves, torpedoe handling gear... Gee,
sure glad *those* spool valves weren't made in AU."

You'd *know* what valves were commonly available and used *if* you
were working on your own hydraulic projects instead of criticizing
mine. And if you were half the expert you claim to be, then you might
even have time left over to do something more lucrative and
interesting than scabbing Murphy's crap together.

This has been a public service safety announcement.

No, it's just more of your pathetic attempts to criticize. But it does
show that you're capable of putting up photos when it suits you. So
where are the magic mass, wonder castle, and power system photos you
claimed you didn't have room for? Since you were able to make the trip
to the library to scan and post pics from that old textbook, then I
don't see why you can't do the same with all the photos you've been
avoiding showing.

Wayne

 

[George Ghio]

The key point you should have gleaned from your textbook is "this
*type* of valve will not hold pressure". In fact, there are many
"types", and of those, many have built in load check-valves. Here is
the pertinent part of Daestrom's post on the subject -

"Must be some sort of defective Australian version then. US spool
valves have an O-ring sealing each end cap to be sure. But they *do*
have O-rings on the spool itself to seal between the ports. If the
ends of the spool are vented, or shuffled with oil from a smaller
pilot, there could be three or more O-rings on the spool (each with
backing rings too). I've seen spools with 5 rings used quite a lot.
Any spool valve that doesn't have O-rings on the spool, isn't a real
hydraulic valve, just a cheap 'wannabe'. The O-rings on the spool
typically have nylon backing rings on both sides while the end cap
rings only have backing on the outer side. The hydraulics used in
turbine control valves have about a dozen spool valves, some of which
'hold pressure' quite nicely. Submarine hydraulic plants are another
situation where many of the valves are 'spool valves' and they hold
pressure for all sorts of things, like hatches, periscopes (heavier
than you might think), steam valves, torpedoe handling gear... Gee,
sure glad *those* spool valves weren't made in AU."

Fine. I have seen such valves myself. Even repared them. Big deal.

BUT what does this have to do with the garden variety spool valve you
showed in your pics.

It is not pilot operated. It does not have a built in check valve. And
it does not matter one bit what the reiief valve is set for as far as
holding pressure goes.

As for the rest of your posts, just more nonsense.

You are caught in your own web of BS.

Any spool valve that doesn't have O-rings on the spool, isn't a real
hydraulic valve, just a cheap 'wannabe.

Sums you up to a tee.

 

[wmbjk]

Fine. I have seen such valves myself. Even repared them. Big deal.

I doubt that. A month ago when you began trying to "prove" your
knowledge in yet another field, you name-dropped a veritable catalogue
of hydraulic terms. Prompting me to write - "Maybe your textbook is
missing a few pages". And yesterday you finally showed us that
textbook. It wouldn't surprise me now to learn that you're a truck
driver who makes deliveries to a hydraulic repair shop. One thing's
for sure - you're just as competent and active in every field claimed
so far as you are with solar systems and writing.

BUT what does this have to do with the garden variety spool valve you
showed in your pics.

It is not pilot operated. It does not have a built in check valve. And
it does not matter one bit what the reiief valve is set for as far as
holding pressure goes.

The spool valve on my project *does* have built in load checks. Many
garden variety models do, like these for instance -
http://www.surpluscenter.com/item.asp?UID=2004100908131634&item=9-4780&catname=hydraulic
http://www.surpluscenter.com/item.asp?UID=2004100908131634&item=991&catname=hydraulic
Which is something you'd know if you were *doing* instead of
*talking*. And the relief valve setting *is* irrelevant, but you're
the dope who brought that up repeatedly as part of your usual "if you
don't tell me then it proves you don't know" malarkey.

As for the rest of your posts, just more nonsense.

You are caught in your own web of BS.

Brilliant. You've spent a month of posts trying to prove that those
cylinders leak down, and once again refuse to admit you were wrong.
The irony is that given the amount of time you've expended, even a
newby could write more coherent posts, because he wouldn't be
handicapped by your obsession with criticism. It's the same with solar
topics - your need to "prove" things amounts to a negative advertising
campaign... against yourself. You could sell more books if you hadn't
included all the boasting, blunders, and crap. In fact, you could sell
more books if the only thing you posted was your email address.

But at least it wasn't a wasted effort, since you finally put up some
photos, making your claims about not being able to do that just as
transparent as your mixed metaphor and NDA excuses. Same-old same-old
Ghinius. I bet you've spent a lifetime perfecting that pig-headedness,
in an ego-driven delusion that being pig-headed is a tolerable trait
if one is bright enough. There's just one little problem with that....

Of course the obsessed only pay attention to what's going on in their
own minds, which means that you'll carry on as always. So here's a
photo of my latest project. You'll need textbooks on pneumatics,
battery chemistry, gold plating, petrochemistry, coating technology,
and metallurgy for this one.
http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/pneumatic.htm

Now, where are the wonder castle photos?

Wayne

 

[Steve Spence]

Wow, all the experienced welders in OZ, and the aussie government needed
George to come to their rescue .....

 

[George Ghio]

Wow, all the experienced welders in OZ, and the aussie government needed
George to come to their rescue .....

Skill tells

 

[George Ghio]

I doubt that. A month ago when you began trying to "prove" your
knowledge in yet another field, you name-dropped a veritable catalogue
of hydraulic terms. Prompting me to write - "Maybe your textbook is
missing a few pages". And yesterday you finally showed us that
textbook. It wouldn't surprise me now to learn that you're a truck
driver who makes deliveries to a hydraulic repair shop. One thing's
for sure - you're just as competent and active in every field claimed
so far as you are with solar systems and writing.


The spool valve on my project *does* have built in load checks. Many
garden variety models do, like these for instance -

Name the valve. When this started you told a different story. In fact
you denied the need for check valves.

Now all of a sudden you have mil-spec valves. Truth is that the valve
you used does not even have dust caps to keep the ends of the spools
clean.

Not a good valve for the desert conditions is it?

Now, where are the wonder castle photos?

Where is the documentation for your system?

If you remember I asked first.

 

[George Ghio]

for sure - you're just as competent and active in every field claimed
so far as you are with solar systems and writing.

Thank you. It is true, I am an amazingly competent person. This is due
to my on going education.


I should also point out that you are now arguing my side of the debate.
It seem that I was right about spool valves and the need for check
valves. Thank you for your support and the supporting documents.

By the way neither of the valves you want people to look at match the
one in your picture.

 

[wmbjk]

Name the valve. When this started you told a different story. In fact
you denied the need for check valves.

Then why didn't you post that quote? I'll tell you why - for the same
reason you never supply quotes, because your habit is put words in
others' mouths rather than admit being wrong.

Now all of a sudden you have mil-spec valves.

$140 tandem mil-spec valves? Or how about showing where I said that
the one I used was mil-spec? Just two more things you made up. BTW, I
don't think you know mil-spec from fly speck.

Truth is that the valve
you used does not even have dust caps to keep the ends of the spools
clean.

The controls spend 99.99% of their life bungeed in the retracted
position, not so much for dust reasons, but to save them from being
trashed due to vibration when driven over washboard roads. And if
you'd been paying attention, you'd know that plenty of tractors use
valves without dust boots.

Not a good valve for the desert conditions is it?

It's already two years old and working fine. Will you now be switching
from safety concerns to longevity concerns?

You seem to be pretty worried about that valve, having written dozens
of posts criticizing it. But not one word of "warning" to the owner of
the machine, who in normal operation has the cylinders parked extended
for hours at a time. He'd laugh at your claims of leak down, and you
know it.

You've been yakking about pilot valves, solenoids, oil temperature, in
short everything you could pick out from that textbook. But even when
armed with a photo, you lacked the practical experience to realize
that in such a simple setup the only control required was an
inexpensive garden-variety spool valve. The one I chose is fine
considering what it cost, and you didn't have anything bad to say
about it until after being embarrassed about the arched axle thing,
and after your trip to the library. Now that your original claim is
toast you're onto dust seals, and you'll probably bitch about the
paint color before you'll admit being wrong.

Where is the documentation for your system?

According to everyone else who's commented, the documentation was more
than sufficient. In fact, I may have written more about my project
than any other poster has written about their own. I wasn't afraid to
talk about compromises, and I made a list of component failures and
things I'd do differently if I had it to do again. But even if I'd
never written a single word, who the hell are you to demand that I
write anything? You're the guy who after making a ridiculous
performance claim, won't even say what his average air temperatures
are for crying out loud.

If you remember I asked first.

Every question answered just generates more questions from you. The
juvenile strategy is to keep at it until an answer is refused, just so
that you can claim that something's being hidden. Yet you're the same
guy who got caught hiding his idiot NDA excuse, which was only offered
in the first place as a way to avoid explaining the magic mass
details. There was no "I asked you first" excuse for Daestrom, so
where are those details?

Wayne

 

[wmbjk]

Thank you. It is true, I am an amazingly competent person. This is due
to my on going education.

Since it's always *according to you* (and only you) that you're
"amazingly competent", how do *you* explain being the butt of jokes in
these newsgroups? Why do *you* suppose it is that web sites with
dozens of links never add one for you? How is it that whenever there's
a list of books, yours is never included? How is it possible that an
"amazingly competent" solar expert makes regular and public blunders
in his calculations, and denies industry accepted figures for
tracking?

I should also point out that you are now arguing my side of the debate.
It seem that I was right about spool valves and the need for check
valves. Thank you for your support and the supporting documents.

Let's see if I've got this straight ... you started out claiming that
the cylinders leaked down. But instead of admitting being wrong,
you're now claiming that the debate was about the need for check
valves?

By the way neither of the valves you want people to look at match the
one in your picture.

So what? Do you think that a surplus supplier has the exact same model
two years later? Do you believe that I'm going to dig up the specs to
prove what I already know? You seemed to be claiming that
garden-variety spool valves couldn't include load checks. So I posted
links to show that they can and do. Still not satisfied? What a
surprise!

Wayne

 

[wmbjk]

Wow, all the experienced welders in OZ, and the aussie government needed
George to come to their rescue .....

Some types of welding can be really dirty, monotonous, sweaty, and
low-paying. Guys who do it are sometimes called GAWs.... greasy assed
welders, and they can be hard to get and keep. Of course, other types
of welding are cleaner, more enjoyable, and pay much better. The only
question is whether a guy running a whole house off a 400W inverter
and who works for Murphy, is the former or the latter.

Wayne

 

[George Ghio]

I should also point out that you are now arguing my side of the debate.
It seem that I was right about spool valves and the need for check
valves. Thank you for your support and the supporting documents.

Let's see if I've got this straight ... you started out claiming that
the cylinders leaked down. But instead of admitting being wrong,
you're now claiming that the debate was about the need for check
valves?[/QUOTE]

The cylinders will leak down if; The sealing surfaces are damaged.

You in fact said that the internal leakage was greater in the cylinders
than in the spool valves. That statement alone shows that you know
nothing about hydraulics.

So what? Do you think that a surplus supplier has the exact same model
two years later? Do you believe that I'm going to dig up the specs to
prove what I already know? You seemed to be claiming that
garden-variety spool valves couldn't include load checks. So I posted
links to show that they can and do. Still not satisfied? What a
surprise!

No wayne I said the valve you used does not have check valves.

I also said that neither valve you used as an example matched the one in
your pics.

I suspect that if someone asked you about your kit plane you would say
"It is alot like this one" and then direct them to a picture of a
stealth bomber.

You have no specs for your solar power system

You have no specs for your valve

Tell me, do you even have a life or is it a lot like ...

Tell us about the valve you used. Not the valve you should have used.

If you bought the valve then you should have the spec sheet for it, oh
wait, I know the dog ate it. Honest.

Didn't work in the third grade, won't work now.

Over the years we have played together you have yet to provide any
meaningful numbers for anything at all.

The best description of your system to date is the one I provided.
Wouldn't suprise me at all if it was the one you show people now, as
long as they sign a nda.

 

[George Ghio]

The controls spend 99.99% of their life bungeed in the retracted
position, not so much for dust reasons, but to save them from being
trashed due to vibration when driven over washboard roads. And if
you'd been paying attention, you'd know that plenty of tractors use
valves without dust boots.

That is interesting. Of course it is pointless. If the valve is so badly
constructed that it needs to be tied to keep it from shaking to bits
then it is a fair bet that it is the wrong valve for the job.

It's already two years old and working fine. Will you now be switching
from safety concerns to longevity concerns?

You seem to be pretty worried about that valve, having written dozens
of posts criticizing it. But not one word of "warning" to the owner of
the machine, who in normal operation has the cylinders parked extended
for hours at a time. He'd laugh at your claims of leak down, and you
know it.

leak down. Yes they will, how fast? Depends on a lot of factors. I never
said "Fall" down.

You've been yakking about pilot valves, solenoids, oil temperature, in
short everything you could pick out from that textbook. But even when
armed with a photo, you lacked the practical experience to realize
that in such a simple setup the only control required was an
inexpensive garden-variety spool valve. The one I chose is fine
considering what it cost, and you didn't have anything bad to say
about it until after being embarrassed about the arched axle thing,
and after your trip to the library. Now that your original claim is
toast you're onto dust seals, and you'll probably bitch about the
paint color before you'll admit being wrong.

No Wayne. I commented on the job. " A nice little project" is what I
said.

I commented about the circuit.

You said the cylinders would leak faster than the valve.

I showed this to be untrue.

Now you claim the valve inquestion has inbuilt check valves. Prove it.

According to everyone else who's commented, the documentation was more
than sufficient. In fact, I may have written more about my project
than any other poster has written about their own. I wasn't afraid to
talk about compromises, and I made a list of component failures and
things I'd do differently if I had it to do again. But even if I'd
never written a single word, who the hell are you to demand that I
write anything? You're the guy who after making a ridiculous
performance claim, won't even say what his average air temperatures
are for crying out loud.

You pulled a design from somewhere. Then had to double it to get it to
work.

Lots of pretty pics and we know how much everything weighs.

You claim nine years of data collection but cannot tell us what you use
or what is collected.

Every question answered just generates more questions from you. The
juvenile strategy is to keep at it until an answer is refused, just so
that you can claim that something's being hidden. Yet you're the same
guy who got caught hiding his idiot NDA excuse, which was only offered
in the first place as a way to avoid explaining the magic mass
details. There was no "I asked you first" excuse for Daestrom, so
where are those details?

I never said you were hiding anything.

I did say that you don't know anything.

Then you hid your site. What are people to think.

Are you hiding something?

Well aside from your ignorance that is.

I didn't ask Dae first. But I did offer him a chance to see the article
I am writing for publication. It is subject to copy right.

My assessment of your system is correct. You say it is not.

PROVE IT WRONG!

You can't. Because if you post the information you will only prove me
right.

 

[wmbjk]

The cylinders will leak down if; The sealing surfaces are damaged.

What a revelation! But so what? They aren't damaged, they don't leak
down, and you know it.

You in fact said that the internal leakage was greater in the cylinders
than in the spool valves.

No, I did not. And if I had, you'd be supplying the quote instead of
trying to put words in my mouth again.

That statement alone shows that you know
nothing about hydraulics.

It's a statement that you made up, so it has nothing to do with me.

No wayne I said the valve you used does not have check valves.

And you were wrong. It's just something you assumed because you had no
way of knowing what valves are available. And rather than ask, you
busied yourself looking for pilot valves, solenoids, and separate
check valves, because that's what your textbook showed might be there.

I also said that neither valve you used as an example matched the one in
your pics.

It doesn't matter if they're exact matches, most of these cheap valves
are similar. You just got finished claiming they were "mil-spec". Are
you now claiming that they're so hard to come by that I wouldn't have
used one? Or are you saying that such supposedly mil-spec valves are
unsuitable?

I suspect that if someone asked you about your kit plane you would say
"It is alot like this one" and then direct them to a picture of a
stealth bomber.

Well then you suspect wrong (which you must be getting used to by
now), because I'll supply a picture even though you didn't ask for it
http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/images/41km half.jpg, and here's a
link to the manufacturer's (inflated) specs
http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/images/glasairspec.jpg Plus, if you
check the archives, you'll find that I've shared such info several
times over the years.

If you bought the valve then you should have the spec sheet for it, oh
wait, I know the dog ate it. Honest.

First, I don't know if the valve even came with a spec sheet. Some of
this stuff, as with an accumulator I bought a few months back, doesn't
even come with a box. That's just part of buying surplus. Second, if
it did come with a sheet, I would have chucked it. There'd be no
reason for me to keep a sheet for something I don't own, is dead
simple, and is basically a disposable item anyway. Third, you've got
some nerve accusing anyone of not being willing to put up proof, since
you're the guy who (explaining the difficulty of providing proof)
wrote over a year ago in http://tinyurl.com/63ab4 - "Well I only use
the one site for pics and there is only so much I can put there for
free." Now that it's obvious that space and cost are *not* the issue
you claimed at all, I'm beginning to wonder just how bad that place of
yours must be. Not quite the "work of art" you bragged on eh George?
Perhaps you could use Photo Shop to cover up the propane tank with
extra magic mass.

Didn't work in the third grade, won't work now.

Over the years we have played together you have yet to provide any
meaningful numbers for anything at all.

Sez you, hundreds of times. Yet not a single disciple so far. Maybe if
you keep it up for another couple years? It probably wouldn't help
considering that many years of posting hasn't lessened the frequency
of your solar and writing blunders, or generated a single
recommendation or link. Seems like the longer you work at it, the
deeper your hole gets.

The best description of your system to date is the one I provided.
Wouldn't suprise me at all if it was the one you show people now, as
long as they sign a nda.

LOL I already offered as much info as anyone wants. See
http://tinyurl.com/55ey9 But if there's anything I don't want to
share, I'll just say so. No need to use your brain-dead NDA excuse.

Wayne

 

[wmbjk]

If the valve is so badly
constructed that it needs to be tied to keep it from shaking to bits
then it is a fair bet that it is the wrong valve for the job.

No, that's not a fair bet. It's just an off-the-wall stupid criticism,
one of your trademarks.

leak down. Yes they will, how fast? Depends on a lot of factors. I never
said "Fall" down.

You claimed it was a safety concern. Is leaking down slowly a safety
concern? I have at least 13 others, and most of them leak down slowly.
Shouldn't you be writing letters to the authorities or something?

No Wayne. I commented on the job. " A nice little project" is what I
said.

You also said that nobody would consider your comments criticisms. Yet
you've gone on for a month, and are now down to dust boots. If you
can't even admit your intent, it's hardly surprising you won't admit
being wrong.

You said the cylinders would leak faster than the valve.

No, I did not. And that's the third time you've claimed that. Where is
the quote?

I showed this to be untrue.

No, you did not, and you cannot. All you can do is come up with ever
more silly "comments" to avoid admitting yet another blunder.

Now you claim the valve inquestion has inbuilt check valves. Prove it.

<sigh> *You've* claimed that you're a "solar design consultant". Prove
*that*. I think you're a handyman who took a course, and came to
Usenet to make his fortune $25 at a time.

You claim nine years of data collection but cannot tell us what you use
or what is collected.

I can tell anyone any detail they might want to know, and have done so
many times. That doesn't mean I'm going to humor a quack whose only
intent is to divert attention from his own twitness.

I never said you were hiding anything

LOL Now you're trying to *remove* words from your *own* mouth.

Here are quotes for the word "hide" as used by you.

Apr.19/2004 "Now you have removed your site to hide the
evedence."

Sept.19/2004 "Oh sorry that was removed to hide your
incompetence."

Sept.18/2003 "So why do you hide them?"

I think you're so used to being deceptive that you don't even think
about it any more.

Then you hid your site. What are people to think.

Are you hiding something?

Oh no, you *never* claimed I was hiding anything. Do you even read
what you write?

It is subject to copy right.

If that were true (and I doubt a single reader is foolish enough to
believe it), then you couldn't have given the details to *anyone*
without an NDA. And if it were true, then you could have said it right
up front, in the same forum where you made the claim, instead of
trying to sneak around later with email. Who do you think you're
fooling? I notice that you're not even bothering to try to make
excuses anymore for why we can't see the wonder castle. Kangaroo ate
your photos? Shortage of camera batteries in Oz? Internet is full?

PROVE IT WRONG!

Why would I do anything *you* demanded? It's your job as the class
clown to entertain us, not the other way around.

Wayne

 

[George Ghio]

No, that's not a fair bet. It's just an off-the-wall stupid criticism,
one of your trademarks.

Sorry if you don't like it.

You claimed it was a safety concern. Is leaking down slowly a safety
concern? I have at least 13 others, and most of them leak down slowly.
Shouldn't you be writing letters to the authorities or something?

Stop and think Wayne.

You also said that nobody would consider your comments criticisms. Yet
you've gone on for a month, and are now down to dust boots. If you
can't even admit your intent, it's hardly surprising you won't admit
being wrong.

I'm not wrong>

No, I did not. And that's the third time you've claimed that. Where is
the quote?

Wayne you know, I know and anyone who has been reading this circus knows
that you said that the cylinders had a higher internal leakage rate than
the valve. This is dispit the fact that the cylinders have positive
seals while the valve does not.

No, you did not, and you cannot. All you can do is come up with ever
more silly "comments" to avoid admitting yet another blunder.


<sigh> *You've* claimed that you're a "solar design consultant". Prove
*that*. I think you're a handyman who took a course, and came to
Usenet to make his fortune $25 at a time.

Ok lets say I'm a handyman. I am very handy with hydraulics, solar
power, fencing, mechanics, welding, and much more. This is because I
took the time to get the education needed to do these things.

Handyman, Yeah and damned good at what I do too.

I can tell anyone any detail they might want to know, and have done so
many times. That doesn't mean I'm going to humor a quack whose only
intent is to divert attention from his own twitness.

Not once, not ever, not possible.

LOL Now you're trying to *remove* words from your *own* mouth.

Here are quotes for the word "hide" as used by you.

Apr.19/2004 "Now you have removed your site to hide the
evedence."

Sept.19/2004 "Oh sorry that was removed to hide your
incompetence."

Sept.18/2003 "So why do you hide them?"

I think you're so used to being deceptive that you don't even think
about it any more.

Out of context. Again

Oh no, you *never* claimed I was hiding anything. Do you even read
what you write?


If that were true (and I doubt a single reader is foolish enough to
believe it), then you couldn't have given the details to *anyone*
without an NDA.

Well Duh!


And if it were true, then you could have said it right

up front, in the same forum where you made the claim, instead of
trying to sneak around later with email.

What later it was the next day.

Who do you think you're

fooling? I notice that you're not even bothering to try to make
excuses anymore for why we can't see the wonder castle. Kangaroo ate
your photos? Shortage of camera batteries in Oz? Internet is full?


Why would I do anything *you* demanded? It's your job as the class
clown to entertain us, not the other way around.

Wayne if your numbers add up to a correctly designed system and you were
able to show them I would apologise profusely.

Trouble is they don't, you can't so I don't need to.

You can't document your system. If you could you would have had the
numbers up here so fast it wouldn't be funny.

As it is you keep saying you can but the numbers never appear.

 

[wmbjk]

Stop and think Wayne.

*You* stop and think - I gave the URL for the owner's web site, which
includes his email address. Do you think I'd do that if there were any
problems?

I'm not wrong>

LOL Wrong again.

Wayne you know, I know and anyone who has been reading this circus knows
that you said that the cylinders had a higher internal leakage rate than
the valve. This is dispit the fact that the cylinders have positive
seals while the valve does not.

If anyone agreed with you, they'd have said so. The only person who
commented (and who happens to know more about the subject than either
of us), wrote that you were full of it. Which is about the same rate
of agreement you achieve with all your other revelations.

Ok lets say I'm a handyman. I am very handy with hydraulics, solar
power, fencing, mechanics, welding, and much more. This is because I
took the time to get the education needed to do these things.

Perhaps you skipped class on "tracking", "units", "compact control",
"business smarts" and "acting human" days. Or more likely you were too
busy arguing with the instructor.

Handyman, Yeah and damned good at what I do too.

If you were half as good as you claim, you'd be showing photos of some
interesting projects instead of dodging every opportunity to do that.
And if you were a tenth as good as you say, after all these years
somebody other than you would be telling us about it. You're not even
a "damned good" BS artist. Although that mixed metaphor claptrap was
quite a piece of work, so it'll be submitted to whatever site I can
find that's devoted to such feebleness.

Out of context. Again

No, it was not out of context. The fact is that you change your tune
regularly, and exaggerate so much and write so poorly, that you can't
keep track of what you say or mean.

You can't even spell the word. For about a week you had different
excuses for not providing the info. Since then you've provided a bunch
of irrelevant numbers, which you couldn't do if copyright was an
issue. Are we supposed to believe that your average temperatures are
copyright, but that all the other stuff is not? Or that the question
of whether or not your vehicle has AC is protected by copyright? The
whole thing is a huge pile of steaming kangaroo shit that only came
out because you were saying one thing in the newsgroup and another in
email, so the guy spilled the beans on you. No one is ever going to
believe that someone who bungles simple solar-sizing calcs submitted a
heat-flow analysis anyway, or that it would be published by any outfit
that could afford to care about its own credibility.

Well Duh!

Duh yourself. You wouldn't fall for that load of crap if somebody else
had written it, so why do you expect others to do so?

Wayne if your numbers add up to a correctly designed system and you were
able to show them I would apologise profusely.

No, you would not. In fact, when you've been caught in blunders
previously, such as your weeks-long battery capacity fiasco, you were
barely able to muster a feeble acknowledgment. Same with the tracking
issue - the very guy you quoted as an expert had to set you straight,
and you have yet to even acknowledge your errors, never mind apologize
for making them. Another example is that ridiculous nonsense you wrote
about Rosenfeld when your feelings got hurt. Multiple posts full of
idiotic smear, but not a word ever to admit being wrong or to
apologize for it. You're small to be making up all these outrageous
accusations, so it's no surprise that you're too small to own up to
your mistakes.

As it is you keep saying you can but the numbers never appear.

Nothing *you* demand from me will *ever* appear. Is that clear enough
for you? Others have and do get whatever info they ask for. You can
either learn to live with those facts, or else I'm going to install
home theater inside your head to use during my extended stay.

Wayne