On 12/03/2022 1:23 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> On Friday, 11 March 2022 at 19:32:46 UTC+11, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>> On 11/03/2022 5:42 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 11/03/2022 9:27 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>> On 11/03/2022 1:04 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>> On 10/03/2022 4:02 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/03/2022 3:17 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/03/2022 4:07 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/03/2022 11:22 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 18/2/22 (and unlike clocky the date is correct) clocky posted
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "What, you copy and paste code into a Sketch in Arduino, select
>>>>>>>>> the libraries to include, modify it a bit and hit program.
>>>>>>>>> Literally anyone can do that."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So now it is time for him to put his talents such as they are
>>>>>>>>> where his mouth is. Its a simple task, make a speedometer that
>>>>>>>>> runs from GPS. It must display current speed of course, but that
>>>>>>>>> is so simple that felix could do it in BASIC on his Mac, so, in
>>>>>>>>> addition, it has to display average speed. The current average
>>>>>>>>> speed needs to be continuously displayed starting when a button
>>>>>>>>> is pressed (the button press also resets any average speed
>>>>>>>>> displayed up to that point). Extra points for displaying current
>>>>>>>>> time, time and distance that the average speed is calculated
>>>>>>>>> over, but don't make the display crowded and unreadable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The whole thing has to be small enough to the fitted in or on
>>>>>>>>> top of the dashboard, and be a single unit, the display has to
>>>>>>>>> be clear enough to be read while concentrating on driving.
>>>>>>>>> Probably a 3.5" 380x320 display is the sweet spot.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The code has to be readable and compilable, and provided in
>>>>>>>>> source form so that it can be inspected and tested.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since anybody can do that, I would expect that as a licenced and
>>>>>>>>> qualified mechanic, holder of a certificate in electronics, well
>>>>>>>>> renowned vintage computer dealer you will have no trouble doing
>>>>>>>>> it in say a month. In fact, since anybody can do it anybody who
>>>>>>>>> wants to have a go is welcome, felix included.
>>>>>>>> Are you asking for a quote?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> hahahaha!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Clocky is a fake" there's a quote for you.
>>>>> LOL, keith, mate... you seem to have a very high opinion of yourself
>>>>> as a programmer - so successful and highly paid that you could
>>>>> afford such prestige vehicles as a Cordia Turbo and Miata. You must
>>>>> have been ace to be able to afford those two examples of motoring
>>>>> excellence... :-)
>>>>
>>>> he claims he worked at NASA as a programmer but has no formal
>>>> qualifications, and was in a senior position there, iirc. can you
>>>> imagine what the competition to be employed at NASA would be like?
>>>> they would only be interested in the very best and brightest; the
>>>> most qualified and capable. me thinketh that maybe, just maybe,
>>>> something is rotten in Denmark! :)
>>> Wrong as usual felix. I worked for NASA and I worked as a programmer
>>> but I didn't work as a programmer for NASA.
> ===//===
>> *** oh, I'm expected to take such interest in you that I'm expected to know
>> such details am I, fukwit. but of course you didn't, you're no where
>> good enough***
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> *YOU* wrote the above^^^^^^^ *All incorrect* you fuckin' simpleton. :(
>

as usual I have no idea what you're babbling about. has anyone
recommended a good psychiatrist for you? they should!

>
>
>
>
>
>>> Can you understand that, I'm not sure that it can be put in any
>>> simpler terms than that. You're not really the brightest are you?
>>>
>>>
>> fuck off troll

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam

FUCK PUTIN!!

"His opinions have been crushed into insignificant dust by
the enormous weight of his lies"- Alvey on the Fraudster
"He came, he saw, he got pummelled" - Alvey on Keefy
"What a pair! Not a single word of rebuttal or reason,
just cretinous abuse" - Alvey on jonz and noddy
"His self serving ego pumping comments just read
like witless wankery"- Clocky on Keefy
"your opinion isn't worth 2 knobs of goat shit"- Xeno on Grubby Tech
"You cannot turn Darren's lies into the truth by attempting to *discredit*
what *I* say. You just make yourself look more of a dick"- Xeno to Grubby Tech

On Saturday, 12 March 2022 at 06:49:56 UTC+11, alvey wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 19:36:57 +1000, keithr0 wrote:
>
> > On 11/03/2022 7:07 pm, Noddy wrote:
> >> On 11/03/2022 5:25 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> >>> On 11/03/2022 12:37 am, Clocky wrote:
> >>
> >>>> There is nothing to crawl out of since I've made no specific claims
> >>>> to *my* programming ability. You claim to be a "programmer" but I
> >>>> haven't seen any examples of your code or proof that you are. Since
> >>>> therefore it is unproven... well, see below.
> >>>
> >>> "What, you copy and paste code into a Sketch in Arduino, select
> >>> the libraries to include, modify it a bit and hit program.
> >>> Literally anyone can do that."
> >>>
> >>> That was your statement, you're just being asked to prove it. If
> >>> anybody can then it follows that you should be able to. If you want to
> >>> withdraw that statement, then you don't have to prove anything.
> >>
> >> What's the actual motivation behind this nonsensical hypocrisy of yours
> >> here, Keith? Are you suffering from a bit of butt-hurt at the idea of
> >> you not being the only person in this group who can write code and get
> >> it to work?
> >
> > Something seems to have spooked you nodz, what are you afraid of?
> That'd be 'reality' keith. The Fraudster's moral (sic) enemy.
>
> The Fraudster can't support your crusade because he would get laughed at
> even harder. He'd be adding another 20 floors to his already massive
> Hypocrisy Tower. Of course he could have just shut up and waited out the
> storm, but that's not what narcissistic sociopaths do when they're being
> left out of anything. Nope, Fraudster just *had* to poke his head in and
> give his laughable reason for not substantiating any of that large pile of
> challenged claims another airing. You know, because in the Fraudster's mad
> mind the Repetition of Lies and Bullshit Makes Them Truer.
>
> Anyhoo, it looks like you're heading to where you wanted to be, an
> independent. As in, unwanted by all.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hmmm, how`s that working out for you?? <FBG>

>
> cheerio
> alvey
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 12/03/2022 1:51 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> On Saturday, 12 March 2022 at 06:49:56 UTC+11, alvey wrote:
>>
>> Anyhoo, it looks like you're heading to where you wanted to be, an
>> independent. As in, unwanted by all.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Hmmm, how`s that working out for you?? <FBG>
>

you're confusing him with yourself

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam

FUCK PUTIN!!

"His opinions have been crushed into insignificant dust by
the enormous weight of his lies"- Alvey on the Fraudster
"He came, he saw, he got pummelled" - Alvey on Keefy
"What a pair! Not a single word of rebuttal or reason,
just cretinous abuse" - Alvey on jonz and noddy
"His self serving ego pumping comments just read
like witless wankery"- Clocky on Keefy
"your opinion isn't worth 2 knobs of goat shit"- Xeno on Grubby Tech
"You cannot turn Darren's lies into the truth by attempting to *discredit*
what *I* say. You just make yourself look more of a dick"- Xeno to Grubby Tech

On 12/03/2022 10:55 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 12/03/2022 1:51 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, 12 March 2022 at 06:49:56 UTC+11, alvey wrote:
>>>
>>> Anyhoo, it looks like you're heading to where you wanted to be, an
>>> independent. As in, unwanted by all.
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>   Hmmm, how`s that working out for you?? <FBG>
>>
>
> you're confusing him with yourself
>
>

Isn't he ever.

He's only tolerated by the fraud because he's his suck but *everyone*
knows he's the "village idiot". Always has been considered that by
everyone in every group he's dumped his mindless gibberish into.

--
keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
it is unproven, he is lying."

On Saturday, 12 March 2022 at 10:18:14 UTC+11, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 11/03/2022 8:31 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> > On 11/03/2022 6:32 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> >> On 11/03/2022 5:42 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> >>> On 11/03/2022 9:27 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> >>>> On 11/03/2022 1:04 am, Clocky wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> LOL, keith, mate... you seem to have a very high opinion of
> >>>>> yourself as a programmer - so successful and highly paid that you
> >>>>> could afford such prestige vehicles as a Cordia Turbo and Miata.
> >>>>> You must have been ace to be able to afford those two examples of
> >>>>> motoring excellence... :-)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> he claims he worked at NASA as a programmer but has no formal
> >>>> qualifications, and was in a senior position there, iirc. can you
> >>>> imagine what the competition to be employed at NASA would be like?
> >>>> they would only be interested in the very best and brightest; the
> >>>> most qualified and capable. me thinketh that maybe, just maybe,
> >>>> something is rotten in Denmark! :)
> >>>
> >>> Wrong as usual felix. I worked for NASA and I worked as a programmer
> >>> but I didn't work as a programmer for NASA.
> >>
> >>
> >> oh, I'm expected to take such interest in you that I'm expected to
> >> know such details am I, fukwit. but of course you didn't, you're no
> >> where good enough
> >
> > If you can't be bothered to get it s\right, you should STFU otherwise
> > you just look stupid.
> by telling us about your incredible programming talent and skills, and
> THEN saying you worked for NASA, you created the impression that you
> were employed by them as a programmer. but we now know you just emptied
> rubbish bins at NASA and probably just programmed a Commodore 64 for the
> kids. :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Assumption from Pepe!. AFAIK, He (Keith) simply described his career moves. Obviously a cluey bloke.
However, as usual the half smart, know nothings infesting this place see that as an *attack* on their own er, abilities. (If the cap fits.) So they go into attack mode ( wet lettuce leaves at 10ft.)
Anyhoo, beautiful day here i`m going for a ride.

> >
> >>> Can you understand that, I'm not sure that it can be put in any
> >>> simpler terms than that. You're not really the brightest are you?
> >>>
> >>
> >> fuck off troll
> >
> > Ahh diddums
> >
> --
> https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam
>
> FUCK PUTIN!!
>
> "His opinions have been crushed into insignificant dust by
> the enormous weight of his lies"- Alvey on the Fraudster
> "He came, he saw, he got pummelled" - Alvey on Keefy
> "What a pair! Not a single word of rebuttal or reason,
> just cretinous abuse" - Alvey on jonz and noddy
> "His self serving ego pumping comments just read
> like witless wankery"- Clocky on Keefy
> "your opinion isn't worth 2 knobs of goat shit"- Xeno on Grubby Tech
> "You cannot turn Darren's lies into the truth by attempting to *discredit*
> what *I* say. You just make yourself look more of a dick"- Xeno to Grubby Tech

On 12/03/2022 9:59 am, alvey wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2022 09:03:28 +0800, Clocky wrote:
>
>> On 12/03/2022 4:04 am, alvey wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 21:37:48 +1100, Noddy wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/03/2022 9:05 pm, lindsay wrote:
>>>>> On 11/03/2022 8:50 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> own claims. Oh what a quandary you find yourself in, eh?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hows the search for the walled up cars going, shit fer brains? Deleted
>>>>> posts? DNA?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey, keep it up, I'm lovin' just watching this shit play out.
>>>>>
>>>>> You and me both. :-D watching you spout your "knowledge" about kids glue
>>>>> is hilarious.  How easily was it for Clocky to prove you wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Lol :) Like everything else he blurts about, he has absolutely no
>>>> fucking idea.
>>>>
>>>> Hey Kryppy? Did you ever come up with an explanation as to how Allan
>>>> Moffat managed to top qualify at Bathurst in 1972 using a Dominator carb
>>>> on his 351 Cleveland engine despite you claiming that a carb of that
>>>> size wouldn't work on an engine of that capacity as it was a "practical
>>>> impossibility"?
>>>>
>>>>> Like everyone else. ROFLBOCLOG :-D
>>>>>
>>>>> Added to the Tomas Clasener Tome of Lies.
>>>>
>>>> If the cunt of a thing had *any* shame at all he would simply disappear
>>>> and never be heard from again.
>>>
>>> Hmmmm.
>>> So if he 'has to go' for his errors, what should be the Fraudster's fate
>>> for all his errors and lies?
>>>
>>
>> He potentially could be in quite a bit of strife actually.
>
> Yep, under the new Online Safety Act (2021) he's a goner.
>

Absolutely. He's not the only one either.

--
keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
it is unproven, he is lying."

On 12/03/2022 10:49 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 12/03/2022 1:23 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>> On Friday, 11 March 2022 at 19:32:46 UTC+11, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>> On 11/03/2022 5:42 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 11/03/2022 9:27 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>> On 11/03/2022 1:04 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/03/2022 4:02 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/03/2022 3:17 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/03/2022 4:07 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/2022 11:22 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 18/2/22 (and unlike clocky the date is correct) clocky posted
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "What, you copy and paste code into a Sketch in Arduino, select
>>>>>>>>>> the libraries to include, modify it a bit and hit program.
>>>>>>>>>> Literally anyone can do that."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So now it is time for him to put his talents such as they are
>>>>>>>>>> where his mouth is. Its a simple task, make a speedometer that
>>>>>>>>>> runs from GPS. It must display current speed of course, but that
>>>>>>>>>> is so simple that felix could do it in BASIC on his Mac, so, in
>>>>>>>>>> addition, it has to display average speed. The current average
>>>>>>>>>> speed needs to be continuously displayed starting when a button
>>>>>>>>>> is pressed (the button press also resets any average speed
>>>>>>>>>> displayed up to that point). Extra points for displaying current
>>>>>>>>>> time, time and distance that the average speed is calculated
>>>>>>>>>> over, but don't make the display crowded and unreadable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The whole thing has to be small enough to the fitted in or on
>>>>>>>>>> top of the dashboard, and be a single unit, the display has to
>>>>>>>>>> be clear enough to be read while concentrating on driving.
>>>>>>>>>> Probably a 3.5" 380x320 display is the sweet spot.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The code has to be readable and compilable, and provided in
>>>>>>>>>> source form so that it can be inspected and tested.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since anybody can do that, I would expect that as a licenced and
>>>>>>>>>> qualified mechanic, holder of a certificate in electronics, well
>>>>>>>>>> renowned vintage computer dealer you will have no trouble doing
>>>>>>>>>> it in say a month. In fact, since anybody can do it anybody who
>>>>>>>>>> wants to have a go is welcome, felix included.
>>>>>>>>> Are you asking for a quote?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> hahahaha!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Clocky is a fake" there's a quote for you.
>>>>>> LOL, keith, mate... you seem to have a very high opinion of yourself
>>>>>> as a programmer - so successful and highly paid that you could
>>>>>> afford such prestige vehicles as a Cordia Turbo and Miata. You must
>>>>>> have been ace to be able to afford those two examples of motoring
>>>>>> excellence...  :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> he claims he worked at NASA as a programmer but has no formal
>>>>> qualifications, and was in a senior position there, iirc. can you
>>>>> imagine what the competition to be employed at NASA would be like?
>>>>> they would only be interested in the very best and brightest; the
>>>>> most qualified and capable. me thinketh that maybe, just maybe,
>>>>> something is rotten in Denmark! :)
>>>> Wrong as usual felix. I worked for NASA and I worked as a programmer
>>>> but I didn't work as a programmer for NASA.
>>                                                ===//===
>>> *** oh, I'm expected to take such interest in you that I'm expected
>>> to know
>>> such details am I, fukwit. but of course you didn't, you're no where
>>> good enough***
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>   *YOU* wrote the above^^^^^^^ *All incorrect*  you fuckin' simpleton. :(
>>
>
> as usual I have no idea what you're babbling about. has anyone
> recommended a good psychiatrist for you? they should!
>
>

Waste of time. A shrink can't fix "village idiot".

--
keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
it is unproven, he is lying."

On Saturday, 12 March 2022 at 12:29:20 UTC+11, Clocky wrote:
> On 11/03/2022 5:42 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> > On 10/03/2022 9:05 pm, Noddy wrote:
> >> On 10/03/2022 9:31 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 10 March 2022 at 20:53:25 UTC+11, Noddy wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>> I'm no friend of Jerky's, and to my mind he *already* proved the
> >>>>>> limited range of his "electronics knowledge" when I posted the
> >>>>>> pictures of my distributor's failed logic board and he decided to
> >>>>>> comment about it, but what you're doing here just makes you look like
> >>>>>> an *idiot* who needs to get the fuck over himself. For fuck's sake.
> >>>>>> Demanding people "prove themselves" to you makes you no different to
> >>>>>> the morons you criticise daily for doing the *exact* same thing.
> >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>
> >>> Ticky said *Anyone can do it*.. Therefore, "The proof of the
> >>> pudding is in the eating"
> >>
> >> I didn't see all the comment, but I believe Arduino was being
> >> discussed and if that's the case then anyone *can* do it. I programmed
> >> a little Arduino logic board to control my vapour blasting cabinet so
> >> regular momentary contact foot switches where turned into "push
> >> on/push off" latching switches to control the fan, pump, air solenoid
> >> and windscreen wiper. The code itself was a pre-written demo but it's
> >> not difficult, and I modified the basic sample to suit my own
> >> particular needs with regards to the number of pedals, timing delays
> >> and so on.
> >
> > The difference is the same as going to the shop, buying a set of
> > headers, and following a monkey see monkey do set of instructions,
> > against designing your own and fabricating them.
> No it isn't the same. The correct analogy would be "buy a kit, modify it
> a bit to suit your needs, and assemble" because that's the process I
> described. Anyone *can* do that.
>
> There was no mention of "designing and fabricating" process aka writing
> your own program from scratch.
>
> If you can't comprehend the difference that's your issue.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
I see what you did there>

On Saturday, 12 March 2022 at 13:49:14 UTC+11, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 12/03/2022 1:23 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> > On Friday, 11 March 2022 at 19:32:46 UTC+11, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> >> On 11/03/2022 5:42 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> >>> On 11/03/2022 9:27 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> >>>> On 11/03/2022 1:04 am, Clocky wrote:
> >>>>> On 10/03/2022 4:02 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> >>>>>> On 10/03/2022 3:17 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 10/03/2022 4:07 pm, Clocky wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 10/03/2022 11:22 am, keithr0 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 18/2/22 (and unlike clocky the date is correct) clocky posted
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "What, you copy and paste code into a Sketch in Arduino, select
> >>>>>>>>> the libraries to include, modify it a bit and hit program.
> >>>>>>>>> Literally anyone can do that."
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So now it is time for him to put his talents such as they are
> >>>>>>>>> where his mouth is. Its a simple task, make a speedometer that
> >>>>>>>>> runs from GPS. It must display current speed of course, but that
> >>>>>>>>> is so simple that felix could do it in BASIC on his Mac, so, in
> >>>>>>>>> addition, it has to display average speed. The current average
> >>>>>>>>> speed needs to be continuously displayed starting when a button
> >>>>>>>>> is pressed (the button press also resets any average speed
> >>>>>>>>> displayed up to that point). Extra points for displaying current
> >>>>>>>>> time, time and distance that the average speed is calculated
> >>>>>>>>> over, but don't make the display crowded and unreadable.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The whole thing has to be small enough to the fitted in or on
> >>>>>>>>> top of the dashboard, and be a single unit, the display has to
> >>>>>>>>> be clear enough to be read while concentrating on driving.
> >>>>>>>>> Probably a 3.5" 380x320 display is the sweet spot.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The code has to be readable and compilable, and provided in
> >>>>>>>>> source form so that it can be inspected and tested.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Since anybody can do that, I would expect that as a licenced and
> >>>>>>>>> qualified mechanic, holder of a certificate in electronics, well
> >>>>>>>>> renowned vintage computer dealer you will have no trouble doing
> >>>>>>>>> it in say a month. In fact, since anybody can do it anybody who
> >>>>>>>>> wants to have a go is welcome, felix included.
> >>>>>>>> Are you asking for a quote?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> hahahaha!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Clocky is a fake" there's a quote for you.
> >>>>> LOL, keith, mate... you seem to have a very high opinion of yourself
> >>>>> as a programmer - so successful and highly paid that you could
> >>>>> afford such prestige vehicles as a Cordia Turbo and Miata. You must
> >>>>> have been ace to be able to afford those two examples of motoring
> >>>>> excellence... :-)
> >>>>
> >>>> he claims he worked at NASA as a programmer but has no formal
> >>>> qualifications, and was in a senior position there, iirc. can you
> >>>> imagine what the competition to be employed at NASA would be like?
> >>>> they would only be interested in the very best and brightest; the
> >>>> most qualified and capable. me thinketh that maybe, just maybe,
> >>>> something is rotten in Denmark! :)
> >>> Wrong as usual felix. I worked for NASA and I worked as a programmer
> >>> but I didn't work as a programmer for NASA.
> > ===//===
> >> *** oh, I'm expected to take such interest in you that I'm expected to know
> >> such details am I, fukwit. but of course you didn't, you're no where
> >> good enough***
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > *YOU* wrote the above^^^^^^^ *All incorrect* you fuckin' simpleton. :(
> >
> as usual I have no idea what you're babbling about. has anyone
> recommended a good psychiatrist for you? they should!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*YOU* can`t understand, BUT, but, but, *YOU* wrote it.....Yer a fuckin' waste of space you simpleton. :)))
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>> Can you understand that, I'm not sure that it can be put in any
> >>> simpler terms than that. You're not really the brightest are you?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> fuck off troll
> --
> https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam
>
> FUCK PUTIN!!
>
> "His opinions have been crushed into insignificant dust by
> the enormous weight of his lies"- Alvey on the Fraudster
> "He came, he saw, he got pummelled" - Alvey on Keefy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Only in yer dreams yevla. :)
> "What a pair! Not a single word of rebuttal or reason,
> just cretinous abuse" - Alvey on jonz and noddy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I`se is traumatised. :(....yevla the unbold... *again!* :)))
> "His self serving ego pumping comments just read
> like witless wankery"- Clocky on Keefy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is he stealing yer copyright ticcy. :)))
> "your opinion isn't worth 2 knobs of goat shit"- Xeno on Grubby Tech
> "You cannot turn Darren's lies into the truth by attempting to *discredit*
> what *I* say. You just make yourself look more of a dick"- Xeno to Grubby Tech
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brought to you by krypsis the liar.
All the above loved and revered by felix the pussy. ;)

On Saturday, 12 March 2022 at 14:19:37 UTC+11, Clocky wrote:
> On 12/03/2022 9:59 am, alvey wrote:
> > On Sat, 12 Mar 2022 09:03:28 +0800, Clocky wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/03/2022 4:04 am, alvey wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2022 21:37:48 +1100, Noddy wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 11/03/2022 9:05 pm, lindsay wrote:
> >>>>> On 11/03/2022 8:50 pm, Xeno wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> own claims. Oh what a quandary you find yourself in, eh?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hows the search for the walled up cars going, shit fer brains? Deleted
> >>>>> posts? DNA?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hey, keep it up, I'm lovin' just watching this shit play out.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You and me both. :-D watching you spout your "knowledge" about kids glue
> >>>>> is hilarious. How easily was it for Clocky to prove you wrong.
> >>>>
> >>>> Lol :) Like everything else he blurts about, he has absolutely no
> >>>> fucking idea.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hey Kryppy? Did you ever come up with an explanation as to how Allan
> >>>> Moffat managed to top qualify at Bathurst in 1972 using a Dominator carb
> >>>> on his 351 Cleveland engine despite you claiming that a carb of that
> >>>> size wouldn't work on an engine of that capacity as it was a "practical
> >>>> impossibility"?
> >>>>
> >>>>> Like everyone else. ROFLBOCLOG :-D
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Added to the Tomas Clasener Tome of Lies.
> >>>>
> >>>> If the cunt of a thing had *any* shame at all he would simply disappear
> >>>> and never be heard from again.
> >>>
> >>> Hmmmm.
> >>> So if he 'has to go' for his errors, what should be the Fraudster's fate
> >>> for all his errors and lies?
> >>>
> >>
> >> He potentially could be in quite a bit of strife actually.
> >
> > Yep, under the new Online Safety Act (2021) he's a goner.
> >
> Absolutely. He's not the only one either.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~````
Hey there crock o' shit, why don`t you and yer boy/girlfriend yevla go on a dobbing crusade.
Ya fuckin' silly misbegotten cunts.
(A wee bit of ammo for yiz. <FBG)
Hop to it girls.

> --
> keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
> "He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
> it is unproven, he is lying."

On 12/03/2022 2:08 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 12/03/2022 10:55 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>> On 12/03/2022 1:51 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 12 March 2022 at 06:49:56 UTC+11, alvey wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Anyhoo, it looks like you're heading to where you wanted to be, an
>>>> independent. As in, unwanted by all.
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>   Hmmm, how`s that working out for you?? <FBG>
>>>
>>
>> you're confusing him with yourself
>>
>>
>
> Isn't he ever.
>
> He's only tolerated by the fraud because he's his suck but *everyone*
> knows he's the "village idiot". Always has been considered that by
> everyone in every group he's dumped his mindless gibberish into.
>

no one wants to talk to him. noddy will throw him a bone now and then to
keep him on side, and deryl gives him a pat or two occasionally for the
same reason. :)

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam

FUCK PUTIN!!

"His opinions have been crushed into insignificant dust by
the enormous weight of his lies"- Alvey on the Fraudster
"He came, he saw, he got pummelled" - Alvey on Keefy
"What a pair! Not a single word of rebuttal or reason,
just cretinous abuse" - Alvey on jonz and noddy
"His self serving ego pumping comments just read
like witless wankery"- Clocky on Keefy
"your opinion isn't worth 2 knobs of goat shit"- Xeno on Grubby Tech
"You cannot turn Darren's lies into the truth by attempting to *discredit*
what *I* say. You just make yourself look more of a dick"- Xeno to Grubby Tech

On 12/03/2022 6:02 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
> On Saturday, 12 March 2022 at 14:19:37 UTC+11, Clocky wrote:

>>>>
>>>> He potentially could be in quite a bit of strife actually.
>>>
>>> Yep, under the new Online Safety Act (2021) he's a goner.
>>>
>> Absolutely. He's not the only one either.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~````
> Hey there crock o' shit, why don`t you and yer boy/girlfriend yevla go on a dobbing crusade.
> Ya fuckin' silly misbegotten cunts.
> (A wee bit of ammo for yiz. <FBG)
> Hop to it girls.

Lol :)

*Both* of these fucking morons have acted in ways that would be in
breach of every cyber law in this country many times over. For fuck's
sake, Alvey's posting habits make him appear to be certifiably insane
let alone break every stalking law known to man, yet *I* could be in
"quite a bit of strife"?

These fuckwits are delusional....

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 12/3/22 19:54, Noddy wrote:
> On 12/03/2022 6:02 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, 12 March 2022 at 14:19:37 UTC+11, Clocky wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>> He potentially could be in quite a bit of strife actually.
>>>>
>>>> Yep, under the new Online Safety Act (2021) he's a goner.
>>>>
>>> Absolutely. He's not the only one either.
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~````
>> Hey there crock o' shit, why don`t you and yer boy/girlfriend yevla go
>> on a dobbing crusade.
>>    Ya fuckin' silly misbegotten cunts.
>>        (A wee bit of ammo for yiz. <FBG)
>>             Hop to it girls.
>
> Lol :)
>
> *Both* of these fucking morons have acted in ways that would be in
> breach of every cyber law in this country many times over. For fuck's
> sake, Alvey's posting habits make him appear to be certifiably insane
> let alone break every stalking law known to man, yet *I* could be in
> "quite a bit of strife"?
>
> These fuckwits are delusional....
>
>
Yeah Darren, fraud, misrepresentation, deception, the whole gamut - and
from a *registered business too - and that's without moving on to such
items as libel and defamation.

--
Xeno

On Sat, 12 Mar 2022 19:54:56 +1100, Noddy wrote:

> On 12/03/2022 6:02 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, 12 March 2022 at 14:19:37 UTC+11, Clocky wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>> He potentially could be in quite a bit of strife actually.
>>>>
>>>> Yep, under the new Online Safety Act (2021) he's a goner.
>>>>
>>> Absolutely. He's not the only one either.
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~````
>> Hey there crock o' shit, why don`t you and yer boy/girlfriend yevla go on a dobbing crusade.
>> Ya fuckin' silly misbegotten cunts.
>> (A wee bit of ammo for yiz. <FBG)
>> Hop to it girls.
>
> Lol :)
>
> *Both* of these fucking morons have acted in ways that would be in
> breach of every cyber law in this country many times over. For fuck's
> sake, Alvey's posting habits make him appear to be certifiably insane
> let alone break every stalking law known to man, yet *I* could be in
> "quite a bit of strife"?

Any time you'd like to debate the issues instead of whining away in Craven
Castle, why you just c'mon down Fraudster!

>
> These fuckwits are delusional....

Nope. That's *still* just your opinion Fraudster, and a hint, the opinion
of a proven fraud, liar, hypocrite and coward carries little, if any,
weight.

"Oh, the business name was Noddy's Automotive, in the Slough Estate of
Altona. The guy I sold it to was a competitor who closed it down to boost
his own business's trade..." Fraudster, 14Nov03

So how come the "Historic principal place of business" for this alleged
business between Mar93 - Mar96 was recorded by ASIC as your parents
residence in a residential street?

Over to you Fraudster.

alvey

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 13/03/2022 8:29 am, alvey wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2022 19:54:56 +1100, Noddy wrote:
>
>> On 12/03/2022 6:02 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 12 March 2022 at 14:19:37 UTC+11, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>> He potentially could be in quite a bit of strife actually.
>>>>> Yep, under the new Online Safety Act (2021) he's a goner.
>>>>>
>>>> Absolutely. He's not the only one either.
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~````
>>> Hey there crock o' shit, why don`t you and yer boy/girlfriend yevla go on a dobbing crusade.
>>> Ya fuckin' silly misbegotten cunts.
>>> (A wee bit of ammo for yiz. <FBG)
>>> Hop to it girls.
>> Lol :)
>>
>> *Both* of these fucking morons have acted in ways that would be in
>> breach of every cyber law in this country many times over. For fuck's
>> sake, Alvey's posting habits make him appear to be certifiably insane
>> let alone break every stalking law known to man, yet *I* could be in
>> "quite a bit of strife"?
> Any time you'd like to debate the issues instead of whining away in Craven
> Castle, why you just c'mon down Fraudster!
>
>> These fuckwits are delusional....
> Nope. That's *still* just your opinion Fraudster, and a hint, the opinion
> of a proven fraud, liar, hypocrite and coward carries little, if any,
> weight.
>
> "Oh, the business name was Noddy's Automotive, in the Slough Estate of
> Altona. The guy I sold it to was a competitor who closed it down to boost
> his own business's trade..." Fraudster, 14Nov03
>
> So how come the "Historic principal place of business" for this alleged
> business between Mar93 - Mar96 was recorded by ASIC as your parents
> residence in a residential street?

that's a simple question to answer if he actually had a legitimate answer

>
> Over to you Fraudster.

don't hold your breath :(

>
>
>
> alvey
>
>

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam

FUCK PUTIN!!

"His opinions have been crushed into insignificant dust by
the enormous weight of his lies"- Alvey on the Fraudster
"He came, he saw, he got pummelled" - Alvey on Keefy
"What a pair! Not a single word of rebuttal or reason,
just cretinous abuse" - Alvey on jonz and noddy
"His self serving ego pumping comments just read
like witless wankery"- Clocky on Keefy
"your opinion isn't worth 2 knobs of goat shit"- Xeno on Grubby Tech
"You cannot turn Darren's lies into the truth by attempting to *discredit*
what *I* say. You just make yourself look more of a dick"- Xeno to Grubby Tech

On 11/3/22 21:37, Noddy wrote:
>> On 11/03/2022 8:50 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>
>>> own claims. Oh what a quandary you find yourself in, eh?
>>>
>>> Hey, keep it up, I'm lovin' just watching this shit play out.
>>
>
> Hey Kryppy? Did you ever come up with an explanation as to how Allan
> Moffat managed to top qualify at Bathurst in 1972 using a Dominator carb
> on his 351 Cleveland engine despite you claiming that a carb of that
> size wouldn't work on an engine of that capacity as it was a "practical
> impossibility"?
>
Darren, Darren, Darren, I never said the Holley Dominator wasn't going
to work on a 351, that's *your* bullshit. What *I* said was that the
Holley Dominator size *you claimed* you fitted to the *350 Chev* could
not fully utilise the available airflow potential. Remember too, you
weren't referring to Moffat's 351 *Ford*, you were referring to a
*stock* Chev 350 block that you chose because they were *reliable*. Yes,
if you are only going for stock HP they will be reliable. Bump up the
neddies and all reliability bets are off. As is the case with *any engine*.

The stock Chev engine can flow between 650 and 750 CFM at max RPM. To
get *more* airflow than that, you *first* need to rev the ring out of
that engine - up to 10,000+ RPM. It's all in the maths, which explains
why *you* cannot comprehend it, and as much as you would like to you
simply cannot dispute the maths.

What price your Chev 350 reliability when running at 10,000 RPM. Hell,
you can't even get it there without detonating it. Piston speeds versus
piston mass screws you for a start. The standard crank can't handle the
revs and the block won't fare well trying to get 600 HP out of it
either. Just imagine the con rod stretch at 10,000 RPM? Whoah!

Of course, then there is your idiotic claim that you used *Ford* 4V
heads on that Chev block. As standard, those intake runners on the 4V
don't flow well at all - *too large* you see, and the performance boys,
those who have a clue and know what they are doing, putty up those ports
so they don't slow the airflow. Yes Darren, narrower ports equal higher
flow rates, the performance chaps know this stuff - all in the maths.

Of course, you then run into the problem whereby the speed of sound
*restricts* your air flow long before you get to 10,000 RPM. Intake air
speed of ~Mach 0.6 is the sweet spot Darren, after that your flow
progressively chokes due to sonic flow rates. Again, all in the maths.
Had you done apprentice maths, this would be clear to you but you were
too stupid to even *qualify* to sign up for an apprenticeship.

The Chev 350 is an OHV pushrod engine. That is the next big issue. You
see Darren, those engines have a lot of mass in the valve train. Mass
and inertia are the enemies of revs Darren and if you had half a brain
you would know this. You need to really modify your valve train to the
extreme to even so much as hope to approach 10,000 RPM. Good luck with
that. Why do you thing OHV engines went out with button up boots, it's
all OHC these days. Why OHC Darren? Shorter valve train hence less mass.
Simplez, eh?

Then of course there's the bullshit about putting 4V heads on a Chev
block. Just one aspect of that totally screws you Darren, the bolt
patterns. 5 bolt versus 4 bolt per cylinder. And it just gets worse for
you from there.

I therefore stand by my assertion, *YOU* cannot get *600HP* out of that
*kludged 350* you claimed to have built and, whilst the Holley Dominator
1050 can be put on an engine of that size, a good 25%-30% of its *flow
capacity* would be *wasted* since the 350 Chev engine, even with
extensive mods, cannot flow that amount of air, no way, no how. This 350
Chev engine is the one around which your *claimed bullshit story*
revolves and is the one I said would *never* get 600 HP NA.

Holley have a carburettor selection calculator on their website for a
very good reason Darren - the limitations of *physics* in the *real
world*, no matter what wankers like you think you can do in your
*fantasy world*.

https://www.holley.com/retailer/carbselector/

Plug in all the numbers you like Darren, the carb recommendations for a
350 NA engine range between 650 and 750 CFM with circle track racers and
dragsters right up at the 750 CFM range. There's a reason for that -
physics - and the limitations thereof!

>
> If the cunt of a thing had *any* shame at all he would simply disappear
> and never be heard from again.

You were right to leave school before the end of year 9 Darren. After
all, you were just wasting everyone's time. Even as an adult you are as
uneducable as ever. That's why you breezed into the bullshit zone and
have remained there ever since. You can't dazzle people with brilliance
so you're resorting to baffling them with bullshit. Hey, it's not working!

--
Xeno

On 13/03/2022 1:47 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 11/3/22 21:37, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 11/03/2022 8:50 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>
>>>> own claims. Oh what a quandary you find yourself in, eh?
>>>>
>>>> Hey, keep it up, I'm lovin' just watching this shit play out.
>>>
>>
>> Hey Kryppy? Did you ever come up with an explanation as to how Allan
>> Moffat managed to top qualify at Bathurst in 1972 using a Dominator
>> carb on his 351 Cleveland engine despite you claiming that a carb of
>> that size wouldn't work on an engine of that capacity as it was a
>> "practical impossibility"?
>>
> Darren, Darren, Darren, I never said the Holley Dominator wasn't going
> to work on a 351, that's *your* bullshit. What *I* said was that the
> Holley Dominator size *you claimed* you fitted to the *350 Chev* could
> not fully utilise the available airflow potential. Remember too, you
> weren't referring to Moffat's 351 *Ford*, you were referring to a
> *stock* Chev 350 block that you chose because they were *reliable*.
> Yes, if you are only going for stock HP they will be reliable. Bump up
> the neddies and all reliability bets are off. As is the case with *any
> engine*.
>
> The stock Chev engine can flow between 650 and 750 CFM at max RPM. To
> get *more* airflow than that, you *first* need to rev the ring out of
> that engine - up to 10,000+ RPM. It's all in the maths, which explains
> why *you* cannot comprehend it, and as much as you would like to you
> simply cannot dispute the maths.
>
> What price your Chev 350 reliability when running at 10,000 RPM. Hell,
> you can't even get it there without detonating it. Piston speeds
> versus piston mass screws you for a start. The standard crank can't
> handle the revs and the block won't fare well trying to get 600 HP out
> of it either. Just imagine the con rod stretch at 10,000 RPM? Whoah!
>
> Of course, then there is your idiotic claim that you used *Ford* 4V
> heads on that Chev block. As standard, those intake runners on the 4V
> don't flow well at all - *too large* you see, and the performance
> boys, those who have a clue and know what they are doing, putty up
> those ports so they don't slow the airflow. Yes Darren, narrower ports
> equal higher flow rates, the performance chaps know this stuff - all
> in the maths.
>
> Of course, you then run into the problem whereby the speed of sound
> *restricts* your air flow long before you get to 10,000 RPM. Intake
> air speed of ~Mach 0.6 is the sweet spot Darren, after that your flow
> progressively chokes due to sonic flow rates. Again, all in the maths.
> Had you done apprentice maths, this would be clear to you but you were
> too stupid to even *qualify* to sign up for an apprenticeship.
>
> The Chev 350 is an OHV pushrod engine. That is the next big issue. You
> see Darren, those engines have a lot of mass in the valve train. Mass
> and inertia are the enemies of revs Darren and if you had half a brain
> you would know this. You need to really modify your valve train to the
> extreme to even so much as hope to approach 10,000 RPM. Good luck with
> that. Why do you thing OHV engines went out with button up boots, it's
> all OHC these days. Why OHC Darren? Shorter valve train hence less
> mass. Simplez, eh?
>
> Then of course there's the bullshit about putting 4V heads on a Chev
> block. Just one aspect of that totally screws you Darren, the bolt
> patterns. 5 bolt versus 4 bolt per cylinder. And it just gets worse
> for you from there.
>
> I therefore stand by my assertion, *YOU* cannot get *600HP* out of
> that *kludged 350* you claimed to have built and, whilst the Holley
> Dominator 1050 can be put on an engine of that size, a good 25%-30% of
> its *flow capacity* would be *wasted* since the 350 Chev engine, even
> with extensive mods, cannot flow that amount of air, no way, no how.
> This 350 Chev engine is the one around which your *claimed bullshit
> story* revolves and is the one I said would *never* get 600 HP NA.
>
> Holley have a carburettor selection calculator on their website for a
> very good reason Darren - the limitations of *physics* in the *real
> world*, no matter what wankers like you think you can do in your
> *fantasy world*.
>
>   https://www.holley.com/retailer/carbselector/
>
> Plug in all the numbers you like Darren, the carb recommendations for
> a 350 NA engine range between 650 and 750 CFM with circle track racers
> and dragsters right up at the 750 CFM range. There's a reason for that
> - physics - and the limitations thereof!
>
> You were right to leave school before the end of year 9 Darren. After
> all, you were just wasting everyone's time. Even as an adult you are
> as uneducable as ever. That's why you breezed into the bullshit zone
> and have remained there ever since. You can't dazzle people with
> brilliance so you're resorting to baffling them with bullshit. Hey,
> it's not working!
>
>

LOL. shot him down in flames.

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam

FUCK PUTIN!!

"His opinions have been crushed into insignificant dust by
the enormous weight of his lies"- Alvey on the Fraudster
"He came, he saw, he got pummelled" - Alvey on Keefy
"What a pair! Not a single word of rebuttal or reason,
just cretinous abuse" - Alvey on jonz and noddy
"His self serving ego pumping comments just read
like witless wankery"- Clocky on Keefy
"your opinion isn't worth 2 knobs of goat shit"- Xeno on Grubby Tech
"You cannot turn Darren's lies into the truth by attempting to *discredit*
what *I* say. You just make yourself look more of a dick"- Xeno to Grubby Tech

On 13/3/22 14:43, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 13/03/2022 1:47 pm, Xeno wrote:
>> On 11/3/22 21:37, Noddy wrote:
>>>> On 11/03/2022 8:50 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> own claims. Oh what a quandary you find yourself in, eh?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey, keep it up, I'm lovin' just watching this shit play out.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hey Kryppy? Did you ever come up with an explanation as to how Allan
>>> Moffat managed to top qualify at Bathurst in 1972 using a Dominator
>>> carb on his 351 Cleveland engine despite you claiming that a carb of
>>> that size wouldn't work on an engine of that capacity as it was a
>>> "practical impossibility"?
>>>
>> Darren, Darren, Darren, I never said the Holley Dominator wasn't going
>> to work on a 351, that's *your* bullshit. What *I* said was that the
>> Holley Dominator size *you claimed* you fitted to the *350 Chev* could
>> not fully utilise the available airflow potential. Remember too, you
>> weren't referring to Moffat's 351 *Ford*, you were referring to a
>> *stock* Chev 350 block that you chose because they were *reliable*.
>> Yes, if you are only going for stock HP they will be reliable. Bump up
>> the neddies and all reliability bets are off. As is the case with *any
>> engine*.
>>
>> The stock Chev engine can flow between 650 and 750 CFM at max RPM. To
>> get *more* airflow than that, you *first* need to rev the ring out of
>> that engine - up to 10,000+ RPM. It's all in the maths, which explains
>> why *you* cannot comprehend it, and as much as you would like to you
>> simply cannot dispute the maths.
>>
>> What price your Chev 350 reliability when running at 10,000 RPM. Hell,
>> you can't even get it there without detonating it. Piston speeds
>> versus piston mass screws you for a start. The standard crank can't
>> handle the revs and the block won't fare well trying to get 600 HP out
>> of it either. Just imagine the con rod stretch at 10,000 RPM? Whoah!
>>
>> Of course, then there is your idiotic claim that you used *Ford* 4V
>> heads on that Chev block. As standard, those intake runners on the 4V
>> don't flow well at all - *too large* you see, and the performance
>> boys, those who have a clue and know what they are doing, putty up
>> those ports so they don't slow the airflow. Yes Darren, narrower ports
>> equal higher flow rates, the performance chaps know this stuff - all
>> in the maths.
>>
>> Of course, you then run into the problem whereby the speed of sound
>> *restricts* your air flow long before you get to 10,000 RPM. Intake
>> air speed of ~Mach 0.6 is the sweet spot Darren, after that your flow
>> progressively chokes due to sonic flow rates. Again, all in the maths.
>> Had you done apprentice maths, this would be clear to you but you were
>> too stupid to even *qualify* to sign up for an apprenticeship.
>>
>> The Chev 350 is an OHV pushrod engine. That is the next big issue. You
>> see Darren, those engines have a lot of mass in the valve train. Mass
>> and inertia are the enemies of revs Darren and if you had half a brain
>> you would know this. You need to really modify your valve train to the
>> extreme to even so much as hope to approach 10,000 RPM. Good luck with
>> that. Why do you thing OHV engines went out with button up boots, it's
>> all OHC these days. Why OHC Darren? Shorter valve train hence less
>> mass. Simplez, eh?
>>
>> Then of course there's the bullshit about putting 4V heads on a Chev
>> block. Just one aspect of that totally screws you Darren, the bolt
>> patterns. 5 bolt versus 4 bolt per cylinder. And it just gets worse
>> for you from there.
>>
>> I therefore stand by my assertion, *YOU* cannot get *600HP* out of
>> that *kludged 350* you claimed to have built and, whilst the Holley
>> Dominator 1050 can be put on an engine of that size, a good 25%-30% of
>> its *flow capacity* would be *wasted* since the 350 Chev engine, even
>> with extensive mods, cannot flow that amount of air, no way, no how.
>> This 350 Chev engine is the one around which your *claimed bullshit
>> story* revolves and is the one I said would *never* get 600 HP NA.
>>
>> Holley have a carburettor selection calculator on their website for a
>> very good reason Darren - the limitations of *physics* in the *real
>> world*, no matter what wankers like you think you can do in your
>> *fantasy world*.
>>
>>   https://www.holley.com/retailer/carbselector/
>>
>> Plug in all the numbers you like Darren, the carb recommendations for
>> a 350 NA engine range between 650 and 750 CFM with circle track racers
>> and dragsters right up at the 750 CFM range. There's a reason for that
>> - physics - and the limitations thereof!
>>
>> You were right to leave school before the end of year 9 Darren. After
>> all, you were just wasting everyone's time. Even as an adult you are
>> as uneducable as ever. That's why you breezed into the bullshit zone
>> and have remained there ever since. You can't dazzle people with
>> brilliance so you're resorting to baffling them with bullshit. Hey,
>> it's not working!
>>
>>
>
> LOL. shot him down in flames.
>
>
I'd mock him but the challenge is gone! ;-)

--
Xeno

On 12/03/2022 4:54 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 12/03/2022 6:02 pm, jonz@ nothere.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, 12 March 2022 at 14:19:37 UTC+11, Clocky wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>> He potentially could be in quite a bit of strife actually.
>>>>
>>>> Yep, under the new Online Safety Act (2021) he's a goner.
>>>>
>>> Absolutely. He's not the only one either.
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~````
>> Hey there crock o' shit, why don`t you and yer boy/girlfriend yevla go
>> on a dobbing crusade.
>>    Ya fuckin' silly misbegotten cunts.
>>        (A wee bit of ammo for yiz. <FBG)
>>             Hop to it girls.
>
> Lol :)
>
> *Both* of these fucking morons have acted in ways that would be in
> breach of every cyber law in this country many times over. For fuck's
> sake, Alvey's posting habits make him appear to be certifiably insane
> let alone break every stalking law known to man, yet *I* could be in
> "quite a bit of strife"?
>
> These fuckwits are delusional....
>
>

Your *opinion* counts for nought in the eyes of the law, I can assure you.

--
keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
it is unproven, he is lying."

On 13/03/2022 11:43 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 13/03/2022 1:47 pm, Xeno wrote:
>> On 11/3/22 21:37, Noddy wrote:
>>>> On 11/03/2022 8:50 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> own claims. Oh what a quandary you find yourself in, eh?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey, keep it up, I'm lovin' just watching this shit play out.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hey Kryppy? Did you ever come up with an explanation as to how Allan
>>> Moffat managed to top qualify at Bathurst in 1972 using a Dominator
>>> carb on his 351 Cleveland engine despite you claiming that a carb of
>>> that size wouldn't work on an engine of that capacity as it was a
>>> "practical impossibility"?
>>>
>> Darren, Darren, Darren, I never said the Holley Dominator wasn't going
>> to work on a 351, that's *your* bullshit. What *I* said was that the
>> Holley Dominator size *you claimed* you fitted to the *350 Chev* could
>> not fully utilise the available airflow potential. Remember too, you
>> weren't referring to Moffat's 351 *Ford*, you were referring to a
>> *stock* Chev 350 block that you chose because they were *reliable*.
>> Yes, if you are only going for stock HP they will be reliable. Bump up
>> the neddies and all reliability bets are off. As is the case with *any
>> engine*.
>>
>> The stock Chev engine can flow between 650 and 750 CFM at max RPM. To
>> get *more* airflow than that, you *first* need to rev the ring out of
>> that engine - up to 10,000+ RPM. It's all in the maths, which explains
>> why *you* cannot comprehend it, and as much as you would like to you
>> simply cannot dispute the maths.
>>
>> What price your Chev 350 reliability when running at 10,000 RPM. Hell,
>> you can't even get it there without detonating it. Piston speeds
>> versus piston mass screws you for a start. The standard crank can't
>> handle the revs and the block won't fare well trying to get 600 HP out
>> of it either. Just imagine the con rod stretch at 10,000 RPM? Whoah!
>>
>> Of course, then there is your idiotic claim that you used *Ford* 4V
>> heads on that Chev block. As standard, those intake runners on the 4V
>> don't flow well at all - *too large* you see, and the performance
>> boys, those who have a clue and know what they are doing, putty up
>> those ports so they don't slow the airflow. Yes Darren, narrower ports
>> equal higher flow rates, the performance chaps know this stuff - all
>> in the maths.
>>
>> Of course, you then run into the problem whereby the speed of sound
>> *restricts* your air flow long before you get to 10,000 RPM. Intake
>> air speed of ~Mach 0.6 is the sweet spot Darren, after that your flow
>> progressively chokes due to sonic flow rates. Again, all in the maths.
>> Had you done apprentice maths, this would be clear to you but you were
>> too stupid to even *qualify* to sign up for an apprenticeship.
>>
>> The Chev 350 is an OHV pushrod engine. That is the next big issue. You
>> see Darren, those engines have a lot of mass in the valve train. Mass
>> and inertia are the enemies of revs Darren and if you had half a brain
>> you would know this. You need to really modify your valve train to the
>> extreme to even so much as hope to approach 10,000 RPM. Good luck with
>> that. Why do you thing OHV engines went out with button up boots, it's
>> all OHC these days. Why OHC Darren? Shorter valve train hence less
>> mass. Simplez, eh?
>>
>> Then of course there's the bullshit about putting 4V heads on a Chev
>> block. Just one aspect of that totally screws you Darren, the bolt
>> patterns. 5 bolt versus 4 bolt per cylinder. And it just gets worse
>> for you from there.
>>
>> I therefore stand by my assertion, *YOU* cannot get *600HP* out of
>> that *kludged 350* you claimed to have built and, whilst the Holley
>> Dominator 1050 can be put on an engine of that size, a good 25%-30% of
>> its *flow capacity* would be *wasted* since the 350 Chev engine, even
>> with extensive mods, cannot flow that amount of air, no way, no how.
>> This 350 Chev engine is the one around which your *claimed bullshit
>> story* revolves and is the one I said would *never* get 600 HP NA.
>>
>> Holley have a carburettor selection calculator on their website for a
>> very good reason Darren - the limitations of *physics* in the *real
>> world*, no matter what wankers like you think you can do in your
>> *fantasy world*.
>>
>>   https://www.holley.com/retailer/carbselector/
>>
>> Plug in all the numbers you like Darren, the carb recommendations for
>> a 350 NA engine range between 650 and 750 CFM with circle track racers
>> and dragsters right up at the 750 CFM range. There's a reason for that
>> - physics - and the limitations thereof!
>>
>> You were right to leave school before the end of year 9 Darren. After
>> all, you were just wasting everyone's time. Even as an adult you are
>> as uneducable as ever. That's why you breezed into the bullshit zone
>> and have remained there ever since. You can't dazzle people with
>> brilliance so you're resorting to baffling them with bullshit. Hey,
>> it's not working!
>>
>>
>
> LOL. shot him down in flames.
>
>

NoddyLiar is one of those people that would bolt a massive carb on
anything then blame performance and drive-ability issues on something or
someone else.

We were always left to deal with the fuckups of these morons.

--
keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
it is unproven, he is lying."

On 14/03/2022 4:48 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 13/03/2022 11:43 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>> On 13/03/2022 1:47 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>> On 11/3/22 21:37, Noddy wrote:
>>>>> On 11/03/2022 8:50 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> own claims. Oh what a quandary you find yourself in, eh?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey, keep it up, I'm lovin' just watching this shit play out.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hey Kryppy? Did you ever come up with an explanation as to how
>>>> Allan Moffat managed to top qualify at Bathurst in 1972 using a
>>>> Dominator carb on his 351 Cleveland engine despite you claiming
>>>> that a carb of that size wouldn't work on an engine of that
>>>> capacity as it was a "practical impossibility"?
>>>>
>>> Darren, Darren, Darren, I never said the Holley Dominator wasn't
>>> going to work on a 351, that's *your* bullshit. What *I* said was
>>> that the Holley Dominator size *you claimed* you fitted to the *350
>>> Chev* could not fully utilise the available airflow potential.
>>> Remember too, you weren't referring to Moffat's 351 *Ford*, you were
>>> referring to a *stock* Chev 350 block that you chose because they
>>> were *reliable*. Yes, if you are only going for stock HP they will
>>> be reliable. Bump up the neddies and all reliability bets are off.
>>> As is the case with *any engine*.
>>>
>>> The stock Chev engine can flow between 650 and 750 CFM at max RPM.
>>> To get *more* airflow than that, you *first* need to rev the ring
>>> out of that engine - up to 10,000+ RPM. It's all in the maths, which
>>> explains why *you* cannot comprehend it, and as much as you would
>>> like to you simply cannot dispute the maths.
>>>
>>> What price your Chev 350 reliability when running at 10,000 RPM.
>>> Hell, you can't even get it there without detonating it. Piston
>>> speeds versus piston mass screws you for a start. The standard crank
>>> can't handle the revs and the block won't fare well trying to get
>>> 600 HP out of it either. Just imagine the con rod stretch at 10,000
>>> RPM? Whoah!
>>>
>>> Of course, then there is your idiotic claim that you used *Ford* 4V
>>> heads on that Chev block. As standard, those intake runners on the
>>> 4V don't flow well at all - *too large* you see, and the performance
>>> boys, those who have a clue and know what they are doing, putty up
>>> those ports so they don't slow the airflow. Yes Darren, narrower
>>> ports equal higher flow rates, the performance chaps know this stuff
>>> - all in the maths.
>>>
>>> Of course, you then run into the problem whereby the speed of sound
>>> *restricts* your air flow long before you get to 10,000 RPM. Intake
>>> air speed of ~Mach 0.6 is the sweet spot Darren, after that your
>>> flow progressively chokes due to sonic flow rates. Again, all in the
>>> maths. Had you done apprentice maths, this would be clear to you but
>>> you were too stupid to even *qualify* to sign up for an apprenticeship.
>>>
>>> The Chev 350 is an OHV pushrod engine. That is the next big issue.
>>> You see Darren, those engines have a lot of mass in the valve train.
>>> Mass and inertia are the enemies of revs Darren and if you had half
>>> a brain you would know this. You need to really modify your valve
>>> train to the extreme to even so much as hope to approach 10,000 RPM.
>>> Good luck with that. Why do you thing OHV engines went out with
>>> button up boots, it's all OHC these days. Why OHC Darren? Shorter
>>> valve train hence less mass. Simplez, eh?
>>>
>>> Then of course there's the bullshit about putting 4V heads on a Chev
>>> block. Just one aspect of that totally screws you Darren, the bolt
>>> patterns. 5 bolt versus 4 bolt per cylinder. And it just gets worse
>>> for you from there.
>>>
>>> I therefore stand by my assertion, *YOU* cannot get *600HP* out of
>>> that *kludged 350* you claimed to have built and, whilst the Holley
>>> Dominator 1050 can be put on an engine of that size, a good 25%-30%
>>> of its *flow capacity* would be *wasted* since the 350 Chev engine,
>>> even with extensive mods, cannot flow that amount of air, no way, no
>>> how. This 350 Chev engine is the one around which your *claimed
>>> bullshit story* revolves and is the one I said would *never* get 600
>>> HP NA.
>>>
>>> Holley have a carburettor selection calculator on their website for
>>> a very good reason Darren - the limitations of *physics* in the
>>> *real world*, no matter what wankers like you think you can do in
>>> your *fantasy world*.
>>>
>>>   https://www.holley.com/retailer/carbselector/
>>>
>>> Plug in all the numbers you like Darren, the carb recommendations
>>> for a 350 NA engine range between 650 and 750 CFM with circle track
>>> racers and dragsters right up at the 750 CFM range. There's a reason
>>> for that - physics - and the limitations thereof!
>>>
>>> You were right to leave school before the end of year 9 Darren.
>>> After all, you were just wasting everyone's time. Even as an adult
>>> you are as uneducable as ever. That's why you breezed into the
>>> bullshit zone and have remained there ever since. You can't dazzle
>>> people with brilliance so you're resorting to baffling them with
>>> bullshit. Hey, it's not working!
>>>
>>>
>>
>> LOL. shot him down in flames.
>>
>>
>
> NoddyLiar is one of those people that would bolt a massive carb on
> anything then blame performance and drive-ability issues on something
> or someone else.
>
> We were always left to deal with the fuckups of these morons.
>

when I had the EK holden I put a dual barrel carb on it. if you drove
sedately only the first barrel operated, but if you put your foot down
the second barrel kicked in. this design was supposed to give more
economy, and more power when required, than the standard single barrel
carb. don't know that it did tho. the second barrel was not switched to
by mechanical means, but was somehow vacuum operated iirc. I also put
headers on.

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam

FUCK PUTIN!!

"His opinions have been crushed into insignificant dust by
the enormous weight of his lies"- Alvey on the Fraudster
"He came, he saw, he got pummelled" - Alvey on Keefy
"What a pair! Not a single word of rebuttal or reason,
just cretinous abuse" - Alvey on jonz and noddy
"His self serving ego pumping comments just read
like witless wankery"- Clocky on Keefy
"your opinion isn't worth 2 knobs of goat shit"- Xeno on Grubby Tech
"You cannot turn Darren's lies into the truth by attempting to *discredit*
what *I* say. You just make yourself look more of a dick"- Xeno to Grubby Tech

On 14/3/2022 4:48 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 13/03/2022 11:43 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>> On 13/03/2022 1:47 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>> On 11/3/22 21:37, Noddy wrote:
>>>>> On 11/03/2022 8:50 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> own claims. Oh what a quandary you find yourself in, eh?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey, keep it up, I'm lovin' just watching this shit play out.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hey Kryppy? Did you ever come up with an explanation as to how Allan
>>>> Moffat managed to top qualify at Bathurst in 1972 using a Dominator
>>>> carb on his 351 Cleveland engine despite you claiming that a carb of
>>>> that size wouldn't work on an engine of that capacity as it was a
>>>> "practical impossibility"?
>>>>
>>> Darren, Darren, Darren, I never said the Holley Dominator wasn't
>>> going to work on a 351, that's *your* bullshit. What *I* said was
>>> that the Holley Dominator size *you claimed* you fitted to the *350
>>> Chev* could not fully utilise the available airflow potential.
>>> Remember too, you weren't referring to Moffat's 351 *Ford*, you were
>>> referring to a *stock* Chev 350 block that you chose because they
>>> were *reliable*. Yes, if you are only going for stock HP they will be
>>> reliable. Bump up the neddies and all reliability bets are off. As is
>>> the case with *any engine*.
>>>
>>> The stock Chev engine can flow between 650 and 750 CFM at max RPM. To
>>> get *more* airflow than that, you *first* need to rev the ring out of
>>> that engine - up to 10,000+ RPM. It's all in the maths, which
>>> explains why *you* cannot comprehend it, and as much as you would
>>> like to you simply cannot dispute the maths.
>>>
>>> What price your Chev 350 reliability when running at 10,000 RPM.
>>> Hell, you can't even get it there without detonating it. Piston
>>> speeds versus piston mass screws you for a start. The standard crank
>>> can't handle the revs and the block won't fare well trying to get 600
>>> HP out of it either. Just imagine the con rod stretch at 10,000 RPM?
>>> Whoah!
>>>
>>> Of course, then there is your idiotic claim that you used *Ford* 4V
>>> heads on that Chev block. As standard, those intake runners on the 4V
>>> don't flow well at all - *too large* you see, and the performance
>>> boys, those who have a clue and know what they are doing, putty up
>>> those ports so they don't slow the airflow. Yes Darren, narrower
>>> ports equal higher flow rates, the performance chaps know this stuff
>>> - all in the maths.
>>>
>>> Of course, you then run into the problem whereby the speed of sound
>>> *restricts* your air flow long before you get to 10,000 RPM. Intake
>>> air speed of ~Mach 0.6 is the sweet spot Darren, after that your flow
>>> progressively chokes due to sonic flow rates. Again, all in the
>>> maths. Had you done apprentice maths, this would be clear to you but
>>> you were too stupid to even *qualify* to sign up for an apprenticeship.
>>>
>>> The Chev 350 is an OHV pushrod engine. That is the next big issue.
>>> You see Darren, those engines have a lot of mass in the valve train.
>>> Mass and inertia are the enemies of revs Darren and if you had half a
>>> brain you would know this. You need to really modify your valve train
>>> to the extreme to even so much as hope to approach 10,000 RPM. Good
>>> luck with that. Why do you thing OHV engines went out with button up
>>> boots, it's all OHC these days. Why OHC Darren? Shorter valve train
>>> hence less mass. Simplez, eh?
>>>
>>> Then of course there's the bullshit about putting 4V heads on a Chev
>>> block. Just one aspect of that totally screws you Darren, the bolt
>>> patterns. 5 bolt versus 4 bolt per cylinder. And it just gets worse
>>> for you from there.
>>>
>>> I therefore stand by my assertion, *YOU* cannot get *600HP* out of
>>> that *kludged 350* you claimed to have built and, whilst the Holley
>>> Dominator 1050 can be put on an engine of that size, a good 25%-30%
>>> of its *flow capacity* would be *wasted* since the 350 Chev engine,
>>> even with extensive mods, cannot flow that amount of air, no way, no
>>> how. This 350 Chev engine is the one around which your *claimed
>>> bullshit story* revolves and is the one I said would *never* get 600
>>> HP NA.
>>>
>>> Holley have a carburettor selection calculator on their website for a
>>> very good reason Darren - the limitations of *physics* in the *real
>>> world*, no matter what wankers like you think you can do in your
>>> *fantasy world*.
>>>
>>>   https://www.holley.com/retailer/carbselector/
>>>
>>> Plug in all the numbers you like Darren, the carb recommendations for
>>> a 350 NA engine range between 650 and 750 CFM with circle track
>>> racers and dragsters right up at the 750 CFM range. There's a reason
>>> for that - physics - and the limitations thereof!
>>>
>>> You were right to leave school before the end of year 9 Darren. After
>>> all, you were just wasting everyone's time. Even as an adult you are
>>> as uneducable as ever. That's why you breezed into the bullshit zone
>>> and have remained there ever since. You can't dazzle people with
>>> brilliance so you're resorting to baffling them with bullshit. Hey,
>>> it's not working!
>>>
>>>
>>
>> LOL. shot him down in flames.
>>
>>
>
> NoddyLiar is one of those people that would bolt a massive carb on
> anything then blame performance and drive-ability issues on something or
> someone else.
>
> We were always left to deal with the fuckups of these morons.
>
I still remember way back when I was first learning how to use a chassis
dyno. Other students would bring their cars in to see how much
improvement their performance mods had made. It was amazing to see the
number of hotted up cars that actually produced *less* horsepower than
standard.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 14/3/2022 5:05 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 14/03/2022 4:48 pm, Clocky wrote:
>> On 13/03/2022 11:43 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>> On 13/03/2022 1:47 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>> On 11/3/22 21:37, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/03/2022 8:50 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> own claims. Oh what a quandary you find yourself in, eh?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hey, keep it up, I'm lovin' just watching this shit play out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey Kryppy? Did you ever come up with an explanation as to how
>>>>> Allan Moffat managed to top qualify at Bathurst in 1972 using a
>>>>> Dominator carb on his 351 Cleveland engine despite you claiming
>>>>> that a carb of that size wouldn't work on an engine of that
>>>>> capacity as it was a "practical impossibility"?
>>>>>
>>>> Darren, Darren, Darren, I never said the Holley Dominator wasn't
>>>> going to work on a 351, that's *your* bullshit. What *I* said was
>>>> that the Holley Dominator size *you claimed* you fitted to the *350
>>>> Chev* could not fully utilise the available airflow potential.
>>>> Remember too, you weren't referring to Moffat's 351 *Ford*, you were
>>>> referring to a *stock* Chev 350 block that you chose because they
>>>> were *reliable*. Yes, if you are only going for stock HP they will
>>>> be reliable. Bump up the neddies and all reliability bets are off.
>>>> As is the case with *any engine*.
>>>>
>>>> The stock Chev engine can flow between 650 and 750 CFM at max RPM.
>>>> To get *more* airflow than that, you *first* need to rev the ring
>>>> out of that engine - up to 10,000+ RPM. It's all in the maths, which
>>>> explains why *you* cannot comprehend it, and as much as you would
>>>> like to you simply cannot dispute the maths.
>>>>
>>>> What price your Chev 350 reliability when running at 10,000 RPM.
>>>> Hell, you can't even get it there without detonating it. Piston
>>>> speeds versus piston mass screws you for a start. The standard crank
>>>> can't handle the revs and the block won't fare well trying to get
>>>> 600 HP out of it either. Just imagine the con rod stretch at 10,000
>>>> RPM? Whoah!
>>>>
>>>> Of course, then there is your idiotic claim that you used *Ford* 4V
>>>> heads on that Chev block. As standard, those intake runners on the
>>>> 4V don't flow well at all - *too large* you see, and the performance
>>>> boys, those who have a clue and know what they are doing, putty up
>>>> those ports so they don't slow the airflow. Yes Darren, narrower
>>>> ports equal higher flow rates, the performance chaps know this stuff
>>>> - all in the maths.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, you then run into the problem whereby the speed of sound
>>>> *restricts* your air flow long before you get to 10,000 RPM. Intake
>>>> air speed of ~Mach 0.6 is the sweet spot Darren, after that your
>>>> flow progressively chokes due to sonic flow rates. Again, all in the
>>>> maths. Had you done apprentice maths, this would be clear to you but
>>>> you were too stupid to even *qualify* to sign up for an apprenticeship.
>>>>
>>>> The Chev 350 is an OHV pushrod engine. That is the next big issue.
>>>> You see Darren, those engines have a lot of mass in the valve train.
>>>> Mass and inertia are the enemies of revs Darren and if you had half
>>>> a brain you would know this. You need to really modify your valve
>>>> train to the extreme to even so much as hope to approach 10,000 RPM.
>>>> Good luck with that. Why do you thing OHV engines went out with
>>>> button up boots, it's all OHC these days. Why OHC Darren? Shorter
>>>> valve train hence less mass. Simplez, eh?
>>>>
>>>> Then of course there's the bullshit about putting 4V heads on a Chev
>>>> block. Just one aspect of that totally screws you Darren, the bolt
>>>> patterns. 5 bolt versus 4 bolt per cylinder. And it just gets worse
>>>> for you from there.
>>>>
>>>> I therefore stand by my assertion, *YOU* cannot get *600HP* out of
>>>> that *kludged 350* you claimed to have built and, whilst the Holley
>>>> Dominator 1050 can be put on an engine of that size, a good 25%-30%
>>>> of its *flow capacity* would be *wasted* since the 350 Chev engine,
>>>> even with extensive mods, cannot flow that amount of air, no way, no
>>>> how. This 350 Chev engine is the one around which your *claimed
>>>> bullshit story* revolves and is the one I said would *never* get 600
>>>> HP NA.
>>>>
>>>> Holley have a carburettor selection calculator on their website for
>>>> a very good reason Darren - the limitations of *physics* in the
>>>> *real world*, no matter what wankers like you think you can do in
>>>> your *fantasy world*.
>>>>
>>>>   https://www.holley.com/retailer/carbselector/
>>>>
>>>> Plug in all the numbers you like Darren, the carb recommendations
>>>> for a 350 NA engine range between 650 and 750 CFM with circle track
>>>> racers and dragsters right up at the 750 CFM range. There's a reason
>>>> for that - physics - and the limitations thereof!
>>>>
>>>> You were right to leave school before the end of year 9 Darren.
>>>> After all, you were just wasting everyone's time. Even as an adult
>>>> you are as uneducable as ever. That's why you breezed into the
>>>> bullshit zone and have remained there ever since. You can't dazzle
>>>> people with brilliance so you're resorting to baffling them with
>>>> bullshit. Hey, it's not working!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> LOL. shot him down in flames.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> NoddyLiar is one of those people that would bolt a massive carb on
>> anything then blame performance and drive-ability issues on something
>> or someone else.
>>
>> We were always left to deal with the fuckups of these morons.
>>
>
> when I had the EK holden I put a dual barrel carb on it. if you drove
> sedately only the first barrel operated, but if you put your foot down
> the second barrel kicked in. this design was supposed to give more
> economy, and more power when required, than the standard single barrel
> carb. don't know that it did tho. the second barrel was not switched to
> by mechanical means, but was somehow vacuum operated iirc. I also put
> headers on.

From soon after that era, a lot of cars were fitted ex factory with 2
stage 2 barrel carbs. A single barrel carb is a huge compromise. If you
make it large enough to cater to the top end, it will have drivability
issues at low RPM due to low air speed through the large venturi. The 2
stage 2 barrel allows the smaller barrel to deal with low air flow at
low RPMs and the large barrel kicks in at high RPMs to deal with high
volume air flow. The vacuum secondaries are used because the carburettor
itself can deal with *engine load*. One advantage is that if you over
carb the engine, you will have less problems with drivability - the
secondary only opening as much as required to deal with air flow volume.
Helps with fuel economy too.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 14/3/2022 6:41 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 14/3/2022 5:05 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>> On 14/03/2022 4:48 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>> On 13/03/2022 11:43 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>> On 13/03/2022 1:47 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>>> On 11/3/22 21:37, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/03/2022 8:50 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> own claims. Oh what a quandary you find yourself in, eh?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hey, keep it up, I'm lovin' just watching this shit play out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey Kryppy? Did you ever come up with an explanation as to how
>>>>>> Allan Moffat managed to top qualify at Bathurst in 1972 using a
>>>>>> Dominator carb on his 351 Cleveland engine despite you claiming
>>>>>> that a carb of that size wouldn't work on an engine of that
>>>>>> capacity as it was a "practical impossibility"?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Darren, Darren, Darren, I never said the Holley Dominator wasn't
>>>>> going to work on a 351, that's *your* bullshit. What *I* said was
>>>>> that the Holley Dominator size *you claimed* you fitted to the *350
>>>>> Chev* could not fully utilise the available airflow potential.
>>>>> Remember too, you weren't referring to Moffat's 351 *Ford*, you
>>>>> were referring to a *stock* Chev 350 block that you chose because
>>>>> they were *reliable*. Yes, if you are only going for stock HP they
>>>>> will be reliable. Bump up the neddies and all reliability bets are
>>>>> off. As is the case with *any engine*.
>>>>>
>>>>> The stock Chev engine can flow between 650 and 750 CFM at max RPM.
>>>>> To get *more* airflow than that, you *first* need to rev the ring
>>>>> out of that engine - up to 10,000+ RPM. It's all in the maths,
>>>>> which explains why *you* cannot comprehend it, and as much as you
>>>>> would like to you simply cannot dispute the maths.
>>>>>
>>>>> What price your Chev 350 reliability when running at 10,000 RPM.
>>>>> Hell, you can't even get it there without detonating it. Piston
>>>>> speeds versus piston mass screws you for a start. The standard
>>>>> crank can't handle the revs and the block won't fare well trying to
>>>>> get 600 HP out of it either. Just imagine the con rod stretch at
>>>>> 10,000 RPM? Whoah!
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, then there is your idiotic claim that you used *Ford* 4V
>>>>> heads on that Chev block. As standard, those intake runners on the
>>>>> 4V don't flow well at all - *too large* you see, and the
>>>>> performance boys, those who have a clue and know what they are
>>>>> doing, putty up those ports so they don't slow the airflow. Yes
>>>>> Darren, narrower ports equal higher flow rates, the performance
>>>>> chaps know this stuff - all in the maths.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, you then run into the problem whereby the speed of sound
>>>>> *restricts* your air flow long before you get to 10,000 RPM. Intake
>>>>> air speed of ~Mach 0.6 is the sweet spot Darren, after that your
>>>>> flow progressively chokes due to sonic flow rates. Again, all in
>>>>> the maths. Had you done apprentice maths, this would be clear to
>>>>> you but you were too stupid to even *qualify* to sign up for an
>>>>> apprenticeship.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Chev 350 is an OHV pushrod engine. That is the next big issue.
>>>>> You see Darren, those engines have a lot of mass in the valve
>>>>> train. Mass and inertia are the enemies of revs Darren and if you
>>>>> had half a brain you would know this. You need to really modify
>>>>> your valve train to the extreme to even so much as hope to approach
>>>>> 10,000 RPM. Good luck with that. Why do you thing OHV engines went
>>>>> out with button up boots, it's all OHC these days. Why OHC Darren?
>>>>> Shorter valve train hence less mass. Simplez, eh?
>>>>>
>>>>> Then of course there's the bullshit about putting 4V heads on a
>>>>> Chev block. Just one aspect of that totally screws you Darren, the
>>>>> bolt patterns. 5 bolt versus 4 bolt per cylinder. And it just gets
>>>>> worse for you from there.
>>>>>
>>>>> I therefore stand by my assertion, *YOU* cannot get *600HP* out of
>>>>> that *kludged 350* you claimed to have built and, whilst the Holley
>>>>> Dominator 1050 can be put on an engine of that size, a good 25%-30%
>>>>> of its *flow capacity* would be *wasted* since the 350 Chev engine,
>>>>> even with extensive mods, cannot flow that amount of air, no way,
>>>>> no how. This 350 Chev engine is the one around which your *claimed
>>>>> bullshit story* revolves and is the one I said would *never* get
>>>>> 600 HP NA.
>>>>>
>>>>> Holley have a carburettor selection calculator on their website for
>>>>> a very good reason Darren - the limitations of *physics* in the
>>>>> *real world*, no matter what wankers like you think you can do in
>>>>> your *fantasy world*.
>>>>>
>>>>>   https://www.holley.com/retailer/carbselector/
>>>>>
>>>>> Plug in all the numbers you like Darren, the carb recommendations
>>>>> for a 350 NA engine range between 650 and 750 CFM with circle track
>>>>> racers and dragsters right up at the 750 CFM range. There's a
>>>>> reason for that - physics - and the limitations thereof!
>>>>>
>>>>> You were right to leave school before the end of year 9 Darren.
>>>>> After all, you were just wasting everyone's time. Even as an adult
>>>>> you are as uneducable as ever. That's why you breezed into the
>>>>> bullshit zone and have remained there ever since. You can't dazzle
>>>>> people with brilliance so you're resorting to baffling them with
>>>>> bullshit. Hey, it's not working!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> LOL. shot him down in flames.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> NoddyLiar is one of those people that would bolt a massive carb on
>>> anything then blame performance and drive-ability issues on something
>>> or someone else.
>>>
>>> We were always left to deal with the fuckups of these morons.
>>>
>>
>> when I had the EK holden I put a dual barrel carb on it. if you drove
>> sedately only the first barrel operated, but if you put your foot down
>> the second barrel kicked in. this design was supposed to give more
>> economy, and more power when required, than the standard single barrel
>> carb. don't know that it did tho. the second barrel was not switched
>> to by mechanical means, but was somehow vacuum operated iirc. I also
>> put headers on.
>
> From soon after that era, a lot of cars were fitted ex factory with 2
> stage 2 barrel carbs. A single barrel carb is a huge compromise. If you
> make it large enough to cater to the top end, it will have drivability
> issues at low RPM due to low air speed through the large venturi. The 2
> stage 2 barrel allows the smaller barrel to deal with low air flow at
> low RPMs and the large barrel kicks in at high RPMs to deal with high
> volume air flow. The vacuum secondaries are used because the carburettor
> itself can deal with *engine load*. One advantage is that if you over
> carb the engine, you will have less problems with drivability - the
> secondary only opening as much as required to deal with air flow volume.
> Helps with fuel economy too.
>
Forgot to add, if you don't notice a huge difference at the top end, it
may be the case where the *original* carb was sized properly for the top
end of the RPM range. If there's no improvement with the two stage carb,
the issue may be restrictions in the intake or exhaust plumbing or
restrictions in the valves themselves. It's why decent tuners will
always look at the engine holistically and as a *system*. Every
improvement needs to be complemented by improvements elsewhere in the
system in order to remove bottlenecks. In your case, you (hopefully)
improved the exhaust system with the headers and the intake system with
the carb and manifold. What was likely happening now was that the valves
become the bottleneck and cannot handle the flow the intake and exhaust
now provides. One solution would be a change of camshaft with increased
lead, lag and overlap. After doing that you might find the ports become
the bottleneck so porting is the order of the day. Or the valves
themselves are now too small so larger valves are required. See how it
can all spiral out of control and bend your wallet real bad?

On 14/03/2022 3:20 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 14/3/2022 4:48 pm, Clocky wrote:
>> On 13/03/2022 11:43 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>> On 13/03/2022 1:47 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>> On 11/3/22 21:37, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/03/2022 8:50 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> own claims. Oh what a quandary you find yourself in, eh?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hey, keep it up, I'm lovin' just watching this shit play out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey Kryppy? Did you ever come up with an explanation as to how
>>>>> Allan Moffat managed to top qualify at Bathurst in 1972 using a
>>>>> Dominator carb on his 351 Cleveland engine despite you claiming
>>>>> that a carb of that size wouldn't work on an engine of that
>>>>> capacity as it was a "practical impossibility"?
>>>>>
>>>> Darren, Darren, Darren, I never said the Holley Dominator wasn't
>>>> going to work on a 351, that's *your* bullshit. What *I* said was
>>>> that the Holley Dominator size *you claimed* you fitted to the *350
>>>> Chev* could not fully utilise the available airflow potential.
>>>> Remember too, you weren't referring to Moffat's 351 *Ford*, you were
>>>> referring to a *stock* Chev 350 block that you chose because they
>>>> were *reliable*. Yes, if you are only going for stock HP they will
>>>> be reliable. Bump up the neddies and all reliability bets are off.
>>>> As is the case with *any engine*.
>>>>
>>>> The stock Chev engine can flow between 650 and 750 CFM at max RPM.
>>>> To get *more* airflow than that, you *first* need to rev the ring
>>>> out of that engine - up to 10,000+ RPM. It's all in the maths, which
>>>> explains why *you* cannot comprehend it, and as much as you would
>>>> like to you simply cannot dispute the maths.
>>>>
>>>> What price your Chev 350 reliability when running at 10,000 RPM.
>>>> Hell, you can't even get it there without detonating it. Piston
>>>> speeds versus piston mass screws you for a start. The standard crank
>>>> can't handle the revs and the block won't fare well trying to get
>>>> 600 HP out of it either. Just imagine the con rod stretch at 10,000
>>>> RPM? Whoah!
>>>>
>>>> Of course, then there is your idiotic claim that you used *Ford* 4V
>>>> heads on that Chev block. As standard, those intake runners on the
>>>> 4V don't flow well at all - *too large* you see, and the performance
>>>> boys, those who have a clue and know what they are doing, putty up
>>>> those ports so they don't slow the airflow. Yes Darren, narrower
>>>> ports equal higher flow rates, the performance chaps know this stuff
>>>> - all in the maths.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, you then run into the problem whereby the speed of sound
>>>> *restricts* your air flow long before you get to 10,000 RPM. Intake
>>>> air speed of ~Mach 0.6 is the sweet spot Darren, after that your
>>>> flow progressively chokes due to sonic flow rates. Again, all in the
>>>> maths. Had you done apprentice maths, this would be clear to you but
>>>> you were too stupid to even *qualify* to sign up for an apprenticeship.
>>>>
>>>> The Chev 350 is an OHV pushrod engine. That is the next big issue.
>>>> You see Darren, those engines have a lot of mass in the valve train.
>>>> Mass and inertia are the enemies of revs Darren and if you had half
>>>> a brain you would know this. You need to really modify your valve
>>>> train to the extreme to even so much as hope to approach 10,000 RPM.
>>>> Good luck with that. Why do you thing OHV engines went out with
>>>> button up boots, it's all OHC these days. Why OHC Darren? Shorter
>>>> valve train hence less mass. Simplez, eh?
>>>>
>>>> Then of course there's the bullshit about putting 4V heads on a Chev
>>>> block. Just one aspect of that totally screws you Darren, the bolt
>>>> patterns. 5 bolt versus 4 bolt per cylinder. And it just gets worse
>>>> for you from there.
>>>>
>>>> I therefore stand by my assertion, *YOU* cannot get *600HP* out of
>>>> that *kludged 350* you claimed to have built and, whilst the Holley
>>>> Dominator 1050 can be put on an engine of that size, a good 25%-30%
>>>> of its *flow capacity* would be *wasted* since the 350 Chev engine,
>>>> even with extensive mods, cannot flow that amount of air, no way, no
>>>> how. This 350 Chev engine is the one around which your *claimed
>>>> bullshit story* revolves and is the one I said would *never* get 600
>>>> HP NA.
>>>>
>>>> Holley have a carburettor selection calculator on their website for
>>>> a very good reason Darren - the limitations of *physics* in the
>>>> *real world*, no matter what wankers like you think you can do in
>>>> your *fantasy world*.
>>>>
>>>>   https://www.holley.com/retailer/carbselector/
>>>>
>>>> Plug in all the numbers you like Darren, the carb recommendations
>>>> for a 350 NA engine range between 650 and 750 CFM with circle track
>>>> racers and dragsters right up at the 750 CFM range. There's a reason
>>>> for that - physics - and the limitations thereof!
>>>>
>>>> You were right to leave school before the end of year 9 Darren.
>>>> After all, you were just wasting everyone's time. Even as an adult
>>>> you are as uneducable as ever. That's why you breezed into the
>>>> bullshit zone and have remained there ever since. You can't dazzle
>>>> people with brilliance so you're resorting to baffling them with
>>>> bullshit. Hey, it's not working!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> LOL. shot him down in flames.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> NoddyLiar is one of those people that would bolt a massive carb on
>> anything then blame performance and drive-ability issues on something
>> or someone else.
>>
>> We were always left to deal with the fuckups of these morons.
>>
> I still remember way back when I was first learning how to use a chassis
> dyno. Other students would bring their cars in to see how much
> improvement their performance mods had made. It was amazing to see the
> number of hotted up cars that actually produced *less* horsepower than
> standard.
>

They were students, understandable, they were yet to learn. NoddyLiar
never learnt and never will learn.

--
keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
it is unproven, he is lying."