On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 6:31:55 PM UTC-4, Roger Meriman wrote:
> Tom Kunich <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 7:14:00 AM UTC-7, Roger Meriman wrote:
> >> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>> On 7/16/2023 5:03 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 9:00:41 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>> On 7/15/2023 9:35 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>>>> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:44:57 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 7/14/2023 12:04 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 8:55:50 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 7/14/2023 11:33 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> They tell the charge on a battery by the voltage present. The
> >>>>>>>>>> batteries lose 20% or so range after just a couple of months.
> >>>>>>>>> That's bullshit, Tom. I've had an EV for over 14 months now. There's
> >>>>>>>>> been no change in range.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So you drive the vehicle commonly out to maximum range?
> >>>>>>> I've driven to roughly 30 miles remaining on several occasions.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> We hauled our tandem on the roof, over 120 miles, last week. The bike's
> >>>>>>> added air resistance certainly cut the range but it was still no problem.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The salient point is that your claim of 20% range reduction in a few
> >>>>>>> months is bullshit. I'm not even charging to 100% in the summer.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In other words, no, you've never actually tested your mileage when new
> >>>>>> and after a couple of months.
> >>>>> Hmm. So nothing can be known about range until I drive the car until it
> >>>>> stops on the highway?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That's very weird thinking, Tom. How many times have you done that with
> >>>>> your cars?
> >>>>
> >>>> What is weird thinking is your fixed belief that the sales brochure is absolute truth.
> >>>
> >>> Sorry, but you're nuts! As I explained, I've owned the car for 14
> >>> months. For the first several months, I kept pretty diligent records,
> >>> comparing mileage traveled to predicted mileage. The numbers were always
> >>> quite accurate, and there has NOT been any decrease in range.
> >>>
> >>> IOW I'm stating what I determined by personal observation of the actual
> >>> data, not from a sales brochure.
> >>>
> >>> I don't know where you're getting your information. But I can guess. If
> >>> you flush, it will probably be gone.
> >>>
> >> My 20year old Volvo is supposedly capable of 29 mpg which equates to 400
> >> something miles before I fuel up. It generally as I do motorway miles does
> >> better, though what it early likes are big A roads so 50/60mph and at that
> >> will do 500+ miles without a problem.
> >>
> >> I log my miles in a app which calculates MPH and range.
> >>
> >> Roger Merriman
> >
> > My 2007 Ford Taurus was rated at 25 mpg on the highway. Imagine my
> > surprise that it could NORMALLY get 35 mpg and in one case 54 mpg into a head wind.
> >
> Imperial and American gallons are different, 35 mpg is only 29mpg as you
> where.
>
> Even so 54/45 mpg seem unlikely unless you had a very light foot or drove
> at 50mph or so.
>
> The 2007 Taurus seems to be about the same weight as the Volvo, and so
> unlikely to do much better fuel economy even if it has slightly less
> powerful engines though more capacity and slightly more torque.

Well, we know tommy has a hard time understanding how things like average speed and average mpg are calculated (he once expressed confusion over how his current speed could be dropping while his average speed could be increasing)

Tommy was probably watching his current MPG when he took his foot off the gas and noticed it went up to 54 MPG, then said "hey! this car gets 54 mpg!"

>
> Roger Merriman

On 7/19/2023 9:48 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 6:31:55 PM UTC-4, Roger Meriman wrote:
>> Tom Kunich <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 7:14:00 AM UTC-7, Roger Meriman wrote:
>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 7/16/2023 5:03 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>
>>> My 2007 Ford Taurus was rated at 25 mpg on the highway. Imagine my
>>> surprise that it could NORMALLY get 35 mpg and in one case 54 mpg into a head wind.
>>>
>> Imperial and American gallons are different, 35 mpg is only 29mpg as you
>> where.
>>
>> Even so 54/45 mpg seem unlikely unless you had a very light foot or drove
>> at 50mph or so.
>>
>> The 2007 Taurus seems to be about the same weight as the Volvo, and so
>> unlikely to do much better fuel economy even if it has slightly less
>> powerful engines though more capacity and slightly more torque.
>
> Well, we know tommy has a hard time understanding how things like average speed and average mpg are calculated (he once expressed confusion over how his current speed could be dropping while his average speed could be increasing)
>
> Tommy was probably watching his current MPG when he took his foot off the gas and noticed it went up to 54 MPG, then said "hey! this car gets 54 mpg!"

That really is a likely explanation.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 6:48:51 AM UTC-7, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 6:31:55 PM UTC-4, Roger Meriman wrote:
> > Tom Kunich <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 7:14:00 AM UTC-7, Roger Meriman wrote:
> > >> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >>> On 7/16/2023 5:03 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > >>>> On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 9:00:41 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > >>>>> On 7/15/2023 9:35 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:44:57 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On 7/14/2023 12:04 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 8:55:50 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> On 7/14/2023 11:33 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> They tell the charge on a battery by the voltage present. The
> > >>>>>>>>>> batteries lose 20% or so range after just a couple of months..
> > >>>>>>>>> That's bullshit, Tom. I've had an EV for over 14 months now. There's
> > >>>>>>>>> been no change in range.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> So you drive the vehicle commonly out to maximum range?
> > >>>>>>> I've driven to roughly 30 miles remaining on several occasions.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> We hauled our tandem on the roof, over 120 miles, last week. The bike's
> > >>>>>>> added air resistance certainly cut the range but it was still no problem.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> The salient point is that your claim of 20% range reduction in a few
> > >>>>>>> months is bullshit. I'm not even charging to 100% in the summer..
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> In other words, no, you've never actually tested your mileage when new
> > >>>>>> and after a couple of months.
> > >>>>> Hmm. So nothing can be known about range until I drive the car until it
> > >>>>> stops on the highway?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> That's very weird thinking, Tom. How many times have you done that with
> > >>>>> your cars?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> What is weird thinking is your fixed belief that the sales brochure is absolute truth.
> > >>>
> > >>> Sorry, but you're nuts! As I explained, I've owned the car for 14
> > >>> months. For the first several months, I kept pretty diligent records,
> > >>> comparing mileage traveled to predicted mileage. The numbers were always
> > >>> quite accurate, and there has NOT been any decrease in range.
> > >>>
> > >>> IOW I'm stating what I determined by personal observation of the actual
> > >>> data, not from a sales brochure.
> > >>>
> > >>> I don't know where you're getting your information. But I can guess.. If
> > >>> you flush, it will probably be gone.
> > >>>
> > >> My 20year old Volvo is supposedly capable of 29 mpg which equates to 400
> > >> something miles before I fuel up. It generally as I do motorway miles does
> > >> better, though what it early likes are big A roads so 50/60mph and at that
> > >> will do 500+ miles without a problem.
> > >>
> > >> I log my miles in a app which calculates MPH and range.
> > >>
> > >> Roger Merriman
> > >
> > > My 2007 Ford Taurus was rated at 25 mpg on the highway. Imagine my
> > > surprise that it could NORMALLY get 35 mpg and in one case 54 mpg into a head wind.
> > >
> > Imperial and American gallons are different, 35 mpg is only 29mpg as you
> > where.
> >
> > Even so 54/45 mpg seem unlikely unless you had a very light foot or drove
> > at 50mph or so.
> >
> > The 2007 Taurus seems to be about the same weight as the Volvo, and so
> > unlikely to do much better fuel economy even if it has slightly less
> > powerful engines though more capacity and slightly more torque.
> Well, we know tommy has a hard time understanding how things like average speed and average mpg are calculated (he once expressed confusion over how his current speed could be dropping while his average speed could be increasing)
>
> Tommy was probably watching his current MPG when he took his foot off the gas and noticed it went up to 54 MPG, then said "hey! this car gets 54 mpg!"
>
> >
> > Roger Merriman

Lying about what I said just shows what lengths you will go to because you're a frightened little boy crying because he has been found beating off in the boys showers in school.

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 9:29:53 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 7/19/2023 9:48 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 6:31:55 PM UTC-4, Roger Meriman wrote:
> >> Tom Kunich <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 7:14:00 AM UTC-7, Roger Meriman wrote:
> >>>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On 7/16/2023 5:03 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>> My 2007 Ford Taurus was rated at 25 mpg on the highway. Imagine my
> >>> surprise that it could NORMALLY get 35 mpg and in one case 54 mpg into a head wind.
> >>>
> >> Imperial and American gallons are different, 35 mpg is only 29mpg as you
> >> where.
> >>
> >> Even so 54/45 mpg seem unlikely unless you had a very light foot or drove
> >> at 50mph or so.
> >>
> >> The 2007 Taurus seems to be about the same weight as the Volvo, and so
> >> unlikely to do much better fuel economy even if it has slightly less
> >> powerful engines though more capacity and slightly more torque.
> >
> > Well, we know tommy has a hard time understanding how things like average speed and average mpg are calculated (he once expressed confusion over how his current speed could be dropping while his average speed could be increasing)
> >
> > Tommy was probably watching his current MPG when he took his foot off the gas and noticed it went up to 54 MPG, then said "hey! this car gets 54 mpg!"
> That really is a likely explanation.
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

Frank, exactly how old was your car before your electric car? Are you aware that they now have flow meters and can give you total mileage driven and mpg during that time? Apparently not since you don't even seem to know how to test for changes in battery capacity.

On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:52:56 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 9:29:53?AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 7/19/2023 9:48 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 6:31:55?PM UTC-4, Roger Meriman wrote:
>> >> Tom Kunich <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 7:14:00?AM UTC-7, Roger Meriman wrote:
>> >>>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>>>> On 7/16/2023 5:03 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> My 2007 Ford Taurus was rated at 25 mpg on the highway. Imagine my
>> >>> surprise that it could NORMALLY get 35 mpg and in one case 54 mpg into a head wind.
>> >>>
>> >> Imperial and American gallons are different, 35 mpg is only 29mpg as you
>> >> where.
>> >>
>> >> Even so 54/45 mpg seem unlikely unless you had a very light foot or drove
>> >> at 50mph or so.
>> >>
>> >> The 2007 Taurus seems to be about the same weight as the Volvo, and so
>> >> unlikely to do much better fuel economy even if it has slightly less
>> >> powerful engines though more capacity and slightly more torque.
>> >
>> > Well, we know tommy has a hard time understanding how things like average speed and average mpg are calculated (he once expressed confusion over how his current speed could be dropping while his average speed could be increasing)
>> >
>> > Tommy was probably watching his current MPG when he took his foot off the gas and noticed it went up to 54 MPG, then said "hey! this car gets 54 mpg!"
>> That really is a likely explanation.
>>
>> --
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
>Frank, exactly how old was your car before your electric car? Are you aware that they now have flow meters and can give you total mileage driven and mpg during that time? Apparently not since you don't even seem to know how to test for changes in battery capacity.

But, more to the point did a 2007 Ford Taurus have a flow meter?
--
Cheers,

John B.

Tom Kunich <cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 3:31:55 PM UTC-7, Roger Meriman wrote:
>> Tom Kunich <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 7:14:00 AM UTC-7, Roger Meriman wrote:
>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 7/16/2023 5:03 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 9:00:41 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/15/2023 9:35 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:44:57 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/14/2023 12:04 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 8:55:50 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/14/2023 11:33 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> They tell the charge on a battery by the voltage present. The
>>>>>>>>>>>> batteries lose 20% or so range after just a couple of months.
>>>>>>>>>>> That's bullshit, Tom. I've had an EV for over 14 months now. There's
>>>>>>>>>>> been no change in range.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So you drive the vehicle commonly out to maximum range?
>>>>>>>>> I've driven to roughly 30 miles remaining on several occasions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We hauled our tandem on the roof, over 120 miles, last week. The bike's
>>>>>>>>> added air resistance certainly cut the range but it was still no problem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The salient point is that your claim of 20% range reduction in a few
>>>>>>>>> months is bullshit. I'm not even charging to 100% in the summer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words, no, you've never actually tested your mileage when new
>>>>>>>> and after a couple of months.
>>>>>>> Hmm. So nothing can be known about range until I drive the car until it
>>>>>>> stops on the highway?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's very weird thinking, Tom. How many times have you done that with
>>>>>>> your cars?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is weird thinking is your fixed belief that the sales brochure
>>>>>> is absolute truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, but you're nuts! As I explained, I've owned the car for 14
>>>>> months. For the first several months, I kept pretty diligent records,
>>>>> comparing mileage traveled to predicted mileage. The numbers were always
>>>>> quite accurate, and there has NOT been any decrease in range.
>>>>>
>>>>> IOW I'm stating what I determined by personal observation of the actual
>>>>> data, not from a sales brochure.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know where you're getting your information. But I can guess. If
>>>>> you flush, it will probably be gone.
>>>>>
>>>> My 20year old Volvo is supposedly capable of 29 mpg which equates to 400
>>>> something miles before I fuel up. It generally as I do motorway miles does
>>>> better, though what it early likes are big A roads so 50/60mph and at that
>>>> will do 500+ miles without a problem.
>>>>
>>>> I log my miles in a app which calculates MPH and range.
>>>>
>>>> Roger Merriman
>>>
>>> My 2007 Ford Taurus was rated at 25 mpg on the highway. Imagine my
>>> surprise that it could NORMALLY get 35 mpg and in one case 54 mpg into a head wind.
>>>
>> Imperial and American gallons are different, 35 mpg is only 29mpg as you
>> where.
>>
>> Even so 54/45 mpg seem unlikely unless you had a very light foot or drove
>> at 50mph or so.
>>
>> The 2007 Taurus seems to be about the same weight as the Volvo, and so
>> unlikely to do much better fuel economy even if it has slightly less
>> powerful engines though more capacity and slightly more torque.
>>
>> Roger Merriman
>
> I had the large motors in my Ford Taurus's since they are the motor that
> has an actual timing chain rather than a timing belt.
>
Just need replacement every now and then? The Volvo will be due it’s
shortly.

Roger Merriman

On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 06:54:37 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 2:46:30?PM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 14:08:02 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 11:05:03?AM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 08:33:54 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> >> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >The batteries lose 20% or so range after just a couple of months.
>> >> Is this where you got the 20% range reduction? If so, you didn't read
>> >> or understand the article:
>> >>
>> >> "Tesla owners sue, say software updates cut range by 20%, break
>> >> batteries"
>> >> <https://www.autoblog.com/2023/05/12/tesla-owners-sue-say-software-updates-cut-range-by-20-break-batteries/>
>> >>
>> >> The 20% might also have been from recommendations to limit battery
>> >> charge to 80% of maximum capacity in order to preserve battery life:
>> >> <https://witricity.com/newsroom/blog/the-80-rule/>
>> >>
>> >> Batteries will degrade as they are used. However, the amount lost in
>> >> "a couple of months" is far less than 20%. See:
>> >>
>> >> "Tesla gives update on battery degradation: only 12% after 200,000
>> >> miles"
>> >> <https://electrek.co/2023/04/25/tesla-update-battery-degradation/>
>> >> Any degradation appears as a reduction in the estimated mileage.
>> >>
>> >> Score: 1 claim and it's wrong.

>> >I find it interesting that you can't actually read the chart.

>> There is no "chart". It's called a "graph".
>> <https://electrek.co/2023/04/25/tesla-update-battery-degradation/>

>> I find it interesting that you can't tell me what I missed. Show me
>> where your "chart" demonstrates a 20% loss in capacity. Better yet,
>> if the average battery capacity drops by 12% after 200,000 miles
>> (322,000 km), how many miles or km's must one drive a Tesla before the
>> battery capacity drops by your 20% ?
>>
>> Hint: My guess(tm) from the graph is 10% loss in 150,000 miles.
>> Assuming a linear drop, 20% would be at 300,000 miles.
>>
>> Here's the original report:
>> <https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/2022-tesla-impact-report.pdf>
>> See Pg 39.

>Why haven't you answered the question?

What question? Do you mean this one-liner?
"I find it interesting that you can't actually read the chart."
That's not a question but closer to a thinly veiled accusation.
There's a good reason I can't read your "chart". It's a graph.

>When did you design anything using BLE or WiFi?

When? Various times between about 1997 and Dec 2020 when I retired.
Some of the work was with pre-802.11 products such as WaveLAN. All my
work with Wi-Fi was as a consultant for my computer customer and
clients. I also did some engineering for various companies.
Unfortunately, much of the work was cleaning up someone else's mess. I
did very little design, but quite a bit of re-design. Most of it was
and still is under NDA (non-disclosure agreement). You don't have to
look every hard to find some of my embarrassing failures. You will
find quite a bit of history on my activities with Wi-Fi in
alt.internet.wireless:
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.internet.wireless/search?q=author%3AJeff+author%3ALiebermann>
I think this is the 3rd time I've mentioned this in answer to you
accusations. If you don't understand how to use Google Search, I can
find some interesting articles for you viewing pleasure.

>Why do you pretend that you know about things you have no
>experience with?

When did you stop beating your wife? This is a logical fallacy and a
classic loaded question:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question>
"A common way out of this argument is not to answer the question (e.g.
with a simple 'yes' or 'no'), but to challenge the assumption behind
the question. To use an earlier example, a good response to the
question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" would be "I have never
beaten my wife"."
Ok, I'll challenge your assumption. I have never pretended to know
anything. I either know something, or I don't. There is no pretend
to know something. Incidentally, this is 2nd time I've mentioned your
use of a logical fallacy.

>Or does changing ink jet cartridges qualify you for anything?

Good timing. I just returned from burglarizing a former customers
office and recovered my "loaner" HP and Brother laser printers.
Printers are fun and printer service is more than just repair.

Also, I don't repair consumer grade inkjet printers, such as those you
claim to own. That was some years ago. Today, color laser printers
are competitively priced, cost little to operate, are fairly reliable
and produce better quality prints than any consumer grade inkjet
printer.

Out of curiosity, was "changing ink jet cartridges" intended to be
some manner of demeaning insult? Changing cartridges is admittedly a
fairly trivial exercise. Cleaning the jets, head, rollers, friction
pad, tank, foam pad, and bottom of the printer is a major project. Few
manufactures have done anything to make cleaning easy. Such printers
are meant to be recycled and replaced with a new printer.

>I like your attempting to change the subject by arguing that a
>chart is not a graph.

Thank you. However, you demonstrated in your reply that you still
fail to recognize the difference between a chart and a graph. Pointing
out and demonstrating your mistakes is not topic drift. After all,
this entire newsgroup is about YOU.

>Yet another way to get away from admitting you are continuously
>talking from a knowledge level of zero.

Of course, you are entitled to declare your opinion of my abilities. I
won't complain as long as you clearly indicate that it is your
opinion. I might take your opinions more seriously if you were to
substantiate your opinions.

Actually, I (and others) have done an adequate job of demonstrating
your lack of knowledge and ability. I'm not worried about you
claiming that I know nothing because nobody will believe you.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558