Re: Re: starship-design: Re: debate

[Kelly St <KellySt@aol.com>]

In a message dated 12/11/97 6:59:04 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote:

>Kelly St wrote:
>>In a message dated 12/9/97 11:37:12 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote:
>
>>>Look.  I've never written anything here with any contradictions,
>>>obvious or otherwise.  You just have an incredible capacity to
>>>misread, misinterpret, and/or unjustifiably assume things.  The
>>>most aggravating thing about trying to discuss anything with you
>>>is your inability to comprehend precisely what's written and
>>>the way you inject straw-men which aren't even hinted at.
>
>>I.E. your not being unclear, I'm just to stupid to understand what your
>>talking about?  Try again.
>
>Maybe you are too stupid.  After all, you yourself just wrote:
>
><You math doesn't add up.  If you were keeping the fuel ratio the same and
><assuming an unrefulled round trip you'ld have to square the fuel ration not
><double it.
>
>If this statement isn't indicative of stupidity, what is?

How oh snide one?  If the fuel ratio for a speed remains the same.  (Say the
400 to one to get to the target speed of the Fuel/Sail).  And you want to make
two trips, you need 400 x 400 x the ships dry weigh.  I.e. 400^2


>>Or, you could try describing your system, in
>>detail, and list why you think it would save significant power, and I'll
>>comment on it.
>
>That's what I did with my very first post on it.

Not that I read, nor could you clear up any of my confusion in several
subsuquent cycles.  Nor have you show any interest in doing so.  You are
however geting a fondness of using personal insults to answer technical
questions.


>-- 
>    _____     Isaac Kuo


Kelly