Re: floor jack

On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 15:52:33 -0500, Snag <snag snipped-for-privacy@msn.com wrote

Well, I don't know them, so my only point is that the liberals make a law, which "sounds nice". It sounds like they're "doing something".

It even sounds like they "care about the environment", doesn't it? And they punish you (with the force of law) if you don't.

Specifically, they tell you that "batteries have no tailpipes", right?

They mandate that you *must* use batteries to mow your lawn, right? (Yes, I know, electric cords - but my lawn isn't amenable to cords.)

My point isn't about battery-operated lawn mowers. I think they're great for people who want them.

My argument is against their mandate that I pollute twice as much because I can no longer have freedom of choice to choose my lawn mower technology.

All this liberal propaganda sounds great until you begin to wonder: "Daddy... where do all those batteries come from?"

Meanwhile, tRump and his people are ignoring EVERY court order that has told them to cease and desist with their clearly unconstitutional actions.

Before someone says "Oh a bunch of climate denying Trumptards", no, these are radical environmentalists who would like to tear the whole industrial culture down. That doesn't stop them from seeing the truth.

You mean like Joe ByeDone's unconstitutional mask and vaxxxine mandates?

Or are you talking about the Democrat's censorship of We the People?

Or the Democrat's two assassination attempts of President Trump?

Democrats just can't stand Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness!

Please describe those mandates.

Please list some examples.

Evidence?

Pursue away. We're not stopping you.

On 19 Mar 2025 04:41:32 GMT, rbowman snipped-for-privacy@montana.com wrote

I'm not political. I'm scientific. The liberals claim of "batteries having no tailpipes" only works for people who are ignorant of basic principles.

For the liberals to outlaw gas lawn mowers, under penalty of force, is my problem with the liberals. Not only do the liberals take away choice, but they are "science deniers" in a way that I can easily prove given the math.

1. A common recommendation is to keep the DoD below 80%. This means only using 80% of the battery's capacity before recharging.
2. Given that, a lawn mower 60V, 11Ah battery has a usable capacity of: 11 Ah * 0.80 = 8.8 Ah
3. Usable battery energy: 60V * 8.8 Ah = 528 Wh = 0.528 kWh
4. Usable energy delivered from the wall plug to the lawn mower from the battery 0.528kWh * 42.5% = .2244Kwh
5. Gasoline energy needed to equal usable battery energy: 0.2244 kWh / 0.20 = 1.122 kWh
6. Equivalent gasoline volume: 1.122 kWh / 33.3 kWh/gallon = 0.0337 gallons
7. Equivalent gasoline volume in ounces: 0.0337 gallons * 128 ounces/gallon = 4.32 ounces

Therefore, with an 80% DoD, one battery cycle is equivalent to approximately 4.32 ounces of gasoline.

I ran separate calculations for how many battery cycles before a typical lawnmower battery needs to be recycled, which equaled 6-1/2 gallons of gas.

So we have to compare the pollution, from cradle to grave, of one 60V, 11Ah Lithium-Ion battery to that of 6-1/2 gallons of gasoline.

While it's difficult to assess "equivalent pollution" when one is from mining and disposing of toxic chemicals and the other is extracting & burning of petrochemicals, the fact is that lithium batteries pollute too.

However, my argument about the liberals being 'science deniers' is that they mandated a technology claiming it doesn't pollute - and yet - it does.

The liberals in California are "science deniers" which is what I decry.

On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 11:17:17 -0000 (UTC), Cindy Hamilton snipped-for-privacy@invalid.com wrote

My argument on lawn mowers is that the California liberals are always trying to take away your rights, where in this case, it's the right to mow my own lawn without the pollution of the use of mandated toxic chemicals.

The California liberals mandate that I must mow with toxic chemicals. (Yes, I know, electric cords; but I don't have a lawn amenable to cords.)

My issue is that the liberals are science deniers. By denying science, the liberals are duplicitous liars.

The California liberals "say" they care about the environment. But their actions prove these liberals don't actually care about it.

The liberals claim "batteries don't have tailpipes". But what the liberals ignore are that there's pollution in toxic chemicals.

Pollution from the mining. Pollution from the charging. Pollution from the disposal.

Here are basic calculations that the liberals deny, but which are science.

1. A common recommendation is to keep the DoD below 80%. This means only using 80% of the battery's capacity before recharging.
2. Given that, a lawn mower 60V, 11Ah battery has a usable capacity of: 11 Ah * 0.80 = 8.8 Ah
3. Usable battery energy: 60V * 8.8 Ah = 528 Wh = 0.528 kWh
4. Usable energy delivered from the wall plug to the lawn mower from the battery 0.528kWh * 42.5% = .2244Kwh
5. Gasoline energy needed to equal usable battery energy: 0.2244 kWh / 0.20 = 1.122 kWh
6. Equivalent gasoline volume: 1.122 kWh / 33.3 kWh/gallon = 0.0337 gallons
7. Equivalent gasoline volume in ounces: 0.0337 gallons * 128 ounces/gallon = 4.32 ounces

Therefore, with an 80% Depth of Dicharge (DoD), one 60V, 11Ah battery cycle is equivalent to approximately 4.32 ounces of gasoline.

I ran separate calculations for how many battery cycles before a typical lawnmower battery needs to be recycled, which equaled 6-1/2 gallons of gas.

So we have to compare the pollution, from cradle to grave, of one 60V, 11Ah Lithium-Ion battery to that of 6-1/2 gallons of gasoline.

While it's difficult to assess "equivalent pollution" when one is from mining and disposing of toxic chemicals and the other is extracting & burning of petrochemicals, the fact is that lithium batteries pollute too.

However, my argument about the liberals being 'science deniers' is that liberals mandated a technology claiming it doesn't pollute - yet - it does.

What I decry is the liberals in California are "science deniers."

I don't care. Petroleum is finite; it's high time we stopped using it.

I'll be thrilled when OPEC is irrelevant.

I'm not political. I'm scientific. The liberals claim of "batteries having no tailpipes" only works for people who are ignorant of basic principles.

For the liberals to outlaw gas lawn mowers, under penalty of force, is my problem with the liberals. Not only do the liberals take away choice, but they are "science deniers" in a way that I can easily prove given the math.

1. A common recommendation is to keep the Depth of Discharge below 80%. This means only using 80% of the battery's capacity before recharging.
2. Given that, a lawn mower 60V, 11Ah battery has a usable capacity of: 11 Ah * 0.80 = 8.8 Ah
3. Usable battery energy: 60V * 8.8 Ah = 528 Wh = 0.528 kWh
4. Usable energy delivered from the wall plug to the lawn mower from the battery 0.528kWh * 42.5% = .2244Kwh
5. Gasoline energy needed to equal usable battery energy: 0.2244 kWh / 0.20 = 1.122 kWh
6. Equivalent gasoline volume: 1.122 kWh / 33.3 kWh/gallon = 0.0337 gallons
7. Equivalent gasoline volume in ounces: 0.0337 gallons * 128 ounces/gallon = 4.32 ounces

Therefore, with an 80% Depth of Discharge (DoD), one 60V, 11Ah Lithium-ion battery cycle is equivalent to approximately 4.32 ounces of gasoline.

I ran separate calculations for how many battery cycles before a typical lawnmower battery needs to be recycled, which equaled 6-1/2 gallons of gas.

So we have to compare the pollution, from cradle to grave, of one 60V, 11Ah Lithium-Ion battery to that of 6-1/2 gallons of gasoline.

While it's difficult to assess "equivalent pollution" when one is from mining and disposing of toxic chemicals and the other is extracting & burning of petrochemicals, the fact is that lithium batteries pollute too.

However, my argument about the liberals being 'science deniers' is that they mandated a technology claiming it doesn't pollute - and yet - it does.

The liberals in California are "science deniers" which is what I decry.

On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 11:31:29 -0600, Oliver snipped-for-privacy@invalid.net wrote

I should make the very clear point that I'm not against the "choice" of electric lawn mowers alongside gas lawn mowers.

I'm not even against a law that makes sense, which mandates the use of one or the other, under penalty of force (which is, after all, what a law is).

What I'm against is the liberals of California don't actually care about the environment when they mandate the use of electric lawn mowers which clearly pollute about twice as much as gasoline mowers pollute.

The California liberals not only take away your rights.... But the California liberals mandate you pollute twice as much!

The easiest way to summarize my problem with the California liberals isn't so much that they're science deniers, nor that the liberals are always trying to take away your rights, but that liberals are duplicitous liars.

Keep in mind I've said nothing about the conservatives in that argument.

My problem is the liberals have taken away my right to choose my lawn mower technology, and as a result, they mandated I pollute twice as much.

I welcome anyone who knows science to argue that lithium doesn't pollute.

On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 17:27:05 -0000 (UTC), Cindy Hamilton snipped-for-privacy@invalid.com wrote

Well, clearly you have no science background, so while you're welcome to any religious belief system you want to hold, your beliefs are unsound.

Petroleum is finite. And cradle to grave use of it does pollute. Yet Lithium is also finite. And cradle to grave, it pollutes also.

Your belief system is religious; not scientific. Your rather strongly-held beliefs don't take into account any science.

I'm not chastising you as it's common for people to have strongly held belief systems which are purely religious and not based on any realities.

While I share your sensible abhorrence of OPEC manipulations, my belief systems are based on science. As is my dislike of liberals also based.

I dislike that the liberals lie when they claim lithium doesn't pollute. Worse, I dislike that the liberals are always taking away my rights. But worse than that, the liberals mandate, under force of law, that I pollute twice as much when mowing my lawn - under the guise of the environment.

My dislike of liberals is not based on religion, but upon science. They're deniers. Who take away my rights. Forcing me to pollute more. So they're liars in the end analysis.

On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 11:37:43 -0600, Oliver snipped-for-privacy@invalid.net wrote On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 17:27:05 -0000 (UTC), Cindy Hamilton snipped-for-privacy@invalid.com wrote

Petroleum is finite. And cradle to grave use of it does pollute. Yet Lithium is also finite. And cradle to grave, it pollutes also.

Your belief system is religious; not scientific. Your rather strongly-held beliefs don't take into account any science.

I'm not chastising you as it's common for people to have strongly held belief systems which are purely religious and not based on any realities.

While I share your sensible abhorrence of OPEC manipulations, my belief systems are based on science. As is my dislike of liberals also based.

I dislike that the liberals lie when they claim lithium doesn't pollute. Worse, I dislike that the liberals are always taking away my rights. But worse than that, the liberals mandate, under force of law, that I pollute twice as much when mowing my lawn - under the guise of the environment.

My dislike of liberals is not based on religion, but upon science. They're deniers. Who take away my rights. Forcing me to pollute more. So these California liberals are liars in the end analysis.

Bear in mind I say nothing about the conservatives, as this scientific argument is based only on the liberals mandating that I pollute more.

You are missing the big picture. Yes, lithium does pollute. It is really a stepping stone to other technology. In cars, there are new batteries that either reduce or eliminate it.

Lithium can be recycled, burned gasoline cannot be.

Your dislike of liberals is based on a misguided opinion. There are plenty of statistics to prove and disprove your theories and science. Real scientists believe in facts, not political agenda. You are reluctant to open your mind.

On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 15:40:07 -0400, Ed P snipped-for-privacy@snet.n wrote

That's funny because my entire argument is the big picture. The big picture is liberals take away all your rights of choosing.

That's a good start to understanding the problem pieces involved. You appear to know not having a tailpipe doesn't mean there's no pollution.

The liberals don't know that.} The liberals are always taking away your rights of choice.

If the entire argument depends on a future technology that doesn't exist, then there should NOT be a mandate (punishable by law) to use it.

It should be an option. Remember, I'm not against lithium.

I'm against liberals always taking away my right of choice.

The liberals are always claiming that some unimagined future magical technology will solve the problems that the liberals caused today.

The liberals took away my rights for some future magic that doesn't exist.

Actually, both can be recycled but that's not the point because lithium is NOT recycled. 99% of all batteries go into our landfills. You know that.

What bothers me is liberals always taking my rights of choice away. Liberals don't want you or me to have any rights.

Did the conservatives enact this law that takes away my rights? Or the liberals?

The liberals enacted this law by denying that lithium pollutes. Liberals are deniers to the core when they do that.

It's politics for the liberals to deny all scientific fact about it.

And yet, I'm the only one who presented the scientific calculations. Anyway, I'm not against lithium lawn mowers, so let's be clear about that.

What I'm against is the liberals making religious laws. These religious laws are based on the liberals' religion. Not science.

These religious laws take away my rights. And, they end up mandating that I pollute twice as much.

If you can't see that argument by now, you'll never understand science.

Your rights stop at my nose.

You demanded proof of my refutation, then you snipped what I was refuting. Probably because you knew your claims didn't make sense.

Everything pollutes, mining especially. That doesn't change the fact that you haven't made your case.

...

Why haven't you shared your homework?

Oh, right, it's gotta be some deep s*it.

It's your sources and assumptions that are important. Doing the arithmetic *should* be trivial.

Oops! Now you're reduced to lying about your opponent.

You *still* haven't established any of that.

...

You seem to confuse "science" with arithmetic.

Do you know what the scientific process is? So far, all I've seen is you leaping to the Conclusions step.

Here we go... are you admitting your science is faith-based and predicated on arm-waving and PFM?

I'll look at your science and critique as I like. Again, you'll still have to do your own homework.

Guess what. I just wordified it. M-W hasn't caught up yet.

Too much huffery, not enough science.

You brought politics into this.

Watchoo mean "we", white boy?

You've asserted it, that's all. So far you're only interested in political diatribes and assuming your conclusions.

Religion, not science.

A lot of assumin' goin on there.

Don't know where you get 42.5%. Sounds like you just made it up. Sounds low to me. Citation?

DoD,.. dept of Defense? How did the military get into this? Are they charging? Kind of like the Light Brigade?

You're a better man than I, Ollie Din.

Enough with the excuses. S*it or get off the pot.

Ok. <snip politics>

Reasonable.

Don't know if this is common for mowers, but, ok...

From the what to the where?? Unable to parse.

How did you arrive at the 42.5% fudge factor? And why are you multiplying by it, instead of dividing to get the true power consumption?

And, if you're going to include power generation inefficiencies and tranmission losses, shouldn't you also include cost of drilling/pumping, pipeline to refinery, refining & transport to gas station, and you driving to the gas station to fill up your unvented jerry jug?

Where do you get the 33.3 value from? Does it include the energy from the O2 that you consume to burn it?

Ok.

Minor point: Watts is an SI (metric) unit, gal/oz are english. In this kind of exercise, stick with one system or the other, and real scientists use SI. Bastardized units grow wearisome.

Are you going to tell us the number of charge cycles you have [ahem] assumed?

And a gas mower uses way more than 6.5 gal over its lifetime. So you conclude the electric mower is way more environmentally friendly than the gas mower.

But you've only compared equivalent energy output. You've shown nothing about pollution yet.

What are the relative environmental costs of producing/burning gas, vs. mining/mfr/disposal of Li?

So? You've already drawn your conclusion. The electric mower pollutes twice as much as the gas mower, right? Too late to weasel away from your claim. Put up or retract.

Still waiting to see some science.

Trumptrumptrump. Trumpity trump trump kennedy musk vax mrna russia. Mockmockmock.

Ok...

Yeah, there's always another technology waiting in the wings to save the industrial system. 'The God that Failed' was written about communism. Perhaps some future historian will write a book about the failure of consumerist society.