 | | Re: Rechargeable Batteries - with correct link :)
|
|
Subject: Re: Rechargeable Batteries From: "Lars Gjerløw Jørgensen" <lgjPURGE@jyde.dk> Newsgroups: lugnet.off-topic.geek TJ Avery's utterance expressed in news:HGFAzq.1xBp@lugnet.com: (...) What project? (...) They are available in 2000 mAh too. (...) (21 years ago, 19-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Rechargeable Batteries
|
|
TJ Avery's utterance expressed in news:HGMy45.MH7@lugnet.com: (...) woooohh I hate it!! and with popups and all.. I'll see if I can cancel the message.. thanx for pointing out :) (21 years ago, 19-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Rechargeable Batteries
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Lars Gjerløw Jørgensen wrote: <snip> (...) Not cool! The above link takes you to something porn related. The correct link is www.howstuffworks.com. I know, it was just a typo ;-) -TJ (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Rechargeable Batteries
|
|
(...) :-) You'll see... (...) <snip> Thanks for the information! As usual, the answer is complicated ;-) I'm actually looking at 1.2v NiMH C-cells that have a 5000 mAh rating. That should do the trick! -TJ (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Rechargeable Batteries
|
|
I'm trying to estimate the amount of power needed for a project, one that will be powered by rechargeables. Rechargeable batteries typically have two ratings: Volts and Current-Time. For example, a AA will be 1.2V and 1000 mA-h. Let's say I'll need (...) (21 years ago, 13-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | 20th Century Castles
|
|
Ran across this thanks to Kung Fool... (URL) just cool. The cutaway diagram, especially, is nifty. (21 years ago, 13-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: geek test
|
|
Hmm, only 30.57199% for me. But then there are some major geek areas I just don't get into. I don't do computer games (any more), video games, movies (much - though I have seen a small handfull multiple times), TV, and more. (...) Hmm, a married (...) (21 years ago, 11-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: High praise for Designer Set #4100
|
|
(...) I just did a little fun investigation. As an IBMer, I first think of PS2 as a computer (technically PS/2). So I did some trademark research. Here's Sony's trademark for PS2 (I'm not 100% sure this link will work for you): (URL) here's IBM's (...) (21 years ago, 11-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: geek test
|
|
(...) "Aquaman cannot marry Wonder Woman! That would be just wrong!!" (sees ICBM cruising down the street....) "Ohhhh, I've wasted my life..." KaBoooommmmm!!!! Fav. scene from the Simpsons--next to almost anything with Sideshow Bob.... Dave K (21 years ago, 11-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: geek test
|
|
(...) I got 29.5858% - Total Geek I thought I was going to be the lowest. Only 14%?? Do you even watch star trek? I didn't check very much on there and I thought I got a low score. BTW I'm trying to talk like the comicbook store guy from simpsons (...) (21 years ago, 11-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: geek test
|
|
(...) I got 39.25049% - Major Geek. Not enough geekish media consumption. Steve (21 years ago, 11-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: geek test
|
|
(...) Except that I scored a 40.8484% Major Geek, so I don't know if I actually out-geeked you or not. (Bruce-- for rounding? Chris++ for caring.) - Chris. (21 years ago, 11-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: geek test
|
|
Quoting Matthew Miller <mattdm@mattdm.org>: (...) I noticed that! I agree, this was a nerd test - and indeed, real geeks can usually get by with Geek Code - where my true poserness shows up, except for the being a girl part, I'll still win points (...) (21 years ago, 11-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: geek test
|
|
(...) Yes. I think the methodology is you check everything that's true. (...) No, but you get style points for having it. (21 years ago, 11-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: geek test
|
|
(...) lot a *nerd* test, not a geek test. And I lost some points for things like "turn on my computer first thing in the morning", which only shows that the *author* of the test is not geeky enough. (Why would the computer be off? And if it were, (...) (21 years ago, 10-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: geek test
|
|
(...) If you can't find at least three different editions, then you are a poser! And add to that a number of expansions Steve gave to me...for business reasons! And the pre-cursor to GURPS! -->Bruce<-- Doing my best to dig a deeper hole for myself (21 years ago, 10-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: geek test
|
|
(...) 40.84 Major Geek Admittedly, I never once took a gratuitous answer just to up my score, and in fact never once admitted to being a geek, but even then, if you out-geeked a computer game designer then you are truly A Lost Cause. ;-) -->Bruce<-- (21 years ago, 10-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: geek test
|
|
(...) When I took this a week or so ago, I was somewhere in the 35% range. I sent it to my wife and she broke 70% - I'm not that surprised, I always knew she was twice the geek I am. <grin, duck> It's a fun little thing. I would probably score (...) (21 years ago, 10-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: geek test
|
|
(...) I scored 24.something percent-- and that included five checks for being a girl! (Didn't have time to mentally record the numbers after the decimal because I had a math class coming in.) Maggie C. (21 years ago, 10-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
