On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:46:40 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
I really don't understand why
some people have taken exception to my wanting to try protect my creaky old
water heater from a very unusual weather situation that clearly has
seriously negative effects on plumbing.


I didn't notice anybody take exception. You're too sensitive,



At least that is what the plumber said. My point is that this is a very
unusual winter and the inlet water is probably colder than it's ever been.
You've owned lots of cars. Tell me what happens when you take a car that's
logged 100K miles at no greater than 3100RPM and you redline it? That's
when I first learned about pistons having "carbon ridges."


You'll actually have a "metal" ridge there. At least I did on the 352
I rebuilt. Had to rent a ridge reamer.



Well, sounds like someone was concerned with the inlet temperature at some
point. (-: Does your water it look anything like this - sounds ancient!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ru...r_H eater.JPG


No, just a steel tank. I really think the purpose of that tank was to
increase the recovery time of the heater, and not to relieve thermal
stress.



It was more than that, it was a stupid ballet. One move after the other got
them in deeper and deeper. I suspect even now the director doesn't think
anything noteworthy occurred. It's all over Google News along with some
pretty gruesome pictures. Little 2 year old Marius being "parted out" to
the lions in big, recognizable giraffe chunks. While I am generally
pro-science, sometimes scientists can get themselves locked deep within a
bubble that impairs their thinking.


That's a circus I missed.



Me too. Just remember the guy with the tank is supposed to be (I am told)
the persona of an uncaring and random Death, one who can't be bargained with
unless He chooses to offer you a wager. It at least makes a *little* sense
from the perspective. My wife thinks the villian was cartoonish and along
the lines of the shark with the "candygram" that used to be on early
episodes of SNL.

I was more in synch with Siskel.

Yeah, but Ebert was perversely reliable. If he *liked* something I knew I
wouldn't. (-:

I went to the "art" theater when I worked downtown based on his "four
star" reviews a couple times. One flick was mediocre, the second
atrocious.
...I looked and found one. "The Grey Fox." He gave 3 1/2 stars.
I found that one mediocre.
The other was a subtitled French flick.
After those two Siskel had to agree with him before I considered it.