On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 09:18:05 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:

?
"Molly Brown" wrote
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

So you'd really rather have a 19" B & W TV instead of a flat screen HD
with
a 47" screen? My family lives better with more air conditioning,
computers, bigger and better refrigerators.

The point that I was trying to make was that his evidence supporting
his postulate that things are better now is faulty for the exact same
reason that you stated of appliances being €œmore, bigger, better€� In
other words he is comparing apples with oranges. We did not have
computers or color TVs then but we also didnt have to call the repair
person or mechanic almost every day when those so called €œbetter€�
appliances and cars crammed with more and more idiotic€œ amenities€� or
€œwater and energy saver€� features break down.

I recall changing tubes in the old TVs frequently while the newer ones go
for many years with no repair. I typically drive my cars over 150,000 miles
and change spark plugs one time at 100k. Maintenance on newer cars is a bit
more complex, but it is needed far less. I remember cleaning spark plugs
every 5000 miles and replacing them at 10,000 miles, along with point and
maybe wires. And resetting the timing along the way and adjusting points
after a few thousand miles. No thanks, I'll keep my newer cars that are
cheaper to operate than any of my older cars.

My other appliances are just as good as they were in the past. You can buy
a decent basic gas or electric range for about $400 to $500. You can also
get better quality for $4000 if that is your desire.


Did you include the cost
of what you pay to the service technician or the parts supplier or
store for renewing every two years that cheap made in China garbage
when you said €œBut since we can more easily afford appliances, we can
more easily afford that bag of potatoes.

The last time I had an appliance serviced was about 20 years ago. Maybe you
need to buy better brands. I did just replace my dryer that was 29 years
old and a few years ago, we opted for a new gas range rather than fix the 25
year old one.

Sadly, the new drier will, in all likelihood, not last 29 years, and
nor will the new range last another 25.


When I said I wish I could buy the same appliance I used then I wasnt
referring to a TV set, computer or microwave oven but a range,
dishwasher, clothes washer, dryer or the early self defrosting
refrigerators which were substantially durable than what we have now.

I'm not so sure. Other than your perception, do you have evidence? Seems to
me that appliances did go through a stage about 5 to 10 years ago where they
were less reliable, but they seem to have rebounded. That is my
perception, not something I can prove.

Depends entirely what you buy, I guess. They (appliances in general)
are better than 5-10 years ago, likely - but in many cases not as good
as 25 or 35 years ago - but they use a lot less power


I can even make a point about color TVs, computers and text messaging
cell phones which have killed social skills, conceptual thinking and
the English language if you like. The last genius we had was Einstein
with E=MC2. I dare you to name one Shakespeare, Beethoven or Da Vinci
since then. You dont even see anymore polymaths like our founding
fathers anymore. What we have are bored so called €œprofessionals€� who
only want to go home and play SimCity or Call of Duty. Why do you
think that is?

While I agree with you there, it has nothing to do with reliability and
quality of a refrigerator. Many do say that TV has destroyed the human
species. That would be a different thread though.

On 2010-12-28, Steve B wrote:

"The Daring Dufas" wrote

aircraft carrier.



If there was two words to describe that car, those would be two of the best.

I was alway partial to "tuna boat".

nb

On 12/27/2010 8:17 PM, notbob wrote:
On 2010-12-27, The Daring wrote:


interstate so I took off the doghouse.....

Hee hee....

I couldn take mine off and flip it into the back in about 20 secs!
I've worked on Chevy vans and owned a '91 Ford. Due to the carpeting,
the Ford took over 2 hrs to get the cover off. The Chevy left my arm
bleeding, jes changing the plugs!

took the cover off the air
cleaner and used whatever flammable aerosol spray to spray into the
carb to run the van down the shoulder of the highway until I got
to an exit and coasted to a service station where I used starting fluid
to get up the driveway to a gas pump. :-)

BTDT!! On REALLY cold mornings, used to have to use starter fluid.
The whole process, from removing cover and filter top, starting,
replacing all, took about one minute!

Thanks for the heads up on the differences. I've been looking at 90's
B* fully customized vans. All seem to go for less than $4K, in CO, no
matter how elaborate or good a shape, so good deals to be had.

I was hoping to find a B series ('99-2002) Ram with the 4.7 Powertech
engine, but they seem rare as hens teeth in the vans. I'm pretty much
beyond my old wrenching days, but can still see a EFI Powertech with
aftermarket turbo/supercharger (I live at over 8000ft elev) in my
dreams.

nb

I've gotten so darn weak from medical problems that I just don't have
the enthusiasm I once had where I would work all night in any weather
to disassemble/reassemble a vehicle. :-(

TDD

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 11:35:54 -0500, Jeff Thies
wrote:

On 12/27/2010 10:40 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 12/27/2010 6:52 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
My Dart was the first year they had electronic ignition,
1974.


The retrofit was highly desired, I had it in my 70.

Wouldn't run when it was wet. Needed a starter every
year and a half.

The starters were junk, my buddy who rebuilds them, wouldn't.


The 8 cylinder 318 engine got about 10 1/2
MPG.

Much faster. But not something you wanted to stop with drum brakes like
they had early.

My Mom's car, a plymouth with slant 6, got about 18
MPG. I liked the slant six engine. Also easier to work on,
with the starter on top.

Dead easy to work on (except for the intake/exhaust manifold combo). I'm
thinking now of a friends Chevy where the radiator had to come out to
change the starer. A Lockhead engineer had looked at it and proclaimed
it would need a cutting torch to replace the starter. Not sure whether
that says more for Chevy or Engineers.


You probably had a cracked dual ballast resistor, a common
problem with the early units. A lot of guys carried a spare
ballast resistor in the glove box. :-)

I carried a spare coil too!

Jeff


TDD
My 3 slant sixes, and my brothers' 5 ( 2 brothers) never had wet
starting problems, and I think we replaced 2 starters between them
all.
Dad's slant six trucks (5 or 6) I don't think ever had a starter
replaced. Every one of them went over 100,000 miles, several over
200,000.
Only one engine blew - and that was one my brother bought that had not
been serviced very well - all choked up with sludge.

The '69 or'74 (cannot remember which any more - both were green)went
through ballast resistors pretty regularly - I always had a spare
bolted to the firewall waiting - and the 63 ate spark plugs very
quickly (but it was a 170 incher that put over 200 HP to the pavement)

My Moper Flattie (261 cu inch six) and the baby Hemi (241 Red Ram)
never had damp start problems either.

I used Silver Beauty Magnetic Suppression Wire for ignition wires - on
all of them - not cheap, but NEVER a problem.

My '76 318 was a pig from new - but after I got the carb sorted out it
was a lot better running and a lot easier on gas (4 wheel drive
Ramcharger)

The later slant sixes had driveability problems due to the emission
settings - but I had a fix for that too. Used to do a LOT of fixes on
the Volaries and Aspens and others of that era. (different
accellerator parts and different choke/pull-off calibration - as well
as timing changes)

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 12:35:30 -0600, dpb wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 12/27/2010 6:52 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
...

... The 8 cylinder 318 engine got about 10 1/2
MPG. My Mom's car, a plymouth with slant 6, got about 18
MPG. I liked the slant six engine. Also easier to work on,
with the starter on top.


You probably had a cracked dual ballast resistor, a common
problem with the early units. A lot of guys carried a spare
ballast resistor in the glove box. :-)

TDD

Something was grossly wrong, then...the 383 would do 18 mpg at highway
cruising speed in my '69 Charger w/ the 4-bbl Holley...

The 318 in the mid-70s pickup even w/ the axle ratio that made it run at
fairly high rpm compared to passenger vehicles would easily manage 15-16.


A heavy right foot could take a 318 dart down to well below 10, while
a good driver sould squeaze out well over 25 from a slant six if he
was carefull. My tuned 225 and 170 could both get 20 or more, but my
foot was not generally light in those days - gas was cheap, and 16 to
18 was doing pretty good on the sixes.

My 318 ramcharger, from the factory, got about 8 in the winter around
town, and 12 or so on the highway.
After I re-calibrated everything I could get 12 or more around town in
the winter, and 20ish on the highway - and I could plow snow all night
on half a tank or less.

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 19:54:20 +0000 (UTC), "A. Baum"
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 14:28:14 -0500, Home Guy wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:

My Dart was the first year they had electronic ignition, 1974.

Sorry, my 1973 Plymouth Satellite has factory electronic ignition.

Delcotronic EI was an option on Pontiac and Corvettes in 1963. Ford
fitted Lucas EI on some European models around the same time. Delco/Remy
tested the first EI in 1948. Mopar introduced its first EI in 1972

Late 1971, actually.

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 16:42:32 -0500, Jeff Thies
wrote:


And in particular, the starter, and not a lot of vacuum lines or other
wiring. Not much in there, lot of room around the motor. My
understanding is the slant 6 came out of an industrial engine. Something
designed to pump oil 24/7. Lot of low end torque.


No, the slant six was a clean sheet design to get an overhead valve
engine into the low hood of the Valiant. It was then increased in size
and became the standard corporate engine for Chrysler cars and light
trucks, as well as becoming the basis for the industrial and marine
engines.

It BECAME a very popular industrial engine, particularly after the
industrial/ Marine flathead was discontinued.

It was the only overhead valve inline six Chryler North America ever
produced. (in at least 3 sises, and 2 major series)

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 13:52:18 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:



I can only vouch for the slant 6 starter. I just changed it once. Not
worth rebuilding from what I gather. Seems like my 65 T-Bird ate starters.

In the flavor of the original post, I wonder what a 65 T-Bird starter goes
for today .................

Steve

Being the standard (only available) 390 engine used the same starter
as the 352 and many other engines across the ford line, I'd suspect it
is still pretty reasonable. The starter for the later 429 would be a
bit pricier.
The Bird's Nest has quality reman starters for $49 for the '65
PartsTrain lists the (new) starter for the later 429 at about $126 and
about the same for a '69 Dart six.
Parts-train lists the starter for the '65 for from $32 for a rebuilt
to $89 for a brand new one.

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 18:15:34 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/27/2010 1:28 PM, Home Guy wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:

My Dart was the first year they had electronic ignition, 1974.

Sorry, my 1973 Plymouth Satellite has factory electronic ignition.

I thought the Road Runner and other Mopars with the high performance
engines got it in 72 then it went to all the other lines in 73.

TDD
All 1972 Canadian Mopars had it. Saw a few 1971 sixes with it.
Put it on my '69

On 12/27/2010 10:37 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 16:42:32 -0500, Jeff
wrote:


And in particular, the starter, and not a lot of vacuum lines or other
wiring. Not much in there, lot of room around the motor. My
understanding is the slant 6 came out of an industrial engine. Something
designed to pump oil 24/7. Lot of low end torque.


No, the slant six was a clean sheet design to get an overhead valve
engine into the low hood of the Valiant. It was then increased in size
and became the standard corporate engine for Chrysler cars and light
trucks, as well as becoming the basis for the industrial and marine
engines.

It BECAME a very popular industrial engine, particularly after the
industrial/ Marine flathead was discontinued.

It was the only overhead valve inline six Chryler North America ever
produced. (in at least 3 sises, and 2 major series)


My dad had a 51 Dodge with a 230ci Flathead six and it was a good old
car that he bought new and drove for 11 years. I remember him selling
it after it had set for a while and it started right up when the guy
who bought it, pushed it off. I think we saw it being driven around the
county for several years afterwards. I believe Chrysler still produced
the 230 as an industrial engine for some years after the slant six was
introduced. I owned several vehicles powered by a slant six, it was one
tough motor.

TDD

My first electronic calculator in the early seventies was over $35 and
all it could do was add, multiply, subtract and devide - if you could
keep batteries in it.

Today a $2 calculator will run for a couple years on a battery, do
square roots, metric conversions, etc and has 2 or 3 memories.
A $30 calculator is a full programmable scientific calculator with a
solar cell and a battery you never need to replace.

IIRC, I paid about $2 for a plastic slide rule in high school, from 62 to
66. A Pickett, which I still have, with the leather case was about $12.
How much would a $12 slide rule cost today adjusted for all the things it
needs to be adjusted for?

Far more than graphing calculator that would do calculus, if my guess is
right.

Steve

On 12/27/2010 03:39 PM, notbob wrote:
On 2010-12-27, Jeff wrote:

The starters were junk, my buddy who rebuilds them, wouldn't.

Weird. I had just the opposite experience. Through 2 vans, 2 full
size sedans, and 2 compacts (all pre-'75), I never replaced one
starter. GM starters, OTOH, I replaced with boring regularity. I
even replaced 2 newly installed rebuilds that wouldn't work.

The 8 cylinder 318 engine got about 10 1/2

Nonsense. I was getting 18mpg in a full-sized van w/ stock cam.
Granted, it dropped to 10mpg with an RV cam, but that was expected.

Dead easy to work on (except for the intake/exhaust manifold
combo).

I assume you mean the slant six.

As for the B* (full) vans w/ V8s, easiest vehicle to work on I've over
known. Forty mins to change water pump (air tools). Forty-five mins
to change auto trans in driveway. Two hrs to pull both heads in
driving rainstorm from front seat. I could set the timing in real
time (back off till pinging ceases!) while driving up steep grade in
105+ Summer temps. Change both front discs in couple hours. After
owning several vehicles since then, including a Ford full size van,
thinking of buying another Dodge B* van.

nb

I always thought that the Dodge B-vans were the nicest driving of the
vans of the 80s/90s, with the Fords feeling the most trucklike and the
Chevies somewhere in between. But they also ate brakes and ball joints,
so you win some, you lose some. (granted, this was in fairly severe
duty as shuttle vans in an urban area.)

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

"The Daring Dufas" wrote

I've gotten so darn weak from medical problems that I just don't have
the enthusiasm I once had where I would work all night in any weather
to disassemble/reassemble a vehicle. :-(

TDD

I get spurts, but no longer want to do it either. I once could pull and
reinstall a 283 or 327 by myself in two days, and not rushing it. I could
have the heads off in an hour and a half. Now, I'm working on trolley
systems, davits, and any lifting devices to help me just keep from hoisting
stuff, which is the major part of the problem. And with all this new stuff
that's shoehorned into a small compartment, it is tricky. And then there's
the computer, and readout screen$.

But, still, it's nice to revive an old lawnmower here and there, or just
some simple machinery, and keep some semblance of worth.

When we are all scrambling around, scrounging old parts and eating roaming
lhasso apsos, we will again return to our position of power. But we'll be
too old to remember what to do about it.

Life sucks.

Steve ;-)

On 12/27/2010 11:07 PM, Steve B wrote:
My first electronic calculator in the early seventies was over $35 and
all it could do was add, multiply, subtract and devide - if you could
keep batteries in it.

Today a $2 calculator will run for a couple years on a battery, do
square roots, metric conversions, etc and has 2 or 3 memories.
A $30 calculator is a full programmable scientific calculator with a
solar cell and a battery you never need to replace.

IIRC, I paid about $2 for a plastic slide rule in high school, from 62 to
66. A Pickett, which I still have, with the leather case was about $12.
How much would a $12 slide rule cost today adjusted for all the things it
needs to be adjusted for?

Far more than graphing calculator that would do calculus, if my guess is
right.

Steve


In 73, I met a guy at the university who owned one of the newfangled
HP calculators. I think it was the HP-45 and it cost him upwards of
$400.00 at the time. It's amazing that you can buy something for ten
bucks today that will blow it away. :-)

TDD

"Steve B" wrote in message
...
My first electronic calculator in the early seventies was over $35 and
all it could do was add, multiply, subtract and devide - if you could
keep batteries in it.

Today a $2 calculator will run for a couple years on a battery, do
square roots, metric conversions, etc and has 2 or 3 memories.
A $30 calculator is a full programmable scientific calculator with a
solar cell and a battery you never need to replace.

IIRC, I paid about $2 for a plastic slide rule in high school, from 62 to
66. A Pickett, which I still have, with the leather case was about $12.
How much would a $12 slide rule cost today adjusted for all the things it
needs to be adjusted for?

Far more than graphing calculator that would do calculus, if my guess is
right.

Steve

Found it, and a $12 item would cost $78 today. Still, with a slide rule,
you had to have an idea of what the answer would be, as they did not provide
decimal places in most cases, unless the value was less than one on the
scale. Interpolation was key.

For other uses, see Interpolation (disambiguation).
In the mathematical subfield of numerical analysis, interpolation is a
method of constructing new data points within the range of a discrete set of
known data points.

In engineering and science one often has a number of data points, as
obtained by sampling or experimentation, and tries to construct a function
which closely fits those data points. This is called curve fitting or
regression analysis. Interpolation is a specific case of curve fitting, in
which the function must go exactly through the data points.

A different problem which is closely related to interpolation is the
approximation of a complicated function by a simple function. Suppose we
know the function but it is too complex to evaluate efficiently. Then we
could pick a few known data points from the complicated function, creating a
lookup table, and try to interpolate those data points to construct a
simpler function. Of course, when using the simple function to calculate new
data points we usually do not receive the same result as when using the
original function, but depending on the problem domain and the interpolation
method used the gain in simplicity might offset the error.

It should be mentioned that there is another very different kind of
interpolation in mathematics, namely the "interpolation of operators". The
classical results about interpolation of operators are the Riesz-Thorin
theorem and the Marcinkiewicz theorem. There are also many other subsequent
results.

Steve

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 13:52:18 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:



I can only vouch for the slant 6 starter. I just changed it once. Not
worth rebuilding from what I gather. Seems like my 65 T-Bird ate
starters.

In the flavor of the original post, I wonder what a 65 T-Bird starter goes
for today .................

Steve

Being the standard (only available) 390 engine used the same starter
as the 352 and many other engines across the ford line, I'd suspect it
is still pretty reasonable. The starter for the later 429 would be a
bit pricier.
The Bird's Nest has quality reman starters for $49 for the '65
PartsTrain lists the (new) starter for the later 429 at about $126 and
about the same for a '69 Dart six.
Parts-train lists the starter for the '65 for from $32 for a rebuilt
to $89 for a brand new one.

That's surprising. Some of the ones I've heard horror stories for some
Japanese cars were almost as much as a down payment on a house.

Steve

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 23:21:48 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/27/2010 11:07 PM, Steve B wrote:
My first electronic calculator in the early seventies was over $35 and
all it could do was add, multiply, subtract and devide - if you could
keep batteries in it.

Today a $2 calculator will run for a couple years on a battery, do
square roots, metric conversions, etc and has 2 or 3 memories.
A $30 calculator is a full programmable scientific calculator with a
solar cell and a battery you never need to replace.

IIRC, I paid about $2 for a plastic slide rule in high school, from 62 to
66. A Pickett, which I still have, with the leather case was about $12.
How much would a $12 slide rule cost today adjusted for all the things it
needs to be adjusted for?

Far more than graphing calculator that would do calculus, if my guess is
right.

Steve


In 73, I met a guy at the university who owned one of the newfangled
HP calculators. I think it was the HP-45 and it cost him upwards of
$400.00 at the time.

I bought an HP-45 in October of '73 for $395. I was a married college senior,
making $2.25/hr. It replaced a $25 Post VersaLog I bought three years
earlier. I still have both.

It's amazing that you can buy something for ten
bucks today that will blow it away. :-)

Hardly. No one makes anything even close to an HP-45 anymore. The only thing
even HP made that came close was the 11C. I do have the "new" HP-35s, but
it's just a cheap imitation of the original. sob

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 21:35:50 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Steve B" wrote in message
...
My first electronic calculator in the early seventies was over $35 and
all it could do was add, multiply, subtract and devide - if you could
keep batteries in it.

Today a $2 calculator will run for a couple years on a battery, do
square roots, metric conversions, etc and has 2 or 3 memories.
A $30 calculator is a full programmable scientific calculator with a
solar cell and a battery you never need to replace.

IIRC, I paid about $2 for a plastic slide rule in high school, from 62 to
66. A Pickett, which I still have, with the leather case was about $12.
How much would a $12 slide rule cost today adjusted for all the things it
needs to be adjusted for?

Far more than graphing calculator that would do calculus, if my guess is
right.

Steve

Found it, and a $12 item would cost $78 today. Still, with a slide rule,
you had to have an idea of what the answer would be, as they did not provide
decimal places in most cases, unless the value was less than one on the
scale. Interpolation was key.

One got used to keeping track of decimal places in one's head, a skill I
quickly lost when switching to a calculator. Even though I do such
calculations every day, I can't even do the simple estimates anymore. A
calculator is just too handy of a crutch to retain that skill.

It's not so much interpolation as estimation and that's only needed to read
the final result (or add ;-).

snip

On 12/27/2010 11:45 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 23:21:48 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/27/2010 11:07 PM, Steve B wrote:
My first electronic calculator in the early seventies was over $35 and
all it could do was add, multiply, subtract and devide - if you could
keep batteries in it.

Today a $2 calculator will run for a couple years on a battery, do
square roots, metric conversions, etc and has 2 or 3 memories.
A $30 calculator is a full programmable scientific calculator with a
solar cell and a battery you never need to replace.

IIRC, I paid about $2 for a plastic slide rule in high school, from 62 to
66. A Pickett, which I still have, with the leather case was about $12.
How much would a $12 slide rule cost today adjusted for all the things it
needs to be adjusted for?

Far more than graphing calculator that would do calculus, if my guess is
right.

Steve


In 73, I met a guy at the university who owned one of the newfangled
HP calculators. I think it was the HP-45 and it cost him upwards of
$400.00 at the time.

I bought an HP-45 in October of '73 for $395. I was a married college senior,
making $2.25/hr. It replaced a $25 Post VersaLog I bought three years
earlier. I still have both.

It's amazing that you can buy something for ten
bucks today that will blow it away. :-)

Hardly. No one makes anything even close to an HP-45 anymore. The only thing
even HP made that came close was the 11C. I do have the "new" HP-35s, but
it's just a cheap imitation of the original.sob

I've actually come across the darn things in thrift stores for a few
dollars. I'll have to drop by the Salvation Army Thrift Store every
now and then to see If I can find one. :-)

TDD

On 12/27/2010 11:35 PM, Steve B wrote:
"Steve wrote in message
...
My first electronic calculator in the early seventies was over $35 and
all it could do was add, multiply, subtract and devide - if you could
keep batteries in it.

Today a $2 calculator will run for a couple years on a battery, do
square roots, metric conversions, etc and has 2 or 3 memories.
A $30 calculator is a full programmable scientific calculator with a
solar cell and a battery you never need to replace.

IIRC, I paid about $2 for a plastic slide rule in high school, from 62 to
66. A Pickett, which I still have, with the leather case was about $12.
How much would a $12 slide rule cost today adjusted for all the things it
needs to be adjusted for?

Far more than graphing calculator that would do calculus, if my guess is
right.

Steve

Found it, and a $12 item would cost $78 today. Still, with a slide rule,
you had to have an idea of what the answer would be, as they did not provide
decimal places in most cases, unless the value was less than one on the
scale. Interpolation was key.

For other uses, see Interpolation (disambiguation).
In the mathematical subfield of numerical analysis, interpolation is a
method of constructing new data points within the range of a discrete set of
known data points.

In engineering and science one often has a number of data points, as
obtained by sampling or experimentation, and tries to construct a function
which closely fits those data points. This is called curve fitting or
regression analysis. Interpolation is a specific case of curve fitting, in
which the function must go exactly through the data points.

A different problem which is closely related to interpolation is the
approximation of a complicated function by a simple function. Suppose we
know the function but it is too complex to evaluate efficiently. Then we
could pick a few known data points from the complicated function, creating a
lookup table, and try to interpolate those data points to construct a
simpler function. Of course, when using the simple function to calculate new
data points we usually do not receive the same result as when using the
original function, but depending on the problem domain and the interpolation
method used the gain in simplicity might offset the error.

It should be mentioned that there is another very different kind of
interpolation in mathematics, namely the "interpolation of operators". The
classical results about interpolation of operators are the Riesz-Thorin
theorem and the Marcinkiewicz theorem. There are also many other subsequent
results.

Steve



Heck, slide rules got us to the Moon. :-)

TDD

On 2010-12-28, Nate Nagel wrote:

Chevies somewhere in between. But they also ate brakes and ball joints,

I never replaced ball-joints, but yer dead on about the disc's. At
least once every 2 yss.

My dad had a 51 Dodge with a 230ci Flathead six and it was a good old
car that he bought new and drove for 11 years. I remember him selling
it after it had set for a while and it started right up when the guy
who bought it, pushed it off. I think we saw it being driven around the
county for several years afterwards. I believe Chrysler still produced
the 230 as an industrial engine for some years after the slant six was
introduced. I owned several vehicles powered by a slant six, it was one
tough motor.

TDD

I also had a 69 dart with a 225... and now wish I still had it..

Found this on the 'Slant Six':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Slant-6_engine

Erik

On 12/27/2010 11:37 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 16:42:32 -0500, Jeff
wrote:


And in particular, the starter, and not a lot of vacuum lines or other
wiring. Not much in there, lot of room around the motor. My
understanding is the slant 6 came out of an industrial engine. Something
designed to pump oil 24/7. Lot of low end torque.


No, the slant six was a clean sheet design to get an overhead valve
engine into the low hood of the Valiant. It was then increased in size
and became the standard corporate engine for Chrysler cars and light
trucks, as well as becoming the basis for the industrial and marine
engines.

It BECAME a very popular industrial engine, particularly after the
industrial/ Marine flathead was discontinued.

Thanks for the correction.

Jeff

It was the only overhead valve inline six Chryler North America ever
produced. (in at least 3 sises, and 2 major series)

On 12/27/2010 3:18 PM, A. Baum wrote:
On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 14:02:01 -0600, dpb wrote:

Steve B wrote:
Something was grossly wrong, then...the 383 would do 18 mpg at highway
cruising speed in my '69 Charger w/ the 4-bbl Holley...

The 318 in the mid-70s pickup even w/ the axle ratio that made it run
at fairly high rpm compared to passenger vehicles would easily manage
15-16.

I had a '67 Newport, 4bbl, 383 cid wedge, Torqueflite, 2.92 gears. It
was a convertible. It was a boat. It was a chick magnet. It was
yellow with brown leather interior and a white top. ...

God, I liked that car. It had two bullet holes in the front fender put
there by a stripper in Houston. Don't ask.

If I ever hit the lotto, I'd buy another. It had guts, and was long
winded.
...

The Charger was the light metallic blue, white vinyl top, dark blue
interior, special-order w/ all the bells and whistles set up for
interstate driving...

Indeed, I've kicked myself ever since let it go as they're now in the
$35k and up range in any condition...

I owned a 70 Charger R/T. 383 2BBL, factory air, power windows TF-727
tranny. Had 65k miles on it but here in NE Ohio it turned into a rust
bucket by the time I owned it in 1980. Also owned a Plymouth Ruster 340.
Same rust bucket deal. When you burned rubber a huge cloud of red rust
also came out the back. Found a 70 Goat, original owner 78k miles in nice
condition but needs minor bodywork and paint. Owner inherited it from her
deceased brother. She'd take 11k for it.

You never see those anymore. The GTOs turned to rust faster than
anything. My brother had one that would shift sideways a bit when he
accelerated. The rear axle was no longer attached to the frame...

They were so light, and so fast...

My friends mostly had Mopars, a few still around.

Jeff

On 12/28/2010 12:21 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 12/27/2010 11:07 PM, Steve B wrote:
My first electronic calculator in the early seventies was over $35 and
all it could do was add, multiply, subtract and devide - if you could
keep batteries in it.

Today a $2 calculator will run for a couple years on a battery, do
square roots, metric conversions, etc and has 2 or 3 memories.
A $30 calculator is a full programmable scientific calculator with a
solar cell and a battery you never need to replace.

IIRC, I paid about $2 for a plastic slide rule in high school, from 62 to
66. A Pickett, which I still have, with the leather case was about $12.
How much would a $12 slide rule cost today adjusted for all the things it
needs to be adjusted for?

Far more than graphing calculator that would do calculus, if my guess is
right.

Steve


In 73, I met a guy at the university who owned one of the newfangled
HP calculators. I think it was the HP-45 and it cost him upwards of
$400.00 at the time.

Hey, I had that!

There was some key combination that would turn it into a timer. Not sure
why, but we thought that was a big deal.

Jeff

It's amazing that you can buy something for ten
bucks today that will blow it away. :-)

TDD

On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 00:03:44 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/27/2010 11:45 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 23:21:48 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/27/2010 11:07 PM, Steve B wrote:
My first electronic calculator in the early seventies was over $35 and
all it could do was add, multiply, subtract and devide - if you could
keep batteries in it.

Today a $2 calculator will run for a couple years on a battery, do
square roots, metric conversions, etc and has 2 or 3 memories.
A $30 calculator is a full programmable scientific calculator with a
solar cell and a battery you never need to replace.

IIRC, I paid about $2 for a plastic slide rule in high school, from 62 to
66. A Pickett, which I still have, with the leather case was about $12.
How much would a $12 slide rule cost today adjusted for all the things it
needs to be adjusted for?

Far more than graphing calculator that would do calculus, if my guess is
right.

Steve


In 73, I met a guy at the university who owned one of the newfangled
HP calculators. I think it was the HP-45 and it cost him upwards of
$400.00 at the time.

I bought an HP-45 in October of '73 for $395. I was a married college senior,
making $2.25/hr. It replaced a $25 Post VersaLog I bought three years
earlier. I still have both.

It's amazing that you can buy something for ten
bucks today that will blow it away. :-)

Hardly. No one makes anything even close to an HP-45 anymore. The only thing
even HP made that came close was the 11C. I do have the "new" HP-35s, but
it's just a cheap imitation of the original.sob

I've actually come across the darn things in thrift stores for a few
dollars. I'll have to drop by the Salvation Army Thrift Store every
now and then to see If I can find one. :-)

If you can find an HP-45 with a working power switch, I'll take it! I have a
supply of batteries. I few years ago I found a battery replacement kit that
adapts standard AA batteries. ;-)

They put a whole bunch of spectacled Chinese math kids into
that little box? If memory serves, my Dad waited till four
function calculators got "down to" $125 at Heathkit before
buying one. I think he still has it.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"The Daring Dufas" wrote in
message ...

In 73, I met a guy at the university who owned one of the
newfangled
HP calculators. I think it was the HP-45 and it cost him
upwards of
$400.00 at the time. It's amazing that you can buy something
for ten
bucks today that will blow it away. :-)

TDD

I wonder if anyone under the age of 30 can do even simple
division on a slide rule? I doubt it.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Steve B" wrote in message
...

Found it, and a $12 item would cost $78 today. Still, with
a slide rule,
you had to have an idea of what the answer would be, as they
did not provide
decimal places in most cases, unless the value was less than
one on the
scale. Interpolation was key.

For other uses, see Interpolation (disambiguation).
In the mathematical subfield of numerical analysis,
interpolation is a
method of constructing new data points within the range of a
discrete set of
known data points.

In engineering and science one often has a number of data
points, as
obtained by sampling or experimentation, and tries to
construct a function
which closely fits those data points. This is called curve
fitting or
regression analysis. Interpolation is a specific case of
curve fitting, in
which the function must go exactly through the data points.

A different problem which is closely related to
interpolation is the
approximation of a complicated function by a simple
function. Suppose we
know the function but it is too complex to evaluate
efficiently. Then we
could pick a few known data points from the complicated
function, creating a
lookup table, and try to interpolate those data points to
construct a
simpler function. Of course, when using the simple function
to calculate new
data points we usually do not receive the same result as
when using the
original function, but depending on the problem domain and
the interpolation
method used the gain in simplicity might offset the error.

It should be mentioned that there is another very different
kind of
interpolation in mathematics, namely the "interpolation of
operators". The
classical results about interpolation of operators are the
Riesz-Thorin
theorem and the Marcinkiewicz theorem. There are also many
other subsequent
results.

Steve

Faster than Jackie Gleason could say......

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"The Daring Dufas"
wrote in message
...

Heck, slide rules got us to the Moon. :-)

TDD

After my Dodge Dart, I swore I'd nsver buy another Chrysler.
Sadly, I bought three more, after that. Wish I'd gone with
Chevrolet.

Well, they have problems also. My Blazer is in the shop as
we speak.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"The Daring Dufas" wrote in
message ...

I was hoping to find a B series ('99-2002) Ram with the
4.7 Powertech
engine, but they seem rare as hens teeth in the vans. I'm
pretty much
beyond my old wrenching days, but can still see a EFI
Powertech with
aftermarket turbo/supercharger (I live at over 8000ft
elev) in my
dreams.

nb

I've gotten so darn weak from medical problems that I just
don't have
the enthusiasm I once had where I would work all night in
any weather
to disassemble/reassemble a vehicle. :-(

TDD

Name that ignition.
[hearkening back to the game show; "Name That Tune".]

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
...

Stormin Mormon wrote:

My Dart was the first year they had electronic
ignition, 1974.

Sorry, my 1973 Plymouth Satellite has factory electronic
ignition.

Delcotronic EI was an option on Pontiac and Corvettes in
1963. Ford
fitted Lucas EI on some European models around the same
time. Delco/Remy
tested the first EI in 1948. Mopar introduced its first EI
in 1972

Late 1971, actually.

I hear you. I've had a boy mow my lawn, last several years.
But, I do keep the old Jacobsen, with the Briggs points
ignition engine.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Steve B" wrote in message
...

But, still, it's nice to revive an old lawnmower here and
there, or just
some simple machinery, and keep some semblance of worth.

When we are all scrambling around, scrounging old parts and
eating roaming
lhasso apsos, we will again return to our position of power.
But we'll be
too old to remember what to do about it.

Life sucks.

Steve ;-)

On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 21:15:25 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I wonder if anyone under the age of 30 can do even simple
division on a slide rule? I doubt it.

Can anyone under the age of 30 do simple division?

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 23:21:48 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/27/2010 11:07 PM, Steve B wrote:
My first electronic calculator in the early seventies was over $35 and
all it could do was add, multiply, subtract and devide - if you could
keep batteries in it.

Today a $2 calculator will run for a couple years on a battery, do
square roots, metric conversions, etc and has 2 or 3 memories.
A $30 calculator is a full programmable scientific calculator with a
solar cell and a battery you never need to replace.

IIRC, I paid about $2 for a plastic slide rule in high school, from 62 to
66. A Pickett, which I still have, with the leather case was about $12.
How much would a $12 slide rule cost today adjusted for all the things it
needs to be adjusted for?

Far more than graphing calculator that would do calculus, if my guess is
right.

Steve


In 73, I met a guy at the university who owned one of the newfangled
HP calculators. I think it was the HP-45 and it cost him upwards of
$400.00 at the time. It's amazing that you can buy something for ten
bucks today that will blow it away. :-)

TDD
The typical PDA/smartphone today has more raw processing power and
memory than an early IBM Mainframe like the system 36? the University
of waterloo computing center was built to house

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 23:20:18 -0500, wrote:


The '69 or'74 (cannot remember which any more - both were green)went
through ballast resistors pretty regularly

It was the '74 Sport, When I stop to think of it. I did put electronic
ignition on the '69 later on.
- I always had a spare
bolted to the firewall waiting - and the 63 ate spark plugs very
quickly (but it was a 170 incher that put over 200 HP to the pavement)

On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 21:18:46 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

After my Dodge Dart, I swore I'd nsver buy another Chrysler.
Sadly, I bought three more, after that. Wish I'd gone with
Chevrolet.

Well, they have problems also. My Blazer is in the shop as
we speak.

The '74 Dart was the only Chrysler I owned, and the slant six as
trouble-free as the Chevy 2.8 and 3.1's I've settled on lately.
Trans was good too. Car was dog slow though.
Never had all those ignition problems you guys are talking about,
and it went to the bone yard with the same starter it came with.
But the back end rusted like crazy.
Had to go when I was afraid the rear leaf spring mounts would let
loose. You didn't have to crawl underneath to see them either.
Just open the trunk and look. Trunk floor had dissolved.

--Vic

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 23:06:29 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/27/2010 10:37 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 16:42:32 -0500, Jeff
wrote:


And in particular, the starter, and not a lot of vacuum lines or other
wiring. Not much in there, lot of room around the motor. My
understanding is the slant 6 came out of an industrial engine. Something
designed to pump oil 24/7. Lot of low end torque.


No, the slant six was a clean sheet design to get an overhead valve
engine into the low hood of the Valiant. It was then increased in size
and became the standard corporate engine for Chrysler cars and light
trucks, as well as becoming the basis for the industrial and marine
engines.

It BECAME a very popular industrial engine, particularly after the
industrial/ Marine flathead was discontinued.

It was the only overhead valve inline six Chryler North America ever
produced. (in at least 3 sises, and 2 major series)


My dad had a 51 Dodge with a 230ci Flathead six and it was a good old
car that he bought new and drove for 11 years. I remember him selling
it after it had set for a while and it started right up when the guy
who bought it, pushed it off. I think we saw it being driven around the
county for several years afterwards. I believe Chrysler still produced
the 230 as an industrial engine for some years after the slant six was
introduced. I owned several vehicles powered by a slant six, it was one
tough motor.

TDD
The flattie "soldiered on" in the military M37 and some industrial
apps untill 1968 (261 inch)(125 HP)

They were made in versions as 331 inchers and as large as 413 cu
inches.(Y rated dual carb and if I remember correctly also dual
exhaust)

On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 12:52:37 -0600, dpb wrote:

A. Baum wrote:
...
have the 340 on blocks out in my garage. That was their best HP motor
IMO.

Outside the 426 Hemi...it did better on a per ci basis than did the 383,
but the 425 out of the 426 was pretty hard to top...

Never had but 383 or the hemi (short time only--it was simply too hot
for ordinary use so didn't keep it but a short year at most) so not a
lot of familiarity w/ the 340.
Both the 340 and the 426 were initially severely under-rated by
Chrysler, horsepower wize. A stock street hemi could pull over 500 HP
on the dyno, and a "275 HP" 340 could pull well over 300 with only
minor tweaking.
Then there was the mighty AAR / TA six-pack. Rated at 290HP and good
for well over 325 back in 1970.

On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 23:01:18 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 23:21:48 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/27/2010 11:07 PM, Steve B wrote:
My first electronic calculator in the early seventies was over $35 and
all it could do was add, multiply, subtract and devide - if you could
keep batteries in it.

Today a $2 calculator will run for a couple years on a battery, do
square roots, metric conversions, etc and has 2 or 3 memories.
A $30 calculator is a full programmable scientific calculator with a
solar cell and a battery you never need to replace.

IIRC, I paid about $2 for a plastic slide rule in high school, from 62 to
66. A Pickett, which I still have, with the leather case was about $12.
How much would a $12 slide rule cost today adjusted for all the things it
needs to be adjusted for?

Far more than graphing calculator that would do calculus, if my guess is
right.

Steve


In 73, I met a guy at the university who owned one of the newfangled
HP calculators. I think it was the HP-45 and it cost him upwards of
$400.00 at the time. It's amazing that you can buy something for ten
bucks today that will blow it away. :-)

TDD
The typical PDA/smartphone today has more raw processing power and
memory than an early IBM Mainframe like the system 36? the University
of waterloo computing center was built to house

I'm sure you mean S/360. System-36 was a minicomputer out of Rochester MN,
from the '80s, predecessor of the AS/400.

On 12/28/2010 10:16 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 23:06:29 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/27/2010 10:37 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 16:42:32 -0500, Jeff
wrote:


And in particular, the starter, and not a lot of vacuum lines or other
wiring. Not much in there, lot of room around the motor. My
understanding is the slant 6 came out of an industrial engine. Something
designed to pump oil 24/7. Lot of low end torque.


No, the slant six was a clean sheet design to get an overhead valve
engine into the low hood of the Valiant. It was then increased in size
and became the standard corporate engine for Chrysler cars and light
trucks, as well as becoming the basis for the industrial and marine
engines.

It BECAME a very popular industrial engine, particularly after the
industrial/ Marine flathead was discontinued.

It was the only overhead valve inline six Chryler North America ever
produced. (in at least 3 sises, and 2 major series)


My dad had a 51 Dodge with a 230ci Flathead six and it was a good old
car that he bought new and drove for 11 years. I remember him selling
it after it had set for a while and it started right up when the guy
who bought it, pushed it off. I think we saw it being driven around the
county for several years afterwards. I believe Chrysler still produced
the 230 as an industrial engine for some years after the slant six was
introduced. I owned several vehicles powered by a slant six, it was one
tough motor.

TDD
The flattie "soldiered on" in the military M37 and some industrial
apps untill 1968 (261 inch)(125 HP)

They were made in versions as 331 inchers and as large as 413 cu
inches.(Y rated dual carb and if I remember correctly also dual
exhaust)

I remember seeing a slant six powering a genset, I think it was an
Onan but it could have been a Kohler. The only other six I like is
the old 300cu in inline Ford truck engine. I don't know if it's still
in production or not but I believe it was designed as a truck engine
from the start. I put 70,000 miles on one in a 1981 Econoline during
a year I was running service calls across the Southeast. I kept it
serviced and the only problem I ever had with it was because the owner
of the company screwed around with emission controls in an attempt to
remove them thinking it would increase the fuel mileage. :-)

TDD