Awl--

Someone recently posted on 3-cornered scrapers.

For general scraping, I have found that various gauges of blue spring steel
work very well in a variety applications.

But here's my real find:

Being a 99c store junkie, with the goal of *fully* equipping my shop from
these stores, I sorta struck gold:

"Jackie" (fr china) makes budget kitchen cleavers, which except for the
cutting edge, is a perfectly squared rectangle of .045 SS material--seems
very hard, is very straight, and I can guar-own-tee that if this were in
MSC, it would be a $35 item.

Might really come in handy. I"ve bought at least a dozen already.
I use them for mostly cleaning up aluminum bar, pre and post machining,
cutting up boxes, menacing the wife....
Great for woodworkers too, I would imagine.

There are other brands of 99c cleavers that are not all quite as square, but
have at least one square edge/corner as to be quite useful.

Note: These utensils don't actually say "Stainless Steel", but rather
"Stainless"... and they are highly magnetic. Don't seem to be rusting,
tho!

Jackie makes (imports) a whole line of kitchen knives, cute among them are
the tomato, pizza and cheese knifes that actually have those words *cut
through* in the knife blade itself!! Impressive, from a mfg pov; Really
cute!

But, you sorta have to live in/near a well-appointed ghetto to benefit from
these higher-end 99c accoutrements.

I also have about 48 pair of 99c sunglasses. Man, do I look good in 99c
sunglasses--mebbe like $1.25.
----------------------------
Mr. P.V.'d
formerly Droll Troll

Don't forget the $1 reading glasses stashed all over the house.
Karl

"Proctologically Violated©®" wrote in message
...
Awl--

Someone recently posted on 3-cornered scrapers.

For general scraping, I have found that various gauges of blue spring
steel work very well in a variety applications.

But here's my real find:

Being a 99c store junkie, with the goal of *fully* equipping my shop from
these stores, I sorta struck gold:

"Jackie" (fr china) makes budget kitchen cleavers, which except for the
cutting edge, is a perfectly squared rectangle of .045 SS material--seems
very hard, is very straight, and I can guar-own-tee that if this were in
MSC, it would be a $35 item.

Might really come in handy. I"ve bought at least a dozen already.
I use them for mostly cleaning up aluminum bar, pre and post machining,
cutting up boxes, menacing the wife....
Great for woodworkers too, I would imagine.

There are other brands of 99c cleavers that are not all quite as square,
but have at least one square edge/corner as to be quite useful.

Note: These utensils don't actually say "Stainless Steel", but rather
"Stainless"... and they are highly magnetic. Don't seem to be rusting,
tho!

Jackie makes (imports) a whole line of kitchen knives, cute among them are
the tomato, pizza and cheese knifes that actually have those words *cut
through* in the knife blade itself!! Impressive, from a mfg pov; Really
cute!

But, you sorta have to live in/near a well-appointed ghetto to benefit
from these higher-end 99c accoutrements.

I also have about 48 pair of 99c sunglasses. Man, do I look good in 99c
sunglasses--mebbe like $1.25.
----------------------------
Mr. P.V.'d
formerly Droll Troll

Proctologically Violated©® wrote:


I also have about 48 pair of 99c sunglasses. Man, do I look good in 99c
sunglasses--mebbe like $1.25.
----------------------------

Be careful actually wearing those. they may have tinted lenses and give
you the false security that you are protected. However, if they are not
UV rated you should not wear them.

Many of the dark lenses on sunglasses actually do not protect the eyes
any better from UV rays than the lighter lenses. Always check to see the
UV rating of the sunglasses. They should filter out 99 to 100 percent of
harmful UV rays. Don't assume dark lenses automatically filter out more
harmful rays, always check.

Ultraviolet rays are some of the most damaging rays from the sun. They
can cause sunburn, and they can severely harm the eyes. The right
sunglasses protect the eyes from these damaging rays.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

Well, here's the skinny on "UV protection", which I verified on an
optometry/ophthalmology ng:

Glass and plastic are *inherently* "black" to UV--optometry's dirty li'l
secret, the optical equivalent to undercoating and fabric treatment on yer
new car.

How I *know* this to be true is cuz I worked in a lab that did UV/spectral
analysis of compounds/enzymatic reactions, and trust me, you had to *stand
on yer laboratory ear* to transmit UV through
glassware/plasticware--glassware has to be a special quartz, and by the time
I left, very special plastics were just being developed that could transmit
any amount of UV at all. Quartz = special plastics = SUPER expensive.

Thus, tinting is in fact irrelevant ito UV.

You cannot get sunburned sunbathing in front of a clear window.

You can argue optical minutiae over this UV protection bidniss, but bottom
line, it's a total and foundationless ripoff.

Another *giganto* PV of the all-consuming American pubic.
----------------------------
Mr. P.V.'d
formerly Droll Troll
"Abrasha" wrote in message
...
Proctologically Violated©® wrote:


I also have about 48 pair of 99c sunglasses. Man, do I look good in 99c
sunglasses--mebbe like $1.25.
----------------------------

Be careful actually wearing those. they may have tinted lenses and give
you the false security that you are protected. However, if they are not
UV rated you should not wear them.

Many of the dark lenses on sunglasses actually do not protect the eyes any
better from UV rays than the lighter lenses. Always check to see the UV
rating of the sunglasses. They should filter out 99 to 100 percent of
harmful UV rays. Don't assume dark lenses automatically filter out more
harmful rays, always check.

Ultraviolet rays are some of the most damaging rays from the sun. They can
cause sunburn, and they can severely harm the eyes. The right sunglasses
protect the eyes from these damaging rays.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

In article , Proctologically Violated©® says...

How I *know* this to be true is cuz I worked in a lab that did UV/spectral
analysis of compounds/enzymatic reactions, and trust me, you had to *stand
on yer laboratory ear* to transmit UV through
glassware/plasticware--glassware has to be a special quartz, and by the time
I left, very special plastics were just being developed that could transmit
any amount of UV at all. Quartz = special plastics = SUPER expensive.

As an ex-lighting phosphor spectroscopist I have to say you are
spot on. The easiest way to see if something absorbs UV in the
wavelength of interest is to simply illuminate it with that
light. If it flouresces, it's absorbing UV.

Most glass will do that, this is one reason that photogray lenses
in eyeglasses don't work (get dark) inside a car with the windows
up. The color centers don't form because there's no UV getting
inside.

Quartz that transmitts deep into the UV (beyond 254 nm) and does not
flouresce is mostly "Suprasil" which is a special, low -OH version.
Sapphire is also a good choice where UV transmitting windows are
called for and is even stronger that quartz.

I still use a fair amount of single crystal aluminum oxide (sapphire)
for special sample holders. It has a bunch of neat enginnering
properties.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Phosphor spectroscopist?? Dudn't get more specialized than *that*, does
it?? Actually sounds very interesting.

Do you happen to know at what wavelength we start to burn/tan at? A
spectroscopist told me the atmosphere itself effectively filters out below
305 nm, so it's gotta be above that. IIRC, the color blue/violet is about
425 nm.

I'm also curious as to the wavelength that stimulates vitamin D production
in the skin, if that is in fact about the same as the tanning wavelengths,
or above, and how much above.
I think it is above, altho some article I read mentioned 289 nm, which is
indeed perty UV. This is actually a fairly important question in health.
----------------------------
Mr. P.V.'d
formerly Droll Troll
"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Proctologically Violated©®
says...

How I *know* this to be true is cuz I worked in a lab that did UV/spectral
analysis of compounds/enzymatic reactions, and trust me, you had to *stand
on yer laboratory ear* to transmit UV through
glassware/plasticware--glassware has to be a special quartz, and by the
time
I left, very special plastics were just being developed that could
transmit
any amount of UV at all. Quartz = special plastics = SUPER expensive.

As an ex-lighting phosphor spectroscopist I have to say you are
spot on. The easiest way to see if something absorbs UV in the
wavelength of interest is to simply illuminate it with that
light. If it flouresces, it's absorbing UV.

Most glass will do that, this is one reason that photogray lenses
in eyeglasses don't work (get dark) inside a car with the windows
up. The color centers don't form because there's no UV getting
inside.

Quartz that transmitts deep into the UV (beyond 254 nm) and does not
flouresce is mostly "Suprasil" which is a special, low -OH version.
Sapphire is also a good choice where UV transmitting windows are
called for and is even stronger that quartz.

I still use a fair amount of single crystal aluminum oxide (sapphire)
for special sample holders. It has a bunch of neat enginnering
properties.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Glass and plastic are *inherently* "black" to UV

Bunk.

You don't know anything firsthand, and you are talking to "authorities"
that don't either. None of you have actually measured this.

Common meniscus eyeglasses lenses have minimal UV absorption.

A $10 UV LED penlight from the auto parts store will prove this.

So will a sunny day and any of the thousands of common fluorescent objects
around the house.

Ackshooly, I did measure this--on $100,000 spectrophotometers.
You cannot perform UV spectroscopy on ordinary glass or plastic.

And, I have assiduously tried to tan behind window glass--and I burn easily.
Dudn't happen.

Not to mention that the cupla honest practicing opticians et al who actually
knew a little bout optics fessed up to the coatings scam. Big effing
bidness, jack.

So what do *you* know that the rest of us don't? And how do you come about
knowing it?
How does your $10 UV LED prove your assertion?
You will help your case immensely if you mention Beer's Law--correctly, of
course. If you don't know what this is, I'll explain it to you.

Oh, btw, you don't need UV for fluoresence to occur.
Thousands of fluorescent objects around a house? Please.....
----------------------------
Mr. P.V.'d
formerly Droll Troll
"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
. ..
Glass and plastic are *inherently* "black" to UV

Bunk.

You don't know anything firsthand, and you are talking to "authorities"
that don't either. None of you have actually measured this.

Common meniscus eyeglasses lenses have minimal UV absorption.

A $10 UV LED penlight from the auto parts store will prove this.

So will a sunny day and any of the thousands of common fluorescent objects
around the house.

jim rozen wrote:

As an ex-lighting phosphor spectroscopist I have to say you are
spot on.

There must be more to this. I wear photochrome lenses and they are dark
in the car. I have acquired a sunburn through a car window. BLB
fluorescent light bulbs have glass envelopes. There may be a significant
amount of absorption, but a significant amount must get through.

Here is Edmund's chart of glass absorption.

http://www2.edmundoptics.com/techsup/GlassCurve.pdf

Even plain old borosilicate glass(Pyrex)goes way out there.

Kevin Gallimore

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Not to mention that the cupla honest practicing opticians et al who
actually knew a little bout optics fessed up to the coatings scam.
Big effing bidness, jack.

True, but the eyeglass biz has always been a racket. UV coatings are just
the latest angle.

But the fact is, ordinary eyeglasses *do* transmit most of the incident UV.

How does your $10 UV LED prove your assertion?

You need a source and detector to characterize absorption. Think about it.

Thousands of fluorescent objects around a house?

Yep. Start with your clothes and bright white office paper, full of UV
fluorescent dyes. Day-glo stickers or paper stock. Cosmetics and bath
products. Just walk around in the dark with a UV LED.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:16:05 -0500, Richard J Kinch
wrote:

Glass and plastic are *inherently* "black" to UV

Bunk.

You don't know anything firsthand, and you are talking to "authorities"
that don't either. None of you have actually measured this.

Common meniscus eyeglasses lenses have minimal UV absorption.

A $10 UV LED penlight from the auto parts store will prove this.

So will a sunny day and any of the thousands of common fluorescent objects
around the house.

$10 LED's are just blue, perhaps emit a bit in the very near UV
spectrum, most around 400 nM or "barely UV". This will still make
some things fluoresce. Check your sheets -- Grissom will!

My optical supplier's chart says clear plastic (CR-39)
transmits 14% UVB. Plain glass transmits 92%.

See http://www.hidalgos.com/light_chart.html

Randy


"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
. ..
Glass and plastic are *inherently* "black" to UV

Bunk.

You don't know anything firsthand, and you are talking to "authorities"
that don't either. None of you have actually measured this.

Common meniscus eyeglasses lenses have minimal UV absorption.

A $10 UV LED penlight from the auto parts store will prove this.

So will a sunny day and any of the thousands of common fluorescent objects
around the house.

In article , Richard J Kinch
says...

Not to mention that the cupla honest practicing opticians et al who
actually knew a little bout optics fessed up to the coatings scam.
Big effing bidness, jack.

True, but the eyeglass biz has always been a racket. UV coatings are just
the latest angle.

But the fact is, ordinary eyeglasses *do* transmit most of the incident UV.

How does your $10 UV LED prove your assertion?

You need a source and detector to characterize absorption. Think about it.

Thousands of fluorescent objects around a house?

Yep. Start with your clothes and bright white office paper, full of UV
fluorescent dyes. Day-glo stickers or paper stock. Cosmetics and bath
products. Just walk around in the dark with a UV LED.


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Richard J Kinch
says...

You need a source and detector to characterize absorption. Think about it.

And a source of UV. No penlight or LED can generate UV.

Incandescent or LED sources won't work.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Don Foreman says...

$10 LED's are just blue, perhaps emit a bit in the very near UV
spectrum, most around 400 nM or "barely UV". This will still make
some things fluoresce. ...

Including the dollop of phosphor they put on them to turn them
into 'white' LEDs.

Think of it as a quantum mechanical machine, you shovel blue
photons in, and it spits out yellow ones. Enough of the blue
still leaks through to combine with the yellow, so the eye
is fooled into seeing 'white.'

Exactly the same as cool-white lamp phospor.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Proctologically Violated©® says...

Phosphor spectroscopist?? Dudn't get more specialized than *that*, does
it??

GTE had/has a research interest in developing new phospor systems.

Better/cheaper/brighter/longer lasting.

They were always trying to find a replacement for the red phospor used
in CRT tubes. It used Europium as the active ion and that was very
expensive.

They were always trying to coat the phospor with something to prevent
it from degrading inside the lamp - the discharge is a pretty rough
environment and the 185 nm mercury line is supposed to cause a lot
of 'maintenence' issues - or in other words, the lamp looses a lot
of it's brightness over time.

They had a bunch of guys doing solid-state chemistry to make the
samples, and I ran a SPEX spectrometer to measure them. They
were heavy into Lanthaum Cerium Aluminates at the time. They also
built a way cool widget to coat phosphor with aluminum oxide in
a fluidized bed reactor.

Great job, I learned a lot.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

jim rozen writes:

No penlight or LED can generate UV.

You may want to update your thinking.

http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/ne...rs/uvleds.html

http://ledmuseum.home.att.net/leduv.htm

http://www.nichia.com/domino01/nichi...nsf/2004/10071

http://ledmuseum.home.att.net/leduv.htm

That is LED UV .htm :-)
Martin

Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder



Richard J Kinch wrote:
jim rozen writes:


No penlight or LED can generate UV.


You may want to update your thinking.

http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/ne...rs/uvleds.html

http://ledmuseum.home.att.net/leduv.htm

http://www.nichia.com/domino01/nichi...nsf/2004/10071

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

In article , Richard J Kinch
says...

You may want to update your thinking.

365 nm, OK that's getting close. I don't think
you pick those up at the local dime store though....

410? No way. That's just hype.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

jim rozen writes:

365 nm, OK that's getting close. I don't think
you pick those up at the local dime store though.

You'd be surprised. In Beijing last month they were hawking UV penlights
in the dollar-store type shops. Big third-world demand for them as
counterfeit money detectors, to "chayek moh-nee".

A compact Wood's light might help prove your mate's fidelity. Nobody was
barking "check wifey" though.

jim rozen wrote:
Most glass will do that, this is one reason that photogray lenses
in eyeglasses don't work (get dark) inside a car with the windows
up. The color centers don't form because there's no UV getting
inside.

Then mine nust be using a newer formulation that is sensitive in the
visible. My photogray lenses work just fine in the car (85 Jeep Wagoneer).

Ted