wrote:

On Thu, 12 May 2011 13:15:28 -0500, jim
wrote:

wrote:

On May 7, 5:50 pm, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
I have a lawnmower and a snowblower, both from Honda, and both are hard
to start at the beginning of their season. The lawnmower is the worst
offender, by far, so I'll focus on it.

I would always get the mower going, but it could take all day the first
time. After that initial difficult start, starting was reasonably easy
for the rest of the season.

I have heard various theories on why this is so:

1. Gas varnished up over the winter. I took the carb apart - clean as
a whistle. Nor did gas stabilizer make any difference.

2. Water (from condensation) in the gas. Hmm, hard to do with the 10%
alcohol in all gas available these days.

3. Volatiles evaporating from the gas in the tank over the winter.
Also, various stories saying that winter gas and summer gas are
different, the difference being how volatile the gas is, with winter
needing more volatile gas than summer. Hmm, this could be at least part
of an answer.

So, this year, when I first tried to start the lawnmower for the summer,
had the usual problems. Tried the usual dodges, like leaving the mower
out in the sun to warm up, and putting fresh gas in the tank, but no go.

Volatiles? Ether! So, I gave it a squirt of starting fluid.

Started right up on the first try, and subsequent starts were of normal
difficulty, probably because all the old gas was by then flushed out of
the carb.

So, theory 3 seems to be correct.

And a dash of Naptha in the gas may do the same.

Joe Gwinn

Ran the gas out of mine completely last fall, got some fresh 91 octane
last week, filled the tank, it fired off in three pulls, needed
another pull to keep going. Has a gravity feed tank. I've found 91
octane is needed with the alcohol contaminated gas for it to chop
through the heavier weeds, otherwise it stalls. Difference in
performance is quite noticiable. Briggs engine, about 25 years old.
In the past, if I left gas in it, even if the float bowl was left dry
I'd have to disassemble and hit all the parts with carb cleaner, then
it would run. I also think the alcohol is the reason they're sticking
6 hp engines on the same mowers they used to put 3.5 hp engines. That
and CA smog specs. Either that or the horses have shrunk down.

The horses have shrunk down. I think what they were calling a 5 hp was
practically identical to what they sold as 3.5 hp for 50 years. There
was a Nationwide class action lawsuit against B&S. As a consequence they
no longer use hp ratings. They are rated by torque.

-jim



Stan
The REASON they now sell by torque is the HP rating was at 3600 RPM,
and with the safely regulations today most lawn mowers are running
their engines BELOW that speed - many only 2400 RPM
A 6 hp motor at 3600 rpm is 8.75 ft lbs of torque. At 2400 RPM that's
only something like 4 HP.

Briggs was perfectly happy with using horsepower to rate their engines
until they lost 51 million dollars in lawsuits because of proven false
claims regarding horsepower rating. The courts ordered Briggs (and other
small engine companies) to use the SAE standards for torque or
horsepower as determined by an independent test facility for any claims
they make. Previously the companies were just making up power ratings as
they saw fit.

After the court order Briggs quit giving horsepower ratings entirely
rather than put the much lower hp rating back on the same engines as the
court order would have required.

Briggs took what for 50 years they called a 3.5 horsepower and simply
lied and labeled it as a 5 or 6 horsepower. Then when they got caught
they didn't want their fraud to be widely known so they came up with a
story that horsepower is a lousy way to rate engines and torque is a
much better way to rate small engines.

On Thu, 12 May 2011 19:29:43 -0500, jim
wrote:

wrote:

On Thu, 12 May 2011 13:15:28 -0500, jim
wrote:

wrote:

On May 7, 5:50 pm, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
I have a lawnmower and a snowblower, both from Honda, and both are hard
to start at the beginning of their season. The lawnmower is the worst
offender, by far, so I'll focus on it.

I would always get the mower going, but it could take all day the first
time. After that initial difficult start, starting was reasonably easy
for the rest of the season.

I have heard various theories on why this is so:

1. Gas varnished up over the winter. I took the carb apart - clean as
a whistle. Nor did gas stabilizer make any difference.

2. Water (from condensation) in the gas. Hmm, hard to do with the 10%
alcohol in all gas available these days.

3. Volatiles evaporating from the gas in the tank over the winter.
Also, various stories saying that winter gas and summer gas are
different, the difference being how volatile the gas is, with winter
needing more volatile gas than summer. Hmm, this could be at least part
of an answer.

So, this year, when I first tried to start the lawnmower for the summer,
had the usual problems. Tried the usual dodges, like leaving the mower
out in the sun to warm up, and putting fresh gas in the tank, but no go.

Volatiles? Ether! So, I gave it a squirt of starting fluid.

Started right up on the first try, and subsequent starts were of normal
difficulty, probably because all the old gas was by then flushed out of
the carb.

So, theory 3 seems to be correct.

And a dash of Naptha in the gas may do the same.

Joe Gwinn

Ran the gas out of mine completely last fall, got some fresh 91 octane
last week, filled the tank, it fired off in three pulls, needed
another pull to keep going. Has a gravity feed tank. I've found 91
octane is needed with the alcohol contaminated gas for it to chop
through the heavier weeds, otherwise it stalls. Difference in
performance is quite noticiable. Briggs engine, about 25 years old.
In the past, if I left gas in it, even if the float bowl was left dry
I'd have to disassemble and hit all the parts with carb cleaner, then
it would run. I also think the alcohol is the reason they're sticking
6 hp engines on the same mowers they used to put 3.5 hp engines. That
and CA smog specs. Either that or the horses have shrunk down.

The horses have shrunk down. I think what they were calling a 5 hp was
practically identical to what they sold as 3.5 hp for 50 years. There
was a Nationwide class action lawsuit against B&S. As a consequence they
no longer use hp ratings. They are rated by torque.

-jim



Stan
The REASON they now sell by torque is the HP rating was at 3600 RPM,
and with the safely regulations today most lawn mowers are running
their engines BELOW that speed - many only 2400 RPM
A 6 hp motor at 3600 rpm is 8.75 ft lbs of torque. At 2400 RPM that's
only something like 4 HP.

Briggs was perfectly happy with using horsepower to rate their engines
until they lost 51 million dollars in lawsuits because of proven false
claims regarding horsepower rating. The courts ordered Briggs (and other
small engine companies) to use the SAE standards for torque or
horsepower as determined by an independent test facility for any claims
they make. Previously the companies were just making up power ratings as
they saw fit.

After the court order Briggs quit giving horsepower ratings entirely
rather than put the much lower hp rating back on the same engines as the
court order would have required.

Briggs took what for 50 years they called a 3.5 horsepower and simply
lied and labeled it as a 5 or 6 horsepower. Then when they got caught
they didn't want their fraud to be widely known so they came up with a
story that horsepower is a lousy way to rate engines and torque is a
much better way to rate small engines.
From what I've read / heard, you are blowing more smoke than a 15
year old Briggs.
Yes, the manufacturers were sued - but they were not NECESSARILY
deceptive in their ratings. The engines WERE rated at a given stated
RPM - and if run at that RPM with the torque ratings currently on the
engines they WOULD produce (in most cases) the advertized horsepower.

If you take the torque available at whatever RPM the engine is run at
and multiply the two, then devide by 5252, you get the horsepower.

Look at the Torque rating of any engine out there today, and multiply
it by 3600, then devide by 5252, and you will find the result is
extremely close to the HP the engine was formerly advertized/sold
with.

The ONLY engine description that cannot be argued is DISPLACEMENT -
which is more and more becoming the standard way to advertize small
engines. This rating still does not tell you a whole lot, because the
power differs greatly depending on the engine design. Your weed eater,
leaf blower, chain-saw etc will have a 30cc, 35cc, or 40cc etc
engine., which may be producing , say 5HP from 40cc at 6000 RPM. (4 ft
lbs of torque at 6000 RPM - being a 2 stroke engine) Your lawnmower
may have a 135 cc or 8.24 cubic inches 4 stroke- roughly 3.5HP at 3600
RPM.. A 5HP L-Head Briggs was 12.5 cubic inches, or 204 cc. The same
displacement OHV Intek engine is a 6.5HP engine at the same 3600 RPM
due to higher volumetric efficiency and higher compression ratio. This
translates to about 9.5 ft lbs torque at 3600 RPM - and the engine
LIKELY produces a peak torque of about11 ft lb at 2400 RPM (5 HP),
while the L- Head 5HP engine likely produced a peak HP of about 9.5ft
lb at 2400, for a HP of about 4.25, and 7.2 ft lbs at 3600, for the
5HP rating.

The torque drops off with speed due to poor breathing (volumetric
efficiency) - the carting guys tune the intakes and exhausts to
improve the efficiency, which increases the torque at higher speeds -
producing more HP.

wrote:


Briggs took what for 50 years they called a 3.5 horsepower and simply
lied and labeled it as a 5 or 6 horsepower. Then when they got caught
they didn't want their fraud to be widely known so they came up with a
story that horsepower is a lousy way to rate engines and torque is a
much better way to rate small engines.
From what I've read / heard, you are blowing more smoke than a 15
year old Briggs.

If your 15 year old briggs blows smoke its probably from bad
maintenance.


Yes, the manufacturers were sued - but they were not NECESSARILY
deceptive in their ratings.

The US federal court doesn't agree with you. It was deceptive
advertising

The engines WERE rated at a given stated
RPM - and if run at that RPM with the torque ratings currently on the
engines they WOULD produce (in most cases) the advertized horsepower.

So how did a 3.5 horsepower engine get turned into a 6 hp engine?

Your claiming they did it by making it run slower
which is nonsense.
They did it by slapping a 6 hp label on it.




If you take the torque available at whatever RPM the engine is run at
and multiply the two, then devide by 5252, you get the horsepower.

Look at the Torque rating of any engine out there today, and multiply
it by 3600, then devide by 5252, and you will find the result is
extremely close to the HP the engine was formerly advertized/sold
with.

That mumbo mumbo doesn't explain how they turned a 3.5 engine into a 6
hp when the only real difference was a fancy plastic shroud on the
exterior.

And yes the current torque ratings are accurate, but you can't compare
to what the engine used to be rated at, because they didn't give torque
ratings before.

Horse power ratings are now required to be done by dyno testing random
engines off the assembly line. They can't just do some silly
calculations and call it a 6 hp engine. Briggs won't tell you what the
current hp rating is.

On Thu, 12 May 2011 21:52:29 -0500, jim
wrote:

wrote:


Briggs took what for 50 years they called a 3.5 horsepower and simply
lied and labeled it as a 5 or 6 horsepower. Then when they got caught
they didn't want their fraud to be widely known so they came up with a
story that horsepower is a lousy way to rate engines and torque is a
much better way to rate small engines.
From what I've read / heard, you are blowing more smoke than a 15
year old Briggs.

If your 15 year old briggs blows smoke its probably from bad
maintenance.


Yes, the manufacturers were sued - but they were not NECESSARILY
deceptive in their ratings.

The US federal court doesn't agree with you. It was deceptive
advertising

The engines WERE rated at a given stated
RPM - and if run at that RPM with the torque ratings currently on the
engines they WOULD produce (in most cases) the advertized horsepower.

So how did a 3.5 horsepower engine get turned into a 6 hp engine?

Your claiming they did it by making it run slower
which is nonsense.
They did it by slapping a 6 hp label on it.




If you take the torque available at whatever RPM the engine is run at
and multiply the two, then devide by 5252, you get the horsepower.

Look at the Torque rating of any engine out there today, and multiply
it by 3600, then devide by 5252, and you will find the result is
extremely close to the HP the engine was formerly advertized/sold
with.

That mumbo mumbo doesn't explain how they turned a 3.5 engine into a 6
hp when the only real difference was a fancy plastic shroud on the
exterior.

And yes the current torque ratings are accurate, but you can't compare
to what the engine used to be rated at, because they didn't give torque
ratings before.

Horse power ratings are now required to be done by dyno testing random
engines off the assembly line. They can't just do some silly
calculations and call it a 6 hp engine. Briggs won't tell you what the
current hp rating is.
Not true. Their HP ratings are/were SAE spec dyno ratings. The 6HP
engine was larger displacement than the 3.5 Try buying pistons and
cranks.
The 3.5HP L-Head was 148cc
The 6HP OHV Vangard was 182cc, the 6HP Intek 190cc, and the 6HP
Quantum was 189.6 cc (lets just call it 190)

wrote:

Horse power ratings are now required to be done by dyno testing random
engines off the assembly line. They can't just do some silly
calculations and call it a 6 hp engine. Briggs won't tell you what the
current hp rating is.
Not true. Their HP ratings are/were SAE spec dyno ratings. The 6HP
engine was larger displacement than the 3.5 Try buying pistons and
cranks.
The 3.5HP L-Head was 148cc
The 6HP OHV Vangard was 182cc, the 6HP Intek 190cc, and the 6HP
Quantum was 189.6 cc (lets just call it 190)

That has little to do with the fraud
that Briggs was sued over.
The case started in the Illinois courts in 2003 against MTD and Briggs
MTD caved in and settled then MTD gave evidence against Briggs
In 2008 it was moved into federal court as a class action
At about the same time Fraud and RICO charges were filed against Briggs
and most of the other small engine mfgs.
In 2010 Briggs agreed to settle for 51 million.

The horsepower misrepresentation that Briggs
and other small engine makers
engaged in occurred from 1994-2008
the misrepresentations ended when Briggs stopped using hp ratings

On Fri, 13 May 2011 06:01:48 -0500, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:



wrote:

Horse power ratings are now required to be done by dyno testing random
engines off the assembly line. They can't just do some silly
calculations and call it a 6 hp engine. Briggs won't tell you what the
current hp rating is.
Not true. Their HP ratings are/were SAE spec dyno ratings. The 6HP
engine was larger displacement than the 3.5 Try buying pistons and
cranks.
The 3.5HP L-Head was 148cc
The 6HP OHV Vangard was 182cc, the 6HP Intek 190cc, and the 6HP
Quantum was 189.6 cc (lets just call it 190)

That has little to do with the fraud
that Briggs was sued over.
The case started in the Illinois courts in 2003 against MTD and Briggs
MTD caved in and settled then MTD gave evidence against Briggs
In 2008 it was moved into federal court as a class action
At about the same time Fraud and RICO charges were filed against Briggs
and most of the other small engine mfgs.
In 2010 Briggs agreed to settle for 51 million.

The horsepower misrepresentation that Briggs
and other small engine makers
engaged in occurred from 1994-2008
the misrepresentations ended when Briggs stopped using hp ratings
So their torque ratings are more to be trusted than their HP? Why? IF
it WAS actually fraud, it is just as easy to misrepresent torque.
Any of the numbers I've seen, torque vs HP, work out REAL close.

(at 3600 RPM) The only reason it could have been construed as
fraudulent would be if the rated RPM was higher than the operating RPM
- which it has been since 1996 or there-abouts. The 6HP engine was
only 4.5 or 5 because it didn't run at it's rated RPM.

Ed Huntress wrote:
Holy cow. You get this week's "What, Me Worry?" award. g You're in a class
with my cousin (now deceased, but for other reasons). He was in the First
Marine Division in Laos and Vietnam, and he used to tell how he heated his
coffee by burning a wad of C4.

I guess it burns nicely, but I'm not likely ever to find out, first-hand.



Heck, Ed, I've done that.

It burns hot and sparkles a lot.

But it takes a LOT of C4 to heat anything.
It's gone so fast it doesn't have much time to transfer heat.



--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~sv_temptress

"CaveLamb" wrote in message
m...
Ed Huntress wrote:
Holy cow. You get this week's "What, Me Worry?" award. g You're in a
class with my cousin (now deceased, but for other reasons). He was in the
First Marine Division in Laos and Vietnam, and he used to tell how he
heated his coffee by burning a wad of C4.

I guess it burns nicely, but I'm not likely ever to find out, first-hand.



Heck, Ed, I've done that.

It burns hot and sparkles a lot.

But it takes a LOT of C4 to heat anything.
It's gone so fast it doesn't have much time to transfer heat.

What I want to know is, who was the first guy to try this? Here in NJ we
have these big myths about the first guy to eat a tomato. But I would think
that the first guy to heat his coffee over flaming C4 deserves a statue
somewhere, doesn't he?

Or a line on his headstone, "Here, hold my beer and watch this..."

--
Ed Huntress

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"CaveLamb" wrote in message
m...
Ed Huntress wrote:
Holy cow. You get this week's "What, Me Worry?" award. g You're in a
class with my cousin (now deceased, but for other reasons). He was in the
First Marine Division in Laos and Vietnam, and he used to tell how he
heated his coffee by burning a wad of C4.

I guess it burns nicely, but I'm not likely ever to find out, first-hand.



Heck, Ed, I've done that.

It burns hot and sparkles a lot.

But it takes a LOT of C4 to heat anything.
It's gone so fast it doesn't have much time to transfer heat.

What I want to know is, who was the first guy to try this? Here in NJ we
have these big myths about the first guy to eat a tomato. But I would think
that the first guy to heat his coffee over flaming C4 deserves a statue
somewhere, doesn't he?

Or a line on his headstone, "Here, hold my beer and watch this..."

The standard way to dispose of old dynamite is to burn it out in the
open, in small quantities. From a distance.

Joe Gwinn

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"CaveLamb" wrote in message
m...
Ed Huntress wrote:
Holy cow. You get this week's "What, Me Worry?" award. g You're in a
class with my cousin (now deceased, but for other reasons). He was in
the
First Marine Division in Laos and Vietnam, and he used to tell how he
heated his coffee by burning a wad of C4.

I guess it burns nicely, but I'm not likely ever to find out,
first-hand.



Heck, Ed, I've done that.

It burns hot and sparkles a lot.

But it takes a LOT of C4 to heat anything.
It's gone so fast it doesn't have much time to transfer heat.

What I want to know is, who was the first guy to try this? Here in NJ we
have these big myths about the first guy to eat a tomato. But I would
think
that the first guy to heat his coffee over flaming C4 deserves a statue
somewhere, doesn't he?

Or a line on his headstone, "Here, hold my beer and watch this..."

The standard way to dispose of old dynamite is to burn it out in the
open, in small quantities. From a distance.

Joe Gwinn

"Distance" being an important point in this case. g That's how I get rid
of ancient gunpowder, too. That is, I did, until I realized that it was
probably a good addition to my compost pile. 'Too bad I don't shoot black
powder anymore. There is some Red Dot on the compost pile right now,
however.

--
Ed Huntress

wrote:


The horsepower misrepresentation that Briggs
and other small engine makers
engaged in occurred from 1994-2008
the misrepresentations ended when Briggs stopped using hp ratings

So their torque ratings are more to be trusted than their HP? Why? IF
it WAS actually fraud, it is just as easy to misrepresent torque.
Any of the numbers I've seen, torque vs HP, work out REAL close.

Yes their torque ratings are more to be trusted, but only because their
previous misrepresentation had made their horsepower rating highly
suspect. Since they have been under court order to only put on the label
what an independent SAE tester determines is the power rating briggs has
not revealed the horsepower ratings. So if they came out real close for
you it's because your calculations made them come out real close.



(at 3600 RPM) The only reason it could have been construed as
fraudulent would be if the rated RPM was higher than the operating RPM
- which it has been since 1996 or there-abouts. The 6HP engine was
only 4.5 or 5 because it didn't run at it's rated RPM.


I own a lawnmower that I bought new in 2002. It has the same block,
piston, crank, valves as what used to be called a 3.5 hp. It had a label
on the shroud that said 5.5 hp. According to the lawsuit Briggs also
labeled that same basic engine as a 4hp, 4.5hp, 5hp, and 6hp engine.

Read the court documents. It has nothing to do with RPM. It has nothing
to do with safety or emissions. They simply changed the external
appearance of some engines and labeled them as having more horsepower.
The 3.5 is the only specific engine size that I remember, but there was
a number of different larger engines where they did similar
misrepresentations . And other small engine makers were in on it also.
But it sounds like Briggs was the first and most egregious violator.

They got caught and one of the consequences was they discontinued using
horsepower ratings and now use torque ratings.

On Sat, 14 May 2011 10:44:28 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"CaveLamb" wrote in message
m...
Ed Huntress wrote:
Holy cow. You get this week's "What, Me Worry?" award. g You're in a
class with my cousin (now deceased, but for other reasons). He was in the
First Marine Division in Laos and Vietnam, and he used to tell how he
heated his coffee by burning a wad of C4.

I guess it burns nicely, but I'm not likely ever to find out, first-hand.



Heck, Ed, I've done that.

It burns hot and sparkles a lot.

But it takes a LOT of C4 to heat anything.
It's gone so fast it doesn't have much time to transfer heat.

What I want to know is, who was the first guy to try this? Here in NJ we
have these big myths about the first guy to eat a tomato. But I would think
that the first guy to heat his coffee over flaming C4 deserves a statue
somewhere, doesn't he?

Or a line on his headstone, "Here, hold my beer and watch this..."

The standard way to dispose of old dynamite is to burn it out in the
open, in small quantities. From a distance.

Joe Gwinn

MOVING old dynamite can be an issue...seriously. Particularly if its
leaked......

Gunner

--
"If I say two plus two is four and a Democrat says two plus two is eight,
it's not a partial victory for me when we agree that two plus two is
six. " Jonah Goldberg (modified)

On Sat, 14 May 2011 11:58:45 -0500, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:



wrote:


The horsepower misrepresentation that Briggs
and other small engine makers
engaged in occurred from 1994-2008
the misrepresentations ended when Briggs stopped using hp ratings

So their torque ratings are more to be trusted than their HP? Why? IF
it WAS actually fraud, it is just as easy to misrepresent torque.
Any of the numbers I've seen, torque vs HP, work out REAL close.

Yes their torque ratings are more to be trusted, but only because their
previous misrepresentation had made their horsepower rating highly
suspect. Since they have been under court order to only put on the label
what an independent SAE tester determines is the power rating briggs has
not revealed the horsepower ratings. So if they came out real close for
you it's because your calculations made them come out real close.

No. horsepower and torque are directly related. If they tell you the
torque rating anyone can determine the HP rating, knowing the running
RPM.



(at 3600 RPM) The only reason it could have been construed as
fraudulent would be if the rated RPM was higher than the operating RPM
- which it has been since 1996 or there-abouts. The 6HP engine was
only 4.5 or 5 because it didn't run at it's rated RPM.


I own a lawnmower that I bought new in 2002. It has the same block,
piston, crank, valves as what used to be called a 3.5 hp. It had a label
on the shroud that said 5.5 hp. According to the lawsuit Briggs also
labeled that same basic engine as a 4hp, 4.5hp, 5hp, and 6hp engine.

Well the 3.5 hp engine on my little mower (about 2006) IS DEFINITELY
NOT the same as my neighbour's 4HP, and the 6 at the airport is
totally different again.

Read the court documents. It has nothing to do with RPM. It has nothing
to do with safety or emissions. They simply changed the external
appearance of some engines and labeled them as having more horsepower.
The 3.5 is the only specific engine size that I remember, but there was
a number of different larger engines where they did similar
misrepresentations . And other small engine makers were in on it also.
But it sounds like Briggs was the first and most egregious violator.

They got caught and one of the consequences was they discontinued using
horsepower ratings and now use torque ratings.

Gunner Asch on Sat, 14 May 2011 10:37:33 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

But it takes a LOT of C4 to heat anything.
It's gone so fast it doesn't have much time to transfer heat.

What I want to know is, who was the first guy to try this? Here in NJ we
have these big myths about the first guy to eat a tomato. But I would think
that the first guy to heat his coffee over flaming C4 deserves a statue
somewhere, doesn't he?

Or a line on his headstone, "Here, hold my beer and watch this..."

The standard way to dispose of old dynamite is to burn it out in the
open, in small quantities. From a distance.

Joe Gwinn

MOVING old dynamite can be an issue...seriously. Particularly if its
leaked......

Or frozen.

I remember a movie with that plot line - they needed to blast
something, and the only dynamite they had, had been in a mine shaft
forever, and some had sweated. And the road wasn't paved. The trucks
needed new shocks. And then the rains came. I don't know if the
natives were hostile ... but ...

Gunner
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

On 05/20/2011 04:12 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
Gunner on Sat, 14 May 2011 10:37:33 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
MOVING old dynamite can be an issue...seriously. Particularly if its
leaked......

Or frozen.

I remember a movie with that plot line - they needed to blast
something, and the only dynamite they had, had been in a mine shaft
forever, and some had sweated. And the road wasn't paved. The trucks
needed new shocks. And then the rains came. I don't know if the
natives were hostile ... but ...

The dynamite was needed to blow out the fire on a burning oil well.
Starred Steve McQueen, IIRC.

--
Bob Nichols AT comcast.net I am "RNichols42"

On Fri, 20 May 2011 20:27:32 -0500, Robert Nichols
wrote:

On 05/20/2011 04:12 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
Gunner on Sat, 14 May 2011 10:37:33 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
MOVING old dynamite can be an issue...seriously. Particularly if its
leaked......

Or frozen.

I remember a movie with that plot line - they needed to blast
something, and the only dynamite they had, had been in a mine shaft
forever, and some had sweated. And the road wasn't paved. The trucks
needed new shocks. And then the rains came. I don't know if the
natives were hostile ... but ...

I remember that movie, but the name doesn't come to mind.


The dynamite was needed to blow out the fire on a burning oil well.
Starred Steve McQueen, IIRC.

Y'mean "Hellfighters", starring John Wayne? Great, fun movie.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063060/
The great thing about getting older is that
you don't lose all the other ages you've been.
-- Madeleine L'Engle

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 May 2011 20:27:32 -0500, Robert Nichols
wrote:

On 05/20/2011 04:12 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
Gunner on Sat, 14 May 2011 10:37:33 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
MOVING old dynamite can be an issue...seriously. Particularly if its
leaked......

Or frozen.

I remember a movie with that plot line - they needed to blast
something, and the only dynamite they had, had been in a mine shaft
forever, and some had sweated. And the road wasn't paved. The trucks
needed new shocks. And then the rains came. I don't know if the
natives were hostile ... but ...

I remember that movie, but the name doesn't come to mind.


The dynamite was needed to blow out the fire on a burning oil well.
Starred Steve McQueen, IIRC.

Y'mean "Hellfighters", starring John Wayne? Great, fun movie.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063060/
The great thing about getting older is that
you don't lose all the other ages you've been.
-- Madeleine L'Engle

Steve McQueen wasn't in Hellfighters that was Jim Hutton.

It also wasn't the movie Gunner was talking about.

That movie was either, The Wages of Fear with Yves Mauntand or the
remake,Sorcerer with Roy Scheider.
If it was the remake, then it wasn't sweating dynamite, but unstable
nitroglycerin.

Paul K. Dickman