Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Worlds longest plumb lines.
Here's an interesting site concerning the experiments
done with plumb lines in the Tamarack Mine near Calumet Michigan in 1901. This has been recognized by the Guiness Book of world records just lately. Metal content : this is a copper mine............... Phil Kangas http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 11:03:46 -0500, "Phil Kangas"
wrote: Here's an interesting site concerning the experiments done with plumb lines in the Tamarack Mine near Calumet Michigan in 1901. This has been recognized by the Guiness Book of world records just lately. Metal content : this is a copper mine............... Phil Kangas http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm Fascinating! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
A.P. wrote:
"Phil Kangas" wrote in message ... Here's an interesting site concerning the experiments done with plumb lines in the Tamarack Mine near Calumet Michigan in 1901. This has been recognized by the Guiness Book of world records just lately. Metal content : this is a copper mine............... Phil Kangas http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm I find it strange that the Chef Ingeneer (and owners) allowed a 4000' long pipeline to be supendend only at the top ! ( it should snap !? ) They would make supension at every 30' ! The pipes are made to cary something, maby liquid , that will make the pipe X times heavier ! Not PIPE lines, PLUMB lines. In this case, I suspect they were steel music wire, not string. And, the cause of the anomaly is obvious! The plumb lines were being attracted to the walls of the shaft. There was nothing but air between them, but there were the walls of the shaft on the exterior. They hung the lines quite far apart (12 to 17 Feet), when they could have hung them just a few inches apart. I suspect if they plotted outward deflection against spacing, they'd find a NON-linear relationship, while the gravitational effect SHOULD have been linear (and the other direction, of course.) Jon |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:37:02 -0800, "A.P."
wrote: "Phil Kangas" wrote in message ... Here's an interesting site concerning the experiments done with plumb lines in the Tamarack Mine near Calumet Michigan in 1901. This has been recognized by the Guiness Book of world records just lately. Metal content : this is a copper mine............... Phil Kangas http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm I find it strange that the Chef Ingeneer (and owners) allowed a 4000' long pipeline to be supendend only at the top ! ( it should snap !? ) They would make supension at every 30' ! The pipes are made to cary something, maby liquid , that will make the pipe X times heavier ! ... but sometimes i like to be entertained by ufo's readings + + + A.P. ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Hoping the poster is kidding....) Gunner "At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 13:48:44 -0600, Jon Elson
wrote: And, the cause of the anomaly is obvious! The plumb lines were being attracted to the walls of the shaft. They checked for that IRRC. Gunner "At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Wonder what the lines would have done at the equator? Or hung say North and
South? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Phil Kangas" wrote in message ... Here's an interesting site concerning the experiments done with plumb lines in the Tamarack Mine near Calumet Michigan in 1901. This has been recognized by the Guiness Book of world records just lately. Metal content : this is a copper mine............... Phil Kangas http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm I find it strange that the Chef Ingeneer (and owners) allowed a 4000' long pipeline to be supendend only at the top ! ( it should snap !? ) They would make supension at every 30' ! The pipes are made to cary something, maby liquid , that will make the pipe X times heavier ! .... but sometimes i like to be entertained by ufo's readings + + + A.P. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Gunner wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 13:48:44 -0600, Jon Elson wrote: And, the cause of the anomaly is obvious! The plumb lines were being attracted to the walls of the shaft. They checked for that IRRC. They may have THOUGHT they corrected for it, but it is actually a pretty tough calculation, I believe. If they corrected for ONLY the gravitational effect on the weight, and ignored the wire, that might be enough to do it. Anyway, I'm pretty well convinced that the earth is actually round, and not hollow, therefore the plumb lines SHOULD hang such that the bottom end IS closer together, if such effects as Coriolis and the test being conducted in a giant hole were not screwing things up. With decent measuring gear, this test could probably be conducted in a cargo container (to eliminate drafts), thereby removing the screwy effects of doing it in a hole with massive amounts of earth on all sides. Jon |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"A.P." wrote in message ... "Phil Kangas" wrote in message ... Here's an interesting site concerning the experiments done with plumb lines in the Tamarack Mine near Calumet Michigan in 1901. This has been recognized by the Guiness Book of world records just lately. Metal content : this is a copper mine............... Phil Kangas http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm I find it strange that the Chef Ingeneer (and owners) allowed a 4000' long pipeline to be supendend only at the top ! ( it should snap !? ) They would make supension at every 30' ! The pipes are made to cary something, maby liquid , that will make the pipe X times heavier ! ... but sometimes i like to be entertained by ufo's readings + + + A.P. Ok , ok :-) I managed to make a fool of myself . A plumb line is NOT a line of pipes mounted down the shaft my a plumber, it is 'only' a string whit a weight at the bottom !...... ...... YEAAA i know (now :O) ( I'm from Sweden ) A.P. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:07:00 -0500, "Bob Chilcoat"
wrote: Coriolis force is only seen in objects moving within the rotating frame of reference. These are static relative to the rotating frame of reference, so no coriolis "force". Hey Bob, Maybe I read further in the article or some of the links than seems to be what some here are talking about. The one factor that it stated could account for the difference, was the centrifugal force, which to me is similar to the Coriolis effect. Take care. Brian Lawson, Bothwell, Ontario |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Brian Lawson wrote:
( big snip) centrifugal force, which to me is similar to the Coriolis effect. Take care. Brian Lawson, Bothwell, Ontario Brian, You better go back and take a physics course if you think they are similar. How are you with weight and mass? :-) ...lew... |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Brian Lawson" wrote in message Hey Bob, Maybe I read further in the article or some of the links than seems to be what some here are talking about. The one factor that it stated could account for the difference, was the centrifugal force, which to me is similar to the Coriolis effect. Take care. Brian Lawson, Bothwell, Ontario Problem here, there is no such thing as centrifugal force. Never was, is not now and never will be................ Phil Kangas |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
In article , pkangas@
$portup.com says... "Brian Lawson" wrote in message Hey Bob, Maybe I read further in the article or some of the links than seems to be what some here are talking about. The one factor that it stated could account for the difference, was the centrifugal force, which to me is similar to the Coriolis effect. Take care. Brian Lawson, Bothwell, Ontario Problem here, there is no such thing as centrifugal force. Never was, is not now and never will be................ Where did this ever start? Every mechanics book and ME handbook on my bookshelf that I checked gives a definition and formula for centrifugal force. Resnick & Halliday Marks Beer & Johnston Mabie & Reinholtz Eshbach Kent Machinery's Handbook Resnick & Halliday refers to centrifugal force as a "pseudo-force", by which they mean it's a force due to inertial effects, not that it doesn't exist. I wonder if this is the source of the confusion? Ned Simmons |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Ned Simmons" wrote in message "Brian Lawson" wrote in message Hey Bob, Maybe I read further in the article or some of the links than seems to be what some here are talking about. The one factor that it stated could account for the difference, was the centrifugal force, which to me is similar to the Coriolis effect. Take care. Brian Lawson, Bothwell, Ontario Problem here, there is no such thing as centrifugal force. Never was, is not now and never will be................ Where did this ever start? Every mechanics book and ME handbook on my bookshelf that I checked gives a definition and formula for centrifugal force. Resnick & Halliday Marks Beer & Johnston Mabie & Reinholtz Eshbach Kent Machinery's Handbook Resnick & Halliday refers to centrifugal force as a "pseudo-force", by which they mean it's a force due to inertial effects, not that it doesn't exist. I wonder if this is the source of the confusion? Ned Simmons No that's not the source of the 'confusion'. This is one of my pet peeves and every time I find another "reputable" reference book this is the first thing I look for in the index. They all have it wrong no matter how many times they repeat it. Try discussing this in any college physics class and see how far you get. Most people just blindly believe what they are told as the subject is too difficult to comprehend and contrary to what they experience when subjected to "cf'. Back in 1966 at Mich Tech in Houghton our instructor asked on the first day of class how many of us believed in cf. He then proceeded to explain centripetal force and stated that anyone referring to cf again in his class would receive a failing grade for not grasping the subject matter at hand. So don't look for an explanation of cf in those books, study the subject of physics yourself. I have several college level physics books in my library and none of them list centrifugal force in their indexes. Phil Kangas |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Hey Phil,
Ok then, what do you prefer to call the apparent force exerted when a weight is swung around in a circle? Just semantics for you? I've always thought centripetal or centrifugal force seemed right, but I'm not too old to learn a new word. And it will only be a word, because I already know that force is there. Take care. Brian Lawson, Bothwell, Ontario. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:08:38 -0500, "Phil Kangas" wrote: "Brian Lawson" wrote in message Hey Bob, Maybe I read further in the article or some of the links than seems to be what some here are talking about. The one factor that it stated could account for the difference, was the centrifugal force, which to me is similar to the Coriolis effect. Take care. Brian Lawson, Bothwell, Ontario Problem here, there is no such thing as centrifugal force. Never was, is not now and never will be................ Phil Kangas |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Here is a good read :
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...rc.html#rotcon Bottom of the page is a locus or balloon tree - right side - select and hyperlink to the two - read and look at what it says. Just the facts. Martin Phil Kangas wrote: "Ned Simmons" wrote in message "Brian Lawson" wrote in message Hey Bob, Maybe I read further in the article or some of the links than seems to be what some here are talking about. The one factor that it stated could account for the difference, was the centrifugal force, which to me is similar to the Coriolis effect. Take care. Brian Lawson, Bothwell, Ontario Problem here, there is no such thing as centrifugal force. Never was, is not now and never will be................ Where did this ever start? Every mechanics book and ME handbook on my bookshelf that I checked gives a definition and formula for centrifugal force. Resnick & Halliday Marks Beer & Johnston Mabie & Reinholtz Eshbach Kent Machinery's Handbook Resnick & Halliday refers to centrifugal force as a "pseudo-force", by which they mean it's a force due to inertial effects, not that it doesn't exist. I wonder if this is the source of the confusion? Ned Simmons No that's not the source of the 'confusion'. This is one of my pet peeves and every time I find another "reputable" reference book this is the first thing I look for in the index. They all have it wrong no matter how many times they repeat it. Try discussing this in any college physics class and see how far you get. Most people just blindly believe what they are told as the subject is too difficult to comprehend and contrary to what they experience when subjected to "cf'. Back in 1966 at Mich Tech in Houghton our instructor asked on the first day of class how many of us believed in cf. He then proceeded to explain centripetal force and stated that anyone referring to cf again in his class would receive a failing grade for not grasping the subject matter at hand. So don't look for an explanation of cf in those books, study the subject of physics yourself. I have several college level physics books in my library and none of them list centrifugal force in their indexes. Phil Kangas -- Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn @ home at Lion's Lair with our computer NRA LOH, NRA Life NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 00:32:18 -0500, "Phil Kangas"
wrote: So don't look for an explanation of cf in those books, study the subject of physics yourself. I have several college level physics books in my library and none of them list centrifugal force in their indexes. Phil Kangas How come labs dont have centripuges? Gunner G "At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message Here is a good read : http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...rc.html#rotcon Bottom of the page is a locus or balloon tree - right side - select and hyperlink to the two - read and look at what it says. Just the facts. Martin From that site: From the reference frame of a person in the car, there seems to be an outward centrifugal force That's it, cf is a definition put forth by the human mind desiring to live in logical harmony with its environment. On this web site cf is enclosed in " " . Thanks. Phil |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Phil Kangas wrote:
Try discussing this in any college physics class and see how far you get. Most people just blindly believe what they are told as the subject is too difficult to comprehend and contrary to what they experience when subjected to "cf'. A-Men Phil. I was about to ask "how many of these people using the term cf ever took a physics course? " :-) ...lew... |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Hey Martin,
Thanks for that site. Excellent for a simple type like me. I bet I could spend a week there just browsing! Take care. Brian Lawson, Bothwell, Ontario. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:51:25 GMT, "Martin H. Eastburn" wrote: Here is a good read : http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...rc.html#rotcon Bottom of the page is a locus or balloon tree - right side - select and hyperlink to the two - read and look at what it says. Just the facts. Martin |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 09:15:41 -0500, "Phil Kangas"
vaguely proposed a theory .......and in reply I say!: remove ns from my header address to reply via email Sort of like RMS power. Everybody knows what it means. It helps 99.99% of the people who feel the force to deal with it in a way that feels logical, and relatively simple and lets them go about their lives without doing a Physics course so that they can be inculcated in the "correct" terminology. The other .1% get worked up about the fact that every book they read mentins it. hmmm That's it, cf is a definition put forth by the human mind desiring to live in logical harmony with its environment. On this web site cf is enclosed in " " . Thanks. Phil |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 09:15:41 -0500, "Phil Kangas"
vaguely proposed a theory .......and in reply I say!: remove ns from my header address to reply via email Also from that site. They mention the Coriolis Force. From my ancient and simple memory, this is not a force at all, but the effect of rotation of the mother body causeing the moving minor object to _appear_ to curve. What force is involved in that? As with Centrifugal Force, by your argument, it does not exist. Coriolis Effect I can live with. BTW, what _is_ the force that a body on the end of a piece of string, being swung around, exerts on the string? It does not matter that "all that body wants to do is travel in a straight line. For every action there is an equal and opposite reacion. So what is the name of the force that opposes centripital force? From that site: From the reference frame of a person in the car, there seems to be an outward centrifugal force That's it, cf is a definition put forth by the human mind desiring to live in logical harmony with its environment. On this web site cf is enclosed in " " . Thanks. Phil |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Ned Simmons" What is it about the concept of centrifugal force that peeves you so, Phil? How do you feel about the "g-forces" one experiences as a result of linear acceleration? Ned Simmons What peeves me is the stubborn presentation of cf as fact in reference books when in reality it does not exist. I can accept 'g-forces' in linear acceleration, no problem there. The g-force in rotation is centripetal acceleration, similar to g-force in linear acceleration. A weight swung in a circle by a string is experiencing centripetal force. Phil |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:44:01 -0600, "Tim Williams"
vaguely proposed a theory .......and in reply I say!: remove ns from my header address to reply via email "Old Nick" wrote in message .. . It does not matter that "all that body wants to do is travel in a straight line. For every action there is an equal and opposite reacion. So what is the name of the force that opposes centripital force? Oh, but it does. The weight need not move relative to the string, that is, change its radial position (mind the difference between angular and orthogonal perspectives!!), for there to always be a constant force on the weight, transferred through the string, to the axis. ?????? Anyway. There is also a force acting on the axis. What is that force called? As for centrifugal force, this is an imagined force and is a person's perspective of what is, in reality, their applying the very centrifical force which is accelerating them in the curve. When you go around a curve, you have to push into the car door -- this push (along with shear force on the seat, etc.) keeps you in the same relative position inside the car as the car makes the turn. You winding me up? I hope so. You are using a term that should not exist in order to explain why a word that does exist is not a force? http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-cen1.htm Those versed in Newtonian mechanics will of course say at once that centrifugal force doesn’t actually exist, but is a virtual force based on our subjective sensory experiences — it’s really inertia trying to keep a body moving in a straight line. But leaving the physics aside, the term centrifugal certainly exists. But until you mentioned it, I’d not to my knowledge ever come across centrifical and would at once have marked it as the error it is. But it’s surprisingly common. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:34:41 -0500, Ned Simmons
vaguely proposed a theory .......and in reply I say!: remove ns from my header address to reply via email All this leads me to believe this would make a good subject for a term paper--in a philosophy or religion class. g Hehe! Lervit. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 22:55:49 -0500, "Phil Kangas"
vaguely proposed a theory .......and in reply I say!: remove ns from my header address to reply via email A weight swung in a circle by a string is experiencing centripetal force. Phil And what holds the string straight? |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Old Nick" wrote in message remove ns from my header address to reply via email A weight swung in a circle by a string is experiencing centripetal force. Phil And what holds the string straight? Nick, you need to _read_ what it says on this site. Click on the cf balloon and study it. Interesting stuff......... http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...rc.html#rotcon Phil |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 22:55:49 -0500, the inscrutable "Phil Kangas"
spake: What peeves me is the stubborn presentation of cf as fact in reference books when in reality it does not exist. I can accept 'g-forces' in linear acceleration, no problem there. The g-force in rotation is centripetal acceleration, similar to g-force in linear acceleration. A weight swung in a circle by a string is experiencing centripetal force. Semantics of pull vs. push? OK. (6 of one, half dozen of the other.) My dad took physics at Berkeley circa 1939 and taught me about centrifugal forces. I hadn't even heard of centripetal force until I saw it here a year or two ago, forcing me to Google it. In any case, I'll think "centripetal" instead of "centrifugal" the next time I build a hand sling or treb, Phil. Also OT, tomorrow is "Not One Damn Dime Day" Join the group who isn't buying anything on Anti-Inauguration Day, January 20, 2005. Don't buy gas, food, groceries, or anything for those 24 hours. Leave your wallet and cash at home. -- I speak 2 languages fluently: English and foul. --------------------------- http://diversify.com Mostly cuss-free Websites |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Ned Simmons wrote:
I did take at least 3 semesters of classical physics and engineering mechanics in the early 70s and all my texts and all the engineering references on my bookshelf that deal with the subject mention centrifugal force, most with some mention of the frame of reference issue. Perhaps this is a consequence of a bias towards engineering references, but then I haven't been culling books based on the presence of the word centrifugal in the index. Ned Simmons Ned I took my physics classes in the 50s and no centrifugal force. So I wonder if it all started with the "education" that included "New Math" ? Wasent that about that time. ? ...lew... |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:06:20 -0500, "Phil Kangas"
vaguely proposed a theory .......and in reply I say!: remove ns from my header address to reply via email Sorry. I will read. But given that we are talking about Centripital Force (cf) Centrifugal Force (cf) and Coriolis Force (cf) can we stop with the initial? G Seriously though, it is one case where it might be an idea. No.. Sorry. I had read it already. How does it remove centrifugal force? It actually describes it as a "useful concept" To me centripital force is the force that stops me moving. I in turn exert a force on the thing that stops me moving. _What's that force_? "Old Nick" wrote in message remove ns from my header address to reply via email A weight swung in a circle by a string is experiencing centripetal force. Phil And what holds the string straight? Nick, you need to _read_ what it says on this site. Click on the cf balloon and study it. Interesting stuff......... http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...rc.html#rotcon Phil |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Brian Lawson wrote:
Hey Martin, Thanks for that site. Excellent for a simple type like me. I bet I could spend a week there just browsing! Take care. Brian Lawson, Bothwell, Ontario. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:51:25 GMT, "Martin H. Eastburn" wrote: Here is a good read : http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...rc.html#rotcon Bottom of the page is a locus or balloon tree - right side - select and hyperlink to the two - read and look at what it says. Just the facts. Martin It is a fantastic site - Math, Physics, Geo, Chem.... I bought the CD myself - nice to have a local copy on my disk. The whole thing is $30 USD IIRC through paypal. The more I look at it, the more there is! - Pictures of Minerals... Martin -- Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn @ home at Lion's Lair with our computer NRA LOH, NRA Life NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Martin H. Eastburn wrote:
Brian Lawson wrote: Hey Martin, Thanks for that site. Excellent for a simple type like me. I bet I could spend a week there just browsing! Take care. Brian Lawson, Bothwell, Ontario. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:51:25 GMT, "Martin H. Eastburn" wrote: Here is a good read : http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...rc.html#rotcon Bottom of the page is a locus or balloon tree - right side - select and hyperlink to the two - read and look at what it says. Just the facts. Martin It is a fantastic site - Math, Physics, Geo, Chem.... I bought the CD myself - nice to have a local copy on my disk. The whole thing is $30 USD IIRC through paypal. The more I look at it, the more there is! - Pictures of Minerals... Martin That is $50 USD for the CD. Martin -- Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn @ home at Lion's Lair with our computer NRA LOH, NRA Life NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Ned Simmons wrote:
Were your courses taken in a physics or an engineering department? It'd be interesting to see whether the the antis/pros tend to divide along physics/engineering lines. The materials I looked at make me think this would be the case. In general, physics references limited the definition of force to the basic forces of nature (nuclear, electromagnetic, gravitational), while engineering references based the definition on F=ma. So to find a difference in the perception of centrifugal force between engineers and physicists would not be surprising. Ned Simmons They were at Penn State in the Physics dept. I still have my text, I think. I'll look it up if I do and supply the pertinent info. I wanted Electronic engineering but the EE school was loaded with power transmission and generation courses so I opted for physics major with applicable EE courses. :-) ...lew... |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Phil Kangas wrote:
"Ned Simmons" What is it about the concept of centrifugal force that peeves you so, Phil? How do you feel about the "g-forces" one experiences as a result of linear acceleration? Ned Simmons What peeves me is the stubborn presentation of cf as fact in reference books when in reality it does not exist. I can accept 'g-forces' in linear acceleration, no problem there. The g-force in rotation is centripetal acceleration, similar to g-force in linear acceleration. A weight swung in a circle by a string is experiencing centripetal force. Phil Yeah, the force restraining it from flying it away. Tom |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 10:04:41 +0800, Old Nick
vaguely proposed a theory .......and in reply I say!: remove ns from my header address to reply via email On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:06:20 -0500, "Phil Kangas" vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!: remove ns from my header address to reply via email ummm...centripetal....sorry. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Old Nick wrote in message ...
ummm...centripetal....sorry. Take a nice slow breath, Nick, it's over now, you'll be Ok, this too shall pass.....cheers! ;) Phil |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
How to Extend 5 Phone Lines by 15-ft? | Home Repair | |||
Built my first board, here are details | Woodworking | |||
Problem with retrace lines on EIZO F55S... | Electronics Repair | |||
Water lines & meter: Why don't they freeze?? | Home Ownership | |||
Mits VS60601, lines | Electronics Repair |