On 2/14/2012 8:05 AM, Han wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

Maybe you had that happen again but IIRC you had no such covers when we
saw it happen at the end of the day.

Hey guys, it's Valentine's day, and I love you bothgrin!


And please accept my apologies for that Bull **** response. I was not
thinking. Seriously I know and agree with what you said about
condensation. But I instantly recalled that odd incident in Swingman's
garage and that prompted my jerk knee response.

"Leon" wrote

But I instantly recalled that odd incident in Swingman's garage and that
prompted my jerk knee response.

"odd incident"??

Perhaps an argument could be made that Swingman's garage exists in an
alternate universe and the normal laws of physics don't apply there. ;-)
It would explain some things that go on there.

On 2/14/2012 7:34 AM, Leon wrote:
On 2/14/2012 7:28 AM, Swingman wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

Do you remember the day you and I were working in your garage and a cold
front blew in at the end of the day. You Iron had condensation all over
it before we quit. We had to dry it off and you ended having lite rust.

Yep, I remember the incident, well. LOL. It was at Ruskin, and I remember
the cause was opening the shop door, when it had been cooler the day
before, onto a foggy, relatively warmer morning. I also remember being
****ed because I had not covered the tools the night before with those
special covers that I have for that exact situation, a weather report
that
calls for much warmer, foggy conditions the next morning.


That all happened at the end of the day, you and I had been working
together. You stayed late to finish drying and protecting the surfaces.
And IIRC you bought the covers after that when I pointed to the HTC
clearance sale.

OK ... you certainly got me scratching my head.

I distinctly remember having two, weather related, shop rust incidents
of that nature, one indeed at the Ruskin location... both, in my memory,
being _immediately upon_ "opening the overhead door".

You sure it was Ruskin ... we moved the equipment there in late Oct/2008?

AAMOF, that combination, to this day, always making me reluctant to open
the overhead door without checking/being aware of a temperature
differential, especially after the first time it happened after my 24/7
wall mounted fan went out at Oberlin, which moved enough air for it to
not normally be an issue.

I simply do not recall a "cold front" ever being the cause, but hey, it
wouldn't be the first time I wore shorts and t-shirt in 30 degree
weather without noticing the cold.

... but that STILL doesn't explain why, drumroll:

The _science_ is on _my_ side!

g,d &r

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 2/14/2012 9:23 AM, Lee Michaels wrote:


"Leon" wrote

But I instantly recalled that odd incident in Swingman's garage and
that prompted my jerk knee response.

"odd incident"??

Perhaps an argument could be made that Swingman's garage exists in an
alternate universe and the normal laws of physics don't apply there. ;-)
It would explain some things that go on there.

According to our wives, that's already a given ... in that we think so
much alike that discussing who came up with which idea to do something,
when, and in which order, and one way or another, is a fify fifty tossup.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Swingman wrote in
:

The _science_ is on _my_ side!

That's a given. Whether "you" are on the side of science is the question.
For some of the set of "you" that is doubtful. Karl is at least one who is
on the side of science.

But then, my son-in-law, the high school math teacher has a T-shirt that
says:
Sarcasm
Just another service we offer.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
Swingman wrote in
:

The _science_ is on _my_ side!

That's a given. Whether "you" are on the side of science is the
question. For some of the set of "you" that is doubtful. Karl is at
least one who is on the side of science.


So... since "science" has its own levels of dispute, just what does it mean
to be "on the side of science"? I would submit that this phrase comes from
people who are not really all that scientific in their approach, but rather
like the idea that someone else is in agreement with them. With all of the
dispute in the comunity of "peer review" (and in fact - the whole concept of
peer review), would someone please explain to me how "scientific" has any
real meaning at all? The greatest minds of our scientific community world
wide, have widely differing beliefs on things, so how can a woodworkers
newsgroup even pretend to use the word "scientific" in regards to any
discussion in this forum? To take a phrase from m II - Bull****.


--

-Mike-

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:46:02 -0600, Swingman wrote:

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 2/14/2012 6:54 AM, Han wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 2/13/2012 7:50 AM, Leon wrote:
On 2/13/2012 7:12 AM, Han wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

That cool air hitting the warm iron results in almost instant
condensation on the iron.

Generally, warm and moist air hitting a cool surface is what cuases
condensation on the cool object. Cool air hitting a warm surface
does NOT give condensation.


Bull ****!

Sorry Han, To explain my response, and where I have witnessed your
second statement being not true "all of the time" is in Swingman's
shop.

I understand how the condensation principal works.

BUT a few years ago Swingman and I were working in his shop, it had
been quite warm. We had a cold front blow in suddenly at the end of
the day and the temperature dropped quickly. "Heavy" Condensation
formed on the iron machine surfaces with in minutes, something we do
not often see.

Why? I have no idea.

Did you have the windows open, it got cold (and the iron cooled down),
then you shut the windows and opened the doors to the rest of the humid,
warm house?


No windows, detached uninsulated garage, just a 16' garage door that had
been open all day and a rear side door that was open for the 3' fan to
create a breeze through the shop. At the end of the day the front blew
in and almost immediately, 10 minutes, "puddles" ow water formed on the
cast iron surfaces. I started wiping the water off of the first casulty,
;~) before Swingman noticed what was happening, he was still finishing up
with something on the TS. We both had to stop what we were doing to wipe the surfaces off.

Now the iron might have gotten cold but this all happened in a matter of
a few minutes and the the whole shop cooled down before closing the doors.

It all was a bit freaky, I had never seen condensation form that quickly
in such a great quantity.

Wow. All I can say is this must be another example of why eyewitness
testimony is often considered suspect ... two totally different
recollections.

Why a one-time happening would become his rule is another oddity.

--
Fear not those who argue but those who dodge.
-- Marie Ebner von Eschenbach

On 2/14/2012 11:44 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Han wrote:


That's a given. Whether "you" are on the side of science is the
question. For some of the set of "you" that is doubtful. Karl is at
least one who is on the side of science.


So... since "science" has its own levels of dispute, just what does it mean
to be "on the side of science"? I would submit that this phrase comes from
people who are not really all that scientific in their approach, but rather
like the idea that someone else is in agreement with them. With all of the
dispute in the comunity of "peer review" (and in fact - the whole concept of
peer review), would someone please explain to me how "scientific" has any
real meaning at all? The greatest minds of our scientific community world
wide, have widely differing beliefs on things, so how can a woodworkers
newsgroup even pretend to use the word "scientific" in regards to any
discussion in this forum? To take a phrase from m II - Bull****.

Easy ... unlike "climate change", the various "States of Matter" (which
were indeed under discussion in this very newsgroup, by woodworkers,
woodworkers with science degrees, among other things, and contrary to
your last word above, the "S" in BS in this case stands for "science"
g) are well understood and pretty universally "accepted science" for
the past few hundred years... at least, so far.

Certainly good enough to cook your dinner, steam your clams, freeze your
food, make your AC work, and put a man on the moon, among other things.

I'll take that degree of "scientific" acceptance any day ...

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Swingman wrote:


Easy ... unlike "climate change", the various "States of Matter"
(which were indeed under discussion in this very newsgroup, by
woodworkers, woodworkers with science degrees, among other things,

Agreed - except that my point was that among the most elite of the
scientific minds within any discipline, there is disagreement. So - here's
these greatest of minds, with the fullness of their educations, and they
somehow do no agree on theories, and ideas. How then can a group of
woodworkers that even with their professional background (which are
generally not in that elite realm), expect to define "scientific" in any
better way? When the best of the best use "scientific" processes to defend
their positions, and find themselves in disagreement, how can this forum
hope to achieve any better? And then someone comes up with the phrase that
this is "scientific" - BS. On which side of the argument? Both sides use
science to defend their position.

and contrary to your last word above, the "S" in BS in this case
stands for "science" g) are well understood and pretty universally
"accepted science" for the past few hundred years... at least, so far.

Science is by no means understood universally. If it were, there would not
be contradictory theories within the real of scientific study. The
scientific community is in no way in complete accord. Methinks we throw
this word "scientific" around way too loosely. We tend to use it in attempt
to defend our own position with no regard to how much discord there is
within the true world of scientific discourse.


Certainly good enough to cook your dinner, steam your clams, freeze
your food, make your AC work, and put a man on the moon, among other
things.

Well - we never disagreed on the value of science. I'm only challenging the
use of the term "scientific" as thrown about here.


I'll take that degree of "scientific" acceptance any day ...

Me too - but that was not my point.

--

-Mike-

On 2/14/2012 12:48 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:

Well - we never disagreed on the value of science. I'm only challenging the
use of the term "scientific" as thrown about here.

I can only speak to the extent of my participation in this thread, but
I'll certainly try to see your point ...

But first point me to where the term "scientific", and/or an attempt at
a definition, was "thrown about" in this thread before you brought the
term up?

Thanks ...

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Swingman wrote:


Easy ... unlike "climate change", the various "States of Matter"
(which were indeed under discussion in this very newsgroup, by
woodworkers, woodworkers with science degrees, among other things,

Agreed - except that my point was that among the most elite of the
scientific minds within any discipline, there is disagreement. So -
here's these greatest of minds, with the fullness of their educations,
and they somehow do no agree on theories, and ideas. How then can a
group of woodworkers that even with their professional background
(which are generally not in that elite realm), expect to define
"scientific" in any better way? When the best of the best use
"scientific" processes to defend their positions, and find themselves
in disagreement, how can this forum hope to achieve any better? And
then someone comes up with the phrase that this is "scientific" - BS.
On which side of the argument? Both sides use science to defend their
position.

and contrary to your last word above, the "S" in BS in this case
stands for "science" g) are well understood and pretty universally
"accepted science" for the past few hundred years... at least, so
far.

Science is by no means understood universally. If it were, there
would not be contradictory theories within the real of scientific
study. The scientific community is in no way in complete accord.
Methinks we throw this word "scientific" around way too loosely. We
tend to use it in attempt to defend our own position with no regard to
how much discord there is within the true world of scientific
discourse.


Certainly good enough to cook your dinner, steam your clams, freeze
your food, make your AC work, and put a man on the moon, among other
things.

Well - we never disagreed on the value of science. I'm only
challenging the use of the term "scientific" as thrown about here.


I'll take that degree of "scientific" acceptance any day ...

Me too - but that was not my point.

I got a PhD in 1976 in biochemistry, from the University of Utrecht with
Professor Laurens L.M. van Deenen. You can google him, he's dead now.
That's by way of saying it wasn't from a matchbook cover diploma mill. I
have also been co-author of many good scientific articles, of which I am
proud. Look up M.J. Broekman in PubMed.

But you're right, there is a lot of disagreement about scientific
theories. That's a good thing. It means that people are disagreeing
about ways to explain observed facts (If they are indeed facts). The
only way to explain these things is to posit a theory to explain why it
happens so (e.g., the sky is blue, for instance, not such an easy thing
to explain). Then others may disagree and put forth their own theories.
And in my field of work, which involved lipids, aspirin, platelets and
other blood related things, there was plenty of disagreement and
sometimes the words used (even in public) were barely polite (sometimes
appropriately so!!). In the end, which sometimes comes after the
proponent of a theory had passed, the whole process was good, and flaws
in reasoning, or the excellence of the reasoning was born out by clever
experiments. And sometimes, a personal preference (or prejudice for a
certain theory) was proven to be wrong, or right.

The scientific process goes like this example: People observe that
cholesterol is bad (you may have heard about this in one form or
another). People deduce how the (human) body generates cholesterol.
Konrad Bloch was one of the main characters involved and his story is
interesting in itself. I've heard him speak, and I can attest that at
least in public he was a most gentle and eloquent person. Cholesterol
biosynthesis starts from acetate (the anion of acetic acid, a crucial
molecule in metabolism), and in just a few steps this is made into a 5-
carbon molecule that is central to the whole thing. The next step is
catalyzed by an enzyme called HMGCoA reductase, yielding mevalonic acid.
From there it is an ingenious multistep synthesis of 5-carbon building
blocks that makes finally lanosterol and cholesterol. Sooo, ingenious
people thought that perhaps excessive cholesterol could be prevented if
they were able to slow formation of that building block mevalonic acid.
And from that HYPOTHESIS they made the HMGCoA reductase inhibitors called
STATINS, including "lipitor" and its friends. And lo and behold, statins
were cholesterol-lowering and (most importantly) lowered risks of heart
disease. Theory proven? Maybe, maybe not completely, because in
http://themedicalbiochemistrypage.org/cholesterol.html you can see that
other things come from the intermediates in the long pathway. It turns
out that farnesyl- and geranyl-modified proteins are playing a role in
inflammation, and part of the effects of lipitor et al is now generally
considered due to that. So theories are important, and you can disagree
with the reasoning, but scientific discourse and experimentation will
show different degrees of "truth".

Peer review is in theory very good and if properly supervised and
honestly performed it should be the very best way to judge whether an
unpublished piece of work is worthy of publication in a highly regarded
journal. If I have written a publication, my peers who are experts inthe
same field should be the best jury to judge my work. However, since we
deal with humans, the editors of that highly regarded journal who assign
the job of review to a supposedly disinterested expert can make errors
and assign a nincompoop the job. And, of course, if I know that Dr.
Jones is after the same things I have just labored years to unravel, I
can ask the editor to NOT let Dr. Jones see my work, especially if I do
not totally trust him. And the reverse: Editors almost always also ask
to suggest expert reviewers, so I will more readily propose my friends
than my enemies to review my work! Lastly, I have heard horror stories
of investigators who were really good researchers (we thought) who made
their postdocs repeat experiments over and over until they got it
"right", i.e. give the answer the researcher wanted. I can give names
etc but I won't (guess why?). Therefore, the "facts" underlying the
theory and observation are sometimes not right. But mostly, the disgrace
that you risk in publishing falsehoods prevents them.

So yes, peer review has its problems, the most important one being that
it hardly pays to try to publish work that says that the publication by
so and so is wrong - negative data don't help a young investigator. Most
bad research gets flushed pretty fast, such as the work that proposed the
DNA could be based on arsenic rather than phosphorus or that
"identified" a virus as the cause of chronic fatigue syndrome. These may
be more examples of somewhat "sloppy" work, than outright fraud.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 2/14/2012 9:57 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 2/14/2012 7:34 AM, Leon wrote:
On 2/14/2012 7:28 AM, Swingman wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

Do you remember the day you and I were working in your garage and a
cold
front blew in at the end of the day. You Iron had condensation all over
it before we quit. We had to dry it off and you ended having lite rust.

Yep, I remember the incident, well. LOL. It was at Ruskin, and I
remember
the cause was opening the shop door, when it had been cooler the day
before, onto a foggy, relatively warmer morning. I also remember being
****ed because I had not covered the tools the night before with those
special covers that I have for that exact situation, a weather report
that
calls for much warmer, foggy conditions the next morning.


That all happened at the end of the day, you and I had been working
together. You stayed late to finish drying and protecting the surfaces.
And IIRC you bought the covers after that when I pointed to the HTC
clearance sale.

OK ... you certainly got me scratching my head.

I distinctly remember having two, weather related, shop rust incidents
of that nature, one indeed at the Ruskin location... both, in my memory,
being _immediately upon_ "opening the overhead door".

You sure it was Ruskin ... we moved the equipment there in late Oct/2008?

Yes, It was Ruskin. ;~) I recall seeing all of that on water on the BS
on the right hand side of the garage as I was walking out.

AAMOF, that combination, to this day, always making me reluctant to open
the overhead door without checking/being aware of a temperature
differential, especially after the first time it happened after my 24/7
wall mounted fan went out at Oberlin, which moved enough air for it to
not normally be an issue.

I simply do not recall a "cold front" ever being the cause, but hey, it
wouldn't be the first time I wore shorts and t-shirt in 30 degree
weather without noticing the cold.

It had been warm and humid all day...till we were wrapping up and the
front blew in.

IIRC I found the HTC covers and the great chop saw stand that you bought
after I saw that issue. ;~)




... but that STILL doesn't explain why, drumroll:

The _science_ is on _my_ side!

g,d &r


I know it does not make any sense.

On 2/14/2012 12:17 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 2/14/2012 11:44 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Han wrote:


That's a given. Whether "you" are on the side of science is the
question. For some of the set of "you" that is doubtful. Karl is at
least one who is on the side of science.


So... since "science" has its own levels of dispute, just what does it
mean
to be "on the side of science"? I would submit that this phrase comes
from
people who are not really all that scientific in their approach, but
rather
like the idea that someone else is in agreement with them. With all of
the
dispute in the comunity of "peer review" (and in fact - the whole
concept of
peer review), would someone please explain to me how "scientific" has any
real meaning at all? The greatest minds of our scientific community world
wide, have widely differing beliefs on things, so how can a woodworkers
newsgroup even pretend to use the word "scientific" in regards to any
discussion in this forum? To take a phrase from m II - Bull****.

Easy ... unlike "climate change", the various "States of Matter" (which
were indeed under discussion in this very newsgroup, by woodworkers,
woodworkers with science degrees, among other things, and contrary to
your last word above, the "S" in BS in this case stands for "science"
g) are well understood and pretty universally "accepted science" for
the past few hundred years... at least, so far.

Certainly good enough to cook your dinner, steam your clams, freeze your
food, make your AC work, and put a man on the moon, among other things.

I'll take that degree of "scientific" acceptance any day ...



That't it! Thai's what caused the cold front to cause condensation on
the tools! GLOBAL WARMING!

My nephew's wife swears that Globel Warming is causing global cooling.
Yup that right you heard that for the first time right here. LOL

It's Butches fault.

On 2/14/2012 3:23 PM, Han wrote:
"Mike wrote in
:

Swingman wrote:


Easy ... unlike "climate change", the various "States of Matter"
(which were indeed under discussion in this very newsgroup, by
woodworkers, woodworkers with science degrees, among other things,

Agreed - except that my point was that among the most elite of the
scientific minds within any discipline, there is disagreement. So -
here's these greatest of minds, with the fullness of their educations,
and they somehow do no agree on theories, and ideas. How then can a
group of woodworkers that even with their professional background
(which are generally not in that elite realm), expect to define
"scientific" in any better way? When the best of the best use
"scientific" processes to defend their positions, and find themselves
in disagreement, how can this forum hope to achieve any better? And
then someone comes up with the phrase that this is "scientific" - BS.
On which side of the argument? Both sides use science to defend their
position.

and contrary to your last word above, the "S" in BS in this case
stands for "science"g) are well understood and pretty universally
"accepted science" for the past few hundred years... at least, so
far.

Science is by no means understood universally. If it were, there
would not be contradictory theories within the real of scientific
study. The scientific community is in no way in complete accord.
Methinks we throw this word "scientific" around way too loosely. We
tend to use it in attempt to defend our own position with no regard to
how much discord there is within the true world of scientific
discourse.


Certainly good enough to cook your dinner, steam your clams, freeze
your food, make your AC work, and put a man on the moon, among other
things.

Well - we never disagreed on the value of science. I'm only
challenging the use of the term "scientific" as thrown about here.


I'll take that degree of "scientific" acceptance any day ...

Me too - but that was not my point.

I got a PhD in 1976 in biochemistry, from the University of Utrecht with
Professor Laurens L.M. van Deenen. You can google him, he's dead now.
That's by way of saying it wasn't from a matchbook cover diploma mill. I
have also been co-author of many good scientific articles, of which I am
proud. Look up M.J. Broekman in PubMed.

So with all that knowledge, please explain what happened in Swingman's
garage that afternoon. ;~)

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 2/14/2012 3:23 PM, Han wrote:
"Mike wrote in
:

Swingman wrote:


Easy ... unlike "climate change", the various "States of Matter"
(which were indeed under discussion in this very newsgroup, by
woodworkers, woodworkers with science degrees, among other things,

Agreed - except that my point was that among the most elite of the
scientific minds within any discipline, there is disagreement. So -
here's these greatest of minds, with the fullness of their
educations, and they somehow do no agree on theories, and ideas.
How then can a group of woodworkers that even with their
professional background (which are generally not in that elite
realm), expect to define "scientific" in any better way? When the
best of the best use "scientific" processes to defend their
positions, and find themselves in disagreement, how can this forum
hope to achieve any better? And then someone comes up with the
phrase that this is "scientific" - BS. On which side of the
argument? Both sides use science to defend their position.

and contrary to your last word above, the "S" in BS in this case
stands for "science"g) are well understood and pretty universally
"accepted science" for the past few hundred years... at least, so
far.

Science is by no means understood universally. If it were, there
would not be contradictory theories within the real of scientific
study. The scientific community is in no way in complete accord.
Methinks we throw this word "scientific" around way too loosely. We
tend to use it in attempt to defend our own position with no regard
to how much discord there is within the true world of scientific
discourse.


Certainly good enough to cook your dinner, steam your clams, freeze
your food, make your AC work, and put a man on the moon, among
other things.

Well - we never disagreed on the value of science. I'm only
challenging the use of the term "scientific" as thrown about here.


I'll take that degree of "scientific" acceptance any day ...

Me too - but that was not my point.

I got a PhD in 1976 in biochemistry, from the University of Utrecht
with Professor Laurens L.M. van Deenen. You can google him, he's
dead now. That's by way of saying it wasn't from a matchbook cover
diploma mill. I have also been co-author of many good scientific
articles, of which I am proud. Look up M.J. Broekman in PubMed.

So with all that knowledge, please explain what happened in Swingman's
garage that afternoon. ;~)

I thought about that a LONGGG time. And this is my hypothesis: It had
been a hot, Houston and sweaty type of day. You had the doors open and
the front came through. It got cold(er) and you, Leon, closed the doors,
but both you and Karl were so sweaty that you instantly caused the
ambient (absolute) humidity to increase beyond the dewpoint at the
"iron" as you called it. Of course the effects of beverages consumed is
unknown to me ...

grin.

As soon as you both get to Fair Lawn, I'll treat you to a few in the
Dutch House http://www.dutchhousetavern.com/. Alternatively, I'll
treat you as soon as I get to Houston ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 2/14/2012 3:32 PM, Leon wrote:

That't it! Thai's what caused the cold front to cause condensation on
the tools! GLOBAL WARMING!

My nephew's wife swears that Globel Warming is causing global cooling.
Yup that right you heard that for the first time right here. LOL

It's Butches fault.


Two times!

ROTFL ...

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 2/14/2012 12:17 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 2/14/2012 11:44 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Han wrote:


That's a given. Whether "you" are on the side of science is the
question. For some of the set of "you" that is doubtful. Karl is at
least one who is on the side of science.


So... since "science" has its own levels of dispute, just what does
it mean
to be "on the side of science"? I would submit that this phrase
comes from
people who are not really all that scientific in their approach, but
rather
like the idea that someone else is in agreement with them. With all
of the
dispute in the comunity of "peer review" (and in fact - the whole
concept of
peer review), would someone please explain to me how "scientific"
has any real meaning at all? The greatest minds of our scientific
community world wide, have widely differing beliefs on things, so
how can a woodworkers newsgroup even pretend to use the word
"scientific" in regards to any discussion in this forum? To take a
phrase from m II - Bull****.

Easy ... unlike "climate change", the various "States of Matter"
(which were indeed under discussion in this very newsgroup, by
woodworkers, woodworkers with science degrees, among other things,
and contrary to your last word above, the "S" in BS in this case
stands for "science" g) are well understood and pretty universally
"accepted science" for the past few hundred years... at least, so
far.

Certainly good enough to cook your dinner, steam your clams, freeze
your food, make your AC work, and put a man on the moon, among other
things.

I'll take that degree of "scientific" acceptance any day ...



That't it! Thai's what caused the cold front to cause condensation on
the tools! GLOBAL WARMING!

My nephew's wife swears that Globel Warming is causing global cooling.
Yup that right you heard that for the first time right here. LOL

snip

Not that far-fetched. There is a theory (ahum) that says that if the
Arctic gets too ice-free (which may happen with global warming, increases
in ocean levels, and changes to ocean circulation, it (the Arctic Ocean)
will evaporate so much that it will snow and asnow and snow and another
ice-age will result. As I said, a theory ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Go here and hang out and look through the posts.....

http://www.owwm.org

Many Craftsman restores and scores of others...

Sign up and lurk around for a while to see what's up.

Go he http://wiki.vintagemachinery.org/ and do some more
reading.....

For the top, I would use single edge razor blades after a good
soak in WD40. Use a basic razor blade scraper to "shave" the rust
and other gunk up. After several rounds of that, use a ROS with
120,220,440 and WD40 to clean it up.

To get it really shiny, use any good polishing compound and a
buffer.

A few hours of work and she will come back to life...

Look at some of these:

http://www.vintagemachinery.org/mfgi...x?id=222&tab=4



On 2/11/2012 1:45 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
There's an old Craftsman table saw in the basement of the building my Dad had his office in. It's probably 30 years old, and never saw much use. I'm trying to fix it up a bit to use it on occasion.

I know that Craftsman is held in low regard here, but perhaps I can prevail on the nice folks here for some advice.

Rust:
The main table surface had a fair amount of surface rust, but hardly any "bubbling". The "wings", if that's the right term were more badly rusted around the edges, which had been bare metal.

I went at it with Scotch-Brite and a rotary wire brush. The main table surface came out passably well, I think. The wing edges still look rusty, but I flattened them down enough, I think.

I had doused the whole thing pretty liberally with WD-40 a couple of weeks ago, before I did any brushing. So now I have a slurry of rust particles and WD-40 covering the table top. I could use some sort of degreaser to get it off, but then I imagine I'd need to cover it with something to keep it from rusting again. Wax, I'm thinking.

Any better ideas?

On 2/14/2012 3:49 PM, Han wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 2/14/2012 12:17 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 2/14/2012 11:44 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Han wrote:


That's a given. Whether "you" are on the side of science is the
question. For some of the set of "you" that is doubtful. Karl is at
least one who is on the side of science.


So... since "science" has its own levels of dispute, just what does
it mean
to be "on the side of science"? I would submit that this phrase
comes from
people who are not really all that scientific in their approach, but
rather
like the idea that someone else is in agreement with them. With all
of the
dispute in the comunity of "peer review" (and in fact - the whole
concept of
peer review), would someone please explain to me how "scientific"
has any real meaning at all? The greatest minds of our scientific
community world wide, have widely differing beliefs on things, so
how can a woodworkers newsgroup even pretend to use the word
"scientific" in regards to any discussion in this forum? To take a
phrase from m II - Bull****.

Easy ... unlike "climate change", the various "States of Matter"
(which were indeed under discussion in this very newsgroup, by
woodworkers, woodworkers with science degrees, among other things,
and contrary to your last word above, the "S" in BS in this case
stands for "science"g) are well understood and pretty universally
"accepted science" for the past few hundred years... at least, so
far.

Certainly good enough to cook your dinner, steam your clams, freeze
your food, make your AC work, and put a man on the moon, among other
things.

I'll take that degree of "scientific" acceptance any day ...



That't it! Thai's what caused the cold front to cause condensation on
the tools! GLOBAL WARMING!

My nephew's wife swears that Globel Warming is causing global cooling.
Yup that right you heard that for the first time right here. LOL

snip

Not that far-fetched. There is a theory (ahum) that says that if the
Arctic gets too ice-free (which may happen with global warming, increases
in ocean levels, and changes to ocean circulation, it (the Arctic Ocean)
will evaporate so much that it will snow and asnow and snow and another
ice-age will result. As I said, a theory ...


I like to put it this way, you have summer then winter then summer then
winter and again and again and again. You could say that summer causes
winter and winter causes summer.

On 2/14/2012 3:45 PM, Han wrote:

I thought about that a LONGGG time. And this is my hypothesis: It had
been a hot, Houston and sweaty type of day. You had the doors open and
the front came through. It got cold(er) and you, Leon, closed the doors,
but both you and Karl were so sweaty that you instantly caused the
ambient (absolute) humidity to increase beyond the dewpoint at the
"iron" as you called it. Of course the effects of beverages consumed is
unknown to me ...

Except of course, it was morning and a warm foggy front, after a cold
night. LOL

As soon as you both get to Fair Lawn, I'll treat you to a few in the
Dutch Househttp://www.dutchhousetavern.com/. Alternatively, I'll
treat you as soon as I get to Houston ...

You're on ... you know how to find us. And bring Marlow with you, the
boy needs some "scientifically" prepared food and beverage.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Swingman wrote in
:

On 2/14/2012 3:45 PM, Han wrote:

I thought about that a LONGGG time. And this is my hypothesis: It
had been a hot, Houston and sweaty type of day. You had the doors
open and the front came through. It got cold(er) and you, Leon,
closed the doors, but both you and Karl were so sweaty that you
instantly caused the ambient (absolute) humidity to increase beyond
the dewpoint at the "iron" as you called it. Of course the effects
of beverages consumed is unknown to me ...

Except of course, it was morning and a warm foggy front, after a cold
night. LOL

As soon as you both get to Fair Lawn, I'll treat you to a few in the
Dutch Househttp://www.dutchhousetavern.com/. Alternatively, I'll
treat you as soon as I get to Houston ...

You're on ... you know how to find us. And bring Marlow with you, the
boy needs some "scientifically" prepared food and beverage.

My "as soon as I get to Houston" is unlikely to be soon ... Marlow is on
his own, I don't really know him, ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

I like to put it this way, you have summer then winter then summer then
winter and again and again and again. You could say that summer causes
winter and winter causes summer.

You could say that, but one thing following another isn't proof of
causality. Just like in my long cholesterol story the lowering of
cholesterol doesn't mean you'd also cause sterility or too low a level of
sex hormones

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman wrote:
On 2/14/2012 12:48 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:

Well - we never disagreed on the value of science. I'm only
challenging the use of the term "scientific" as thrown about here.

I can only speak to the extent of my participation in this thread, but
I'll certainly try to see your point ...

But first point me to where the term "scientific", and/or an attempt
at a definition, was "thrown about" in this thread before you brought
the term up?


I would have to look back through the thread, but i responded to a very
specific use of that term by another poster. I'll try to find my initial
response and re-post the previous poster that brought about my reply.

--

-Mike-

On 2/13/2012 4:08 PM, Han wrote:
Keith wrote in news:jhbpcv$hh3$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

On 2/13/2012 12:21 PM, Swingman wrote:
gs have changed since a ninth grade in 1957.


But they now graduate (at least those the graduate) have good self esteem

English is my second language, can you please explain more clearly? I
really prefer Dutch, but that may be too much to ask ...



I worded it so poorly. I forget sometime that these groups are
international and sarcasm does not translate well from one language to
the other, sometimes not even from American to British.

This was a comment on a previous post about graduating from school.

Self esteem = "having a good opinion of yourself"

Many schools and teachers in America feel that it is more important for
the student to have a good opinion of themselves than to know subjects
like Math, history, language, etc.

Hence they pass students on to the next grade when they have not learned
the subjects in their current grade. (Should have failed and been
required to retake the courses.) In these cases even though they
graduate from high school or college, the only thing they have when they
graduate is that they think highly of themselves but have no knowledge
of the subject matter they were suppose to have learned.

Swingman wrote:
On 2/14/2012 12:48 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:

Well - we never disagreed on the value of science. I'm only
challenging the use of the term "scientific" as thrown about here.

I can only speak to the extent of my participation in this thread, but
I'll certainly try to see your point ...

But first point me to where the term "scientific", and/or an attempt
at a definition, was "thrown about" in this thread before you brought
the term up?

Thanks ...

Found it. I was responding to a post from Han. Here it is...
Han wrote:
Swingman wrote in
:

The science is on my side!

That's a given. Whether "you" are on the side of science is the
question. For some of the set of "you" that is doubtful. Karl is at
least one who is on the side of science.


So... since "science" has its own levels of dispute, just what does it mean
to be "on the side of science"? I would submit that this phrase comes from
people who are not really all that scientific in their approach, but rather
like the idea that someone else is in agreement with them. With all of the
dispute in the comunity of "peer review" (and in fact - the whole concept of
peer review), would someone please explain to me how "scientific" has any
real meaning at all? The greatest minds of our scientific community world
wide, have widely differing beliefs on things, so how can a woodworkers
newsgroup even pretend to use the word "scientific" in regards to any
discussion in this forum? To take a phrase from m II - Bull****.


--

-Mike-

On 2/13/2012 7:59 PM, dpb wrote:
That's why moisture condenses on the tea glass surface--it's below the
dewpoint in the room at a comfortable or even, perhaps, cool temperature.

That is ice tea. Remember there are those on this newsgroup that drink
tea hot.

On 2/14/2012 8:57 AM, Leon wrote:
On 2/14/2012 7:46 AM, Swingman wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 2/14/2012 6:54 AM, Han wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:


Wow. All I can say is this must be another example of why eyewitness
testimony is often considered suspect ... two totally different
recollections.


Perhaps but do you remember me being there? I remember you staying
later, after I left for the day, to apply WD40. I distinctly remember
the band saw being the first thing I noticed, then the jointer.
And Yeah I know cold surface warm humid air. But I am pretty sure that
because the doors were open all day long it was not cold in the shop,
and then the front blew in and we had a drop what you are doing, problem
to address.

Oh well..... LOL



Are you brother? This is starting to sound like one that I had with my
brothers about events in our past.

On 2/14/2012 5:19 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
On 2/14/2012 8:57 AM, Leon wrote:
On 2/14/2012 7:46 AM, Swingman wrote:

Wow. All I can say is this must be another example of why eyewitness
testimony is often considered suspect ... two totally different
recollections.


Perhaps but do you remember me being there? I remember you staying
later, after I left for the day, to apply WD40. I distinctly remember
the band saw being the first thing I noticed, then the jointer.
And Yeah I know cold surface warm humid air. But I am pretty sure that
because the doors were open all day long it was not cold in the shop,
and then the front blew in and we had a drop what you are doing, problem
to address.

Oh well..... LOL



Are you brother? This is starting to sound like one that I had with my
brothers about events in our past.


Worse than that.

According to our wives, our brains, if nothing else, are cloned
identical twins.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 2/14/2012 5:09 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Swingman wrote:
On 2/14/2012 12:48 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:

Well - we never disagreed on the value of science. I'm only
challenging the use of the term "scientific" as thrown about here.

I can only speak to the extent of my participation in this thread, but
I'll certainly try to see your point ...

But first point me to where the term "scientific", and/or an attempt
at a definition, was "thrown about" in this thread before you brought
the term up?

Found it. I was responding to a post from Han. Here it is...
Han wrote:
wrote in
:

The science is on my side!

That's a given. Whether "you" are on the side of science is the
question. For some of the set of "you" that is doubtful. Karl is at
least one who is on the side of science.

~ First:

That is neither the term "scientific" to which you specifically took
exception, nor an attempt at a definition thereof. See yours above with
regard to challenging the specific word, to the point of putting it in
quotes.

~ Second:

Han took the quote entirely out of context, and by doing so left out the
humor/joke completely.

Here is the quote in context:

On 2/14/2012 9:57 AM, Swingman wrote:

I simply do not recall a "cold front" ever being the cause, but hey,
it wouldn't be the first time I wore shorts and t-shirt in 30 degree
weather without noticing the cold.

... but that STILL doesn't explain why, drumroll:

The _science_ is on _my_ side!

g,d &r

IOW ... it OBVIOUSLY was NOT meant to be taken seriously.

But understandable that, absent the context, you did.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:44:25 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:

The greatest minds of
our scientific community world wide, have widely differing beliefs on
things, so how can a woodworkers newsgroup even pretend to use the word
"scientific" in regards to any discussion in this forum?

What do their beliefs have to do with their theories? I hope you're not
one of those who sees no difference.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:03:29 -0600, Leon wrote:

I like to put it this way, you have summer then winter then summer then
winter and again and again and again. You could say that summer causes
winter and winter causes summer.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc? I thought Aristotle disposed of that one :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Swingman wrote:

~ First:

That is neither the term "scientific" to which you specifically took
exception, nor an attempt at a definition thereof. See yours above
with regard to challenging the specific word, to the point of putting
it in quotes.

Nah - I didn't really take exception with it, and I sure don't try to define
it. The word scientific and science are synonymous enough to me that I
didn't really see any difference. Though - I can see where another might
see a difference.

FWIW - I was responding to Han, so I was not calling out your statements.

--

-Mike-

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:44:25 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:

The greatest minds of
our scientific community world wide, have widely differing beliefs on
things, so how can a woodworkers newsgroup even pretend to use the
word "scientific" in regards to any discussion in this forum?

What do their beliefs have to do with their theories? I hope you're
not one of those who sees no difference.

They have a lot to do with their theories if they believe in their own
theories. Those great minds are people just like everyone else and they are
subject to the same things as everyone else. I believe we've all seen
enough of the zealot in the scientific community on all sides of any theory,
to suggest that they are immune to human tendancies. That's part of what
makes heated scientific debates what they are. It's not all cold, objective
facts.

--

-Mike-

"Han" wrote in message
...
Swingman wrote in
:

On 2/14/2012 3:45 PM, Han wrote:

I thought about that a LONGGG time. And this is my hypothesis: It
had been a hot, Houston and sweaty type of day. You had the doors
open and the front came through. It got cold(er) and you, Leon,
closed the doors, but both you and Karl were so sweaty that you
instantly caused the ambient (absolute) humidity to increase beyond
the dewpoint at the "iron" as you called it. Of course the effects
of beverages consumed is unknown to me ...

Except of course, it was morning and a warm foggy front, after a cold
night. LOL

As soon as you both get to Fair Lawn, I'll treat you to a few in the
Dutch Househttp://www.dutchhousetavern.com/. Alternatively, I'll
treat you as soon as I get to Houston ...

You're on ... you know how to find us. And bring Marlow with you, the
boy needs some "scientifically" prepared food and beverage.

My "as soon as I get to Houston" is unlikely to be soon ... Marlow is on
his own, I don't really know him, ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

An alternate theory: The air in the shop was warm, and saturated with
moisture. When the cold air arrived, it dropped the temperature of the air
in the shop enough that it could no longer hold as much moisture as before.
That moisture precipitated out onto horizontal surfaces in the shop.
Kerry
email address is valid

On 02/14/2012 06:31 PM, Kerry Montgomery wrote:
wrote in message
...
wrote in
:

On 2/14/2012 3:45 PM, Han wrote:

I thought about that a LONGGG time. And this is my hypothesis: It
had been a hot, Houston and sweaty type of day. You had the doors
open and the front came through. It got cold(er) and you, Leon,
closed the doors, but both you and Karl were so sweaty that you
instantly caused the ambient (absolute) humidity to increase beyond
the dewpoint at the "iron" as you called it. Of course the effects
of beverages consumed is unknown to me ...

Except of course, it was morning and a warm foggy front, after a cold
night. LOL

As soon as you both get to Fair Lawn, I'll treat you to a few in the
Dutch Househttp://www.dutchhousetavern.com/. Alternatively, I'll
treat you as soon as I get to Houston ...

You're on ... you know how to find us. And bring Marlow with you, the
boy needs some "scientifically" prepared food and beverage.

My "as soon as I get to Houston" is unlikely to be soon ... Marlow is on
his own, I don't really know him, ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

An alternate theory: The air in the shop was warm, and saturated with
moisture. When the cold air arrived, it dropped the temperature of the air
in the shop enough that it could no longer hold as much moisture as before.
That moisture precipitated out onto horizontal surfaces in the shop.
Kerry
email address is valid



Warm air saturated with moisture? Any air saturated with moisture?

- Doug in Arizona


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

Keith Nuttle wrote in
:

On 2/13/2012 4:08 PM, Han wrote:
Keith wrote in news:jhbpcv$hh3$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

On 2/13/2012 12:21 PM, Swingman wrote:
gs have changed since a ninth grade in 1957.


But they now graduate (at least those the graduate) have good self
esteem

English is my second language, can you please explain more clearly?
I really prefer Dutch, but that may be too much to ask ...



I worded it so poorly. I forget sometime that these groups are
international and sarcasm does not translate well from one language to
the other, sometimes not even from American to British.

This was a comment on a previous post about graduating from school.

Self esteem = "having a good opinion of yourself"

Many schools and teachers in America feel that it is more important
for the student to have a good opinion of themselves than to know
subjects like Math, history, language, etc.

Hence they pass students on to the next grade when they have not
learned the subjects in their current grade. (Should have failed and
been required to retake the courses.) In these cases even though they
graduate from high school or college, the only thing they have when
they graduate is that they think highly of themselves but have no
knowledge of the subject matter they were suppose to have learned.

I hope that I am right in thinking that that is being reconsidered.
We're not doing kids a favor promoting them if they did not master the
essence at least of the material taught them. I know there is more
reliance on summertime remedial classes, and that some schools do not
promote. (it is not always the teacher nor always the kid that is the
problem).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Swingman wrote:

~ First:

That is neither the term "scientific" to which you specifically took
exception, nor an attempt at a definition thereof. See yours above
with regard to challenging the specific word, to the point of putting
it in quotes.

Nah - I didn't really take exception with it, and I sure don't try to
define it. The word scientific and science are synonymous enough to
me that I didn't really see any difference. Though - I can see where
another might see a difference.

FWIW - I was responding to Han, so I was not calling out your
statements.

I believe I have responded to that, maybe excessively so.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

They have a lot to do with their theories if they believe in their own
theories. Those great minds are people just like everyone else and
they are subject to the same things as everyone else. I believe we've
all seen enough of the zealot in the scientific community on all sides
of any theory, to suggest that they are immune to human tendancies.
That's part of what makes heated scientific debates what they are.
It's not all cold, objective facts.

You can have heated debates between scientists who both are very convinced
they are right, and at first glance from their arguments they both are
right, but, wait, that can't be ... So the problem becomes who made a
mistake in reasoning, or viewpoint, or observation. It sometimes isn't easy
to see at all. And that leaves out those arguments that are indeed based
on flawed basic points, which there are too.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:50:25 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/13/2012 7:50 AM, Leon wrote:
On 2/13/2012 7:12 AM, Han wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

That cool air hitting the warm iron results in almost instant
condensation on the iron.

Generally, warm and moist air hitting a cool surface is what cuases
condensation on the cool object. Cool air hitting a warm surface does NOT
give condensation.


Bull ****!

Sorry Han, To explain my response, and where I have witnessed your
second statement being not true "all of the time" is in Swingman's shop.

I understand how the condensation principal works.

BUT a few years ago Swingman and I were working in his shop, it had been
quite warm. We had a cold front blow in suddenly at the end of the day
and the temperature dropped quickly. "Heavy" Condensation formed on the
iron machine surfaces with in minutes, something we do not often see.

Why? I have no idea.

"Quite warm" was likely pretty humid too.
The cold front dropped the temp of the air which cooled the steel,
and the absolute humidity (mg of water per cubic meter, or oz per
cubic yard) stayed the same - raising the relative humidity - and the
dew point and surface temperature met.
The relative humidity of the cold air was likely 90+ %.
If you had simply cooled the metal quickly to the same temperature,
without changing the air temp, you would most likely also have
experienced the condensation or "sweating" of the metal.

On 14 Feb 2012 12:52:31 GMT, Han wrote:

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
m:

Do you remember the day you and I were working in your garage and a cold
front blew in at the end of the day. You Iron had condensation all over
it before we quit. We had to dry it off and you ended having lite rust.

Sorry, Leon. That still means the "iron" had cooled down, and the air was
warmer and more moist. Seems like the equipment was outside, cooled down,
and then was brought into a warm, humid room.
No moving required Han. Say it was 30C and 55% humidity. and the cold
front dropped the air temp to 20C. The relative humidity would be 102%

If it's 90F and 55% RH, anything cooler than 71F will get wet.
If it's 30C and 55% RH, anything cooler than 19.96C will get wet.

Reduce the RH to 50% and it happens at 18.42C