Best solder free electrical connection

[Michael A. Terrell]

salty@dog.com wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:47:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Phil Hobbs wrote:

Dave wrote:
On 22/08/2010 02:08, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

It was a fast plane, but a poor design.

Fast it was, but poor design NO.

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
very fuel inefficient.

As is any super fast jet. I should know, I spent many years working in
that environment.

That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.

Lots of passengers enjoyed the fact they could spend the day shopping in
another continent and be home for tea.

Dave
Oh, come on. Anything designed in England in the 1960s has to leak oil.


Even their lightbulbs.

Many years ago in a previous life, radio host Don Imus brought me his
Triumph Motorcycle to look at because the headlight as in fact,
leaking oil!

Long story short: Bad oil pressure sending unit had it's wire lead
encased in a plastic spaghetti tube that ran up along the frame to the
headlight housing. Oil was running up through the spaghetti tubing and
collecting in the headlight housing. When he parked, it would drip
out.

One look at Imus, and you knew it wasn't hair oil. ;-)

 

[William Sommerwerck]

However the Russians did have significantly more advanced
rocket engines. NASA have been using the designs to make
their rockets better.

Where do you get this?

The Saturn was unusual, possibly unique, in that it was (apparently) the
only rocket that never failed.

 

[Frank Erskine]

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:47:42 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

"dennis@home" wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:GIednWq1m4RfUe_RnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@earthlink.com...

They have the space shuttle, the only thing faster than that was Apollo
but
that's old technology borrowed from the Germans.


The crappy V2 rockets that they rianed down on gay old England?

Well the Saturn V wasn't exactly advanced compared to a V2.


Sigh. the Saturn V was a Model A. The V2 was a model T. Both
designed in the days of slide rules, and poor metalurgy.

Hey - what's the matter with slide rules? I still use mine (fairly)
regularly.

--
Frank Erskine

 

[dennis@home]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:xbCdnUC4mN9Ndu_RnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@earthlink.com...

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

salty@dog.com wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:47:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:
Dave wrote:
On 22/08/2010 02:08, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

It was a fast plane, but a poor design.
Fast it was, but poor design NO.

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was
noisy and
very fuel inefficient.
As is any super fast jet. I should know, I spent many years working
in
that environment.

That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.
Lots of passengers enjoyed the fact they could spend the day
shopping in
another continent and be home for tea.

Dave
Oh, come on. Anything designed in England in the 1960s has to leak
oil.

Even their lightbulbs.

Many years ago in a previous life, radio host Don Imus brought me his
Triumph Motorcycle to look at because the headlight as in fact,
leaking oil!

Long story short: Bad oil pressure sending unit had it's wire lead
encased in a plastic spaghetti tube that ran up along the frame to the
headlight housing. Oil was running up through the spaghetti tubing and
collecting in the headlight housing. When he parked, it would drip
out.

Now if that had been an American Hog, it would have been a cunning
feature to prevent the headlight corroding.

You guys cant even get a sub zero O-ring to work.

And no one in their right minds not doing pork barrel politics would
glue a rocket together with an O ring anyway.

An engineer, it has been said, is someone who can do for sixpence what
any damned fool can do for a quid.

Or any American company for $10,000 of course.



And yet you poor, mindless blokes haven't launched anything to the
moon, let alone get it back.

The Americans aren't the only ones to have collected moon rocks.

 

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 22:44:25 +0100, Michael A. Terrell
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

salty@dog.com wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:47:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:
Dave wrote:
On 22/08/2010 02:08, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

It was a fast plane, but a poor design.
Fast it was, but poor design NO.

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was
noisy and
very fuel inefficient.
As is any super fast jet. I should know, I spent many years
working in
that environment.

That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.
Lots of passengers enjoyed the fact they could spend the day
shopping in
another continent and be home for tea.

Dave
Oh, come on. Anything designed in England in the 1960s has to leak
oil.

Even their lightbulbs.

Many years ago in a previous life, radio host Don Imus brought me his
Triumph Motorcycle to look at because the headlight as in fact,
leaking oil!

Long story short: Bad oil pressure sending unit had it's wire lead
encased in a plastic spaghetti tube that ran up along the frame to the
headlight housing. Oil was running up through the spaghetti tubing and
collecting in the headlight housing. When he parked, it would drip
out.

Now if that had been an American Hog, it would have been a cunning
feature to prevent the headlight corroding.

You guys cant even get a sub zero O-ring to work.

And no one in their right minds not doing pork barrel politics would
glue a rocket together with an O ring anyway.

An engineer, it has been said, is someone who can do for sixpence what
any damned fool can do for a quid.

Or any American company for $10,000 of course.



And yet you poor, mindless blokes haven't launched anything to the
moon, let alone get it back.

I cant understand you peeps on the west side of the pond bragging about
being technically superior to Europeans.
Since the US was originally colonized by a mix of either Spanish, French,
Portuguese, Dutch or English, your all of European descent anyway.

You've just developed funny ways and attitudes since!

 

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:48:48 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

salty@dog.com wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:47:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Phil Hobbs wrote:

Dave wrote:
On 22/08/2010 02:08, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

It was a fast plane, but a poor design.

Fast it was, but poor design NO.

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
very fuel inefficient.

As is any super fast jet. I should know, I spent many years working in
that environment.

That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.

Lots of passengers enjoyed the fact they could spend the day shopping in
another continent and be home for tea.

Dave
Oh, come on. Anything designed in England in the 1960s has to leak oil.


Even their lightbulbs.

Many years ago in a previous life, radio host Don Imus brought me his
Triumph Motorcycle to look at because the headlight as in fact,
leaking oil!

Long story short: Bad oil pressure sending unit had it's wire lead
encased in a plastic spaghetti tube that ran up along the frame to the
headlight housing. Oil was running up through the spaghetti tubing and
collecting in the headlight housing. When he parked, it would drip
out.


One look at Imus, and you knew it wasn't hair oil. ;-)

He was very well lubricated, himself, back when I knew him.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 03:26:33 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
<grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

The Concorde was not successful.

It was... for what it did...

By *no* measure was it successful. It was a money pit.

Being a working supersonic transport IS NOT a measure of success?

No. The Edsel was a working automobile, but it was hardly a success.

Profit is the only valid measure of success?

For products designed for the market, yes.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:52:36 +0100, "dennis@home"
<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:m2o276d9vv1tkkp2tluq1koi9uovlgh7cu@4ax.com...

The Concorde was not successful. The 747 is.

Concord was successful, it met its design goals.

No, it didn't. It didn't have the range originally intended. I believe it
was supposed to super-cruise, too, and it didn't.

However it failed commercially as the goal was moved.

....and the SST was cancelled when the goal was moved. The Concorde was
continued for ego reasons.

We had several political changes and an oil crisis that made it too
expensive.

It was too expensive when it was DESIGNED.

Pretty much the same as the 747 should feel when the A380 takes all its
passengers.

In your dreams.

Which it won't as the USoA doesn't allow a level playing field and will
prevent it from getting landing slots when its a threat.

Lies.

You might have a military plane faster but you haven't got a passenger
airliner faster.

They have the space shuttle, the only thing faster than that was Apollo but
that's old technology borrowed from the Germans.

More bullshit.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:49:07 -0400, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:06:46 +0100, "dennis@home"
dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:



"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in message
news:4C71E4B4.9020802@electrooptical.net...

Sorry? Where was supersonic flight first achieved, again/

Germany, 1943?


Chuck Yeager, Bell X-1, Muroc Dry Lake, Mojave desert, California,
USA, October 14, 1947
The first successfull manned supersonic flight in history.

First supersonic airplane in level flight. Several broke the sound barrier,
in dives, before the X-1.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:15:44 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:

In article <rgq3765tqb0ejbkvvtibhpn26lrq7scdbk@4ax.com>,
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> scribeth thus
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 22:53:01 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:

In article <geh276lr23mg4leqijuv79csegd6o5b547@4ax.com>,
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> scribeth thus
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:01:04 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:

In article <-NmdnY7Fjv0c5e3RnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Michael A.
Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> scribeth thus

(((°> wrote:

On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 22:26:53 +0100, <clare@snyder.on.ca> wrote:

On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:46:34 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Dave wrote:

On 21/08/2010 03:59, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

geoff wrote:

That's a very good example of why most people with brains left
Europe
for 'The new World'.

So how come Britain made a better nuclear bomb than the New World?
And
the New World wanted as much detail of our superior technology as they
could get?


What superior technology? Lucas?
No "superior technology" has come out of GB since about 1950. - and
that may be stretchng it. There have been a few "good ideas" since

I might be wrong but I thought Concorde started flying after 1950.
Though then again the Septics didn't like the noise, or was it a classic
case of "Not Invented Here" syndrome?


It was a fast plane, but a poor design.

Not that bad really as it was the first one..

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.

What other supersonic airliners are those then?...

Don't read well, do you? The 747 kicked its butt.

Yes I read fine I interpret differently from you!...

The 747 has nothing to do with supersonic air travel its a completely
different class of aircraft.

We \were\ talking about Supersonic airliners....

You need to take a remedial reading course.

May I suggest you take the narrow bandwidth blinkers off;?...

You really do need a remedial reading course. ...or a brain.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:25:24 +0100, "dennis@home"
<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:8ih276548uglracop6oiq2ivhosj6mu7pf@4ax.com...


Who was to know in the sixties that oil was going to rise to the price it
is today?

It didn't. Your taxes did.

There is no tax on aviation fuel, its some silly international agreement.

Sans taxes, fuel is almost the same price now as it was in the '60s. Look it
up, instead of looking like the dumbass you are.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 00:08:49 -0400, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 22:28:57 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 22:59:22 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

Dave wrote:
On 22/08/2010 02:08, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

It was a fast plane, but a poor design.

Fast it was, but poor design NO.

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
very fuel inefficient.

As is any super fast jet. I should know, I spent many years working in
that environment.

That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.

Lots of passengers enjoyed the fact they could spend the day shopping in
another continent and be home for tea.

Dave
Oh, come on. Anything designed in England in the 1960s has to leak oil.

What about the electrical systems?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
(Former Triumph owner)
With the french on board they were not limited to Lucas electrics-
they also had Paris-Rhone and Ducellier to choose from.
Any experience with either of them makes Lucas look "not bad" by
comparison.

;-)

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:23:18 +0100, ><(((°> <nospam@butfish.com> wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 22:44:25 +0100, Michael A. Terrell
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


The Natural Philosopher wrote:

salty@dog.com wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:47:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:
Dave wrote:
On 22/08/2010 02:08, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

It was a fast plane, but a poor design.
Fast it was, but poor design NO.

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was
noisy and
very fuel inefficient.
As is any super fast jet. I should know, I spent many years
working in
that environment.

That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.
Lots of passengers enjoyed the fact they could spend the day
shopping in
another continent and be home for tea.

Dave
Oh, come on. Anything designed in England in the 1960s has to leak
oil.

Even their lightbulbs.

Many years ago in a previous life, radio host Don Imus brought me his
Triumph Motorcycle to look at because the headlight as in fact,
leaking oil!

Long story short: Bad oil pressure sending unit had it's wire lead
encased in a plastic spaghetti tube that ran up along the frame to the
headlight housing. Oil was running up through the spaghetti tubing and
collecting in the headlight housing. When he parked, it would drip
out.

Now if that had been an American Hog, it would have been a cunning
feature to prevent the headlight corroding.

You guys cant even get a sub zero O-ring to work.

And no one in their right minds not doing pork barrel politics would
glue a rocket together with an O ring anyway.

An engineer, it has been said, is someone who can do for sixpence what
any damned fool can do for a quid.

Or any American company for $10,000 of course.



And yet you poor, mindless blokes haven't launched anything to the
moon, let alone get it back.

I cant understand you peeps on the west side of the pond bragging about
being technically superior to Europeans.
Since the US was originally colonized by a mix of either Spanish, French,
Portuguese, Dutch or English, your all of European descent anyway.

Yes, all the smart ones left.

You've just developed funny ways and attitudes since!

Wrong, the attitude came first. There was a reason people left that hell
hole.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:39:56 -0400, salty@dog.com wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:48:48 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


salty@dog.com wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:47:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Phil Hobbs wrote:

Dave wrote:
On 22/08/2010 02:08, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

It was a fast plane, but a poor design.

Fast it was, but poor design NO.

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
very fuel inefficient.

As is any super fast jet. I should know, I spent many years working in
that environment.

That forced the fares so high that they weren't
able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.

Lots of passengers enjoyed the fact they could spend the day shopping in
another continent and be home for tea.

Dave
Oh, come on. Anything designed in England in the 1960s has to leak oil.


Even their lightbulbs.

Many years ago in a previous life, radio host Don Imus brought me his
Triumph Motorcycle to look at because the headlight as in fact,
leaking oil!

Long story short: Bad oil pressure sending unit had it's wire lead
encased in a plastic spaghetti tube that ran up along the frame to the
headlight housing. Oil was running up through the spaghetti tubing and
collecting in the headlight housing. When he parked, it would drip
out.


One look at Imus, and you knew it wasn't hair oil. ;-)

He was very well lubricated, himself, back when I knew him.

But not with oil. He used white, dry, "lubricant". THat was when he was
funny.

 

[Meat Plow]

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:39:56 -0400, salty wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:48:48 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


salty@dog.com wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:47:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Phil Hobbs wrote:

Dave wrote:
On 22/08/2010 02:08, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

It was a fast plane, but a poor design.

Fast it was, but poor design NO.

They spent wads of money to
build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was
noisy and very fuel inefficient.

As is any super fast jet. I should know, I spent many years
working in that environment.

That forced the fares so high that they weren't able to compete
with better planes from multiple countries.

Lots of passengers enjoyed the fact they could spend the day
shopping in another continent and be home for tea.

Dave
Oh, come on. Anything designed in England in the 1960s has to leak
oil.


Even their lightbulbs.

Many years ago in a previous life, radio host Don Imus brought me his
Triumph Motorcycle to look at because the headlight as in fact,
leaking oil!

Long story short: Bad oil pressure sending unit had it's wire lead
encased in a plastic spaghetti tube that ran up along the frame to the
headlight housing. Oil was running up through the spaghetti tubing and
collecting in the headlight housing. When he parked, it would drip
out.


One look at Imus, and you knew it wasn't hair oil. ;-)

He was very well lubricated, himself, back when I knew him.

Are you saying what I think you're saying?

Errr never mind TMI.



--
Live Fast, Die Young and Leave a Pretty Corpse

 

[The Daring Dufas]

On 8/23/2010 2:28 PM, john hamilton wrote:

"Paul"<23023@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8d58njF43gU1@mid.individual.net...
On 19/08/2010 04:46, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Paul wrote:

On 19/08/2010 01:27, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 8/18/2010 6:33 PM, geoff wrote:
In message<i4hmat$blj$2@news.eternal-september.org>, The Daring Dufas
the-daring-dufas@peckerhead.net> writes
On 8/18/2010 4:17 PM, geoff wrote:
In message<i4hhb1$np$1@news.eternal-september.org>, The Daring Dufas
the-daring-dufas@peckerhead.net> writes
On 8/16/2010 12:43 PM, john hamilton wrote:
I have to connect this AAA battery holder to a toy. Although I
have a
small
soldering iron, my soldering skills are poor. I can see myself
easily
melting all the plastic around the contacts before I can get
anything to
stick to the tabs. (The part of the tabs with the small hole will
bend
upwards giving some clearence).

http://tinypic.com/r/iqx3pf/4

My immediate plan is to poke a few strands of wire through the
holes
in the
connection tabs twist and then apply some nail varnish to stop it
unwinding.
Since its a toy it does not need to be totally foolproof.

If anyone had any ideas that were a bit more sophisticated I would
be
gratefull. Thanks.



If you are familiar with faston connectors, you can trim the
terminals with scissors or wire cutters so a connector will
slip on to them. The connectors are available in many sizes
with the 1/4" being the most common. I believe The Shack,
formally Radio Shack carries several sizes. Here's a link
to a manufacturer that produces many types so you can see
what I'm referring to:

http://www.etco.com/category.php?cat=18&div=ep&l=e

Excuse me, but is the OP a Septic or English ?

If he/she/it is English, it's bugger all use pointing them at Septic
outlets, is it?



I'm sorry, I have absolutely no idea what you are writing
about. Could you find someone to translate it into American?

Septic tank = yank

duh - colonials



Um, the cultural education is nice but what's it got to do
with electrical connections to a battery holder? Bizarre is
fun but at least I try to keep my jokes within the subject
matter being discussed.
TDD
It was... Radio Shack used to have UK outlets (but seemed to have
vanished), but the link above was certainly for their US replacement...

Its a long way to go for a battery holder..

Yes. All the way to your mail box. Of course, that may require you
to get out of your chair and actually walk.

And pay three times the value in shipping and taxes

=============================================================================

Many thanks to all. The push on brass connectors are a welcome solution,
many thanks. I can easily buy those at Maplins.

To throw a little light on this unnecessary rudeness to our American
cousins. The expression Amearkin came up because in the U.S. they could say
American so quickly it sounded like Amearkin. So across the pond they became
Amearkins...quite harmless.

However some low lifes changed this to Merkins. A few hundred years ago in
order to deal with body lice, ladies would shave their lower private parts.
Since this was deamed un-attractive, they could buy small triangular wigs
which were called...you guessed it Merkins. Please dont let the low-lifes
get you down, we have as many here as you have there. And they just love the
internet.

Teasing is part of the Usenet experience, if we didn't like you we
wouldn't even respond to you. You get a bunch of guys together and
they are going to throw jabs at each other and kid around. It's
basically what we call horseplay. It's like those celebrity roasts
that are shown on TV, some of the most horrible and vile insults
are thrown about by friends.

TDD

 

[The Daring Dufas]

On 8/23/2010 4:53 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

However the Russians did have significantly more advanced
rocket engines. NASA have been using the designs to make
their rockets better.

Where do you get this?

The Saturn was unusual, possibly unique, in that it was (apparently) the
only rocket that never failed.

I remember reading something about it written by Wernher von Braun.
He wrote that they checked and rechecked those rockets over and over
again more than they had ever tested any of them before. They wanted
zero defects. Apollo 13 was a bit of a fail and the tragic fire on
the pad that killed three astronauts led to an extensive redesign and
stringent quality control measures for the whole program. Gosh, I have
to wonder if we're up to the task to accomplish the same thing today?

TDD

 

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:18:10 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:49:07 -0400, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:06:46 +0100, "dennis@home"
dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:



"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in message
news:4C71E4B4.9020802@electrooptical.net...

Sorry? Where was supersonic flight first achieved, again/

Germany, 1943?


Chuck Yeager, Bell X-1, Muroc Dry Lake, Mojave desert, California,
USA, October 14, 1947
The first successfull manned supersonic flight in history.

First supersonic airplane in level flight. Several broke the sound barrier,
in dives, before the X-1.

A dive isn't flight - it's a "powered fall"

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

The Daring Dufas wrote:

On 8/23/2010 2:28 PM, john hamilton wrote:
"Paul"<23023@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8d58njF43gU1@mid.individual.net...
On 19/08/2010 04:46, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Paul wrote:

On 19/08/2010 01:27, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 8/18/2010 6:33 PM, geoff wrote:
In message<i4hmat$blj$2@news.eternal-september.org>, The Daring Dufas
the-daring-dufas@peckerhead.net> writes
On 8/18/2010 4:17 PM, geoff wrote:
In message<i4hhb1$np$1@news.eternal-september.org>, The Daring Dufas
the-daring-dufas@peckerhead.net> writes
On 8/16/2010 12:43 PM, john hamilton wrote:
I have to connect this AAA battery holder to a toy. Although I
have a
small
soldering iron, my soldering skills are poor. I can see myself
easily
melting all the plastic around the contacts before I can get
anything to
stick to the tabs. (The part of the tabs with the small hole will
bend
upwards giving some clearence).

http://tinypic.com/r/iqx3pf/4

My immediate plan is to poke a few strands of wire through the
holes
in the
connection tabs twist and then apply some nail varnish to stop it
unwinding.
Since its a toy it does not need to be totally foolproof.

If anyone had any ideas that were a bit more sophisticated I would
be
gratefull. Thanks.



If you are familiar with faston connectors, you can trim the
terminals with scissors or wire cutters so a connector will
slip on to them. The connectors are available in many sizes
with the 1/4" being the most common. I believe The Shack,
formally Radio Shack carries several sizes. Here's a link
to a manufacturer that produces many types so you can see
what I'm referring to:

http://www.etco.com/category.php?cat=18&div=ep&l=e

Excuse me, but is the OP a Septic or English ?

If he/she/it is English, it's bugger all use pointing them at Septic
outlets, is it?



I'm sorry, I have absolutely no idea what you are writing
about. Could you find someone to translate it into American?

Septic tank = yank

duh - colonials



Um, the cultural education is nice but what's it got to do
with electrical connections to a battery holder? Bizarre is
fun but at least I try to keep my jokes within the subject
matter being discussed.
TDD
It was... Radio Shack used to have UK outlets (but seemed to have
vanished), but the link above was certainly for their US replacement...

Its a long way to go for a battery holder..

Yes. All the way to your mail box. Of course, that may require you
to get out of your chair and actually walk.

And pay three times the value in shipping and taxes

=============================================================================

Many thanks to all. The push on brass connectors are a welcome solution,
many thanks. I can easily buy those at Maplins.

To throw a little light on this unnecessary rudeness to our American
cousins. The expression Amearkin came up because in the U.S. they could say
American so quickly it sounded like Amearkin. So across the pond they became
Amearkins...quite harmless.

However some low lifes changed this to Merkins. A few hundred years ago in
order to deal with body lice, ladies would shave their lower private parts.
Since this was deamed un-attractive, they could buy small triangular wigs
which were called...you guessed it Merkins. Please dont let the low-lifes
get you down, we have as many here as you have there. And they just love the
internet.



Teasing is part of the Usenet experience, if we didn't like you we
wouldn't even respond to you. You get a bunch of guys together and
they are going to throw jabs at each other and kid around. It's
basically what we call horseplay. It's like those celebrity roasts
that are shown on TV, some of the most horrible and vile insults
are thrown about by friends.

And if the 'friends' go too far, you throw them out! ;-)

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Frank Erskine wrote:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:47:42 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


"dennis@home" wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:GIednWq1m4RfUe_RnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@earthlink.com...

They have the space shuttle, the only thing faster than that was Apollo
but
that's old technology borrowed from the Germans.


The crappy V2 rockets that they rianed down on gay old England?

Well the Saturn V wasn't exactly advanced compared to a V2.


Sigh. the Saturn V was a Model A. The V2 was a model T. Both
designed in the days of slide rules, and poor metalurgy.

Hey - what's the matter with slide rules? I still use mine (fairly)
regularly.

Good for you, but .1% resistors and 1% capacitors are common these
days. I was using them 10 years ago.