Chip with simple program for Toy

[Ross Herbert]

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 01:31:28 -0800, Fred Abse <excretatauris@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

:On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:54:40 -0800, life imitates life wrote:
:
:> The Lindstroms are worth the extra outlay if a long term, personal tool
:> is desired. For a production level, multi-user tool, the lower quality
:> steel, shorter life span brands are cheaper and are the better value for
:> such a setting. It just depends on who the tool is for, how well they
:> take care of their tools, and the term you wish the tool to last for.
:
:I've got Lindstroms that I've had 30 years. Look their age, but still work
:as good as ever. The newer ones aren't as good, IMHO.
:
:Golden rule: Never, under any circumstances, lend cutters to *anyone*.
:Never let them out of your sight / control.


I also have Lindstroms from the 70's - 80's era and they are excellent. I did
manage to find USA made side cutters back in the 70's which were as good as the
Lindstroms. They were made by the Diamond Calk Horseshoe company (Diamond Tools)
which ceased in 1981 when acquired by Triangle Corp, which was subsequently
acquired by Cooper Tools. Diamond info here
http://home.comcast.net/~alloy-artifacts/diamond-calk-horseshoe.html

They made the Diamalloy brand S54 side cutter and the ones I have are still in
excellent condition. They are available on Ebay.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Diamalloy-S54-Wire-Side-Cutter-Diamond-Duluth-Tool-used_W0QQitemZ380205514253QQcmdZViewItemQQptZBI_Electrical_Equipment_Tools?hash=item588603be0d

 

[Ross Herbert]

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:54:25 -0800, Fred Abse <excretatauris@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

:On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 03:49:30 +0000, Ross Herbert wrote:
:
:> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:49:56 -0800, Fred Abse <excretatauris@invalid.invalid>
:> wrote:
:>
:>
:> :I'd love to know how they made the box joints.
:>
:>
:> See the Lindstrom document here (p.5)
:> http://www.lindstromtools.com/pdf/Catalog_2005/Handtool_Applications.pdf
:
:Very sparse on details.


Paraphrasing the description it says that the slotted side of the cutters is
widened so that the other part can be slid through the slot and then the widened
slot is closed down again before the two halves are secured together at the
pivot pin.

 

[Bret Cahill]

This looks like a real working solution to the cheap, clean energy
conundra challenge

www,cbs.com

this is apparently the first massive media publicity, while Federal
Express, Google,  and others
are using the initial  ("beta?")  version to help get minor kinks out
of the contraption, also
they're getting both state and federal subsidies

Apparently the raw materials consist of SAND and a cheap metal alloy,
rather than hydrogen and rare , tres cher, exotic, pecious metals, and
apparently the secret mixture of an"ink" no shit

My grandchild says: Bye bye to gold plated energy a la nuclear, a la
carbon problem, a la poison chemical in gasolene, and
if I were the head schmuck aka schmeckle, the thing would be sped up
aqs a Manhattan Project

An India Indian physicist is the inventor bring backed by 100-400
million USD venture
capital funds

they are seemingly getting ready for a stock IPO new issue, while I
hold that google could easily and should buy it, and is apparently now
strong enough so as to not allow the saboutage of it

if competition by way of the established fearful system  manages to
discourage and suppress it, then there are other sovereign countries
that would welcome such

it is my humble if not simplistic, paranoiac opinion that such a thing
scares the stuff out of
various understandable status quo establishments & interests,

wait a few moments for lesley stahl

 http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6228923n-Hidequotedtext -

- Show quoted text -

if it's difficult to get there, then please try this link (before
slamming sledge hammer onto puter hardware)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/18/60minutes/main6221135.shtml....

A fuel cell and the fuel are 2 different things.

Yes, you can get one of these for 3K according to the guy (or maybe it
will end up 6K to be realistic). That's great, but then you have to
figure out a way to get a natural gas hookup, or a big honking propane
tank, or whatever there is in your area that will work.

Nice idea, but not the way to get off the grid---you just get tied
down to a different kind of grid.

Nevertheless it's a big enough breakthrough it could even smooth out
peak oil's disruptions to the economy.

At less than a dollar/watt and twice the efficiency of internal
combustion it makes natural gas ground transportation much much more
cost effective.

Any shade tree mechanic can rip out your old ICE and install an
electric motor.

Buy several of the fuel cells, a compressed natural gas tank and maybe
a small battery to scoot through intersections and all you need is
that CNG filling station bill supported by that NJ senator . . .

Honda already sells a CNG compressor so you can fill up at your house.

The phenomenal power density even makes commercial aviation with
electric motors possible.

Batteries are/were far and away the greatest weight problem before.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bob Eld]

"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:85abf3de-ba5f-4d66-8a7b-b8a5bc784485@b7g2000pro.googlegroups.com...

This looks like a real working solution to the cheap, clean energy
conundra challenge

www,cbs.com

this is apparently the first massive media publicity, while
Federal
Express, Google, and others
are using the initial ("beta?") version to help get minor kinks
out
of the contraption, also
they're getting both state and federal subsidies

Apparently the raw materials consist of SAND and a cheap metal
alloy,
rather than hydrogen and rare , tres cher, exotic, pecious metals,
and
apparently the secret mixture of an"ink" no shit

My grandchild says: Bye bye to gold plated energy a la nuclear, a
la
carbon problem, a la poison chemical in gasolene, and
if I were the head schmuck aka schmeckle, the thing would be sped
up
aqs a Manhattan Project

An India Indian physicist is the inventor bring backed by 100-400
million USD venture
capital funds

they are seemingly getting ready for a stock IPO new issue, while
I
hold that google could easily and should buy it, and is apparently
now
strong enough so as to not allow the saboutage of it

if competition by way of the established fearful system manages to
discourage and suppress it, then there are other sovereign
countries
that would welcome such

it is my humble if not simplistic, paranoiac opinion that such a
thing
scares the stuff out of
various understandable status quo establishments & interests,

wait a few moments for lesley stahl

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6228923n-Hidequotedtext -

- Show quoted text -

if it's difficult to get there, then please try this link (before
slamming sledge hammer onto puter hardware)


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/18/60minutes/main6221135.shtml...

A fuel cell and the fuel are 2 different things.

Yes, you can get one of these for 3K according to the guy (or maybe it
will end up 6K to be realistic). That's great, but then you have to
figure out a way to get a natural gas hookup, or a big honking propane
tank, or whatever there is in your area that will work.

Nice idea, but not the way to get off the grid---you just get tied
down to a different kind of grid.

Nevertheless it's a big enough breakthrough it could even smooth out
peak oil's disruptions to the economy.

At less than a dollar/watt and twice the efficiency of internal
combustion it makes natural gas ground transportation much much more
cost effective.

Any shade tree mechanic can rip out your old ICE and install an
electric motor.

Buy several of the fuel cells, a compressed natural gas tank and maybe
a small battery to scoot through intersections and all you need is
that CNG filling station bill supported by that NJ senator . . .

Honda already sells a CNG compressor so you can fill up at your house.

The phenomenal power density even makes commercial aviation with
electric motors possible.

Batteries are/were far and away the greatest weight problem before.


Bret Cahill

Exciting stuff if real. It's too bad 60 min didn't use somebody more tech
savvy than Leslie Stahl to ask the real questions, like what exotic
materials (read expensive) are used, how is sand processed to make the
cells, how does this unit differ from other fuel cells. Efficiency??, what
about CO2 emissions, etc. etc. When will it be available for general use and
what about use in transportation. Fuel cells in cars is the obvious next
question.

It's great news but creates more questions than it answers. Fuel cells were
invented in the 1830's, developers have been trying to perfect them ever
sense, nearly 180 years! Their application has been sparse and expensive,
limited mostly to NASA. Is this a real break through or just more hype?

 

[JeffM]

Bob Eld wrote: (with blockquoting that looks like crap)

It's great news

You should install this update

so that it's not obvious that the blockquoting in your posts
was done by the 2nd-worst[1] online tool:
http://google.com/search?q=inurl:jain+%22+OE.doesn't.exactly.feature.the.most.intelligent.quoting.algorithm
..
..
[1] Second only to Internet Exploder.

 

[Bob Eld]

"JeffM" <jeffm_@email.com> wrote in message
news:ff418688-af26-4c4a-89e6-a28db76b460e@t34g2000prm.googlegroups.com...

Bob Eld wrote: (with blockquoting that looks like crap)
It's great news

You should install this update
so that it's not obvious that the blockquoting in your posts
was done by the 2nd-worst[1] online tool:

http://google.com/search?q=inurl:jain+%22+OE.doesn't.exactly.feature.the.mos

t.intelligent.quoting.algorithm

.
.
[1] Second only to Internet Exploder.

What the fuck are you talking about????

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 07:01:17 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:

This looks like a real working solution to the cheap, clean energy
conundra challenge

It's almost certainly not real, and not working.

This sort of nonsense gets announced every day or so.

John

 

[John Stafford]

In article <7va6o5l3bedaop27gdmeaedusvgd5jok6m@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

This sort of nonsense gets announced every day or so.

That is true. What worries me is that we have no idea what the Bloombox
means in terms of emissions. It's not like it just eats up oxygen and
drips out...

 

[John Stafford]

Glaring shortcoming of the video - "Carbon Footprint"

For all we know it is sucking up oxygen and spewing out CO2 like friggin
crazy.

Nothing is for nothing.

 

[George Herold]

On Feb 22, 8:15 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 07:01:17 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill

BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
This looks like a real working solution to the cheap, clean energy
conundra challenge

It's almost certainly not real, and not working.

This sort of nonsense gets announced every day or so.

John

This sort of nonsense gets announced every day or so.
Yeah, mostly from Bret Cahill, If we stop responding will he go

away?

George H.

 

[pamela]

George Herold wrote:

On Feb 22, 8:15 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 07:01:17 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill

BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
This looks like a real working solution to the cheap, clean energy
conundra challenge
It's almost certainly not real, and not working.

This sort of nonsense gets announced every day or so.

John

This sort of nonsense gets announced every day or so.
Yeah, mostly from Bret Cahill, If we stop responding will he go
away?

George H.

You keep proving that you can't stop yourselves from responding.
Somehow, for some reason, somebody will evidently almost always be
inprired to respo0nd, and then somebody else, and then you are
speculating on BloomBoxes or whatever else there is --- because it is at
least conversation.

Evidently, without someone like Brett, conversation is quite limited.

Just look at the long periods of no conversations, punctuated by loads
of conversations when Cahill stirs up the dust.

Without leadership, no matter what quality, there isn't much technical
conversation.

At least, that is what I SEE just from the postings.

 

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:

This looks like a real working solution to the cheap, clean energy
conundra challenge
It's almost certainly not real, and not working.

This sort of nonsense gets announced every day or so.

John

This sort of nonsense gets announced every day or so.
Yeah, mostly from Bret Cahill,  If we stop responding will he go
away?

George H.

You keep proving that you can't stop yourselves from responding.
Somehow, for some reason, somebody will evidently almost always be
inprired to respo0nd, and then somebody else, and then you are
speculating on BloomBoxes or whatever else there is --- because it is at
least conversation.

Evidently, without someone like Brett, conversation is quite limited.

Just look at the long periods of no conversations, punctuated by loads
of conversations when Cahill stirs up the dust.

Without leadership, no matter what quality, there isn't much technical
conversation.

At least, that is what I SEE just from the postings.

I'm western civilization's first tech incendiary.

I guess that's one way of phrasing "flaming asshole".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Bret Cahill]

This looks like a real working solution to the cheap, clean energy
conundra challenge
It's almost certainly not real, and not working.

This sort of nonsense gets announced every day or so.

John

This sort of nonsense gets announced every day or so.
Yeah, mostly from Bret Cahill,  If we stop responding will he go
away?

George H.

You keep proving that you can't stop yourselves from responding.
Somehow, for some reason, somebody will evidently almost always be
inprired to respo0nd, and then somebody else, and then you are
speculating on BloomBoxes or whatever else there is --- because it is at
least conversation.

Evidently, without someone like Brett, conversation is quite limited.

Just look at the long periods of no conversations, punctuated by loads
of conversations when Cahill stirs up the dust.

Without leadership, no matter what quality, there isn't much technical
conversation.

At least, that is what I SEE just from the postings.

I'm western civilization's first tech incendiary.


Bret Cahill


"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial
appearance of being right . . ."

-- The Infamous Incendiary Thomas Paine (1776)

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 22:03:24 -0600, pamela <bicycleguy123@gmail.com>
wrote:

George Herold wrote:
On Feb 22, 8:15 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 07:01:17 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill

BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
This looks like a real working solution to the cheap, clean energy
conundra challenge
It's almost certainly not real, and not working.

This sort of nonsense gets announced every day or so.

John

This sort of nonsense gets announced every day or so.
Yeah, mostly from Bret Cahill, If we stop responding will he go
away?

George H.

You keep proving that you can't stop yourselves from responding.
Somehow, for some reason, somebody will evidently almost always be
inprired to respo0nd, and then somebody else, and then you are
speculating on BloomBoxes or whatever else there is --- because it is at
least conversation.

Evidently, without someone like Brett, conversation is quite limited.

Just look at the long periods of no conversations, punctuated by loads
of conversations when Cahill stirs up the dust.

Without leadership, no matter what quality, there isn't much technical
conversation.

At least, that is what I SEE just from the postings.

The more serious stuff gets posted to s.e.d.

John

 

[Robert Cohen]

On Feb 22, 9:58 pm, John Stafford <n...@droffats.ten> wrote:

Glaring shortcoming of the video - "Carbon Footprint"

For all we know it is sucking up oxygen and spewing out CO2 like friggin
crazy.

Nothing is for nothing.

re: speculation about harmful carbon compound(s)

Sophisticated hype: but:

The experienced venture capitalist, plus Google, Fedex, Ebay, etal
aren't going to be
conned and ridiculed knowingly at their country club lemonade socials

At least, we hope they're not kidding themselves

I am cynical & agnostic too

May the by-products be made harmless by the relevant reigning god and
goddess

Granted, secretive "ink" does sound like blue sky fantasy and/ or it
catalyzes a
lovely "fool cell cancer"

 

[George Herold]

On Feb 22, 11:03 pm, pamela <bicycleguy...@gmail.com> wrote:

George Herold wrote:
On Feb 22, 8:15 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 07:01:17 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill

BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
This looks like a real working solution to the cheap, clean energy
conundra challenge
It's almost certainly not real, and not working.

This sort of nonsense gets announced every day or so.

John

This sort of nonsense gets announced every day or so.
Yeah, mostly from Bret Cahill,  If we stop responding will he go
away?

George H.

You keep proving that you can't stop yourselves from responding.
Somehow, for some reason, somebody will evidently almost always be
inprired to respo0nd, and then somebody else, and then you are
speculating on BloomBoxes or whatever else there is --- because it is at
least conversation.

Evidently, without someone like Brett, conversation is quite limited.

Just look at the long periods of no conversations, punctuated by loads
of conversations when Cahill stirs up the dust.

Without leadership, no matter what quality, there isn't much technical
conversation.

At least, that is what I SEE just from the postings.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yup I agree, I've been trying to start a few...but.

So what are you designing/building/testing these days Pamela?

George H.

 

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:

This looks like a real working solution to the cheap, clean energy
conundra challenge
It's almost certainly not real, and not working.

This sort of nonsense gets announced every day or so.

John

This sort of nonsense gets announced every day or so.
Yeah, mostly from Bret Cahill,  If we stop responding will he go
away?

George H.

You keep proving that you can't stop yourselves from responding.
Somehow, for some reason, somebody will evidently almost always be
inprired to respo0nd, and then somebody else, and then you are
speculating on BloomBoxes or whatever else there is --- because it is at
least conversation.

Evidently, without someone like Brett, conversation is quite limited.

Just look at the long periods of no conversations, punctuated by loads
of conversations when Cahill stirs up the dust.

Without leadership, no matter what quality, there isn't much technical
conversation.

At least, that is what I SEE just from the postings.

I'm western civilization's first tech incendiary.

I guess that's one way of phrasing "flaming asshole".

Don't blame others because you say stoopid things like "Reynolds No.
is irrelevant to aerodynamics."

That is a lie; I never said that.

What I said was Reynolds number is irrelevant to your magic pixie dust
laser reflectors.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Bret Cahill]

This looks like a real working solution to the cheap, clean energy
conundra challenge
It's almost certainly not real, and not working.

This sort of nonsense gets announced every day or so.

John

This sort of nonsense gets announced every day or so.
Yeah, mostly from Bret Cahill,  If we stop responding will he go
away?

George H.

You keep proving that you can't stop yourselves from responding.
Somehow, for some reason, somebody will evidently almost always be
inprired to respo0nd, and then somebody else, and then you are
speculating on BloomBoxes or whatever else there is --- because it is at
least conversation.

Evidently, without someone like Brett, conversation is quite limited.

Just look at the long periods of no conversations, punctuated by loads
of conversations when Cahill stirs up the dust.

Without leadership, no matter what quality, there isn't much technical
conversation.

At least, that is what I SEE just from the postings.

I'm western civilization's first tech incendiary.

I guess that's one way of phrasing "flaming asshole".

Don't blame others because you say stoopid things like "Reynolds No.
is irrelevant to aerodynamics."

Ain't no janitor that can clean up the poop you smeared all over
yourself.


Bret Cahill

 

[pamela]

George Herold wrote:

On Feb 22, 11:03 pm, pamela <bicycleguy...@gmail.com> wrote:
George Herold wrote:
On Feb 22, 8:15 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 07:01:17 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
This looks like a real working solution to the cheap, clean energy
conundra challenge
It's almost certainly not real, and not working.
This sort of nonsense gets announced every day or so.
John
This sort of nonsense gets announced every day or so.
Yeah, mostly from Bret Cahill, If we stop responding will he go
away?
George H.
You keep proving that you can't stop yourselves from responding.
Somehow, for some reason, somebody will evidently almost always be
inprired to respo0nd, and then somebody else, and then you are
speculating on BloomBoxes or whatever else there is --- because it is at
least conversation.

Evidently, without someone like Brett, conversation is quite limited.

Just look at the long periods of no conversations, punctuated by loads
of conversations when Cahill stirs up the dust.

Without leadership, no matter what quality, there isn't much technical
conversation.

At least, that is what I SEE just from the postings.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yup I agree, I've been trying to start a few...but.

So what are you designing/building/testing these days Pamela?

George H.

Good cheap shot at looking for credentials or demeaning the poster.

I retired from the technology rat race nearly 10 years ago, and haven't
missed much of it at all.

I design and build backpacking equipment and test it sometimes for trips
lasting a month or two.

So what are you designing/building/testing these days George?

 

[J. Clarke]

On 2/23/2010 9:38 AM, Robert Cohen wrote:

On Feb 22, 9:58 pm, John Stafford<n...@droffats.ten> wrote:
Glaring shortcoming of the video - "Carbon Footprint"

For all we know it is sucking up oxygen and spewing out CO2 like friggin
crazy.

Nothing is for nothing.

re: speculation about harmful carbon compound(s)

Sophisticated hype: but:

The experienced venture capitalist, plus Google, Fedex, Ebay, etal
aren't going to be
conned and ridiculed knowingly at their country club lemonade socials

At least, we hope they're not kidding themselves

I am cynical& agnostic too

May the by-products be made harmless by the relevant reigning god and
goddess

Granted, secretive "ink" does sound like blue sky fantasy and/ or it
catalyzes a
lovely "fool cell cancer"

If it consumes any fossil fuel and makes energy and doesn't emit CO2
then it works by magic.

If they can make cheap methane-air cells then they're going to laugh all
the way to the bank, but they'll still be emitting CO2.