OT: Why the US will never go metric....

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 06:41:17 +0000 (UTC), Tim Watts <tw@dionic.net> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:18:51 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wibbled:


Generally two horizontals, here. Fewer joints and sheetrock is
available in various lengths so a wall can often be done without
vertical joints, only tapered horizontal joints. Sheetrock is stronger
when hung horizontally (fewer end studs).

True - wouldn't matter much - our sheets are mostly in 4x8' (as defined
to fit into a Ford Transit - the builder's only van!) so horizontally
works too.

That's all I can fit in my truck, too, but they deliver.

You can get smaller board sizes, but thinner stuff for ceiling work.
Can't get bigger.

*Thinner* stuff for ceiling work??? <boggle> Ceilings require *thicker* rock,
so it doesn't sag. Generally ceilings are done in 5/8", if the joists are on
16" centers.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 06:22:27 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry <pomerado@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Jun 15, 11:41 pm, Tim Watts <t...@dionic.net> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:18:51 -0500, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wibbled:

Generally two horizontals, here.  Fewer joints and sheetrock is
available in various lengths so a wall can often be done without
vertical joints, only tapered horizontal joints.  Sheetrock is stronger
when hung horizontally (fewer end studs).

True - wouldn't matter much - our sheets are mostly in 4x8' (as defined
to fit into a Ford Transit - the builder's only van!) so horizontally
works too.

You can get smaller board sizes, but thinner stuff for ceiling work.
Can't get bigger.

--
Tim Watts

Managers, politicians and environmentalists: Nature's carbon buffer.

Local Home Depot sells both 1/2 and 5/8 drywall in 4x12. Also 4x4 and
2x2 patch/repair sizes available. All true dimensioned.

Yeah, the 4x4 and 2x2 are damaged 4x8s, cut (and marked up. It comes from
the factory in 6' to 16' lengths, though I've also heard of 24'.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:36:18 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 21:12:41 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 22:25:01 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:28:34 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:14:30 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

IOW, you don't know. We know you're always wrong, AlwaysWrong. You don't
have to prove it with every post.


I have framed 50 more Joe Plumber El Cheapo pre-fab houses than you
have and ten more full custom rich fucker houses than you. I also have
done some drywall, and you are again, wrong, as usual.

What a dummy, DimBulb. YOU are AlwaysWrong, not me! A liar, too, but that's
been obvious, too, for years.


Are you saying that I never worked as a carpenter, framing houses?

I'm saying that you're a liar, ALwaysWrong. You claim to have done everything
conceivable, yet are *always* wrong, about *everything*. One way or another,
you're a damned liar.

I helped the guys building our sub-division back in '71 at eleven years
old. From about '79 to about '82 I framed houses for Ryan Homes and they
were pre-fab, up in a few days each jobs. Our company owner also built
many custom homes during that period.

You're a goddamned idiot.

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 09:36:11 +0300, Paul Keinanen <keinanen@sci.fi>
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:58:20 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

Then, by your "logic", "millimeter" is an Imperial term since
1mm = 0.03937"

No, because the inch is defined as being 25.4mm. The metric measure is not a
derivative of the English.

In actuality, what makes the carat a metric term is that the weight of
gemstones is measured using the metric system and described in metric
units.

Imperial units are defined using the metric system. Does that mean that the
US uses the metric system?

I people are so allergic about the term "metric", why not go directly
to the primary definitions ?

The meter was previously defined as 1,650,763.73 krypton-86
wavelengths, thus 1 inch = 41,929.398,742 wavelengths.

I wonder if they actually counted the 1,650,763.73 fringes. I sure
hope that did it twice.

I'm impressed that the krypton line is narrow enough to have a meter
of coherence length. I think the measurement was made pre-laser.

John

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 09:47:15 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 06:22:27 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry
pomerado@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 15, 11:41 pm, Tim Watts <t...@dionic.net> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:18:51 -0500, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wibbled:

Generally two horizontals, here.  Fewer joints and sheetrock is
available in various lengths so a wall can often be done without
vertical joints, only tapered horizontal joints.  Sheetrock is stronger
when hung horizontally (fewer end studs).

True - wouldn't matter much - our sheets are mostly in 4x8' (as defined
to fit into a Ford Transit - the builder's only van!) so horizontally
works too.

You can get smaller board sizes, but thinner stuff for ceiling work.
Can't get bigger.

--
Tim Watts

Managers, politicians and environmentalists: Nature's carbon buffer.

Local Home Depot sells both 1/2 and 5/8 drywall in 4x12. Also 4x4 and
2x2 patch/repair sizes available. All true dimensioned.


Drywall IS typically 4x12.

*ALWAYS* wrong. Most is 4x8' and it's available in lengths from 6'-16'. 1/2"
stuff, designed for walls, is available in either 48" or 54" widths (for 8' or
9' ceilings).

krw and his pathetic attempt at yet another
attack on me should be given just that much credence. Zero.

When you're wrong (and you *always* are) you're wrong, AlwaysWrong.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 01:39:05 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Tim Watts wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:32:09 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wibbled:

My Vermont house, other than the living and family rooms (cathedral
ceilings) had 7' 2" ceilings; definitely not standard.

This first floor of this house has 9' ceilings and the two bedrooms
upstairs 8', with the great room 18', and higher. ;-)

You should try my village, which dates back to 1066 - in fact the Battle
of Hastings was fought and shamefully lost (especially when you visit the
field and see the massive tactical advantage Harold had), 3 miles down
the road in a town called "Battle" (hmm) and not actually in Hastings
which is rather further down the road.

I digress...

Ceilings you can brush your head on and 5' front doors or less on some of
the old timber framed houses.


You sublet from a Leprechaun?

Someone with DimBulb's stature.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:41:11 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 09:36:11 +0300, Paul Keinanen <keinanen@sci.fi
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:58:20 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

Then, by your "logic", "millimeter" is an Imperial term since
1mm = 0.03937"

No, because the inch is defined as being 25.4mm. The metric measure is not a
derivative of the English.

In actuality, what makes the carat a metric term is that the weight of
gemstones is measured using the metric system and described in metric
units.

Imperial units are defined using the metric system. Does that mean that the
US uses the metric system?

I people are so allergic about the term "metric", why not go directly
to the primary definitions ?

The meter was previously defined as 1,650,763.73 krypton-86
wavelengths, thus 1 inch = 41,929.398,742 wavelengths.

I wonder if they actually counted the 1,650,763.73 fringes. I sure
hope that did it twice.

I'm impressed that the krypton line is narrow enough to have a meter
of coherence length. I think the measurement was made pre-laser.

John

Yes, John. Krypton based atomic clocks were around before the advent

of the laser in 1960.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:43:32 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 01:39:05 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Tim Watts wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:32:09 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wibbled:

My Vermont house, other than the living and family rooms (cathedral
ceilings) had 7' 2" ceilings; definitely not standard.

This first floor of this house has 9' ceilings and the two bedrooms
upstairs 8', with the great room 18', and higher. ;-)

You should try my village, which dates back to 1066 - in fact the Battle
of Hastings was fought and shamefully lost (especially when you visit the
field and see the massive tactical advantage Harold had), 3 miles down
the road in a town called "Battle" (hmm) and not actually in Hastings
which is rather further down the road.

I digress...

Ceilings you can brush your head on and 5' front doors or less on some of
the old timber framed houses.


You sublet from a Leprechaun?

Someone with DimBulb's stature.

I am tall enough to beat knots onto the top of your skull, boy.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 01:39:05 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Tim Watts wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:32:09 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wibbled:

My Vermont house, other than the living and family rooms (cathedral
ceilings) had 7' 2" ceilings; definitely not standard.

This first floor of this house has 9' ceilings and the two bedrooms
upstairs 8', with the great room 18', and higher. ;-)

You should try my village, which dates back to 1066 - in fact the Battle
of Hastings was fought and shamefully lost (especially when you visit the
field and see the massive tactical advantage Harold had), 3 miles down
the road in a town called "Battle" (hmm) and not actually in Hastings
which is rather further down the road.

I digress...

Ceilings you can brush your head on and 5' front doors or less on some of
the old timber framed houses.


You sublet from a Leprechaun?

Someone with DimBulb's stature.

The ceiling would be 1/8" from the floor if it was a great room for
his IQ.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:15:35 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:59:49 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

No "scale" 'reports weight in Newtons'.

AlwaysWrong is *ALWAYS* wrong.

http://www.oldwillknottscales.com/ohaus/pull-type-scale-large.jpg



It is relative, and un-calibrated, idiot.

That's why it's marked in Newtons (and pounds). Why are you *ALWAYS* wrong,
AlwaysWrong?

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:17:12 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:59:49 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

A force gauge 'reports' applied force in Newtons.

A force gauge *IS* a scale, AlwaysWrong.

No. A force gauge IS a gauge, and the analog models CARRIED a scale on
them that covered the range of operation they were made for.

WTF are you yammering on about. Talking about word salad, hold any
understanding.

It is still a GUAGE, however, and NOT a scale.

A scale *IS* a gauge. It gauges weight, AlwaysWrong. What a putz!

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:21:56 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:59:49 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:


Said force
application must be pushed against or pulled away from the calibrated
node of the measuring device.

Nodes are not calibrated, AlwaysWrong. Springs are calibrated.

You do not understand physics terms. I'll use a lay term that might
allow you to grasp it. "pressure point".

Wrong, ALwaysWrong. A "pressure point" is something Spock grabs on the TeeVee
show.

The gauge is calibrated to read the force or pressure applied against
the test node or applied to it such that it pulls the test node away from
the gauge instrument.

Also called a SCALE, AlwaysWrong. These things are commonly known as "fishing
scales".

I have one at work that I use to test RF shielding honeycomb
installation integrity with using a Teflon test node that was supplied by
the gauge manufacturer and referred to in their manual.

WFT cares what you have in your janitor's cart?

So much for proving again just how little you know about it.

LOL, AlwaysWrong, you're an idiot.

Also, this force gauge does not use a spring.

This one? The one I showed you? Or the one in your cart?

Idiot.

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:54:42 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry
<pomerado@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 16, 3:58 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 15:36:13 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry



pomer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 16, 12:53 pm, George Herold <gher...@teachspin.com> wrote:
On Jun 16, 2:31 pm, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...@InfiniteSeries.Org
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:05:15 -0700 (PDT), George Herold

gher...@teachspin.com> wrote:
Cool, I have to scribble numbers on the paper though. 6400 feet is
about 2000m, the Earth is about 6E6 m in radius, Since we only want a
small change I can ignore the r^2 stuff and just multiple the ratio by
2. something like 4 parts out of 6,000. much smaller than the
divisions on your scale.

No you cannot. What makes you think that G decreases (or
increases)linearly?

Big G doesn't change at all. Little g (the force of gravity on the
Earths surface) will go as 1/r^2. For small changes in r the change
is approximately linear... first term in the taylor expansion if you
want to think of it that way. And it does go as 2*delta-R/Rearth

Not exactly.  The mass of the Earth is not actually concentrated at a
single point.

Outside of a uniform spherical mass, g does behave as if all the mass
were concentrated at the center. The earth is non-homogenous, but
close enough. The short answer to my little problem is that the change
is about 1 part in 2000, too small to matter in the context of the
other measurement uncertainties.

If something is small enough, we engineers just write it off. A quick,
rough calculation is usually enough to decide if that's safe.

After all the profound word salads and hand-waving about forces and
masses and weights, it was fun to see if the lecturers could do a
simple high-school physics exercize.

John

Surveyors and navigators ignore the gravimetric variations at their
own peril.

Actually, delta-g may be less than 1:2000. After all, Truckee isn't
floating on air, it's sitting on rock. It's sort of, not quite, like
being on a planet that's one mile bigger in radius.

This is one I *can't* do in my head.

John

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 15:58:30 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 15:36:13 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry
pomerado@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 16, 12:53 pm, George Herold <gher...@teachspin.com> wrote:
On Jun 16, 2:31 pm, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...@InfiniteSeries.Org
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:05:15 -0700 (PDT), George Herold

gher...@teachspin.com> wrote:
Cool, I have to scribble numbers on the paper though.  6400 feet is
about 2000m, the Earth is about 6E6 m in radius, Since we only want a
small change I can ignore the r^2 stuff and just multiple the ratio by
2.  something like 4 parts out of 6,000.  much smaller than the
divisions on your scale.

  No you cannot.  What makes you think that G decreases (or
increases)linearly?

Big G doesn't change at all.  Little g (the force of gravity on the
Earths surface) will go as 1/r^2.  For small changes in r the change
is approximately linear... first term in the taylor expansion if you
want to think of it that way.  And it does go as 2*delta-R/Rearth

Not exactly. The mass of the Earth is not actually concentrated at a
single point.

Outside of a uniform spherical mass, g does behave as if all the mass
were concentrated at the center. The earth is non-homogenous, but
close enough. The short answer to my little problem is that the change
is about 1 part in 2000, too small to matter in the context of the
other measurement uncertainties.

Is that true in the "near field"? Integrate the volume of the earth over the
square of the distances and I'd expect to see that not all points affect
gravity the same. IOW, I'd expect the apparent "center" of the Earth to be
somewhat closer than it really is.

If something is small enough, we engineers just write it off. A quick,
rough calculation is usually enough to decide if that's safe.

2kM is 4000 is small enough for me to write off by inspection. A pit stop on
the way swamps these numbers.

After all the profound word salads and hand-waving about forces and
masses and weights, it was fun to see if the lecturers could do a
simple high-school physics exercize.

Some have, some haven't. ;-)

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:44:44 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:41:11 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 09:36:11 +0300, Paul Keinanen <keinanen@sci.fi
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:58:20 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

Then, by your "logic", "millimeter" is an Imperial term since
1mm = 0.03937"

No, because the inch is defined as being 25.4mm. The metric measure is not a
derivative of the English.

In actuality, what makes the carat a metric term is that the weight of
gemstones is measured using the metric system and described in metric
units.

Imperial units are defined using the metric system. Does that mean that the
US uses the metric system?

I people are so allergic about the term "metric", why not go directly
to the primary definitions ?

The meter was previously defined as 1,650,763.73 krypton-86
wavelengths, thus 1 inch = 41,929.398,742 wavelengths.

I wonder if they actually counted the 1,650,763.73 fringes. I sure
hope that did it twice.

I'm impressed that the krypton line is narrow enough to have a meter
of coherence length. I think the measurement was made pre-laser.

John

Yes, John. Krypton based atomic clocks were around before the advent
of the laser in 1960.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock#History

Looks like you're wrong again. Why do you say stuff like this when you
could check google, like everybody else?

John

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:29:27 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:23:16 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 09:31:57 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 07:45:34 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:42:04 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:44:39 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 07:00:03 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:31:35 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 08:25:57 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:23:14 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:19:37 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

Fluid of course. Few people ever measure force. And most liquids used
in everydat life have a s.g. near 1, so an ounce of tabasco is
unambiguous.

Hundreds, even thousands of folks measure force every day, and many of
those use ounces in their scales of measure. Many use Newtons.


Of course hundreds, maybe even thousands of people measure force every
day. But there are 300 million people in the USA. Most people never
measure force; they do measure weight, or mass actually.

---
Since weight is mass multiplied by the acceleration of gravity and
most people use scales instead of beam balances and calibrated
reference masses to do the measurement, they measure weight, not mass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighing_scale



Most people in the world use SI units, and they weigh things in
kilograms. A kg is a unit of mass.

Whether they use springs or balance beams or load cells, the reported
result is mass. kg, not newtons.

---
Sorry, but no.

The result of the measurement is caused by a force acting on a mass,
the product of which is called a "newton" if the mass is 1kg and the
force is the attraction due to gravity, 9.8m/s˛.

Entirely wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_%28unit%29

---
Yup.

I got the mass wrong, (it should be about 102 grams) but the fact
still remains that what a scale does is measure weight, not mass.

OK, today's puzzler:

Suppose I weigh myself at home, using my ordinary spring-based
bathroom scale. Home is 365 feet above sea level. Now I drive to
Truckee; it takes about 3 hours if I push it, 80+ MPH except for the
speed trap at Clipper Gap. When I arrive I use the same scale to weigh
myself, now at 6400 feet. Latitude is about the same.

1. About how much has my measured weight changed due to the change of
G with altitude?

A body will more at 6400ft than at 365feet, assuming no pit stops or coffee
breaks. Assuming a body weighing 200lbs and is mostly made up of water,
that's about three cubic feet, so you're displacing about 3cu. ft. of air. Air
is about .075 lbs/ft^3 at MSL and about .06lbs per cubic foot at 6000ft, for a
difference of .015 lbs/ft*3. You'll be .045 lbs heavier at 6400 ft. Assuming
of course that you didn't stop for coffee, a potty break, or sweat too hard
(or breathe) getting there.

Now, gravity...

2. Is this significant to the measurement?

Define "significant". No, because you likely did breathe.

Rules: you have one minute to deliver an answer. Use no paper, pencils
or equivalent, calculators, computers, books, or any external
assistance or references of any kind. Keep your eyes closed. Do it
entirely in your head.

Oh, I did have to look up the density of air.

Extra credit, one more minute:

3. Is the position of the moon significant to the measurement?

Nope. No air on the moon. ;-)

You forgot about the difference in gravity.

As usual, you can't read.

You also forgot that said
difference makes for a different offset depending on the scale mechanism
utilized, since we are talking about weight measure and weight measuring
scales.

You're always wrong, AlwaysWrong.

A balance would yield the same mass reading at both locations.

You're always wrong, AlwaysWrong. ...and that wasn't the question, so you're
wrong again. Of course none of this surprises anyone, AlwaysWrong.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:40:50 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:36:18 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 21:12:41 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 22:25:01 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:28:34 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:14:30 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

IOW, you don't know. We know you're always wrong, AlwaysWrong. You don't
have to prove it with every post.


I have framed 50 more Joe Plumber El Cheapo pre-fab houses than you
have and ten more full custom rich fucker houses than you. I also have
done some drywall, and you are again, wrong, as usual.

What a dummy, DimBulb. YOU are AlwaysWrong, not me! A liar, too, but that's
been obvious, too, for years.


Are you saying that I never worked as a carpenter, framing houses?

I'm saying that you're a liar, ALwaysWrong. You claim to have done everything
conceivable, yet are *always* wrong, about *everything*. One way or another,
you're a damned liar.


I helped the guys building our sub-division back in '71 at eleven years
old. From about '79 to about '82 I framed houses for Ryan Homes and they
were pre-fab, up in a few days each jobs. Our company owner also built
many custom homes during that period.

What a liar. Wrong, too.

You're a goddamned idiot.

You're *always* wrong, AlwaysWrong.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:50:38 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:43:32 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 01:39:05 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Tim Watts wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:32:09 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wibbled:

My Vermont house, other than the living and family rooms (cathedral
ceilings) had 7' 2" ceilings; definitely not standard.

This first floor of this house has 9' ceilings and the two bedrooms
upstairs 8', with the great room 18', and higher. ;-)

You should try my village, which dates back to 1066 - in fact the Battle
of Hastings was fought and shamefully lost (especially when you visit the
field and see the massive tactical advantage Harold had), 3 miles down
the road in a town called "Battle" (hmm) and not actually in Hastings
which is rather further down the road.

I digress...

Ceilings you can brush your head on and 5' front doors or less on some of
the old timber framed houses.


You sublet from a Leprechaun?

Someone with DimBulb's stature.

I am tall enough to beat knots onto the top of your skull, boy.

Not.

 

[Richard Henry]

On Jun 16, 12:53 pm, George Herold <gher...@teachspin.com> wrote:

On Jun 16, 2:31 pm, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...@InfiniteSeries.Org
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:05:15 -0700 (PDT), George Herold

gher...@teachspin.com> wrote:
Cool, I have to scribble numbers on the paper though.  6400 feet is
about 2000m, the Earth is about 6E6 m in radius, Since we only want a
small change I can ignore the r^2 stuff and just multiple the ratio by
2.  something like 4 parts out of 6,000.  much smaller than the
divisions on your scale.

  No you cannot.  What makes you think that G decreases (or
increases)linearly?

Big G doesn't change at all.  Little g (the force of gravity on the
Earths surface) will go as 1/r^2.  For small changes in r the change
is approximately linear... first term in the taylor expansion if you
want to think of it that way.  And it does go as 2*delta-R/Rearth

Not exactly. The mass of the Earth is not actually concentrated at a
single point.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 19:15:29 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:15:35 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:59:49 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

No "scale" 'reports weight in Newtons'.

AlwaysWrong is *ALWAYS* wrong.

http://www.oldwillknottscales.com/ohaus/pull-type-scale-large.jpg



It is relative, and un-calibrated, idiot.

That's why it's marked in Newtons (and pounds). Why are you *ALWAYS* wrong,
AlwaysWrong?

Having a graduated scale does NOT connote being calibrated or even being
able to be calibrated.