http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair?hl=en
sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Best solder free electrical connection - 16 messages, 8 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/11e5e6461418f740?hl=en
* Why we have Gravity - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/004d04dfe74c9553?hl=en
* 35% off Classic Short UGG Boots, free shipping, no taxes, bootsbay - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/fc8c8226d8ed5f23?hl=en
* wholesale and retail handbags,brand jewelry on ecshop365.com free shipping -
1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/c371d62c66e5f358?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Best solder free electrical connection
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/11e5e6461418f740?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 6:18 pm
From: clare@snyder.on.ca
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 18:13:58 +0100, ><(((°> <nospam@butfish.com>
wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 16:45:08 +0100, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
><krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>The 747 goes about 600 mph top whack.
>Supersonic means greater than 768 mph so the 747 ain't a supersonic
>airliner.
>
>You might have a military plane faster but you haven't got a passenger
>airliner faster.
The 747 (on a bad day) moves more passenger-miles per hour on less
than 1/4 the lbs of fuel per passenger mile than the concorde could
dream of on it's best day
== 2 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 6:48 pm
From: S Viemeister
On 8/22/2010 7:15 PM, Tony Bryer wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 13:26:45 -0400 Aemeijers wrote :
>> 747 ain't supersonic. But on a dollar/gallon per passenger mile basis,
>> it is a whole lot cheaper to run, when anywhere near fully loaded. In
>> recent years, due to passenger volume being so reduced, a whole lotta
>> 747s and other jumbos were parked in the desert, in 'preservation pack'
>> status. Airlines switched to the itty-bitty jets for many routes.
>
> My understanding (possibly wrong) was the itty-bitty 777 is significantly
> cheaper to run. ISTM that it wasn't so long ago that twin jets weren't
> allowed to do transatlantic flights, but on the more recent UK-USA
> flights I've done it's nearly always been a 767 or 777
>
Continental do 757s on some transAtlantic routes.
== 3 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 7:42 pm
From: "Michael A. Terrell"
aemeijers wrote:
>
> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> >(snip)
> > Yawn. US SS military jets were banned from populated areas long
> > before the first Concord was pieced together from British and french
> > landfills.
>
> Uh, that was only partially to avoid the bad PR (and damage claims) from
> sonic booms. It was mainly to avoid conflict with civil air traffic, and
> collateral damage on the ground when one occasionally falls out of the
> sky, sometimes at full power.
They would have had a lot of damage claims. I have an aunt that
lived near Wright-Patterson AFB, and the early flights broke windows and
cracked concrete block walls. I was there a couple times when the SS
Air Force jets went over. Her house and her neighbors always had
something happen. Broken dishes, windows, things knocked off shelves
and out of cabinets.
== 4 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 7:44 pm
From: "Michael A. Terrell"
clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>
> On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 18:13:58 +0100, ><(((°> <nospam@butfish.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 16:45:08 +0100, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
> ><krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >The 747 goes about 600 mph top whack.
> >Supersonic means greater than 768 mph so the 747 ain't a supersonic
> >airliner.
> >
> >You might have a military plane faster but you haven't got a passenger
> >airliner faster.
> The 747 (on a bad day) moves more passenger-miles per hour on less
> than 1/4 the lbs of fuel per passenger mile than the concorde could
> dream of on it's best day.
And could land at older, landlocked airports. What good does it do
to shave a couple hours off a flight, then spend it in heavy traffic to
reach their destination?
== 5 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 7:59 pm
From: Phil Hobbs
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.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
(Former Triumph owner)
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
ElectroOptical Innovations
55 Orchard Rd
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
== 6 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 8:02 pm
From: Phil Hobbs
> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 20:57:06 +0100, Phil Hobbs
> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>
>> aemeijers wrote:
>>> krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>> (snip)
>>>>>> 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.
>>> 747 ain't supersonic. But on a dollar/gallon per passenger mile
>>> basis, it is a whole lot cheaper to run, when anywhere near fully
>>> loaded. In recent years, due to passenger volume being so reduced, a
>>> whole lotta 747s and other jumbos were parked in the desert, in
>>> 'preservation pack' status. Airlines switched to the itty-bitty jets
>>> for many routes. Now that volume is picking up again, some jumbos are
>>> being brought back out of storage. At one point, they were gonna
>>> modernize the 747 fleet, but it will probably never happen, because
>>> Boeing would rather sell new planes, and Airbus is nipping at their
>>> heels. But the long delays in the Boeing Dreamliner rampup can be at
>>> least partially blamed on the airlines getting gun-shy. It costs a
>>> lot of money to keep airplanes with a lot of lifespan left sitting in
>>> the desert. Another air disaster or major fuel cost spike, and there
>>> will be multiple airlines going belly-up.
>>> Supersonics only made sense for civilian use for a very tiny niche
>>> market of rich people and businessmen who had to have face time
>>> someplace far away in a hurry. That niche market got even smaller
>>> with the rise of cheap easily available hi-rez video-conferencing
>>> services. A lot of execs don't travel near as much as they used to.
>>> Plus, of course, with the general economic downturn, there are a lot
>>> fewer executives. Either retired or flipping burgers for somebody else.
>>> Absent some technological leap that allows cheap suborbital flights
>>> for the masses, world travel will be slower and more expensive from
>>> here on out.
>>>
>>
>> Plus the externalities, such as having your windows rattle twice a day
>> (waking the baby, of course) just because some rich nitwit couldn't
>> wait another couple of hours to get to LA. Anyway, rich nitwits save
>> more time than that by buying or renting their own subsonic jet, which
>> goes wherever they want, whenever they want. It's a far more rational
>> solution (if you can call it that).
>>
>> There was also a big outcry at the time about the
>> pollution--apparently folks were worried about damage to the ozone
>> layer or something, due to inefficient engines spewing crap in the
>> stratosphere. I'm not sure whether there was anything to that (there
>> so often isn't, in the environmentalist cosmos), but that and the
>> sonic booms were what got supersonic flight banned.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Phil Hobbs
>>
>
> Just more symptoms on Not Invented Here syndrome.
Sorry? Where was supersonic flight first achieved, again/
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
ElectroOptical Innovations
55 Orchard Rd
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
== 7 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 8:04 pm
From: Phil Hobbs
> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 20:57:06 +0100, Phil Hobbs
> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>
>> aemeijers wrote:
>>> krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>> (snip)
>>>>>> 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.
>>> 747 ain't supersonic. But on a dollar/gallon per passenger mile
>>> basis, it is a whole lot cheaper to run, when anywhere near fully
>>> loaded. In recent years, due to passenger volume being so reduced, a
>>> whole lotta 747s and other jumbos were parked in the desert, in
>>> 'preservation pack' status. Airlines switched to the itty-bitty jets
>>> for many routes. Now that volume is picking up again, some jumbos are
>>> being brought back out of storage. At one point, they were gonna
>>> modernize the 747 fleet, but it will probably never happen, because
>>> Boeing would rather sell new planes, and Airbus is nipping at their
>>> heels. But the long delays in the Boeing Dreamliner rampup can be at
>>> least partially blamed on the airlines getting gun-shy. It costs a
>>> lot of money to keep airplanes with a lot of lifespan left sitting in
>>> the desert. Another air disaster or major fuel cost spike, and there
>>> will be multiple airlines going belly-up.
>>> Supersonics only made sense for civilian use for a very tiny niche
>>> market of rich people and businessmen who had to have face time
>>> someplace far away in a hurry. That niche market got even smaller
>>> with the rise of cheap easily available hi-rez video-conferencing
>>> services. A lot of execs don't travel near as much as they used to.
>>> Plus, of course, with the general economic downturn, there are a lot
>>> fewer executives. Either retired or flipping burgers for somebody else.
>>> Absent some technological leap that allows cheap suborbital flights
>>> for the masses, world travel will be slower and more expensive from
>>> here on out.
>>>
>>
>> Plus the externalities, such as having your windows rattle twice a day
>> (waking the baby, of course) just because some rich nitwit couldn't
>> wait another couple of hours to get to LA. Anyway, rich nitwits save
>> more time than that by buying or renting their own subsonic jet, which
>> goes wherever they want, whenever they want. It's a far more rational
>> solution (if you can call it that).
>>
>> There was also a big outcry at the time about the
>> pollution--apparently folks were worried about damage to the ozone
>> layer or something, due to inefficient engines spewing crap in the
>> stratosphere. I'm not sure whether there was anything to that (there
>> so often isn't, in the environmentalist cosmos), but that and the
>> sonic booms were what got supersonic flight banned.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Phil Hobbs
>>
>
> Just more symptoms on Not Invented Here syndrome.
Sorry? Where was supersonic flight first achieved, again?
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
ElectroOptical Innovations
55 Orchard Rd
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
== 8 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 8:22 pm
From: "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 22:53:53 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <m2o276d9vv1tkkp2tluq1koi9uovlgh7cu@4ax.com>,
>krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> scribeth thus
>>On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 18:13:58 +0100, ><(((°> <nospam@butfish.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 16:45:08 +0100, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
>>><krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>The 747 goes about 600 mph top whack.
>>>Supersonic means greater than 768 mph so the 747 ain't a supersonic
>>>airliner.
>>
>>I guess that answered my question (you don't read well).
>>
>>The Concorde was not successful.
>
>It was .. for what it did...
By *no* measure was it successful. It was a money pit.
== 9 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 8:29 pm
From: "tm"
"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in message
news:4C71E40A.4090304@electrooptical.net...
> Phil Hobbs
> (Former Triumph owner)
>
Cool. Still have mine. '66 Bonnie.
tm
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
== 10 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 8:26 pm
From: "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
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.
== 11 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 8:28 pm
From: "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 22:18:53 +0100, Dave <davenpat@btopenworld.com> 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.
Bullshit. It didn't have the necessary reserves to be a legitimate aircraft
for the routes it flew. It was an economic disaster. Poor design; YES.
>> 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.
Oh, you were a stew.
>> 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.
Nonsense.
== 12 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 8:28 pm
From: "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
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)
== 13 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 9:08 pm
From: clare@snyder.on.ca
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.
== 14 of 16 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 12:09 am
From: "dennis@home"
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:-NmdnZLFjv1x6-3RnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@earthlink.com...
> I've never seen an electric power steering system, and never want to
> touch anything made by Lucass.
An American that doesn't fly?
Have a look at who makes plane parts these days.
== 15 of 16 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 12:17 am
From: "dennis@home"
"tony sayer" <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BvuDlMHwNQcMFwJX@bancom.co.uk...
> 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?...
He is probably thinking about the blackbird which the USoA had to use to get
the speed record back (some sort of ego trip I expect). Even then it had to
be refuelled multiple times to actually beat Concorde on a normal flight.
I wonder if he even knows the Americans couldn't even break the sound
barrier until they stole the flying tail idea from the UK designers?
Come to think of it a lot of USoA technology was borrowed from others (light
bulbs, telephones, computers, WWW, space flight, etc.).
== 16 of 16 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 12:35 am
From: The Natural Philosopher
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.
>
Conversely US jets engines have always been smokers compared to Rolls
Royce.
> Cheers
>
> Phil Hobbs
> (Former Triumph owner)
>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why we have Gravity
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/004d04dfe74c9553?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 7:57 pm
From: RichTravsky
fitz wrote:
>
> Why we have Gravity
>
> A correct theory of gravity will show us these four (4) things:
> 1. It will show us why gravity also acts like acceleration (principle
> of equvalence).
> 2. It will show us the actual cause of gravity.
> 3. It will show us why gravitational mass and inertial mass are
> identical.
> 4. It will show us the speed of gravitational attraction.
>
> Newton said gravity was acting at a much faster speed than Einstein.
Well, the average running speed of a human is around 10 mph. Sprints, the
record is under 30 mph. I don't know how athletic Einstein was so we could
use a figure of 3 mph walking speed. Nice to set some lower boundaries
on the SoG (speed of gravity).
> Which one of them is right?
>
> http://www.amperefitz.com/why.we.have.gravity.htm
> Click that link above if you like Science!
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 8:48 pm
From: BURT
On Aug 22, 7:57 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> fitz wrote:
>
> > Why we have Gravity
>
> > A correct theory of gravity will show us these four (4) things:
> > 1. It will show us why gravity also acts like acceleration (principle
> > of equvalence).
> > 2. It will show us the actual cause of gravity.
> > 3. It will show us why gravitational mass and inertial mass are
> > identical.
> > 4. It will show us the speed of gravitational attraction.
>
> > Newton said gravity was acting at a much faster speed than Einstein.
>
> Well, the average running speed of a human is around 10 mph. Sprints, the
> record is under 30 mph. I don't know how athletic Einstein was so we could
> use a figure of 3 mph walking speed. Nice to set some lower boundaries
> on the SoG (speed of gravity).
>
>
>
> > Which one of them is right?
>
> >http://www.amperefitz.com/why.we.have.gravity.htm
> > Click that link above if you like Science!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
God is creating gravity.
Mitch Raemsch
==============================================================================
TOPIC: 35% off Classic Short UGG Boots, free shipping, no taxes, bootsbay
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/fc8c8226d8ed5f23?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 12:19 am
From: bay boots
Classic Short UGG Boots On Sale! Hottest Birthday or Christmas Gift!
Classic Short UGG Boots, UK UGG Classic Short Boots On Sale, We Sale
2010 Coupon Ugg Classic Short Boots are now in stock for UK UGG
Classic Short Store!
http://www.bootsbay.co.uk/classic-short-ugg-boots-c-7
Aqua Classic Short UGG Boots
UK UGG Aqua, Ugg Classic Short Aqua Boots UK 5825 Classic Short Aqua
Ugg Boots, the Classic Short Aqua UK Boots is a calf-height boot made
from...
￡140.00 ￡91.95
Save: 34% off
http://www.bootsbay.co.uk
http://www.bootsbay.co.uk/classic-short-ugg-boots-c-7
Black Classic Short UGG Boots
UK UGG Chestnut, Ugg Classic Short Black Boots UK 5825 Classic Short
Black Ugg Boots, the Classic Short Black UK Boots is a calf-height
boot made...
￡130.00 ￡82.59
Save: 36% off
http://www.bootsbay.co.uk/classic-short-ugg-boots-c-7
Chestnut Classic Short UGG Boots
UK UGG Chestnut, Ugg Classic Short Chestnut Boots UK 5825 Classic
Short Chestnut Ugg Boots, the Classic Short Chestnut UK Boots is a
calf-height boot...
￡130.00 ￡82.59
Save: 36% off
http://www.bootsbay.co.uk/classic-short-ugg-boots-c-7
Chocolate Classic Short UGG Boots
UK UGG Chocolate, Ugg Classic Short Chocolate Boots UK 5825 Classic
Short Chocolate Ugg Boots, the Classic Short Chocolate UK Boots is a
calf-height...
￡130.00 ￡82.59
Save: 36% off
http://www.bootsbay.co.uk/classic-short-ugg-boots-c-7
Grey Classic Short UGG Boots
UK UGG Grey, Ugg Classic Short Grey Boots UK 5825 Classic Short Grey
Ugg Boots, the Classic Short Grey UK Boots is a calf-height boot made
from...
￡130.00 ￡82.59
Save: 36% off
http://www.bootsbay.co.uk/classic-short-ugg-boots-c-7
Leopard Classic Short UGG Boots
UK UGG Leopard, Ugg Classic Short Leopard Boots UK 5825 Classic Short
Leopard Ugg Boots, the Classic Short Leopard UK Boots is a calf-height
boot...
￡140.00 ￡90.74
Save: 35% off
Pink Classic Short UGG Boots
UK UGG Pink, Ugg Classic Short Pink Boots UK 5825 Classic Short Pink
Ugg Boots, the Classic Short Pink UK Boots is a calf-height boot made
from...
￡130.00 ￡82.59
Save: 36% off
http://www.bootsbay.co.uk
Romantic Flower Classic Short UGG Boots
UK UGG Romantic Flower, Ugg Classic Short Romantic Flower Boots UK
5825 Classic Short Romantic Flower Ugg Boots, the Classic Short
Romantic Flower UK...
￡140.00 ￡90.98
Save: 35% off
http://www.bootsbay.co.uk
http://www.bootsbay.co.uk/classic-short-ugg-boots-c-7
Sand Classic Short UGG Boots
UK UGG Sand, Ugg Classic Short Sand Boots UK 5825 Classic Short Sand
Ugg Boots, the Classic Short Sand UK Boots is a calf-height boot made
from...
￡130.00 ￡82.59
Save: 36% off
http://www.bootsbay.co.uk/classic-short-ugg-boots-c-7
==============================================================================
TOPIC: wholesale and retail handbags,brand jewelry on ecshop365.com free
shipping
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/c371d62c66e5f358?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 12:56 am
From: 777888
wholesale and retail handbags , brand jewelry on ecshop365.com
www.ecshop365.com
Here are so many best handbags for fashion ladies.
leather handbags ,shoulder handbags,fashion handbags,handbags online
authentic handbags,handbag,large handbags,handbags,pink handbags
quilted handbags,marc jacobs handbags,designer handbag,wholesale
designer handbags
cheap designer handbags,cheap handbag,coach handbags,dkny handbags
www.ecshop365.com
black handbags,brown handbags,hobo handbags,leather handbag,satchel
handbags
designer leather handbags,fiorelli handbags,jane shilton handbags,red
handbags
buy handbags,fashion handbag,cheap leather handbags,best
handbags,vanilla handbags
BRAND JEWELRY
http://ecshop365.com/brandjewelry
juicy,DG,ED hardy,chanel,Gucci,LV jewelry,handmade jewelry,fashion
jewelry,
pearl jewelry,designer jewelry,silver jewelry,wholesale
jewelry,gemstone jewelry,
costume jewelry,gold jewelry,beaded jewelry,bead jewelry,jewelry
necklaces
welcome to our website to choose your favourite and fashionable brand
jewelry
http://ecshop365.com/brandjewelry
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sci.electronics.repair"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
No Response to "sci.electronics.repair - 20 new messages in 4 topics - digest"
Post a Comment