sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Why we have Gravity - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/004d04dfe74c9553?hl=en
* Best solder free electrical connection - 19 messages, 9 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/11e5e6461418f740?hl=en
* See Hot Sexy Star* Angelina Jolie* Nude Bathing Videos In All Angles - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/1f62cc3271cc33c0?hl=en
* Semi-conductor Question - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/bc3822e35eab24b0?hl=en
* Cheap Nike Air Max2010 Shoes Nike Air Max LTD Shoes Nike Air Max TN Shoes
Wholesale(http://www.24hoursneakers.com/) (PayPal Payment) - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/c0fc0e16e4ecfac9?hl=en
* Backlight Dummy Load??? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/269588fe600f676f?hl=en
* Mohamed Kaffi - RAPIST (Rosewood Hudson PSA) - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/74c6e23a89f0b34d?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why we have Gravity
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/004d04dfe74c9553?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 12:17 am
From: "Michael A. Terrell"

David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
> On 8/21/2010 2:02 PM > spake thus:
>
> > Being a Newton myself I know exactly why we have gravity.
> >
> > It's because apples are meant to be eaten and when they come loose from
> > apple trees something is needed to make them move to the ground rather
> > than them being blown away in the wind.
> > That in a nutshell, and straight from the horses mouth via my great great
> > great granddad Issac and passed down though generations, is why we have
> > gravity.
> >
> > If Einstein thought differently he was wrong.
>
> What, you're saying that Einstein hated apples?

Figs. ;-)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Best solder free electrical connection
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/11e5e6461418f740?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 19 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 2:25 am
From: "William Sommerwerck"

> It was a fast plane, but a poor design. 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.

"Bad design" is debatable. Supersonic planes are inherently inefficient, and
the Concorde (which was actually a British-French design -- hence the name)
was expensive from the get-go.

You can't say it wasn't able to compete with other planes, because the
Concorde was the only supersonic transport. Even without the fatal accident,
the Concorde would have eventually gone out of business, as there just
weren't enough rich people or business who needed to zip to Europe and back.

== 2 of 19 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 4:02 am
From: tony sayer

In article <i4qqm0$tpm$1@news.eternal-september.org>, William
Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> scribeth thus
>> It was a fast plane, but a poor design. 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.
>
>"Bad design" is debatable. Supersonic planes are inherently inefficient, and
>the Concorde (which was actually a British-French design -- hence the name)
>was expensive from the get-go.
>
>You can't say it wasn't able to compete with other planes, because the
>Concorde was the only supersonic transport. Even without the fatal accident,
>the Concorde would have eventually gone out of business, as there just
>weren't enough rich people or business who needed to zip to Europe and back.
>
>

The USofA shirley?.
--
Tony Sayer

== 3 of 19 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 4:01 am
From: tony sayer

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?...
--
Tony Sayer

== 4 of 19 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 5:02 am
From: aemeijers

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> It was a fast plane, but a poor design. 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.
>
> "Bad design" is debatable. Supersonic planes are inherently inefficient, and
> the Concorde (which was actually a British-French design -- hence the name)
> was expensive from the get-go.
>
> You can't say it wasn't able to compete with other planes, because the
> Concorde was the only supersonic transport. Even without the fatal accident,
> the Concorde would have eventually gone out of business, as there just
> weren't enough rich people or business who needed to zip to Europe and back.
>
>

US design never got past the mock-up stage. The bean-counters killed it
based on cost-benefits. Simply put, it could never pay for itself and
recoup the development money. As the Brits and the French discovered,
the bean counters were right. Unlike Concorde, which had much or most of
R&D paid for by taxpayers as a national ego thing, the US SST didn't get
that much from Uncle Sam. (US Govt had other expensive things going on.)
Without signed orders from the airlines, the financing just wasn't
there. US doesn't have a 'national airline' like most countries. Most of
the R&D seed money US Govt supplies for aircraft work is related to
military requirements or to keep industrial base operational. Some of
the military research can also be used on civilian side, like how large
jet bombers/tranports led to large jet airliners.

Don't forget the knockoff of Concorde USSR put together. That was purely
a national ego thing.

--
aem sends...

== 5 of 19 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 6:26 am
From: ><(((°>

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 02:08:01 +0100, Michael A. Terrell
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>> <(((°> 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. 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.

No, Concorde wasn't fuel efficient though neither are Porsche, Ferrari and
so on motorcars.
Come to think of it, neither are those enormous engined gas guzzling
motors most US citizens used to prefer.

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

== 6 of 19 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 6:31 am
From: Kurt Ullman

In article <op.vhucy5uvcnngb9@me-pc>, ><(((°> <nospam@butfish.com>
wrote:

> Who was to know in the sixties that oil was going to rise to the price it
> is today?
I've lost track with all of the ups and downs, but aren't oil prices
back pretty close to what they were in the 60s when adjusted for
inflation? Might even be a little below.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

== 7 of 19 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 6:33 am
From: ><(((°>

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 14:31:33 +0100, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> In article <op.vhucy5uvcnngb9@me-pc>, ><(((°> <nospam@butfish.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Who was to know in the sixties that oil was going to rise to the price
>> it
>> is today?
> I've lost track with all of the ups and downs, but aren't oil prices
> back pretty close to what they were in the 60s when adjusted for
> inflation? Might even be a little below.
>

Not in Blighty they're not - no way near.

== 8 of 19 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 6:46 am
From: clare@snyder.on.ca

On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 23:24:10 +0100, ><(((°> <nospam@butfish.com>
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?

You gotta share the credit for that one with the frenchies IIRC

== 9 of 19 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 7:39 am
From: The Natural Philosopher

> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 02:08:01 +0100, Michael A. Terrell
> <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>> <(((°> 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. 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.
>
> No, Concorde wasn't fuel efficient though neither are Porsche, Ferrari
> and so on motorcars.
> Come to think of it, neither are those enormous engined gas guzzling
> motors most US citizens used to prefer.
>
> Who was to know in the sixties that oil was going to rise to the price
> it is today?

The guys who wrote 'Limits to Growth' and were totally ignored?

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3551

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

== 10 of 19 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 8:43 am
From: "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 15:34:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>aemeijers wrote:
>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>>> It was a fast plane, but a poor design. 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.
>>>
>>> "Bad design" is debatable. Supersonic planes are inherently
>>> inefficient, and
>>> the Concorde (which was actually a British-French design -- hence the
>>> name)
>>> was expensive from the get-go.
>>>
>>> You can't say it wasn't able to compete with other planes, because the
>>> Concorde was the only supersonic transport. Even without the fatal
>>> accident,
>>> the Concorde would have eventually gone out of business, as there just
>>> weren't enough rich people or business who needed to zip to Europe and
>>> back.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> US design never got past the mock-up stage. The bean-counters killed it
>> based on cost-benefits. Simply put, it could never pay for itself and
>> recoup the development money. As the Brits and the French discovered,
>> the bean counters were right. Unlike Concorde, which had much or most of
>> R&D paid for by taxpayers as a national ego thing, the US SST didn't get
>> that much from Uncle Sam. (US Govt had other expensive things going on.)
>> Without signed orders from the airlines, the financing just wasn't
>> there. US doesn't have a 'national airline' like most countries. Most of
>> the R&D seed money US Govt supplies for aircraft work is related to
>> military requirements or to keep industrial base operational. Some of
>> the military research can also be used on civilian side, like how large
>> jet bombers/tranports led to large jet airliners.
>>
>> Don't forget the knockoff of Concorde USSR put together. That was purely
>> a national ego thing.
>>
>Concorde got banned from flying supersonic over nearly all land areas.
>That meant it couldn't actually use its speed to cut route times. i.e.
>2hrs coast to coast of USA...

Correction: Super sonic flight was banned

>With such a restriction round its neck it was doomed.

The SST was cancelled, seeing the writing on the wall. The Concorde wasn't
built for economic reasons.

== 11 of 19 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 8:45 am
From: "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

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.

== 12 of 19 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 8:46 am
From: "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 14:33:50 +0100, ><(((°> <nospam@butfish.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 14:31:33 +0100, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>> In article <op.vhucy5uvcnngb9@me-pc>, ><(((°> <nospam@butfish.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Who was to know in the sixties that oil was going to rise to the price
>>> it
>>> is today?
>> I've lost track with all of the ups and downs, but aren't oil prices
>> back pretty close to what they were in the 60s when adjusted for
>> inflation? Might even be a little below.
>>
>
>Not in Blighty they're not - no way near.

Well, there you have it. You killed the Concorde yourselves.

== 13 of 19 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 8:47 am
From: "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 14:26:55 +0100, ><(((°> <nospam@butfish.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 02:08:01 +0100, Michael A. Terrell
><mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>> <(((°> 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. 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.
>
>No, Concorde wasn't fuel efficient though neither are Porsche, Ferrari and
>so on motorcars.
>Come to think of it, neither are those enormous engined gas guzzling
>motors most US citizens used to prefer.

Because perhaps the boot of the government isn't quite as heavy on this side
of the pond, yet. Perhaps because this is a *big* place and cars are used to
transport more than a couple of people a few km.

>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.

== 14 of 19 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 10:13 am
From: ><(((°>

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.

== 15 of 19 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 10:26 am
From: aemeijers

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.

--
aem sends...

== 16 of 19 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 10:39 am
From: "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

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. The 747 is.

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

So what? The SST was canceled because it didn't make sense. You nitwits
weren't bright enough to figure that out/

== 17 of 19 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 10:43 am
From: "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 13:26:45 -0400, aemeijers <aemeijers@att.net> 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.

That wasn't the issue.

> 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.

It's an old plane. There are cheaper now. Do you notice any cheaper
Concordes flying?

>Airlines switched to the itty-bitty jets for many routes.

Because many routes are itty-bitty. A 747, no matter how loaded, doesn't make
sense from JFL to ALB.

>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.

I thought most would already be belly-up. My bet is that they all have some
pretty long term fuel contracts sewn 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.

That market was never enough to justify the Concorde.

>Absent some technological leap that allows cheap suborbital flights for
>the masses, world travel will be slower and more expensive from here on out.

I don't buy that conclusion.

== 18 of 19 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 10:44 am
From: The Natural Philosopher

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz 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.
>
> I guess that answered my question (you don't read well).
>
> The Concorde was not successful. The 747 is.
>
>> You might have a military plane faster but you haven't got a passenger
>> airliner faster.
>
> So what? The SST was canceled because it didn't make sense. You nitwits
> weren't bright enough to figure that out/

It WOULD have made sense. For a limited market of people with money in a
hurry IF they had allowed supersonic flight over land.

As it was, many routes were so restricted it offered no time advantages
at all.

== 19 of 19 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 10:44 am
From: Bob Eager

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:39:08 -0500, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

> So what? The SST was canceled because it didn't make sense. You
> nitwits weren't bright enough to figure that out/

Don't you think these US apologists are a perfect example of the Dunning-
Kruger effect?

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

==============================================================================
TOPIC: See Hot Sexy Star* Angelina Jolie* Nude Bathing Videos In All Angles
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/1f62cc3271cc33c0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 5:02 am
From: SUKANYA

See Hot Sexy Star *Angelina Jolie* Nude Bathing Videos In All Angles
At http://moneyforwarding.co.cc

Due to high sex content, i have hidden the videos in an image.
in that website on Right side below search box click on image and
watch videos in all angles.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Semi-conductor Question
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/bc3822e35eab24b0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 8:54 am
From: "ian field"

"Bob Villa" <pheeh.zero@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:126beb8d-b249-4fd5-a61e-7f1147491e5b@x25g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 21, 11:45 am, "Wild_Bill" <wb_wildb...@XSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
> I've seen 3-wire starters that were marked Solid State (triac,
> presumably),
> as replacement parts for current-type start relays, typically for
> refrigeration compressor motors (fractional HP).
>
> Places like Johnstone, or other suppliers for HVAC service folks should
> have
> numerous models to choose from.
> You may need to know a motor's specs, at least the LRA locked rotor amps
> rating, to be able to make an informed selection of starter devices.
>
> The following is a post from rec.crafts.metalworking..
>
> I bought a couple of used Dayton (1/3 HP) bench grinders recently, and
> found
> some
> Klixon current-type motor starter relays being used instead of centrifugal
> switches for switching between Start and Run windings in these small
> split-phase 120VAC induction
> motors.http://www.sensata.com/klixon/motor-protector-3cr.htm
>
> I mention these relays because they would be a suitable replacement for
> damaged mechanical components or switch contacts related to centrifugal
> switches.
>
> These relays are the types used with refrigeration and air conditioning
> compressors, and also completely suitable for other split-phase motors.
> They
> have a heavy duty winding that the motor current passes thru, not a
> separate
> coil like common relays.
> When the power is turned on, the relay is pulled in, to make contact to
> the
> Start winding.
> The starting amperage of the motor is initially high, but it drops as the
> rotor approaches Run speed, the relay drops out, connecting the line
> voltage
> to the Run winding.
>
> There are charts of different models of the SR start relays (in PDFs at
> the
> link above), but I didn't find any type of selector guide for choosing
> what
> the appropriate amp ratings would be for various HP ratings.
> The models of Klixon SRs I was looking at were applicable for motors up to
> 15A (3CR series), and the next larger series of SRs were for up to 25A, so
> these ratings would cover nearly all single phase split-phase motors
> (capacitor start or non-capacitor start) used in a home shop environment.
>
> One particular aspect of the SRs is that they are gravity-dependent, and
> therefore need to be installed with the proper end pointed up.
> Aside from that, they are highly reliable starting devices, rated for
> about
> 1 million cycles.
>
> The specific ratings used for a 1/3 HP bench grinder motor use an 11A
> pull-in (Start) spec and a 6A drop-out (Run) spec.
> Of course, larger motors would use higher rated specs for pull-in and
> drop-out currents, and the ratings vary in tenths-of-an-ampere
> (11.5A/6.3A,
> etc).
>
> --
> Cheers,
> WB
> .............
>
> "Bob Villa" <pheeh.z...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e6651839-0b72-4722-9a06-4ca6557c386d@h19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Many years ago (possibly 50) you could buy a module that would take
> > the place of a starting relay or centrifugal cut-out for an AC motor.
> > Where do you find them? (I think I sent for one thru Popular Science
> > mag at the time)
> > Thanks

This was a totally solid state device...like a timed triac that cuts-
out after a half second.

----------------------------------

If the motor is low powered, ie not too much bigger than a fridge motor, you
can use a CRT TV degauss unit, there are 2 different types of the 3 pin unit
so you have to make sure you know which and wire it accordingly.

The most common type has 2 PTC elements - one is in series with the load
(degauss coil - (or start winding)) and delivers a short burst of current
which decays as the current through it heats it and causes its resistance to
rise.

The second PTC element is wired directly across the mains (after the on/off
switch) so that its self heating also heats the first PTC turning the
current fully off.

The less common type of degauss unit is a combination PTC/NTC pair, the PTC
would go in series with the load as before, the NTC in this case would be in
series with the run winding - the NTC element provides inrush current
limiting as it has a high resistance at room temperature, falling to a low
resistance as the current flowing heats it up.

Once again the self heating of the NTC heats the PTC and switches off its
current.

The downside is that degauss units take a few minutes to cool after the
motor is switched off.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cheap Nike Air Max2010 Shoes Nike Air Max LTD Shoes Nike Air Max TN
Shoes Wholesale(http://www.24hoursneakers.com/) (PayPal Payment)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/c0fc0e16e4ecfac9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 9:16 am
From: huang

Are you searching for good quality and low price products?our company
want to be you reliable supplier in china,we offer brand
shoes,bags,jeans,clothes,we accept a variety of payment
methods .Convenient for you the more you order the better price for
you! if you interested in our goods,pls don't hestate to contact me
Our website (http://www.24hoursneakers.com/)
◥█▄▃▁
...◥█☆█▅▄▃▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▃▄▅︿@︿▅▄▁
〓▇████Ship Wholesaler█████████████▅▄▃▁▁
〓〓〓█████████████
Nike Air Max87 Shoes Wholesale(http://www.24hoursneakers.com/)
(PayPal Payment)
Nike Air Max88 Shoes Wholesale(http://www.24hoursneakers.com/)
(PayPal Payment)
Nike Air Max89 Shoes Wholesale(http://www.24hoursneakers.com/)
(PayPal Payment)
Nike Air Max90 Shoes Wholesale(http://www.24hoursneakers.com/)
(PayPal Payment)
Nike Air Max91 Shoes Wholesale(http://www.24hoursneakers.com/)
(PayPal Payment)
Nike Air Max95 Shoes Wholesale(http://www.24hoursneakers.com/)
(PayPal Payment)
Nike Air Max97 Shoes Wholesale(http://www.24hoursneakers.com/)
(PayPal Payment)
Nike Air Max2003 Shoes Wholesale(http://www.24hoursneakers.com/)
(PayPal Payment)
Nike Air Max2009 Shoes Wholesale(http://www.24hoursneakers.com/)
(PayPal Payment)
Nike Air Max360 Shoes Wholesale(http://www.24hoursneakers.com/)
(PayPal Payment)
Nike Air Max95 360 Shoes Wholesale(http://www.24hoursneakers.com/)
(PayPal Payment)
Nike Air Max90 360 Shoes Wholesale(http://www.24hoursneakers.com/)
(PayPal Payment)
Nike Air Max LTD Shoes Wholesale(http://www.24hoursneakers.com/)
(PayPal Payment)
Nike Air Max TN Shoes Wholesale(http://www.24hoursneakers.com/)
(PayPal Payment)
Nike Air Max180 Shoes Wholesale(http://www.24hoursneakers.com/)
(PayPal Payment)
Nike Air Max90 Boot Shoes Wholesale(http://www.24hoursneakers.com/)
(PayPal Payment)
Nike Air Max2010 Shoes Wholesale(http://www.24hoursneakers.com/)
(PayPal Payment)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Backlight Dummy Load???
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/269588fe600f676f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 9:42 am
From: mike

I pick up free lcd monitors at garage sales and fix 'em.
Biggest problem is getting them to run while you have 'em
disassembled.
Seems as if they TRY to make it hard to run 'em.

Would be much easier if I didn't have to hook up the backlights.
But running the inverter with out a load is surely a BIG STRESS
on the transformers and maybe the driver.

What's a good dummy load that I can put on the connections to keep
the voltage spikes from arcing/shorting the transformer secondary?
The lamp load is decidedly nonlinear. And there's several watts to
dissipate.

Cutting the power supply trace to the inverter works, as long as the
problem isn't in the inverter supply, but it's
kinda brute force.

I have a bunch of laptop backlights, but I'm afraid to use them
as load for bigger monitors. Big current difference.

Anybody successfully constructed a backlight proxy (dummy load)?
Explanation?

Thanks, mike

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Mohamed Kaffi - RAPIST (Rosewood Hudson PSA)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/74c6e23a89f0b34d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 22 2010 10:18 am
From: Anonymous

ROSEWOOD HUDSON
Screening and Investigative Services
(800) 888-9419

*** RAPE ALERT ***

Mohamed Kaffi, last known address 1603 Becontree #2a Reston VA 20190 is a wanted rapist.

UPON ANY CONTACT WITH KAFFI CONTACT 911 POST HASTE.

KAFFI is a dangerous person. Do not hire him, rent to him or lend him money.

If you have concerns about an employee, contractor or borrower, contact us.

We provide the best background checks at the lowest prices.

Licensed in all 50 states.

For more information-contact Kelly Woolwine.

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

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