sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* 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
* Best solder free electrical connection - 20 messages, 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/11e5e6461418f740?hl=en
* 35% off Classic Short UGG Boots, free shipping, no taxes, uggskyonline - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/29b3a70194c150b3?hl=en
* Semi-conductor Question - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/bc3822e35eab24b0?hl=en
* Why we have Gravity - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/004d04dfe74c9553?hl=en

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

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

== 1 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 1:52 am
From: "dennis@home"

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

> The Concorde was not successful. The 747 is.

Concord was successful, it met its design goals.

However it failed commercially as the goal was moved.
We had several political changes and an oil crisis that made it too
expensive.
Pretty much the same as the 747 should feel when the A380 takes all its
passengers.
Which it won't as the USoA doesn't allow a level playing field and will
prevent it from getting landing slots when its a threat.

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

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

== 2 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 2:05 am
From: "dennis@home"

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:_dmdnfd7TbGSfezRnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>
> 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.

There is a big difference between a SS plane at 50 feet and one at 75000
feet.
In case you hadn't noticed the shuttle flies supersonic over much of America
when its landing and doesn't cause any damage (apart from when it hits the
ground which isn't often).
The entire you can't fly SS over land was just an excuse to keep Concorde
from flying across the US faster than the old planes.

As for cracking block walls I don't believe it.
I have seen an attempt to damage a house using a SS plane and it had to fly
ludicrously low (about 50 feet) and close (directly above) to even pop a
window.

I notice that the US military now has a plane with supercruise just like
Concorde used to do (F22).

== 3 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 2:06 am
From: "dennis@home"

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

> Sorry? Where was supersonic flight first achieved, again/

Germany, 1943?

== 4 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 3:11 am
From: tony sayer

In article <rKCdnZnUmoqVJ-zRnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Michael A.
Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> scribeth thus
>
>tony sayer 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...
>
>
> Well under a fraction of one percent isn't sucessful. It's nothing
>but ego bloat.

Built here anyone;?..
--
Tony Sayer

== 5 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 3:13 am
From: tony sayer

In article <rKCdnZjUmopEJ-zRnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Michael A.
Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> scribeth thus
>
>><(((°> 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.
>
>
> Yawn. US SS military jets were banned from populated areas long
>before the first Concord was pieced together from British and french
>landfills.

Yawn ... zzzzzz Frank Writtle was 'working on them long before that;)...
--
Tony Sayer

== 6 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 3:12 am
From: tony sayer

In article <40j376ljgj96q0brsbaofkk2dfkubc76gc@4ax.com>,
clare@snyder.on.ca 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.
>>
>>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

Suppose thats like comparing a London Omnibus with a sports car;?...
--
Tony Sayer

== 7 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 3:24 am
From: "William Sommerwerck"

>> Sorry? Where was supersonic flight first achieved, again?

> Germany, 1943?

Chuck Yeager would likely disagree. Got some proof of that?

== 8 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 3:15 am
From: tony sayer

In article <rgq3765tqb0ejbkvvtibhpn26lrq7scdbk@4ax.com>,
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> scribeth thus
>On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 22:53:01 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <geh276lr23mg4leqijuv79csegd6o5b547@4ax.com>,
>>krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> scribeth thus
>>>On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:01:04 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <-NmdnY7Fjv0c5e3RnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Michael A.
>>>>Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> scribeth thus
>>>>>
>>>>>><(((°> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 22:26:53 +0100, <clare@snyder.on.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:46:34 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
>>>>>> > <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Dave wrote:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> On 21/08/2010 03:59, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> > geoff wrote:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> > That's a very good example of why most people with brains left
>>>>>> >>> Europe
>>>>>> >>> > for 'The new World'.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> So how come Britain made a better nuclear bomb than the New World?
>And
>>>>>> >>> the New World wanted as much detail of our superior technology as they
>>>>>> >>> could get?
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> What superior technology? Lucas?
>>>>>> > No "superior technology" has come out of GB since about 1950. - and
>>>>>> > that may be stretchng it. There have been a few "good ideas" since
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I might be wrong but I thought Concorde started flying after 1950.
>>>>>> Though then again the Septics didn't like the noise, or was it a classic
>>>>>> case of "Not Invented Here" syndrome?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It was a fast plane, but a poor design.
>>>>
>>>>Not that bad really as it was the first one..
>>>>
>>>>>They spent wads of money to
>>>>>build and maintain them, then junked the entire fleet. It was noisy and
>>>>>very fuel inefficient. That forced the fares so high that they weren't
>>>>>able to compete with better planes from multiple countries.
>>>>
>>>>What other supersonic airliners are those then?...
>>>
>>>Don't read well, do you? The 747 kicked its butt.
>>
>>Yes I read fine I interpret differently from you!...
>>
>>The 747 has nothing to do with supersonic air travel its a completely
>>different class of aircraft.
>>
>>We \were\ talking about Supersonic airliners....
>
>You need to take a remedial reading course.

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

== 9 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 3:16 am
From: tony sayer

In article <i4t7au$ec6$1@news.datemas.de>, dennis@home
<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> scribeth thus
>
>
>"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.).
>

Nuclear scientists 'n all....
--
Tony Sayer

== 10 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 3:26 am
From: "William Sommerwerck"

>>> The Concorde was not successful.

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

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

Being a working supersonic transport IS NOT a measure of success? Profit is
the only valid measure of success?

== 11 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 3:50 am
From: "William Sommerwerck"

> Come to think of it a lot of USoA technology was
> borrowed from others (light bulbs, telephones,
> computers, WWW, space flight, etc).

Where do you get this "information"?

light bulbs: The British love to point out that Swann had an incandescent
lamp before Edison. True. But it used an expensive platinum filament. Edison
came up with a cheap carbon filament -- and the electrical generation and
distribution system to back it up. (And let's not forget that the AC system
in use today was designed by a naturalized American citizen.)

telephones: The telephone is unquestionably an American invention.

computers: Although work was done in a number of countries (eg, Konrad Zuse
in Switzerland), the first large-scale electrical and electronic computers
were built in the US.

WWW: The Internet -- which the WWW is built over -- is an American
invention.

space flight: If you mean simply getting a rocket above the atmosphere, it
was likely first done by 'murcans. (I don't think the Germans got high
enough.)

== 12 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 4:02 am
From: The Natural Philosopher

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>> Sorry? Where was supersonic flight first achieved, again?
>
>> Germany, 1943?
>
> Chuck Yeager would likely disagree. Got some proof of that?
>
>
Many wartime planes went supersonic in a dive. Few survived to tell of
it though.

The plane that finally did it in peace time was the Miles M52, well it
WOULD have been the Miles, except the total plans for it were handed to
the USA and UK government funding withdrawn from the Miles company. It
appeared virtually unchanged as the Bell X-1 , with American stickers
all over it. But it was in essence the Miles plane. A smaller unmanned
version of which had reached Mach 1.38 in about 1946/7.

The key thing that allowed the X-1 to maintain control in transonic
flight was the Miles' all moving tailplane. This got around the control
reversal that plagued transonic aircraft fitted with conventional elevators.

The USA was about 5 years behind everyone else in jet engines and high
speed flight, till they lifted what they could from the UK and Germany
to make up for the ideas and research they didn't have. Of course
staying out of the war as long as possible, lending money to the winning
side, finally joining it, and not actually ever getting bombed proved
excellent business, and they were then the only country in the world
with enough money left to spend on waving a supersonic dick around.

== 13 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 4:17 am
From: The Natural Philosopher

tony sayer wrote:
> In article <i4t7au$ec6$1@news.datemas.de>, dennis@home
> <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> scribeth thus
>>
>> "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.).
>>
>
> Nuclear scientists 'n all....

Look at all the stuff America crows about.

The steam engine, Invented here.
Steel. Invented here.
Electronic Computers. Invented here.
Radar, especially the magnetron, invented here.
The jet engine, invented here and in Germany almost simultaneously.
The all moving tailplane for supersonic flight, invented here.
Motherhood, invented in Africa
Apple Pie, invented here.
God, invented in the Middle East, Reinvented in Rome..
Democracy, Invented in Greece (and much good it did them)
The Mafia, invented in Sicily (and much good it did them)
Americans are pretty carp at inventing anything: Mostly its a ripoff of
someone else's idea made successful through selling in vast quantities
to a gullible nation.

I think they maty be credited with fast food, and obesity, and the coca
cola however. And spurious tailfins on cars. And drag racing. But really
that's about it.

Oh, the Blues, I guess the black slaves invented that, and jazz,

Says it all really.

Really the only significant US contributions of any value to modern life
have been the semiconductor, the integrated circuit, and the high level
programming language, courtesy of COBOL.

Though even there high level languages go back a bit further. To Europe.

What the USA is superb at is business. Taking something from someone
else, and pretending they thought of it first, and selling it in vast
quantities backed by a flood of syrupy marketing that pretends its is
factual.

They are without doubt, the greatest LIARS the world has ever known.

== 14 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 4:18 am
From: The Natural Philosopher

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>>> The Concorde was not successful.
>
>>> It was... for what it did...
>
>> By *no* measure was it successful. It was a money pit.
>
> Being a working supersonic transport IS NOT a measure of success? Profit is
> the only valid measure of success?
>
>
It is, in America.

== 15 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 4:25 am
From: "dennis@home"

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

>>Who was to know in the sixties that oil was going to rise to the price it
>>is today?
>
> It didn't. Your taxes did.

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

== 16 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 9:49 am
From: clare@snyder.on.ca

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

>
>
>"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in message
>news:4C71E4B4.9020802@electrooptical.net...
>
>> Sorry? Where was supersonic flight first achieved, again/
>
>Germany, 1943?

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

== 17 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 12:28 pm
From: "Michael A. Terrell"

"dennis@home" wrote:
>
> "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?

Not since 1974.

> Have a look at who makes plane parts these days.

Who really cares? It's all low bidder crap these days.

== 18 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 12:28 pm
From: "john hamilton"

"Paul" <23023@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8d58njF43gU1@mid.individual.net...
> On 19/08/2010 04:46, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>
>> Paul wrote:
>>>
>>> On 19/08/2010 01:27, The Daring Dufas wrote:
>>>> On 8/18/2010 6:33 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>>> In message<i4hmat$blj$2@news.eternal-september.org>, The Daring Dufas
>>>>> <the-daring-dufas@peckerhead.net> writes
>>>>>> On 8/18/2010 4:17 PM, geoff wrote:
>>>>>>> In message<i4hhb1$np$1@news.eternal-september.org>, The Daring Dufas
>>>>>>> <the-daring-dufas@peckerhead.net> writes
>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2010 12:43 PM, john hamilton wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I have to connect this AAA battery holder to a toy. Although I
>>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>>> small
>>>>>>>>> soldering iron, my soldering skills are poor. I can see myself
>>>>>>>>> easily
>>>>>>>>> melting all the plastic around the contacts before I can get
>>>>>>>>> anything to
>>>>>>>>> stick to the tabs. (The part of the tabs with the small hole will
>>>>>>>>> bend
>>>>>>>>> upwards giving some clearence).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://tinypic.com/r/iqx3pf/4
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My immediate plan is to poke a few strands of wire through the
>>>>>>>>> holes
>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>> connection tabs twist and then apply some nail varnish to stop it
>>>>>>>>> unwinding.
>>>>>>>>> Since its a toy it does not need to be totally foolproof.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If anyone had any ideas that were a bit more sophisticated I would
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> gratefull. Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you are familiar with faston connectors, you can trim the
>>>>>>>> terminals with scissors or wire cutters so a connector will
>>>>>>>> slip on to them. The connectors are available in many sizes
>>>>>>>> with the 1/4" being the most common. I believe The Shack,
>>>>>>>> formally Radio Shack carries several sizes. Here's a link
>>>>>>>> to a manufacturer that produces many types so you can see
>>>>>>>> what I'm referring to:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.etco.com/category.php?cat=18&div=ep&l=e
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Excuse me, but is the OP a Septic or English ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If he/she/it is English, it's bugger all use pointing them at Septic
>>>>>>> outlets, is it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sorry, I have absolutely no idea what you are writing
>>>>>> about. Could you find someone to translate it into American?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Septic tank = yank
>>>>>
>>>>> duh - colonials
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Um, the cultural education is nice but what's it got to do
>>>> with electrical connections to a battery holder? Bizarre is
>>>> fun but at least I try to keep my jokes within the subject
>>>> matter being discussed. 8-)
>>>>> TDD
>>>>> It was... Radio Shack used to have UK outlets (but seemed to have
>>> vanished), but the link above was certainly for their US replacement...
>>>
> Its a long way to go for a battery holder..
>>>
>> Yes. All the way to your mail box. Of course, that may require you
>> to get out of your chair and actually walk.
>>
> And pay three times the value in shipping and taxes

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

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

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

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

== 19 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 12:29 pm
From: "Michael A. Terrell"

tony sayer wrote:
>
> In article <rKCdnZnUmoqVJ-zRnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Michael A.
> Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> scribeth thus
> >
> >tony sayer 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...
> >
> >
> > Well under a fraction of one percent isn't sucessful. It's nothing
> >but ego bloat.
>
> Built here anyone;?..

How's your space agency doing? How do they like the US built
communications systems that i built?

== 20 of 20 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 12:31 pm
From: "Michael A. Terrell"

"dennis@home" wrote:
>
> <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
> news:m2o276d9vv1tkkp2tluq1koi9uovlgh7cu@4ax.com...
>
> > The Concorde was not successful. The 747 is.
>
> Concord was successful, it met its design goals.

Which was to use ungodly amonts of tax money for the design and to
subsidize the enntoire program.

> However it failed commercially as the goal was moved.
> We had several political changes and an oil crisis that made it too
> expensive.
> Pretty much the same as the 747 should feel when the A380 takes all its
> passengers.
> Which it won't as the USoA doesn't allow a level playing field and will
> prevent it from getting landing slots when its a threat.
>
> >>You might have a military plane faster but you haven't got a passenger
> >>airliner faster.
>
> They have the space shuttle, the only thing faster than that was Apollo but
> that's old technology borrowed from the Germans.

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: 35% off Classic Short UGG Boots, free shipping, no taxes, uggskyonline
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/29b3a70194c150b3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 2:16 am
From: uggsky online

Classic Short UGG Boots
Classic Short UGG Boots On Sale! Hottest Birthday or Christmas Gift!

http://www.uggskyonline.com
http://www.uggskyonline.com/classic-short-ugg-boots-c-26

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.uggskyonline.com/classic-short-ugg-boots-c-26

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.uggskyonline.com

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.uggskyonline.com

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.uggskyonline.com/classic-short-ugg-boots-c-26

http://www.uggskyonline.com

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.uggskyonline.com

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

http://www.uggskyonline.com/classic-short-ugg-boots-c-26

http://www.uggskyonline.com

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.uggskyonline.com

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.uggskyonline.com
http://www.uggskyonline.com/classic-short-ugg-boots-c-26

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 5:17 am
From: Bob Villa

On Aug 20, 5:16 am, Bob Villa <pheeh.z...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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

It is amazing to me that they aren't commonly available!

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 6:58 am
From: Meat Plow

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 05:17:04 -0700, Bob Villa wrote:

> On Aug 20, 5:16 am, Bob Villa <pheeh.z...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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
>
> It is amazing to me that they aren't commonly available!

Google --- PLC module.

HTH

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

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 12:24 pm
From: "Michael A. Terrell"

RichTravsky 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).

Slow Old Geezers.

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

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