sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Best solder free electrical connection - 22 messages, 9 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/11e5e6461418f740?hl=en
* Why we have Gravity - 4 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/004d04dfe74c9553?hl=en

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

== 1 of 22 ==
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?

== 2 of 22 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 12:40 pm
From: "Michael A. Terrell"

"dennis@home" wrote:
>
> "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.

At 50 feet, it would have hit a tree, and you don't land at 75,000
feet, which is 14.2 miles AAT. They have to descend to land, and gain
altitude to leave any airfield. Airports balked at longer runways for
747s, and many would have had to move to have anything longer. it would
take decades to use 'Eminent Domain' to take homes and businesses for
the extra land at current sites.

> 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).

Are you sure they have never caused any damage? Have you ever been
in Florida when one loops over the state before landing? That
distinctive double boom has a lot of energy when it's close. I've heard
plenty of them over the last 20 years. I also built some of the
communications equipment and telemetry equipment used to track them.

> 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.

prove it. No commercial SS was allowed, and military SS has limited
flight paths at lower altitudes which limits the bases they can operate
from.

> 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.

Sigh. Do you ever study anything, or just type bullshit?
>
> I notice that the US military now has a plane with supercruise just like
> Concorde used to do (F22).

== 3 of 22 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 12:41 pm
From: "Michael A. Terrell"

tony sayer wrote:
>
> 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;)...

So, where are his flying, today?

== 4 of 22 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 12:47 pm
From: "Michael A. Terrell"

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.

Even their lightbulbs.

== 5 of 22 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 12:55 pm
From: salty@dog.com

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:47:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>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.
>
>
> Even their lightbulbs.

Many years ago in a previous life, radio host Don Imus brought me his
Triumph Motorcycle to look at because the headlight as in fact,
leaking oil!

Long story short: Bad oil pressure sending unit had it's wire lead
encased in a plastic spaghetti tube that ran up along the frame to the
headlight housing. Oil was running up through the spaghetti tubing and
collecting in the headlight housing. When he parked, it would drip
out.

== 6 of 22 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 1:45 pm
From: The Natural Philosopher

salty@dog.com wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:47:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
> <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>> Even their lightbulbs.
>
> Many years ago in a previous life, radio host Don Imus brought me his
> Triumph Motorcycle to look at because the headlight as in fact,
> leaking oil!
>
> Long story short: Bad oil pressure sending unit had it's wire lead
> encased in a plastic spaghetti tube that ran up along the frame to the
> headlight housing. Oil was running up through the spaghetti tubing and
> collecting in the headlight housing. When he parked, it would drip
> out.
>
Now if that had been an American Hog, it would have been a cunning
feature to prevent the headlight corroding.

You guys cant even get a sub zero O-ring to work.

And no one in their right minds not doing pork barrel politics would
glue a rocket together with an O ring anyway.

An engineer, it has been said, is someone who can do for sixpence what
any damned fool can do for a quid.

Or any American company for $10,000 of course.

== 7 of 22 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 1:53 pm
From: "dennis@home"

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:GIednWq1m4RfUe_RnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@earthlink.com...

>> 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?

Well the Saturn V wasn't exactly advanced compared to a V2.
They were both more or less the same.
However the Russians did have significantly more advanced rocket engines.
NASA have been using the designs to make their rockets better.

== 8 of 22 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 2:44 pm
From: "Michael A. Terrell"

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> salty@dog.com wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:47:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
> > <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> Even their lightbulbs.
> >
> > Many years ago in a previous life, radio host Don Imus brought me his
> > Triumph Motorcycle to look at because the headlight as in fact,
> > leaking oil!
> >
> > Long story short: Bad oil pressure sending unit had it's wire lead
> > encased in a plastic spaghetti tube that ran up along the frame to the
> > headlight housing. Oil was running up through the spaghetti tubing and
> > collecting in the headlight housing. When he parked, it would drip
> > out.
> >
> Now if that had been an American Hog, it would have been a cunning
> feature to prevent the headlight corroding.
>
> You guys cant even get a sub zero O-ring to work.
>
> And no one in their right minds not doing pork barrel politics would
> glue a rocket together with an O ring anyway.
>
> An engineer, it has been said, is someone who can do for sixpence what
> any damned fool can do for a quid.
>
> Or any American company for $10,000 of course.

And yet you poor, mindless blokes haven't launched anything to the
moon, let alone get it back.

== 9 of 22 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 2:47 pm
From: "Michael A. Terrell"

"dennis@home" wrote:
>
> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:GIednWq1m4RfUe_RnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>
> >> 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?
>
> Well the Saturn V wasn't exactly advanced compared to a V2.

Sigh. the Saturn V was a Model A. The V2 was a model T. Both
designed in the days of slide rules, and poor metalurgy. Tube
electronics and crude plastics. Do you have anything useful to say?

> They were both more or less the same.
> However the Russians did have significantly more advanced rocket engines.

They built bigger engines, typical of Russian designs. Scale up
something, then everthing else needed the same.

> NASA have been using the designs to make their rockets better.

Proof?

== 10 of 22 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 2:48 pm
From: "Michael A. Terrell"

salty@dog.com wrote:
>
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:47:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
> <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >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.
> >
> >
> > Even their lightbulbs.
>
> Many years ago in a previous life, radio host Don Imus brought me his
> Triumph Motorcycle to look at because the headlight as in fact,
> leaking oil!
>
> Long story short: Bad oil pressure sending unit had it's wire lead
> encased in a plastic spaghetti tube that ran up along the frame to the
> headlight housing. Oil was running up through the spaghetti tubing and
> collecting in the headlight housing. When he parked, it would drip
> out.

One look at Imus, and you knew it wasn't hair oil. ;-)

== 11 of 22 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 2:53 pm
From: "William Sommerwerck"

> However the Russians did have significantly more advanced
> rocket engines. NASA have been using the designs to make
> their rockets better.

Where do you get this?

The Saturn was unusual, possibly unique, in that it was (apparently) the
only rocket that never failed.

== 12 of 22 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 3:45 pm
From: Frank Erskine

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:47:42 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>"dennis@home" wrote:
>>
>> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:GIednWq1m4RfUe_RnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>
>> >> 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?
>>
>> Well the Saturn V wasn't exactly advanced compared to a V2.
>
>
> Sigh. the Saturn V was a Model A. The V2 was a model T. Both
>designed in the days of slide rules, and poor metalurgy.

Hey - what's the matter with slide rules? I still use mine (fairly)
regularly.

--
Frank Erskine

== 13 of 22 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 4:18 pm
From: "dennis@home"

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:xbCdnUC4mN9Ndu_RnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> salty@dog.com wrote:
>> > On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:47:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
>> > <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >> Even their lightbulbs.
>> >
>> > Many years ago in a previous life, radio host Don Imus brought me his
>> > Triumph Motorcycle to look at because the headlight as in fact,
>> > leaking oil!
>> >
>> > Long story short: Bad oil pressure sending unit had it's wire lead
>> > encased in a plastic spaghetti tube that ran up along the frame to the
>> > headlight housing. Oil was running up through the spaghetti tubing and
>> > collecting in the headlight housing. When he parked, it would drip
>> > out.
>> >
>> Now if that had been an American Hog, it would have been a cunning
>> feature to prevent the headlight corroding.
>>
>> You guys cant even get a sub zero O-ring to work.
>>
>> And no one in their right minds not doing pork barrel politics would
>> glue a rocket together with an O ring anyway.
>>
>> An engineer, it has been said, is someone who can do for sixpence what
>> any damned fool can do for a quid.
>>
>> Or any American company for $10,000 of course.
>
>
>
> And yet you poor, mindless blokes haven't launched anything to the
> moon, let alone get it back.

The Americans aren't the only ones to have collected moon rocks.

== 14 of 22 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 4:23 pm
From: ><(((°>

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 22:44:25 +0100, Michael A. Terrell
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> salty@dog.com wrote:
>> > On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:47:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
>> > <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >> Even their lightbulbs.
>> >
>> > Many years ago in a previous life, radio host Don Imus brought me his
>> > Triumph Motorcycle to look at because the headlight as in fact,
>> > leaking oil!
>> >
>> > Long story short: Bad oil pressure sending unit had it's wire lead
>> > encased in a plastic spaghetti tube that ran up along the frame to the
>> > headlight housing. Oil was running up through the spaghetti tubing and
>> > collecting in the headlight housing. When he parked, it would drip
>> > out.
>> >
>> Now if that had been an American Hog, it would have been a cunning
>> feature to prevent the headlight corroding.
>>
>> You guys cant even get a sub zero O-ring to work.
>>
>> And no one in their right minds not doing pork barrel politics would
>> glue a rocket together with an O ring anyway.
>>
>> An engineer, it has been said, is someone who can do for sixpence what
>> any damned fool can do for a quid.
>>
>> Or any American company for $10,000 of course.
>
>
>
> And yet you poor, mindless blokes haven't launched anything to the
> moon, let alone get it back.

I cant understand you peeps on the west side of the pond bragging about
being technically superior to Europeans.
Since the US was originally colonized by a mix of either Spanish, French,
Portuguese, Dutch or English, your all of European descent anyway.

You've just developed funny ways and attitudes since!

== 15 of 22 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 4:39 pm
From: salty@dog.com

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:48:48 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>salty@dog.com wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:47:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
>> <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >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.
>> >
>> >
>> > Even their lightbulbs.
>>
>> Many years ago in a previous life, radio host Don Imus brought me his
>> Triumph Motorcycle to look at because the headlight as in fact,
>> leaking oil!
>>
>> Long story short: Bad oil pressure sending unit had it's wire lead
>> encased in a plastic spaghetti tube that ran up along the frame to the
>> headlight housing. Oil was running up through the spaghetti tubing and
>> collecting in the headlight housing. When he parked, it would drip
>> out.
>
>
> One look at Imus, and you knew it wasn't hair oil. ;-)

He was very well lubricated, himself, back when I knew him.

== 16 of 22 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 4:57 pm
From: Meat Plow

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:39:56 -0400, salty wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:48:48 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
> <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>salty@dog.com wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:47:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
>>> <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> >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.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Even their lightbulbs.
>>>
>>> Many years ago in a previous life, radio host Don Imus brought me his
>>> Triumph Motorcycle to look at because the headlight as in fact,
>>> leaking oil!
>>>
>>> Long story short: Bad oil pressure sending unit had it's wire lead
>>> encased in a plastic spaghetti tube that ran up along the frame to the
>>> headlight housing. Oil was running up through the spaghetti tubing and
>>> collecting in the headlight housing. When he parked, it would drip
>>> out.
>>
>>
>> One look at Imus, and you knew it wasn't hair oil. ;-)
>
> He was very well lubricated, himself, back when I knew him.

Are you saying what I think you're saying?

Errr never mind TMI.

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

== 17 of 22 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 6:11 pm
From: "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 03:26:33 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
<grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> 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?

No. The Edsel was a working automobile, but it was hardly a success.

>Profit is the only valid measure of success?

For products designed for the market, yes.

== 18 of 22 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 6:13 pm
From: "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:52:36 +0100, "dennis@home"
<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> 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.

No, it didn't. It didn't have the range originally intended. I believe it
was supposed to super-cruise, too, and it didn't.

>However it failed commercially as the goal was moved.

...and the SST was cancelled when the goal was moved. The Concorde was
continued for ego reasons.

>We had several political changes and an oil crisis that made it too
>expensive.

It was too expensive when it was DESIGNED.

>Pretty much the same as the 747 should feel when the A380 takes all its
>passengers.

In your dreams.

>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.

Lies.

>>>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.

More bullshit.

== 19 of 22 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 6:18 pm
From: "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:49:07 -0400, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

>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.

First supersonic airplane in level flight. Several broke the sound barrier,
in dives, before the X-1.

== 20 of 22 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 6:18 pm
From: "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:15:44 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:

>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;?...

You really do need a remedial reading course. ...or a brain.

== 21 of 22 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 6:22 pm
From: "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:25:24 +0100, "dennis@home"
<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

>
>
><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.

Sans taxes, fuel is almost the same price now as it was in the '60s. Look it
up, instead of looking like the dumbass you are.

== 22 of 22 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 6:23 pm
From: "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 00:08:49 -0400, clare@snyder.on.ca wrote:

>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.

;-)

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

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 12:45 pm
From: Bob Villa

On Aug 23, 12:24 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> 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.

I resemble that remark!

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 12:50 pm
From: "Michael A. Terrell"

Bob Villa wrote:
>
> On Aug 23, 12:24 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I resemble that remark!

Admitting it is the first step to recovery! ;-)

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 12:51 pm
From: Igor

BURT wrote:
> 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.
>

So does that mean the devil is creating comedy?

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 23 2010 4:14 pm
From: Bob Villa

On Aug 23, 2:50 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> Bob Villa wrote:
>
> > On Aug 23, 12:24 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> > I resemble that remark!
>
>    Admitting it is the first step to recovery! ;-)

There is no recovery...slow, old geezers only get slower.

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

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