twitter: rec.crafts.metalworking - 26 new messages in 12 topics

rec.crafts.metalworking
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking?hl=en

rec.crafts.metalworking@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT - The Supremes To Decide On A Gun Issue
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/c1a16b6a42bc4b0b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 2 2010 11:32 am
From: Too_Many_Tools

On Mar 2, 11:31 am, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.now> wrote:
> RBnDFW wrote:
> > Joe wrote:
> >> Today, the Court is supposed to take up the issue of whether or not
> >> local governments have the right to restrict gun ownership.
> >> It will be an interesting test of the mettle of old-time
> >> Conservatives, who are fond of arguing in favor of "States' Rights"
> >> over the power of the Federal government. I predict that they will
> >> conveniently forget the states' rights issue for the duration of this
> >> decision.
>
> >> While I agree with them on the core issue of the inalienability of
> >> citizens' rights to posses firearms, I can't help but think that
> >> states' rights has always been a smoke screen for discriminatory
> >> and/or repressive behavior.
>
> >> Since the Court is tilted in favor of Conservatives, I suppose that
> >> the decision will favor gun rights, but I remain suspicious about the
> >> real agenda of any politicians; despite all their populist talk, they
> >> don't want too much power vested in the hands of the citizenry. Here's
> >> hoping that the decision will be made in favor of freedom.
>
> > I think you are missing the point.
> > The issue is that the rights are given by the Creator, and the
> > government is constrained from limiting those rights.
> > The individual states should also be required to recognize the same rights.
> > No state should be allowed to restrict basic rights of humans.
>
> Yet the Supreme Court is supposed to be interpreting the US
> constitution, not the Bible or any other religious text.
>
> Which is fine with me, and makes me glad that's how things work in the
> US -- if _you_ want to live in a land where the rules are made and
> enforced according to some preacher's interpretation of religious law,
> there's always Iran.
>
> --
> Tim Wescott
> Control system and signal processing consultingwww.wescottdesign.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

...or any state south of the Mason Dixon line.

TMT

== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 2 2010 11:34 am
From: Too_Many_Tools

On Mar 2, 12:16 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "RBnDFW" <burkhei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hmjg0r$g5s$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Joe wrote:
> >> Today, the Court is supposed to take up the issue of whether or not
> >> local governments have the right to restrict gun ownership. It will be an
> >> interesting test of the mettle of old-time
> >> Conservatives, who are fond of arguing in favor of "States' Rights"
> >> over the power of the Federal government. I predict that they will
> >> conveniently forget the states' rights issue for the duration of this
> >> decision.
>
> >> While I agree with them on the core issue of the inalienability of
> >> citizens' rights to posses firearms, I can't help but think that
> >> states' rights has always been a smoke screen for discriminatory
> >> and/or repressive behavior.
>
> >> Since the Court is tilted in favor of Conservatives, I suppose that
> >> the decision will favor gun rights, but I remain suspicious about the
> >> real agenda of any politicians; despite all their populist talk, they
> >> don't want too much power vested in the hands of the citizenry. Here's
> >> hoping that the decision will be made in favor of freedom.
>
> > I think you are missing the point.
> > The issue is that the rights are given by the Creator, and the government
> > is constrained from limiting those rights.
> > The individual states should also be required to recognize the same
> > rights.
> > No state should be allowed to restrict basic rights of humans.
>
> But there are several ironies here. First is that the Constitution was
> written by men, so *their* interpretation of "basic rights of humans" could
> be wrong. In fact, the US signed a UN document (and largely wrote it) a
> half-century ago that says we missed close to half of them.
>
> Second is that the same people who claim states' rights are the ones who say
> the Constitution was about limitations to what the *federal* government
> could do, and over which it had authority. This was confirmed by the Supreme
> Court in the 1830s, in the Barron v. Baltimore case. Then the 14th Amendment
> was passed decades later, and now we're still deciding whether that actually
> gave the federal government, particularly the Supreme Court, the authority
> to decide when a state is violating a right of their citizens. In the matter
> of the 2nd Amendment, that's what this case is going to decide.
>
> The final irony, which Joe pointed out, is that Scalia and Thomas (mostly
> Scalia) has been sarcastically bad-mouthing the "substantive due process"
> doctrine that has given us such things as nation-wide free speech, freedom
> of religion, and so on, for a few decades. That's the most likely doctrine
> for the Court to follow in granting federal authority to enforce the right
> to keep and bear arms, over the heads of the states.
>
> But it's well known that Scalia and Thomas hate that doctrine, while at the
> same time favoring the extending of the right over the states -- a process
> called "incorporation" under the 14th. They're between a rock and a hard
> place. Either they invoke substantive due process and embarrass themselves
> (that's what the NRA wants them to do, in their parallel case), or they
> overturn the Slaughterhouse Cases which have stood as precedent since the
> 1870s, and employ a different doctrine from the 14th to incorporate the 2nd.
>
> We were discussing this here almost a year ago, and I mentioned then that it
> was going to be really interesting, and really consequential. Look at who is
> supporting overturning the Slaughterhouse cases: the ACLU, the Cato
> Institute, and most pro-gun groups, except the NRA. Very strange bedfellows
> indeed.
>
> Fasten your seat belt. <g>
>
> --
> Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I am reminded of the saying...."Be careful what you ask for". ;<)

TMT

== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 2 2010 11:36 am
From: Too_Many_Tools

On Mar 2, 6:29 am, Joe <see_real_...@sig.lin> wrote:
> Today, the Court is supposed to take up the issue of whether or not
> local governments have the right to restrict gun ownership.
>
> It will be an interesting test of the mettle of old-time
> Conservatives, who are fond of arguing in favor of "States' Rights"
> over the power of the Federal government. I predict that they will
> conveniently forget the states' rights issue for the duration of this
> decision.
>
> While I agree with them on the core issue of the inalienability of
> citizens' rights to posses firearms, I can't help but think that
> states' rights has always been a smoke screen for discriminatory
> and/or repressive behavior.
>
> Since the Court is tilted in favor of Conservatives, I suppose that
> the decision will favor gun rights, but I remain suspicious about the
> real agenda of any politicians; despite all their populist talk, they
> don't want too much power vested in the hands of the citizenry. Here's
> hoping that the decision will be made in favor of freedom.
>
> Joe

Well said for the most part.

But it's not about freedom.

It's about owning a specific tool...a gun.

Wouldn't be a laugh if more restrictive gun control came out of this?

TMT

== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 2 2010 11:36 am
From: Joe

On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 10:57:01 -0600, RBnDFW <burkheimer@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Joe wrote:
>> Today, the Court is supposed to take up the issue of whether or not
>> local governments have the right to restrict gun ownership.
>>
>> It will be an interesting test of the mettle of old-time
>> Conservatives, who are fond of arguing in favor of "States' Rights"
>> over the power of the Federal government. I predict that they will
>> conveniently forget the states' rights issue for the duration of this
>> decision.
>>
>> While I agree with them on the core issue of the inalienability of
>> citizens' rights to posses firearms, I can't help but think that
>> states' rights has always been a smoke screen for discriminatory
>> and/or repressive behavior.
>>
>> Since the Court is tilted in favor of Conservatives, I suppose that
>> the decision will favor gun rights, but I remain suspicious about the
>> real agenda of any politicians; despite all their populist talk, they
>> don't want too much power vested in the hands of the citizenry. Here's
>> hoping that the decision will be made in favor of freedom.
>
>I think you are missing the point.
>The issue is that the rights are given by the Creator, and the
>government is constrained from limiting those rights.
>The individual states should also be required to recognize the same rights.
> No state should be allowed to restrict basic rights of humans.

*I'm* missing the point? While I believe that we do have "certain
inalienable rights", where is the list? What, exactly, are those
rights?

(Besides, I don't think that the issue here is about rights granted by
any "creator". I think it concerns rights established by the - mere
mortal - framers of the Constitution for the protection of the
citizens.)

Joe

== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 2 2010 11:38 am
From: Too_Many_Tools

On Mar 2, 10:57 am, RBnDFW <burkhei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Joe wrote:
> > Today, the Court is supposed to take up the issue of whether or not
> > local governments have the right to restrict gun ownership.
>
> > It will be an interesting test of the mettle of old-time
> > Conservatives, who are fond of arguing in favor of "States' Rights"
> > over the power of the Federal government. I predict that they will
> > conveniently forget the states' rights issue for the duration of this
> > decision.
>
> > While I agree with them on the core issue of the inalienability of
> > citizens' rights to posses firearms, I can't help but think that
> > states' rights has always been a smoke screen for discriminatory
> > and/or repressive behavior.
>
> > Since the Court is tilted in favor of Conservatives, I suppose that
> > the decision will favor gun rights, but I remain suspicious about the
> > real agenda of any politicians; despite all their populist talk, they
> > don't want too much power vested in the hands of the citizenry. Here's
> > hoping that the decision will be made in favor of freedom.
>
> I think you are missing the point.
> The issue is that the rights are given by the Creator, and the
> government is constrained from limiting those rights.
> The individual states should also be required to recognize the same rights.
> No state should be allowed to restrict basic rights of humans.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No it is not.

There is no 11th Commandment saying "Thou shalt have guns".

TMT

== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 2 2010 11:40 am
From: Too_Many_Tools

Ed...considering the courts have given Eminent Domain free reign, what
stops the Government from declaring all guns "property of the
Government"?

TMT

== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 2 2010 12:17 pm
From: Shabtai

You flaming socialist/liberals are amazing!!!!
Don't give up your freedoms so quickly!! You don't get them back.
I wish my grandparents had guns when the SS put a gun to my
grandfather's head.

Government don't care about your rights. Government care about their
control over YOU.

Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, Pol pot, Marx, Engels, Chavez, etc.
Wake UP!

Shabtai

Joe wrote:
> Today, the Court is supposed to take up the issue of whether or not
> local governments have the right to restrict gun ownership.
>
> It will be an interesting test of the mettle of old-time
> Conservatives, who are fond of arguing in favor of "States' Rights"
> over the power of the Federal government. I predict that they will
> conveniently forget the states' rights issue for the duration of this
> decision.
>
> While I agree with them on the core issue of the inalienability of
> citizens' rights to posses firearms, I can't help but think that
> states' rights has always been a smoke screen for discriminatory
> and/or repressive behavior.
>
> Since the Court is tilted in favor of Conservatives, I suppose that
> the decision will favor gun rights, but I remain suspicious about the
> real agenda of any politicians; despite all their populist talk, they
> don't want too much power vested in the hands of the citizenry. Here's
> hoping that the decision will be made in favor of freedom.
>
> Joe

== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 2 2010 1:11 pm
From: Hawke

>> While I agree with them on the core issue of the inalienability of
>> citizens' rights to posses firearms, I can't help but think that
>> states' rights has always been a smoke screen for discriminatory
>> and/or repressive behavior.
>>
>> Since the Court is tilted in favor of Conservatives, I suppose that
>> the decision will favor gun rights, but I remain suspicious about the
>> real agenda of any politicians; despite all their populist talk, they
>> don't want too much power vested in the hands of the citizenry. Here's
>> hoping that the decision will be made in favor of freedom.
>>
>> Joe
>
> Well said for the most part.
>
> But it's not about freedom.
>
> It's about owning a specific tool...a gun.
>
> Wouldn't be a laugh if more restrictive gun control came out of this?
>
> TMT

I wouldn't bet the farm on gun control getting more restrictive. Not
with the current make up of the court. The conservatives have a solid
five man majority so they will rule any way they want. What you will see
showcased here is unequivocal proof the the justices vote their politics
and law has nothing to do with their decisions. As Ed pointed out, the
conservative justices have put themselves in a box because of some
positions they took in the past and if they go against them they look
like hypocrites. But as we saw in Bush v Gore the supreme court says one
thing one day and the opposite the next. They are always against
intervening in political matters. Unless it means a Democrat will be the
president. They believe in deferring to states rights. Unless they want
to tell the states what to do. In this case the conservatives want to
deny states and local governments the right to restrict the right of the
public to have guns. That's what they will do. Then they will come up
with some kooky twisted logic to explain why they made a decision that
contradicts what they said they believe in. It's quite a show really.

Logically, if the Constitution is the supreme law and it says the right
of the people to bear shall not be infringed, then how in the hell could
states and local governments have the right to put any restrictions on
guns? Anything that is specifically mentioned in the Constitution is not
going to be under control of lesser governments. So why is there any
argument about this to begin with? Maybe it's because logic and law
don't have much in common.

Hawke

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why We Need to Have Empathy for Tea Party Lunatics
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/03ecfef2321238cb?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 2 2010 11:34 am
From: Garlicdude

sittingduck wrote:
> By Michael Bader, AlterNet
> Posted on March 2, 2010, Printed on March 2, 2010
> http://www.alternet.org/story/145848/
>

Your numbers for original text and article size are going to look really good
this week.

Regards,
Steve Saling
aka The Garlic Dude �
Gilroy, CA
The Garlic Capital of The World

http://tinyurl.com/2avg58

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 2 2010 11:45 am
From: sittingduck

Garlicdude wrote:

> sittingduck wrote:
>> By Michael Bader, AlterNet
>> Posted on March 2, 2010, Printed on March 2, 2010
>> http://www.alternet.org/story/145848/
>>
>
> Your numbers for original text and article size are going to look really
> good this week.

LIGAF.

--
We have broken from reality--a psychotic Nation. Ignorance with a pretense of
knowledge replacing wisdom. -- Ron Paul

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 2 2010 1:12 pm
From: Hawke

On 3/1/2010 9:01 PM, Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 04:15:29 +0000, D Murphy<dmurf154@att.net> wrote:
>
>> Libs are so much smarter than everyone else.
>
> Putting yourself on a pedestal? After years of defending Bushs' prolific
> spending you've suddenly got religion on conservation of wealth?
>
> Convenient. Run up bills then bitch about the next guy trying to pay
> your tab...

You can't get any more "conservative" than that!

Hawke

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Plugging up cap screw holes for painting
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/589a46d20250a2e1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 2 2010 12:05 pm
From: Shabtai

Ignoramus11220 wrote:
> I will paint part of my lathe today, with epoxy paint. I want to plug
> up various socket head cap screw holes, so that epoxy does not get
> in, for obvious reasons. What is the best substance to do so, maybe
> wood putty?
>
> i
Bondo

==============================================================================
TOPIC: 4 x 6 bandsaw`
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/cb0cf4c87165216d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 2 2010 11:40 am
From: Ned Simmons

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:13:30 -0800 (PST), stans4@prolynx.com wrote:

>On Feb 26, 12:47�pm, pentag...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:58:51 -0800, "Michael Koblic"

>>
>> � � �I am slightly puzzled by the oft repeated recommendation to
>> release blade tension between work sessions.
>>
>> � � � �I cannot see the harm in keeping a strip of �steel
>> permanently tensioned to within a large fraction of its elastic
>> limit - after all this is exactly what they do when they �tension
>> the steel wires in reinforced concrete girders.

>
>It's not the BLADE you've got to worry about, it's the saw casting!
>There's barely enough metal in the frame casting to tension the blade
>into the lower end of the recommended tensioning range. Yes, it CAN
>be warped. Kind of like leaving a bow strung all the time. If it
>starts cutting crooked, that may be one reason why.
>

It's highly unlikely that keeping the tension on the blade will deform
the saw frame enough to matter in our lifetimes. All the references I
could find for the creep rate of gray cast iron did not bother listing
data for temps below about 700F.

--
Ned Simmons

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 2 2010 12:26 pm
From: Ned Simmons

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:20:19 -0800, "Michael Koblic"
<mkoblic@gmail.com> wrote:

>
><stans4@prolynx.com> wrote in message
>news:292d3115-7916-486f-af02-502371d0fa51@z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
><snip>
>
>> It's not the BLADE you've got to worry about, it's the saw casting!
>> There's barely enough metal in the frame casting to tension the blade
>> into the lower end of the recommended tensioning range. Yes, it CAN
>> be warped. Kind of like leaving a bow strung all the time. If it
>> starts cutting crooked, that may be one reason why.
>>
>
>That makes a lot of sense. In fact I wonder whether this had something to do
>with losing tracking when I "over tightened" the blade. It is particularly
>relevant to *my* saw. I went and had a look at similar saws at KMS Tools
>today. Their cheapest 4x6 is $379. Mine was $220...

Overtightening is a much more likely cuplrit than leaving the blade
tightened between uses.

>
>BTW it is also said of hacksaw, particularly the new ones with the improved
>tensioning, that one should release them between uses. I assume it is for
>the same reason - the frame will bend with time. I have a nice DeWalt frame
>and forget to loosen it frequently. So far no bends. I wonder if it would be
>true of a cheaper variety.

I've got to assume this is an old wives tale. Consider what would
happen to bolted connections if steel stressed to a significant
fraction of its yield strength at normal temperatures relaxed over
time.

--
Ned Simmons

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Feb Factory Growth Holds At 15 - Year High
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/413a4b8ce0ad53aa?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 2 2010 12:05 pm
From: "Ed Huntress"

"D Murphy" <dmurf154@att.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9D2F5C7BF6CEEdmurf154attnet@130.133.4.11...
> "Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote in
> news:4b8c8f2f$0$4976$607ed4bc@cv.net:
>
>> I'm curious, Dan: Why do you do things like that? Do you think that no
>> one will follow your links, and that you can get away with saying any
>> nonsense you want to, and that it will stick because you're implying
>> it came from the item you're citing?
>>
>
> Manufacturing growth certainly isn't at a 15 year high per Cliff's claim.
>
> I linked to the article to show that manufacturing growth was not at a 15
> year high, and in fact growth was weakening, inventories are up, and
> production is down.
>
>> I just wonder how peoples' minds work.
>
> Gee, why would I want to refute a guy who uses data FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY
> to
> claim that things are just wonderful HERE?
>
> Yeah, that's a tough one to figure out.

What I'm wondering is why you took that CNN/Money report you referred to and
implied it said the opposite of what it actually said. That's the kind of
thing that leads to a lot of nutty discussions, when people shoot from the
hip and don't check their facts.

>
> BTW, you can have weakening growth, strengthening growth and even seven
> months of growth, and still have the sector down over the longer term. So
> yeah, manufacturing is getting a little better but it still sucks compared
> to 12-18 months ago.

It's right where it was 15 months ago:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?chart_type=line&s[1][id]=IPMAN&s[1][range]=5yrs

But that's what happens in every recession, Dan, and this has been a
particularly deep one:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/IPMAN?cid=3

Look at the curves. Like the article says, production is climbing, as is GDP
in general and the economy as a whole. In every severe recession, employment
is a lagging indicator. It can take a long while for employment to climb
back to where it was. But in terms of the trends, down and then up, this is
just what you would expect -- given a decent amount of stimulus.

--
Ed Huntress

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Pawn Shop Bargains ...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/b7474a867df329f8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 2 2010 12:23 pm
From: "Michael A. Terrell"

Snag wrote:
>
> Thanks , I have that coupon printed , be headed for HF today .

You're welcome.

> Had a good
> day yesterday , got enough parts cast for two alunimun casting flasks .
> Raining today ... and almost cold enough to snow . Will this Global Warming
> never cease ?

It's time to demand that Al Gore start giving refunds on all those
phony carbon credits. :(

It's supposed to drop to the low 30s in Ocala for the next two
nights. If the heavy rain had waited a few hours, it might have snowed
here, again.

--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 2 2010 12:31 pm
From: "Michael A. Terrell"

Steve B wrote:
>
> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:4B8C998C.AEA186E2@earthlink.net...
> >
> > Robert Swinney wrote:
> >>
> >> That's gotta be a bargain. I paid more than that for 1 battery for my
> >> old Craftsman. A cheap,
> >> errrrr "conservative" friend brough me the drill and 2 batteries and
> >> charger to see if I could
> >> repair it - with proviso he didn't want to spend any money on it. I
> >> said, "nope, can't be done"
> >> and traded him out of it for a set of pin gages. The pin gages hadn't
> >> cost me anything, so figured
> >> I might be ahead in the deal. It is an industrial quality drill set. I
> >> had to replace the
> >> batteries and charger for around 100 bux.
> >
> > That's the same price I bought mine for about three months ago. At
> > that time a spare battery was a dollar less than the drill on sale, so I
> > bought two drills so I would have a spare charger, too. I find it very
> > handy to have both drills charged & ready with different bits. It saves
> > me some time, and a lot of pain on most jobs. :)
>
> I have four Makita electric hand grinders for just such a reason. Disk,
> brush, sander and paddle sander. A RPITA to have to change heads
> frequently.

The biggest bulk purchase of tools was 100 #2 Phillips screwdrivers
for 25 cents each. I bought them to braze Torx and other security bits
to, after they wore out. I've had them for 15 years and still haven't
worn out the first one. There are about five in the shop for daily use
and I've given about 40 away whenever someone wanted to borrow one. The
rest are in a box on a shelf.

I also have a bad habit of buying used books I bought 335 in the
last couple weeks, for 11 cents each. they were $36.85 + 6% sales tax,
for a total of $39.06. Mostly old Sc-Fi, but there are a few computer
books and what appears to be a new copy of volume one of "The Bull Of
The Woods" reprint from Algrove publishing.

--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: building jeep frame
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/32fc57a529507b1b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 2 2010 12:38 pm
From: David Billington

Jim Stewart wrote:
> John D. wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 17:52:39 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
>> <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Bill McKee" <bmckeespamnot@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>>> news:qZ6dnaBKsPYVoxHWnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>>> "RAM�" <s31924.nospam@netscape.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:Xns9D2EA3292F188s31924netscapenet@74.209.131.10...
>>>>> "Bill McKee" <bmckeespamnot@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:ca6dnfBx8ZKbmxHWnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@earthlink.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why not aluminum? I have an aluminum boat trailer. Works very
>>>>>> well.
>>>>>> 3400# boat. The Covette has an aluminum frame as well as the
>>>>>> Cadillac
>>>>>> bodied Vette. Look at a Corvette and see what they use. Airplanes
>>>>>> have aluminum frames. And as long as you design well, the flex
>>>>>> should
>>>>>> not be a problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Boat trailers are rarely twisted the way that off-road vehicles
>>>>> routinely
>>>>> are.
>>>>>
>>>>> The same thing applies to Corvettes.
>>>>>
>>>>> After all, when was the last time that you went rock-crawling with
>>>>> your
>>>>> 'Vette? <Grin>
>>>>>
>>>>> How about mud-bogging or bouncing around on deeply-rutted roads?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeeps are expected to do all of these and more without any ill
>>>>> effects.
>>>>> (Getting dirty/muddy is, for a Jeep, a good thing!)
>>>> Hell, I raced a vette, steel chassis, and it got to rock clrawing a
>>>> couple times. :>) And boat trailers are regularly towed over
>>>> uneven ground.
>>> With three points taking out the loads -- hitch and suspension
>>> supports, which generally are paired but close -- there is no
>>> significant torsional load on a boat trailer. It's all simple
>>> bending. You can deal with that, but if you towed your boat 100% of
>>> the time, I think you'd develop fatigue problems in aluminum.
>>>
>>> The aluminum Corvette chassis are semi-space-frame with some shear
>>> panels. The subframes resolve their loads in three dimensions. There
>>> isn't much flexing there.
>>>
>>> The same applies to aircraft, which often are near-monocoque. If
>>> they flex, you die.
>>
>> Error.. ever see the wings on a B-52? When they taxi out for take-off
>> both outrigger wheels are on the ground; when they come back one
>> outrigger will be ten feet in the air. But not only the wings, a B-52
>> on the ground has large wrinkles on each side of the fuselage, forward
>> of the wings; flying the fuselage is smooth.
>
> For what it's worth, I was told that the fuselage
> skin on a B-52 was unwrinkled until they started
> flying them at 100ft off the ground at 500mph or
> something...

I can't vouch for the flying condition as I haven't seen a flying B52
that close, but the one parked at Boeing in Wichita around 1981-2
matched the John D description nicely, the wings drooped and the sides
were puckered in the parked configuration. IIRC the angle of the pucker
was mirrored either side of the wing indicating the direction of the
stresses in the panels due to the loadings when on the ground.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 2 2010 12:38 pm
From: "dcaster@krl.org"

On Feb 28, 2:52 pm, mark <markha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> My original jeep CJ-7 frame has rusted out and I was thinking of
> building a new one from aluminum. Would 2 X 4 X 1/4 wall (if that is
> even available) box tubing have the equivalent strength of the stock
> 1/8" wall steel frame? I would like aluminum because it will last
> forever, no need of any paints etc..., very easy to work with and
> cheaper than building a steel one and having it galvanized. My second
> choice would be stainless 1/8" box tubing.

How old is your jeep? And after you put a new frame in it, how long
will you want to keep it? The thought being that the original frame
lasted X years. How long you want to keep it might be less than X
years.

Dan

==============================================================================
TOPIC: CNC Bridgeport with Heidenhein control
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/5812568ce8efba7d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 2 2010 12:39 pm
From: "Michael A. Terrell"

"DoN. Nichols" wrote:
>
> On 2010-03-01, Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> wrote:
> > DoN. Nichols wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Read/Write Operation
> >> The ecpp driver is a full duplex STREAMS device driver.
> >> While an application is writing to an IEEE 1284 compliant
> >> device, another thread may read from it.
> > Sharing the EPP port won't work. Because the Pico
> > Systems devices have a register
> > address counter that increments for every data
> > transfer cycle, sharing would get the counter out
> > of sync. Anyway, it sounds pretty wierd to have a
> > printer or scanner on
> > the same port as a CNC control that could cause
> > injury if something went wrong.
> > NOT a good idea.
>
> Nor is it something which I would intend to do. I don't know
> how long it has been since I have used a parallel port to talk to a
> printer. :-)

Me, either. I'm thinking about cutting the plugs off of at least a
55 gallon drum of parallel printer cables to sell them for scrap
copper. Of course there won't be much copper after they are run though
a wire crusher to remove the insulation. It would barely fill a two
gallon bucket. :(

I have a lot of 15 & 25 foot printer cables, and a lot have gold
plating on the connector shells that caught the eye of the gullible who
bought them.

--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Endangerment Finding
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/ff743e798d14f481?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 2 2010 12:45 pm
From: "dcaster@krl.org"

On Mar 2, 6:16 pm, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:

> Few kerosene heaters are well attended and do produce both NO2 (and NO)
> and carbon monoxide. Oft times dangerous levels of CO. NO actually
> helps respiration but isn't present in any significant amount. CO should
> be of concern.
>
> --
> Regards, Curly
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Republicans: Party Without a Conscious
> Democrats: Party Without a Spine
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The original post was about propane or natural gas heaters. How did
you get to Kerosene? And CO is poisonous to mammals. But Cliff's
statement was about killing plants. I do not think CO will kill
plants.

Dan

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 2 2010 12:54 pm
From: Curly Surmudgeon

On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 12:45:10 -0800, "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org>
wrote:

> On Mar 2, 6:16 pm, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:
>
>> Few kerosene heaters are well attended and do produce both NO2 (and NO)
>> and carbon monoxide. Oft times dangerous levels of CO. NO actually
>> helps respiration but isn't present in any significant amount. CO
>> should be of concern.
>>
>> --
>> Regards, Curly
>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Republicans: Party Without a Conscious
>> Democrats: Party Without a Spine
>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The original post was about propane or natural gas heaters. How did you
> get to Kerosene?

Actually the OP was about coal and steel industries but segued to
"spaceheaters" in general.

> And CO is poisonous to mammals.

Agreed, many species.

> But Cliff's statement
> was about killing plants. I do not think CO will kill plants.
>
> Dan

Probably not in any concentration to be found in living quarters let
alone outside. My concern was the danger posed by unvented space heaters
which are usually kerosene. Many people aren't as knowledgeable as you.

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republicans: Party Without a Conscious
Democrats: Party Without a Spine
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT: 'Puter Q-How to boot to 2 OS HDS?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/24653b355459ad9c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 2 2010 12:48 pm
From: "Michael A. Terrell"

"John D." wrote:
>
> If you run Linux the installer probably set things up so you can boot
> either the MS system or Linux. If not it is rather simple to configure
> the Grub loader to do it as you can boot Linux from any disk.
>
> (I don't understand why the guy wants to load "ME" or "95" anyway :-)

Some older but useful hardware runs under it. I keep a Win ME
computer for my scanner and OCR software. It's on my home network, so I
can scan and convert documents, then move them to another computer. It
also has the backup files for several websites & the FTP software. It
isn't used to browse the web or any other online application.

--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Obama an Alcoholic?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/6347f7148fc868ac?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 2 2010 1:07 pm
From: "Steve B"

"Buerste" <buerste@buerste.com> wrote

>
> I don't begrudge him beer and smokes, nobody should deprived of such
> simple pleasures!

Beer is proof God loves us. - Ben Franklin -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Al Gore takes aim
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/4e2ba8fcc22c79a4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 2 2010 1:09 pm
From: "Steve B"

"Dorsai" <Asstr.Dorsai@gmail.com> wrote

> And.... this has WHAT to do with CNC, again?
>
> C'mon, folks, take it somewhere else, would you please?

New here, huh?

I see you include your sig to your website. Do you have anything to add to
the conversation, or are you just posing your sig ONE MORE TIME, like spam?

And quit crossposting, too.

Steve

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 2 2010 1:13 pm
From: "Steve B"

<dcaster@krl.org> wrote in message
news:2850351b-5f40-4938-9f53-fb59a0f8eb15@o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 2, 6:07 am, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:

> Can you do us a favor and tell us now what your excuse will be this
> summer for why global warming is a hoax? You know, when it's over 100
> degrees and new records for heat happen what are you going to say to
> make it seem like it's not getting hotter? You guys use the winter
> storms this year to "prove" there is no global warming, right? So what
> excuse will you use this summer when it's sweltering? It's not really
> hot? We're just imagining all these 100 degrees plus days? The
> thermometers are all Chinese and aren't accurate? What's it going to be?
>
> Hawke

That is what I like about liberals. Not only are they so smart that
they know what is good for us, but they are able to forecast the
weather months in advance. But if you are wrong, and the high for the
fourth of July is only 69 degrees, then what?

Dan

reply: Well, everyone knows that in nature, when things swing one way, they
swing the other. Nature's balance. Global warming/global cooling. It's an
easy reach for a lib. So, I predict our next planetary crisis will come
from global cooling. Unless, of course the thermonuclear war warms things
up a little too much ..................

Steve

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

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.crafts.metalworking"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.crafts.metalworking+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

twitter

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

rec.crafts.metalworking - 26 new messages in 12 topics - digest

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

About Me

Previous Posts