twitter: rec.crafts.metalworking - 25 new messages in 14 topics

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

rec.crafts.metalworking@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Watts and VO2.... Re: More generator Q's
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/5485e71397824e31?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 12 2011 12:36 am
From: "Existential Angst"

"Rich Grise" <richg@example.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:ilej90$oqi$2@news.eternal-september.org...
> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>> Josepi wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, having two light bulbs with one as a standard could help your
>>> estimation of brilliance providing you knew the "standard" one was being
>>> powered by exactly the rated voltage. Since power is proportional to the
>>> square of the applied voltage the power and therefore the brilliance
>>> could be somewhat off for the purposes of good measurement.
>>
>> Lightbulbs are not a linear load. Their resistance goes up as the
>> voltage increases. You would need to monitor the voltage and the current
>> to get anything useful.
>>
> Just a nitpick, but technically, the resistance goes up as the
> _temperature_
> increases. :-)

Does anyone know what this curve looks like? I would actually like a V vs.
I curve for a typical incandescant.
Googled some, wiki has an inneresting table on incandescant efficiency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb

but I haven't found an actual V vs I graph. I spose I could just take a
bulb and jot down some numbers, using a variac, eh?

Presumably a similar curve would arise from both AC and DC?
--
EA

heers!
> Rich
>

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 12 2011 4:28 am
From: "Josepi"

Did we change the subject to fluorescent bulbs now?

We always laughed about the ones that didn't want to start, in those terms.

-----------

"Rich Grise" wrote in message
news:ilejbm$oqi$3@news.eternal-september.org...
Gently stroke them while saying romantic things.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

Josepi wrote:

> Nice.
>
> How do you excite the windings ?
>

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 12 2011 4:34 am
From: "Josepi"

The ambient temperature may have a slight effect on that curve also since
as, as Rich so graciously pointed out, "the resistance goes up as the
temperature_"

Perhaps lamp manufacturer sites?

"Existential Angst" wrote in message
news:4d7b307a$0$5155$607ed4bc@cv.net...
Does anyone know what this curve looks like? I would actually like a V vs.
I curve for a typical incandescant.
Googled some, wiki has an inneresting table on incandescant efficiency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb

but I haven't found an actual V vs I graph. I spose I could just take a
bulb and jot down some numbers, using a variac, eh?

Presumably a similar curve would arise from both AC and DC?

"Rich Grise" <richg@example.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:ilej90$oqi$2@news.eternal-september.org...
Just a nitpick, but technically, the resistance goes up as the
temperature_
increases. :-)

Josepi wrote:
Lightbulbs are not a linear load. Their resistance goes up as the
voltage increases. You would need to monitor the voltage and the current
to get anything useful.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nuclear power plant explodes
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/0eddc0a65572c074?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 12 2011 12:49 am
From: "azotic"

Holy crap!!!!!!!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8377506/Japan-earthquake-nuclear-disaster-feared-after-power-plant-explosion.html

Best Regards
Tom.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Stainless steel structures for deterring birds....
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/08bb9bdd244d2ecb?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 12 2011 12:49 am
From: "Dennis #1"

"Jim Wilkins" <kb1dal@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2f973075-5c3b-4135-8898-575e24999653@f36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 11, 9:11 am, Lewis Hartswick <lhartsw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Jim Wilkins wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 9:27 am, "Dennis" <blub...@blibber.com> wrote:
> >> I'm looking at some designs to deter birds from perching on the top of
> >> solar
> >> panels and fouling them.
>
> > How about a perching bar offset above and behind the panel?
>
> > jsw
>
> What is that old saying about more flys with honey than vinegar?
> :-)
> Then electrify the perch. :-)
> ...lew...

I was thinking mainly about cheap and simple. I might use string on
wire supports.

How do you arrange lightning protection for the panels?

jsw

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

We dont worry too much about lightning protection.

On systems that have long cable runs we will include a surge arrestor.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 12 2011 12:52 am
From: "Dennis #1"

"Sunworshipper" <SW@GWNTUNDRA> wrote in message
news:3pckn6h91apejipvgv7b3754emh525hqfi@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 20:04:45 +0800, "Dennis #1" <blubber@blibber.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Dennis" <blubber@blibber.com> wrote in message
>>news:b8ydnWewq-pfQuXQnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
>>>
>>> I'm looking at some designs to deter birds from perching on the top of
>>> solar panels and fouling them.
>>>
>>> There are spikes both stainless steel & polycarbonate available
>>> commercially. I'm worried about the threat to the eyes of the service
>>> guys
>>> from these style of structures, plus they aren't cheap.
>>>
>>> I've seen a different style of deterrent that is a strip of sheet metal
>>> cut in a zig-zag pattern. I wonder if anyone has experience with making
>>> these or have seen them up close. I'm trying to work out what are the
>>> important parameters - do they need to be sharp? Is the spacing
>>> critical?
>>> What sort of thickness 0.8mm? Material - Aluminium or Stainless?
>>>
>>> I've googled for an hour & have not found any useful information or even
>>> a
>>> picture. My next option is to drive the freeway till I spot one and try
>>> to
>>> guess from a distance what the dimensions are.
>>>
>>> Has anyone had any experience with this sort of thing?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>> /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\
>>> / \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \
>>> | |
>>> | ZIGZAG SHEET |
>>> | |
>>> ================================\
>>> \ \
>>> \ \
>>> \ \
>>> \ \
>>> \ \
>>> \ SOLAR PANEL \
>>> \ \
>>> \ \
>>> \ \
>>> \ \
>>> =================================
>>>
>>
>>Thanks for the many replies guys, I think I may have to find an existing
>>metal comb unit and clone it.
>>
>
> I just checked for the first time. Go to google images and type in
> pigeon deterrent metal. Lots of pictures.
>
>
> SW

Thanks - there are some images in there that I hadn't seen, especially the
ones using expanded mesh. My google fu was off I was simply using "bird
repel spikes" and similar.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT - Hi Res Photos of Earthquake Damage in Japan
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/acd60536b6e8f82a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 12 2011 12:51 am
From: "kfvorwerk@gmail.com"

On Mar 11, 11:13 am, Jim Stewart <jstew...@jkmicro.com> wrote:
> http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/03/earthquake-in-japan/100022/

Check the video on the right of the airport flooding.
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/narita_airport_sendai_closed_flooded_tsunami_earthquake_japan_204250-1.html

A meltdown is possible. Two nuclear plants lost cooling.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/117843738.html

Karl

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 12 2011 2:23 am
From: "Steve W."

Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 13:13:00 -0800, Jim Stewart <jstewart@jkmicro.com>
> wrote:
>
>> http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/03/earthquake-in-japan/100022/
>
> Nasty! Condolences to the Japanese and others on affected coastal
> cities.
>
> I had some questions about what I saw in some of those pics.
>
> Can anyone explain them?
>
> What caused the whirlpool in Oarai?

The surge of water hitting the shelf and underwater terrain. This causes
them a lot.

>
> Why did the road in Satte split exactly on the yellow middle line?

The way most roads are laid up and paved leaves a main seam down the
center.

>
> How were there no planes on the ground in Narita Int'l Airport?

Any time there is a quake/tremor they try to get anything on the ground
in the air because it's safer that way.

>
> --
> Know how to listen, and you will
> profit even from those who talk badly.
> -- Plutarch

--
Steve W.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Pensioner factory
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/ca3f325719b98a36?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 12 2011 1:16 am
From: "Dennis #1"

It does have metal content....

I just saw a documentary called "pensioner factory" about a business in the
US where "the average age of its employees is a staggering 74 years. The
staff consists of 35 pensioners aged between 75 and 96."

The company is called vita needle and they make hyperdermic needles and some
small stainless parts.

I found it interesting & thought maybe some of you guys would too.

Video of their capabilities off their website:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPwjZrlYS_g&feature=player_embedded

http://www.vitaneedle.com/

Looks like the whole doco is here:
http://www.cultureunplugged.com/play/695/Pensioners-Inc-

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Voltage vs. current in an incandescant..
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/b240a786e7a31eb6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 12 2011 1:27 am
From: "Existential Angst"

Awl --

Inyone have data (or a link), or feel like doing the 'speriment?
25, 50, 75, 100, 120, 125, 150 V? AC and DC?
60 W, 100 W buhbs?

Can't find a VOM with an ammeter, lent out my variac.... goodgawd....
--
EA

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 12 2011 2:04 am
From: Jordan

On 3/12/2011 8:27 PM, Existential Angst wrote:
> Awl --
>
> Inyone have data (or a link), or feel like doing the 'speriment?
> 25, 50, 75, 100, 120, 125, 150 V? AC and DC?
> 60 W, 100 W buhbs?
>
> Can't find a VOM with an ammeter, lent out my variac.... goodgawd....

It's a curve, showing variable resistance.

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 12 2011 2:06 am
From: Jordan

>
> It's a curve, showing variable resistance.

Or should I say, varying resistance, as the incandescant lamp is a
non-linear resistor.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 12 2011 5:01 am
From: pentagrid@yahoo.com

On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 04:27:19 -0500, "Existential Angst"
<fitcat@optonline.net> wrote:

>Awl --
>
>Inyone have data (or a link), or feel like doing the 'speriment?
>25, 50, 75, 100, 120, 125, 150 V? AC and DC?
>60 W, 100 W buhbs?
>
>Can't find a VOM with an ammeter, lent out my variac.... goodgawd....

http://imageupload.org/?di=712999347565

http://imageupload.org/?di=8129993475615

Jim

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 12 2011 5:18 am
From: "Stormin Mormon"

Hmm. My Dad has a Variac, wonder if he'd loan it to me?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Existential Angst" <fitcat@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4d7b3c7e$0$31285$607ed4bc@cv.net...
Awl --

Inyone have data (or a link), or feel like doing the
'speriment?
25, 50, 75, 100, 120, 125, 150 V? AC and DC?
60 W, 100 W buhbs?

Can't find a VOM with an ammeter, lent out my variac....
goodgawd....
--
EA

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OBAMA AT HALFTIME
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/02092e54e8b02658?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 12 2011 1:36 am
From: "Ed Huntress"

"Strabo" <strabo@flashlight.net> wrote in message
news:cnCep.122134$4c7.29027@newsfe06.iad...
> On 3/11/2011 3:12 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> "Curly Surmudgeon"<CurlySurmudgeon@live.com> wrote in message
>> news:ildobb$5cm$5@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 23:53:33 -0500, Strabo<strabo@flashlight.net>
>>> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
>> For anyone serious about Jefferson and liberalism as it was originally
>> conceived, I can recommend the Jefferson Archives at the Univ. of
>> Virginia.
>> The Cyclopedia is comprehensive:
>>
>> http://guides.lib.virginia.edu/content.php?pid=77323&sid=573588
>>
>> Read 1,000 or so of those documents and you'll begin to get the flavor of
>> the real founding ideas. It soaks in with cumulative exposure. You won't
>> get
>> it from Hayek or Rothbard, or (shudder) from the Libertarian platform.
>> You
>> can only get if from the originals. And only if you approach it with an
>> open
>> mind, rather than winnowing it out for quotes that seem to support your
>> preconceived notions.
>>
>
> What was considered 'liberal' in Jefferson's day? What is classical
> liberalism?
>
> 1. The denial of divine right kingship, monarchies and religious
> absolutism.
>
> 2. The recognition of the individual as the center of the universe
> while acknowledging his Creator as the Founder.

<gag> I'm not buying that in those terms, but Ok, carry on...

>
> The Enlightenment spoke to the expansion of thought and reasoning,
> not government largesse.
>
> Yes, you can quote me.

I'm not sure why I would, but there isn't much to argue with, so far. The
Enlightenment "spoke" to more than that, (Hobbes and Bentham would disagree
sharply with you), but Ok.

>
>
> The libertarian thought complex can be summed from Jefferson's
> "Declaration of Independence." In this we see the basis for the
> formula for inherent and unalienable Rights, an exercise of
> individual power which cannot be legitimately removed by a king
> or government because such power did not originate with either.

Ok.

>
> This power is demonstrated by the Rule of Rights: A Right is an action
> or actions by one individual which do NOT infringe on another
> individual's Rights OR place an obligation on that individual.
>
> Pure Jeffersonian.

Hmmm....Ok...

>
>
>
> 1776 - 1820s...
>
>
> 1. There was no income tax or central bank. Attempts were roundly
> defeated.
>
> 2. Taxes were minimal everywhere. Some jurisdictions taxed whiskey,
> and certain exports and imports and the voting citizen's estate.
> Wars were funded through volunteerism and special taxes.
>
> 3. There were no welfare programs. The concept didn't exist and
> legislators openly ridiculed government grants.
>
> 4. The were no state or federal entitlements. In fact the original
> 13th amendment found in the Virginia law books specifically
> prohibited anyone running for office who had a title of nobility
> or other presumption of entitlement.
>
> 5. There was no general plan of education. This is a 1880s concept
> fostered by Bellamy and other Fabian socialists.

Uh, also by Jefferson, Madison, et al., a century earlier. I've provided the
relevant quote from Jefferson in an earlier post. Here's Madison:

"The liberal appropriations made by the Legislature of Kentucky for a
general system of Education cannot be too much applauded. A popular
Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is
but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will
forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors,
must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." -- Letter to Wm.
Taylor Barry, 1822

Madison, like Jefferson, favored tax-supported general education -- at the
state level. This is another case in which the writings of the Founders on
the limits of federal powers often mislead people into thinking that they
generally did not favor "public works" or tax-supported general education.
As the two quotes I've provided show, this is not true. They just thought it
was the business of the states.

I could try to draw a fine line between late-18th-century classical
liberalism and early 19th-century neo-classical liberalism, but I'd get lost
in the tangles, and I'm not really knowledgeable about the distinctions. But
this much is clear: the early, 18th century liberals were fairly progressive
and favored much more government promotion of various infrastructure and
social-betterment projects than did the neo-classicals who came along 40 or
so years later. You're right, general public education was a very
controversial issue in the 19th century. But Madison, Jefferson, and even
Adam Smith -- all of whom might be called "original" classical liberals --
strongly advocated tax-supported public education. For Smith, see _The
Wealth of Nations_ Book V, Article II, "Of the Expense of the Institution
for the Education of Youth." Scotland already had such a system. Smith was
advocating its general application in liberal, capitalist societies.

George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and others among the founders, as well
as other early liberals, all advocated free public education.

> Instead, children
> were home-schooled or apprenticed. For adults there were
> universities founded by the states and funded by religious
> institutions where students paid for room and board.
>
> 6. There were no police, prosecutors or public defenders. The 'criminal
> justice system' consisted of sheriffs, juries, judges and the
> common law.
>
> Aside from the occasional county poorhouse, about the only benefit
> offered by government was to a jail or gallows.
>
> That was while Jefferson was alive. And he didn't bitch.

Uh, I think you're misreading Jefferson. He was in favor of public
education, as we've seen, and you'll see references in his writings to
public works that were necessary to support the economy.

>
> That was minimal government. That was liberal. That was terrific.

Jeez, I'll bet that you laughed all the way through Dante's _Inferno_. <g>

Jefferson did indeed bitch about the state of many things, but that wasn't
the issue. As for your characterization of laws and life in Jefferson's
time, you might want to read his _Notes on the State of Virginia_. He lists
laws and regulations that some would think excessive today: limits on
interest that could be charged for debts (10% or 5%, depending on the type);
forfeiture of claims for gambling debts (there go your contracts....);
government inspection of beef, tobacco, turpentine, and other commodities
before they could be sold; etc., etc.

But the laws are not the same as liberal thinking, which varied considerably
among the early liberals. The hyper-individualism you favor, which is more
like anarchism than liberalism, was not the same as the liberties and rights
that Locke, Hume, Jefferson, or the other liberals born of the Enlightenment
had in mind. Aside from intrusions on their basic list of human rights, they
left it up to the democratic process (except for Bentham, Hobbes, and Hume,
who didn't think much of self-governance at all).

--
Ed Huntress

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 12 2011 2:19 am
From: "Ed Huntress"

"Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySurmudgeon@live.com> wrote in message
news:ilf366$lje$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 00:13:23 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
> <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote:

Curly, you've made such hash of this whole discussion, by not clipping, that
you don't even seem to be able to find what you said yourself. YOU brought
up contracts, not me:

>>>>> Yes, there are problems. That Constitutional restriction is broken
>>>>> on an annual basis. Each contract greater than 2 years violates the
>>>>> clear words and intent of the Constitution.

A couple of rounds later, you say this:

> I have mentioned no "contract", stop already with the distractions and
> bullshit.

Jesus. Either you're arguing for the sake of argument, or you've thoroughly
confused yourself.

As for the navy and the Marines, as I said, the Marines were put under the
Dept. of the Navy in 1798, AND THEY'RE STILL THERE:

"The Military Departments are the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air
Force (the Marine Corps is a part of the Department of the Navy)."

http://www.defense.gov/OrgChart/office.aspx?id=3

(That's not Wikipedia saying that; it's the Department of Defense)

Enough of your libertarian b.s. You guys will twist the Constitution into
knots to try to defend your wishful thinking, and invent things that aren't
there -- like the idea that the Constitution doesn't allow Congress to keep
re-funding the army.

Maybe you're right. Maybe the whole country is out to defeat your reading of
the Constitution, and you're the only one who really knows what it says.
That includes Congress, the Supreme Court, the Executive Branch, and all of
the people who didn't vote Libertarian in the last election. In other words,
just about everyone but you and enough people for a game of tag football.

Enjoy your fantasies.

--
Ed Huntress

(here's the whole unclipped mess of crap, so you won't claim I'm "hiding" it
from anyone)

>
>> "Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySurmudgeon@live.com> wrote in message
>> news:ilem9g$ltl$10@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 16:14:09 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
>>> <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySurmudgeon@live.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:ile0j8$ltl$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 14:02:47 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
>>>>> <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySurmudgeon@live.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:ildnut$5cm$4@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 02:08:03 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
>>>>>>> <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Constitution reads that he is the commander-in-chief of the
>>>>>>>>> militia when the army is 'called' into federal service,
>>>>>>>>> implicitely by Congress, not when the president calls upon them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The implication is yours, and it disagrees with the principle of
>>>>>>>> civilian control and of Art II Sec. 2.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kindly explain that claim:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The navy is ALWAYS in service.
>>>>>
>>>>> Circular reasoning, you're better than that.
>>>>
>>>> ? No, it's just a fact. They don't get mass sabbaticals. They're
>>>> always in service.
>>>
>>> My mistake. I was talking about the army and you substituted navy.
>>> Yes, the navy is allowed full time status. That is the only branch
>>> allowed full time status by the Constitution.
>>
>> Nope. There is nothing in the Constitution that says we are not to have
>> a standing army.
>
> You have it precisely backwards. Only that *permitted* the Federal
> Goverment by the Constitution is legal, all else is reserved to the
> several states.
>
>> Only that Congress must renew the money appropriations
>> for it at least every two years. See Article I, Sec. 8. ([Congress shall
>> have the Power] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of
>> Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.) And then,
>> if you can, show us where it says Congress can not renew the
>> appropriation.
>>
>>
>>>>>> During peacetime, if they're not in
>>>>>> federal service, whose service are they in? France? And who is
>>>>>> commander in chief of the navy? The president.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The same applies to the army, when we have one. And, once Washington
>>>>>> and Congress realized we always needed one (in the 1790s -- read the
>>>>>> history of the US Army), all they had to do was keep re-funding it
>>>>>> every two years. Presto chango, a standing army, and no
>>>>>> contradiction to the Constitution.
>>>>>
>>>>> Great, let's have a plebiscite vote on military funding.
>>>>
>>>> Where is this provided for in the Constitution?
>>>
>>> Who said it was?
>>
>> I thought you were a Constitutionalist. Are you suggesting that we
>> should have a new Amendment?
>
> Go chase your own straw men.
>
>>>>>> That's how it worked. The Supreme Court supported it in an array of
>>>>>> challenges throughout the 19th century.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <begin>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, I've read it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Others haven't, why snip the basis of our disagreement if not to
>>>>> redefine their words and meaning?
>>>>
>>>> It's been quoted in this thread at least three times. That's enough.
>>>
>>> So why do you keep snipping it?
>>
>> I only snipped it once. You're free to re-insert it, if you're having
>> trouble remembering what it says.
>>
>>> When conflicting opinions exist the
>>> original source must be available to discern who is wrong.
>>
>> Then quit whining and put it back in.
>
> Quit snipping what you don't want people to see.
>
>>> Eliminating
>>> the benchmark indicates that you don't want readers to access your
>>> elegant presentation and opinion rather than the ruling text.
>>
>> I give them more credit than you do.
>
> So you premasticate their information...
>
>>>>>>> Nowhere does Article 2 dictate a standing army or navy as you
>>>>>>> suggest. Strabo is correct, clearly no standing army is allowed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Strabo is full of libertarian nonsense, as are you. Article I, Sec.
>>>>>> 8 authorizes Congress "To provide and maintain a navy." It also
>>>>>> authorizes Congress "To raise and support Armies, but no
>>>>>> Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than
>>>>>> two Years." So, they keep re-funding it every two years. No
>>>>>> problemo.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, there are problems. That Constitutional restriction is broken
>>>>> on an annual basis. Each contract greater than 2 years violates the
>>>>> clear words and intent of the Constitution.
>>>>
>>>> So, sue them.
>>>
>>> Silly, you know quite well that a citizen is incapable of suing the
>>> Federal Government which has infinitely deep pockets and a stacked
>>> jury.
>>
>> Ain't the Constitution a bitch sometimes?
>
> So are those who advocate end runs on the Constitution...
>
>>>> Good luck with the Supreme Court. Congress can break contracts any
>>>> time it wants, and it has.
>>>
>>> No, the Constitution is not a "contract" and Congress cannot break it
>>> "any time it wants." A ridiculous assertion.
>>
>> The contract you were talking about above is not the Constitution
>> itself.
>
> I have mentioned no "contract", stop already with the distractions and
> bullshit.
>
>> It is the supposed contracts that Congress makes with members of
>> the armed forces.
>
> Whatever you're babbling about is irrelevant to this thread. Take it
> elsewhere.
>
>> As for the "clear words and intent of the
>> Constitution," please show us the clear words that say Congress cannot
>> keep re-funding the army.
>
> Please show where the clear words and intent of the Constitution meant a
> standing army.
>
>>>> The Constitution only limits
>>>> states on rescinding contracts, not the federal government. (Article
>>>> I, Sec. 10) Contracts are a libertarian/Ayn Randian shtick, not a
>>>> Constitutional one.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant, we're taking Constitutional law not contracts. This is
>>> what I meant about not snipping the regulating law, you're diverging
>>> off into la-la land.
>>
>> Nope. The Constitution is not the contract. You were talking about
>> contracts Congress may make that extend beyond the two-year
>> appropriation limit on funding the army.
>
> Bullshit. I speak/spoke of no stinkin' contract, that's your distraction.
>
>>>>>>> Only "when
>>>>>>> called into the actual service of the United States" is an army,
>>>>>>> navy or militia allowed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And whose service is the navy in, all of the time?
>>>>>
>>>>> "army, navy or militia". Yes, a navy. No standing army or militia
>>>>> are authorized.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If not in the service of the
>>>>>>>> United States, in whose service are the army and navy during
>>>>>>>> peacetime?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No one, obviously.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, they just hang around while we keep paying their paychecks? Get
>>>>>> real, Curly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Think "layoffs".
>>>>
>>>> Just think, period.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do we pay them if they are not in the service of this country?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since they the army, navy and militia are not authorized they do
>>>>>>> not get paid when not in service.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The navy is ALWAYS paid. They are ALWAYS in service. De facto, so is
>>>>>> the army, because Congress keeps them in service.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obfuscation, the army and militia (and by extention air force,
>>>>> marines, national health service and coast guard) are not authorized
>>>>> by the Constitution other than as needed, not a standing army.
>>>>
>>>> First, the Marines are a branch of the navy.
>>>
>>> Nope: "The United States Marine Corps (USMC) is a branch of the United
>>> States Armed Forces responsible for providing power projection from the
>>> sea,[7] using the mobility of the United States Navy to deliver
>>> combined- arms task forces rapidly. It is one of seven uniformed
>>> services of the United States. In the civilian leadership structure of
>>> the United States military, the Marine Corps is a component of the
>>> United States Department of the Navy,[8][9] often working closely with
>>> U.S. naval forces for training, transportation, and logistic purposes;
>>> however, in the military leadership structure the Marine Corps is a
>>> separate branch."
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps
>>
>> It's part of the Department of the Navy, as it has been since 1798, and
>> civilian control (led by the president) is conducted through the Navy
>> Department.
>
> No, the Marines are no longer a part of the Navy, read the fucking text:
> "the Marine Corps is a separate branch".
>
>>>> Second, the Coast Guard is
>>>> a revenue-policing service created under the "necessary and proper"
>>>> clause.
>>>
>>> Nope again: "The United States Coast Guard (USCG) is a branch of the
>>> United States Armed Forces and one of the seven U.S. uniformed
>>> services.
>>
>> We're talking about the time of the writing of the Constitution, Curly.
>
> No *we* aren't. Neither of us, until now. *You* said "...the Coast
> Guard is a revenue-policing service". The government, and wikipedia,
> say: "The United States Coast Guard (USCG) is a branch of the United
> States Armed Forces and one of the seven U.S. uniformed services."
>
>> The Coast Guard was established as a revenue service to police merchant
>> ships. It was later called the Revenue Cutter Service. It was joined to
>> the Lifesaving Service, and for many years was a combination of those
>> two services, neither of which was founded as a military unit.
>
> More irrelevant distraction which has absolutely nothing to do with my
> statement.
>
>>> The Coast Guard is a maritime, military, multi-mission service unique
>>> among the military branches for having a maritime law enforcement
>>> mission (with jurisdiction in both domestic and international waters)
>>> and a federal regulatory agency mission as part of its mission set. It
>>> operates under the Department of Homeland Security during peacetime,
>>> and can be transferred to the Department of the Navy by the President
>>> at any time or Congress during time of war."
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Coast_Guard
>>>
>>>> Third, you've already lost on your interpretation of the Constitution
>>>> in this regard.
>>>
>>> Opinion noted. Given the erroneous statements above I don't give much
>>> credence to this claim either.
>>
>> Neither of my statements was erroneous. You've rather foolishly quoted
>> descriptions of what they are *today*, when we were talking about their
>> founding and their civilian control by the commander in chief and the
>> Congress.
>
> Both your claims are wrong, that the the Marine Corps is division of the
> Navy and that "the Coast Guard is a revenue-policing service". Both are
> individual military services as is the Air Force.
>
> Only the Navy is Constitutionally granted continuous service and all
> other powers are reserved to the several states.
>
>>>> Like a fundamentalist Christian who
>>>> believes only in his own reading of the Bible, you seem to be adamant
>>>> in your understanding of the words. Most people, including the Supreme
>>>> Court, don't agree with you.
>>>
>>> When arguments fail do you usually stoop to ad hominems?
>>
>> You seem to have the Usenet's scattershot definition of ad hominem. An
>> ad hominem is an argument about some irrelevant characteristic -- such
>> as, you're not credible about Constitutional history because you beat
>> your wife. d8-)
>>
>> If I say that your reading is not accurate because you have made arch
>> and idiosyncratic interpretations of the Constitution, that's not ad
>> hominem. The key to ad hominem is that the criticism must be irrelevant
>> to the point being discussed. I'm just commenting on the nature of your
>> interpretations themselves. That is not ad hominem.
>
> No, you asserted biblical metaphors to me rather than pursuing the
> debate, that is indeed a ad homenim. If you don't like being called on
> it then don't do that.
>
>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>> if you're going to get into a snit about the standing army, how
>>>>>>>> about the navy?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stop picking ridiculous nits.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, the navy is a ridiculous nit?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, your nits are ridiculous.
>>>>
>>>> You haven't answered the question about why the president isn't
>>>> commander in chief of the navy, all of the time. Instead, you're
>>>> tossing out adjectives.
>>>
>>> When did you pose that question and why do you think I should answer
>>> your distractions?
>>
>> You're the one who said the president is only commander in chief during
>> "actual service," whatever you mean by that: "Only 'when called into the
>> actual service of the United States" is an army, navy or militia
>> allowed.'" To which I responded that the navy is always in the actual
>> service of the United States, at which point you began spinning like a
>> top.
>
> Now you're making shit up. Show where I said what you claim.
>
> You cannot, that is a lie.
>
>>>>>>>> Your reading of Section 2 is arch and has no grammatical basis. It
>>>>>>>> also is illogical, because it is the militia, not the army or
>>>>>>>> navy, that is only called into federal service in wartime -- or in
>>>>>>>> cases of civil insurrection, as with the Whiskey Rebellion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not according to the clear words above, and here: "The President
>>>>>>> shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United
>>>>>>> States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into
>>>>>>> the actual Service of the United States..."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your reading of it makes no sense. The navy was always in service.
>>>>>> When there is an army (always, now), they are always in service.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is your illogical leap.
>>>>
>>>> Where is it illogical?
>>>
>>> "When there is an army (always, now), they are always in service."
>>>
>>>> Don't give us twisted libertarian "logic." Stick to the words of the
>>>> Constitution. If Congress can re-fund the army every two years, and
>>>> keeps doing so, what do you have except a de facto standing army?
>>>
>>> "De facto" is an end-run on Constitutional limitations. You may be
>>> fine with violating the very words, meanings and intent but I am not.
>>
>> There is no Constitutional limitation, except that Congress must fund
>> the army at least every two years. The "no standing army" is not a part
>> of the Constitution. Nor was it universally agreed. Even the
>> anti-federalists said no *large* standing army. But they didn't get that
>> written into the Constitution, either.
>
> A standing army is not authorized by the Constitution.
>
>>>>>> It is only
>>>>>> the militia that is sometimes in the service of the states, unless
>>>>>> they are called into federal service. So that's how that sentence
>>>>>> reads.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alexander Hamilton, from Federalist 69:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of
>>>>>> the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally
>>>>>> the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance
>>>>>> much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the
>>>>>> supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as
>>>>>> first General and admiral of the Confederacy..."
>>>>>
>>>>> And I can quote anti-federalist arguments to substantiate my
>>>>> position.
>>>>
>>>> The anti-federalists lost the arguments, except for the Bill of
>>>> Rights. But don't let that stop you. Tell us, please, where in the 85
>>>> or so of the anti-federalist papers does it say that the president is
>>>> not, under the Constitution, the commander in chief of the navy (at
>>>> least), all of the time?
>>>
>>> That's your distraction, go chase it yourself.
>>>
>>>> What you're referring to, probably, is the arguments of "Brutus,"
>>>> against a standing army. But even Brutus admitted that we needed a
>>>> small one. That was Washington's "Legion." A few years after Brutus
>>>> wrote, the entire government realized we needed a better army. After
>>>> the War of 1812, nearly everyone did.
>>>>
>>>> So, as the historians said, we changed our mind. Since there was a
>>>> provision for re-funding the army at Congress's discretion, no
>>>> Amendment to the Constitution was required. End of story.
>>>
>>> You apparently believe that. Nice to be so comfortable in a bubble of
>>> belief which can be pricked at any moment. Again, the Constitution
>>> does not permit a standing army. Your, and Congress', end-run on the
>>> Constitution does not make it valid. Only coercion and illegal
>>> activity by our own government perpetuates your belief.
>>
>> You have a wacky view of the Constitution. Fortunately, only a few on
>> the fringes agree with you.
>
> You have a fuzzy view of the Constitution and only support it where you
> like. The Constitution is not a buffet, you don't get to pick and
> choose. Or ignore those parts you don't like.
>
> If you don't like it then change the Constitution. Neither you nor the
> politicians in charge get to violate the Constitution with impunity. You
> and they may have the power to prevent being held to the law but that
> only compounds the violation and disrespect of both.
>
> That is what tears apart our nation at this very moment. When some
> classes of people are permitted to violate the Constitution while others
> are prosecuted, even persecuted, the inequality tears apart our nation.
>
> You may like that, I do not.
>
>>>>> Neither overrule the Constitution. Let's limit the debate to
>>>>> reality, what exists in the Constitution.
>>>>
>>>> Hamilton was defending what was *in* the Constitution. But Ok, we'll
>>>> stick to it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no distinction between the Army, Navy or Militia as to
>>>>>>> when they may be called into service.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When the militia is called into federal service, that's true in the
>>>>>> sense that the president is commander in chief of all three. And the
>>>>>> business of calling the militia into federal service is quite clear
>>>>>> in Article I Sec. 8:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Congress is authorized: "To provide for organizing, arming, and
>>>>>> disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as
>>>>>> may be employed in the Service of the United States."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's the only reference you'll find to calling the militia, or any
>>>>>> other military unit, into the "Service of the United States." The
>>>>>> phrase is used again, in the same sense, in the Fifth Amendment. And
>>>>>> then Congress transferred the power of actually calling them into
>>>>>> federal service to the president, under defined conditions, in the
>>>>>> first Militia Act of 1792.
>>>>>
>>>>> To which I'd add the Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard and National
>>>>> Health Service which are also military branches. None are authorized
>>>>> as a standing "army".
>>>>
>>>> See above. Full-time navy, full-time Marines. The Air Force was
>>>> created as a branch of the army.
>>>
>>> And God created Adam... The Air Force is one of seven branches of the
>>> United States military.
>>
>> And where did it come from, oh historical sage?
>
> Where either came from is not the issue. The Air Force, Marines and
> Coast Guard are separate branches of the military contrary to your
> statements and distractions.
>
>>>> The Coast Guard was a revenue police force.
>>>
>>> And lizards are the offspring of dinosaurs. Today the Coast Guard is
>>> one of the seven branches of the United States Military. Stop living
>>> in the past and adhere to the rule of law.
>>
>> Oh, I thought we were talking about the Constitution.
>
> If so then why bring up irrelevant distractions?
>
>> That was written
>> far in the past. Does today's Coast Guard somehow violate the
>> Constitution, in your idiosyncratic view? How about the Air Force? Is
>> that a violation?
>
> Does the Constitution, including Amendments, authorize a standing
> military other than the Navy? Of course not. You're capable of
> answering your own ridiculous questions so why ask?
>
>>> By continuously shading events and
>>> law to justify your belief structure you can, indeed, create an
>>> artificial reality bubble but that has little impact on the reality we
>>> all share.
>>
>> Uh, I don't think you share the same reality with most of us. <g> The
>> reality is that we have, and have always had, a standing navy;
>
> That has never been in question.
>
>> that the
>> army is no violation of the Constitution;
>
> Bullshit.
>
>> and that other branches of the
>> military service have grown out of them, or in the case of the Coast
>> Guard, have become attached to them.
>
> Another irrelevant distraction. None of the other four branches are
> authorized a standing service by the Constitution.
>
>> That's reality. What reality are you involved with? Are you saying we're
>> all living in Constitional sin? <g>
>
> I've demonstrated that you advocate ignoring the Constitution when it
> serves your purposes. That is not a position that I respect. In fact I
> denounce it as traitorous.
>
>>> The Constitution does not permit a standing Army and there are seven
>>> branches of the military. Only one is authorized by the Constitution
>>> to exist continuously.
>>
>> Is this the libertarian spin? Do you have your own, special version of
>> the Constitution that says Congress can't re-fund the army every two
>> years?
>
> Where does the Constitution authorize a standing army?
>
> It doesn't and your, and Congress' end-run pervert the law of the land.
>
>>>> They can be called into military service in time of war. I'm not
>>>> getting into the NHS, because there are limits to how far I'll stray.
>>>> d8-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> A standing army is not authorized in this passage, only an
>>>>>>> "on-demand" military. Do you have another reference which might
>>>>>>> support your claim?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See above. And you might want to read the history of the US Army. It
>>>>>> will explain the change of heart about standing armies, and the
>>>>>> Legion, and that the name was changed to the Army, and that Congress
>>>>>> just kept re-funding it.
>>>>>
>>>>> You misunderstand. I'm not against a standing army, as long as
>>>>> severe limitations are in place. I'm against violating the
>>>>> Constitution for any reason or rationalization. If you don't like
>>>>> the law then change it but do not violate the law.
>>>>
>>>> No violation is involved. Congress just keeps re-funding it, in
>>>> compliance with Article II.
>>>
>>> A regrettably legal end-run on the clear words and meaning of the
>>> Constitution.
>>
>> Those are the words and "meaning" you've created in your imagination.
>
> Yet you are unable to show where the Constitution allows a standing
> army. In fact you've admitted that there is no such authorization and
> that Congress had to create a standing army by the defacto method.
>
>> The Constitution left open the question of how Congress may fund the
>> army, as long as no individual funding exceeds two years.
>
> Which is not a Constitutional authorization of a standing army.
>
>>> Again, you are obviously fine with legal shenanigans concerning the
>>> Constitution and rule of law.
>>
>> And you are obviously among the deadest of Dead Constitutionalists.
>> What's interesting is that I'm far from being a Living
>> Constitutionalist. It's just that I'm not as dead about it as you are.
>> d8-)
>>
>> Again, if you study the history of the ideas about a standing army, the
>> country had pretty much changed its mind about it before 1800. An
>> Amendment might have been in order, but it wasn't needed. Congress
>> already had the authority to fund the army every two years, and to keep
>> it going. So they did.
>
> Now you're on the right track. Do things the right, legal, way instead
> of violating the law. Pass the required Amendment.
>
>> This is a good example of why Jefferson said:
>>
>> "On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual
>> constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the
>> living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it,
>> as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own
>> persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons
>> and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution
>> and the laws of their predecessors extinguished them, in their natural
>> course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that
>> being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution,
>> then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be
>> enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right."
>>
>> For the record, Madison did not agree. That's the way it goes. On
>> principle, Jefferson has the stronger case. As a practical matter,
>> Madison had a better appreciation of what would work.
>>
>> One of the dilemmas we face is that the Constitution could not possibly
>> anticipate many future circumstances, such as our militia getting
>> creamed by the professional, disciplined British army at Washington.
>> Another dilemma is that the Constitution was written before we had the
>> 14th Amendment, and thus the Founders could comfort themselves with the
>> fact that they weren't telling the states what individual rights they
>> had to respect. For the same reason, neither did they have to worry
>> about what other rights were reserved to the states, or the people. That
>> was the states' business, before the 14th.
>>
>> Madison wanted a Constitution cast more or less in stone. Jefferson
>> wanted to tear it up and re-write it every 19 years. Neither position
>> addresses the needs of the republic. We need both an ability to squeeze
>> it a bit to suit particular circumstances, and the ability to make
>> large, overt revisions when interpretations won't do. The latter is
>> impractical in all but the most extreme and general circumstances. The
>> former presents a potential danger, but most people are satisfied with
>> how it's worked out (9/'09 Gallup Poll: 61% favor Supreme Court rulings
>> in general).
>>
>> That's about the best one could hope for, IMO. The dead heads seem to
>> think the Constitution is a suicide pact. They don't read enough Supreme
>> Court decisions to avoid making hubristic and foolish declarations about
>> how the Constition is being "trashed." They just have attitudes and
>> ill-founded opinions.
>>
>> The Living Constitutionalists likewise think they're tuned into the
>> thoughts of the Founders, and can expand and contract the actual
>> document to suit their social goals and their idea of how the world has
>> changed. Those of us in the center reject both approaches. Clearly, by
>> the way the Constitution addresses the issue of armies and the commander
>> in chief, there is plenty of latitude to allow the present status of our
>> armed forces, and their control, within its wording and reasonable
>> interpretation. That's a pretty good thing.
>>
>> And we have the law on our side. d8-)
>
> No, you do not. You, and the politicians have only coercion on your side.
>
>>> I'm not. If you want to evade a Constitutional provision then change
>>> it, don't evade or violate the clear meaning. Just like the
>>> gun-grabbers who twist the 2nd, the neocons and their sycophants who
>>> advocate violating the 4th amendment and the religious right who
>>> violate the separation of Church and State, you seem just fine with
>>> chipping away at the very foundation of our once-great nation.
>>
>> Pffhhhht. The 2nd Amendment's meaning depends on which historical
>> doctrine you accept. Robert Bork, a hard-core originalist, says it
>> applies only to militias, in its strict, originalist sense. He's right;
>> I've read reams of evidence. But that doesn't mean that the 2nd doesn't
>> assume an individual right, or that it's implicit in the 2nd. I believe
>> that's the case. Scalia did a fair job of taking that approach in
>> Heller. But in order to do it, he had to depart from the *primary*
>> "authoritative sources (primarily the transcript of the First Congress
>> hearings on the Bill of Rights. which were all about the militia with NO
>> mention of an individual right). That's a very un-originalist thing to
>> do. Bork was the real originalist in this case. But it accurately
>> reflects the overall original intent, IMO. He had to tread pretty
>> closely to an interpretive view that he often disparaged in his other
>> writings.
>>
>> Nor do you seem to have a good handle on the religion issues in the 1st.
>> (Several states had state religions, and had religious taxes, even after
>> the Constitution was ratified. There was no reason they could not. Do
>> you not agree?) Again, hard-core originalists make a good case that
>> we've gone overboard on the separation issue.
>
> You sound like Neville Chamberlin.
>
>>> I'm not.
>>>
>>>>> That is the basis of many of our current ills. When the Federal
>>>>> government is allowed to violate the law without repercussion then
>>>>> our nation has died and merely twitches in death spasms.
>>>>
>>>> That's another argument; one that could go on forever.
>>>
>>> No, it's part of the same discussion. You are part of the problem, not
>>> the solution, for perpetuating the ever expanding sleeze factor in
>>> evading the clear meaning of our Constitution.
>>
>> Pffhhht. It's been my main intellectual hobby for 35 years. I'll be glad
>> to deal with your idiosyncratic interpretations any time.
>
> No doubt with more evasion and distractions from the original intent too.
>
> --
> Regards, Curly
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Irony defined: http://www.fox.com/lietome/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 12 2011 5:10 am
From: jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>

Strabo wrote:

>
> That was minimal government. That was liberal. That was terrific.
>

In Jefferson's day there was minimal government by default
not so much by design
because they started from nothing

You do realize that in order to implement your idea of govt
the majority has to agree
and the majority of US voters is not too keen
on returning to the beginning of the 19th century

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Shizuoka ST-N *before* retrofit work starts!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/34bf6dcfd4783c66?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 12 2011 2:15 am
From: "JB"

"Karl Townsend" <karltownsend.NOT@embarqmail.com> wrote in message
news:v1jln6tii9fceq74eniciid48172g36tch@4ax.com...
> Man, that big beefy machine with those box ways make me GWE.

:>)

> You can have some fun with the bird's nest. Rip it all out. You may re
> use a bit but its actually easier to start with an empty box. That way
> you can have a nice component layout.
>
That's the plan. Strip it all out and start afresh. I'll update on progress
as time allows.
cheers,
JB

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 12 2011 2:17 am
From: "JB"

"DoN. Nichols" <BPdnicholsBP@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:slrninlt0u.r17.BPdnicholsBP@Katana.d-and-d.com...
> On 2011-03-11, JB <nil@spam.net> wrote:
>>
>> "Ignoramus16274" <ignoramus16274@NOSPAM.16274.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:wuqdnRfPrM2ry-fQnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> On 2011-03-11, JB <nil@spam.net> wrote:
>>>> Photos:
>>>> http://www.jmbyrne.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/1a.html
>>>>
>>>> Manual pages showing spec of motors and drives etc:
>>>> http://www.jmbyrne.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/1b.html
>>>>
>>>> First job is to find a servo drive to test the motors. If all is well
>>>> with
>>>> these, then I can move along......
>>>
>>> Looks like a nice, used machine. Congrats.
>>>
>>> You can use any DC power source to test the motors. Examples are a car
>>> battery, car battery charger, etc.
>>>
>> I'll try my big 0-30VDC 4A lab PSU then I think.
>> Thanks again.
>
> Start with a low voltage -- it will accelerate *fast* with full
> voltage and current, and you might not get it stopped before it hits the
> stops.
>
Good advice! These are big motors.

> And you say four brushes. Typically, two are heavy duty ones (or
> have heavy duty wires running to them) and the other two (at right
> angles to the first two) are lighter. They are where the tach feedback
> pickoff brushes, and probably should not get much current to allow for
> clean pickoff of the tach feedback signals.
>
I'll look into this when i detach all of the wiring next week.
cheers,
JB

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Loctite 249 Quicktape Tape Threadlocker Non-liquid
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/b884a05c1301a5c4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 12 2011 3:58 am
From: "Wild_Bill"

I hadn't seen the stick form, and in searching I found that there are small
and larger sizes (9g, 19g) and both medium hold blue and hi-strength red.

--
WB
.........

"steamer" <steamer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4d79467f$0$10574$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> --Have you seen the stuff that's like chapstick? That stuff rocks
> and it's safe to keep in a pocket..
>
> --
> "Steamboat Ed" Haas : Steel, Stainless, Titanium:
> Hacking the Trailing Edge! : Guaranteed Uncertified Welding!
> www.nmpproducts.com
> ---Decks a-wash in a sea of words---

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Dividing head
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/06e421cb6152ec61?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 12 2011 4:11 am
From: "Wild_Bill"

Besides a variac for universal motor variable speed, the inexpensive
triac/diac-type Router Speed Control units sold by HF and others (maybe $12
on sale) might be a good alternative.
IIRC, the user manual states that the speed control units are for series
field windings, but I haven't read it recently.

I haven't tried one, but the laminate trimmer motor may also work well with
a light/med duty versions of Minarik or KB DC controllers, which would
likely provide better speed regulation (depending upon model and features),
if they're compatible.

--
WB
.........

"Jim Wilkins" <kb1dal@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e0dc9631-4f02-407c-a05b-48d8a6a64802@z27g2000prz.googlegroups.com...

Instead of locking the spindle you can clamp the divider plate. The
leverage would be better.
The laminate trimmer has 1/4" collets and better mounting surfaces
than a die grinder.
Speed control:
http://www.amptone.com/images/tenmavariac.jpg

Buy one of these, tighten a nut on it and thread the nut:
http://stores.homestead.com/WaldenSpecialties/-strse-31/MT2-Threaded-Arbor,-1-fdsh-2''/Detail.bok
I'd face the arbor flange side of the nut first and saw a slot so it
could be removed if it stays in the chuck. Or leave a hex flange on
the nut.

Why bother unless you already have the ER collets? 5C collets are as
cheap as any other and are the standard for square and hex collet
blocks, end mill grinding fixtures etc.
http://www.micro-machine-shop.com/Collets_fixtures_angled_blocks.htm#5C_fixtures
Those are fine for cross-drilling a shaft or milling a square or hex
head.

You could pick a few appropriate sizes for your rod stock and collets,
you don't need a full set. I chose 1/2" and 1" for expensive metal
like O-1, 12L14, 303, 4142 etc.

jsw

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Thank You, Glenn Beck
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/7840b92d063ae886?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 12 2011 4:12 am
From: Cliff

For informing us that teachers & other government
employees are really the "Islamic Terrorists".
Do THEY have those "WMDs"?
--
Cliff

==============================================================================
TOPIC: STOP Traver NOW
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/22d904b2d5318649?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 12 2011 4:34 am
From: "David R. Birch"

On 3/10/2011 9:10 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

>>> Wphew, it's a good thing they were background-checked and trained, or who
>>> knows what would have happened.
>>
>> I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Are you saying that CCW
>> shouldn't exist because a few have abused their 2nd Amendment rights?
>>
>> David
>
> I'm not trying to make a point. That was verbal irony. If you want to make a
> point out of it, the point would be that even background checking and
> training (if required in a given situation) doesn't keep people from using
> the guns they carry, legally and with the imprimatur of the CCW, to shoot
> innocent people. That was the implication of Wes's original challenge and
> the source of the irony.
>
> If I were making a point, it wouldn't be a simple one. But there is a simple
> question that pretty well summarizes it: If one is to say that the number of
> shootings of innocent victims by CCW holders is low, or that their
> "percentage" is low, the question raised is, "Compared to what?"

How about "compared to the general US population" or compared to "cops
on duty" or "cops off duty"? No, I don't have cites for these comparisons.

Do you think VPC stats are any less biased than NRA stats?

I would feel safer in an environment where CCW existed, even though only
a small percentage choose to do so and a much smaller percentage have
abused that right.

But I live in Wisconsin.

David

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cutting fittings off copper pipe for scrap?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/d43728f7de99ac8d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 12 2011 4:36 am
From: "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"

Rich Grise <richg@example.net.invalid> fired this volley in
news:ilf7qg$2u1$1@news.eternal-september.org:

> Just had another thought - wouldn't they have more value if they were
> sold as tube/pipe than bulk scrap?

Sure, if you could get someone to certify them for alloy, working pressure,
freedom from cracks and defects and....

Oh... that would cost more than buying new pipe!

Never mind.

LLoyd

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Supplier Tip of the Day
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/02421f88b0f6e79a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 12 2011 5:17 am
From: "Stormin Mormon"

I have a large number of them, my Mom got. I expect most of
the folks on this list have plenty of HF coupons.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Joe AutoDrill" <autodrill@yunx.com> wrote in message
news:6Naep.39933$TU.8410@newsfe01.iad...
According to some technical contacts I have, Lowe's and Home
Depot both
accept the 20% off coupons from Harbor Freight...

I think you may have to purchase a product that Harbor
Freight also sells,
but it's worth a try!

...Now, who had those HF coupons?

Regards,
Joe Agro, Jr.
(800) 871-5022
01.908.542.0244
Automatic / Pneumatic Drills: http://www.AutoDrill.com
Multiple Spindle Drills: http://www.Multi-Drill.com
Production Tapping: http://Production-Tapping-Equipment.com/
Flagship Site: http://www.Drill-N-Tap.com
VIDEOS: http://www.youtube.com/user/AutoDrill
TWITTER: http://twitter.com/AutoDrill
FACEBOOK: http://tinyurl.com/AutoDrill-Facebook

V8013-R

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

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

Saturday, March 12, 2011

rec.crafts.metalworking - 25 new messages in 14 topics - digest

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

About Me

Previous Posts