Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 6 Feb 2007 11:08 unsettled wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > >>Eeyore wrote: > > > >>Anyway that's only part of it. Any form of damage or contamination > >>that allows the receptacle to become carbonized can easily lead > >>to an electrical fire. > > > > In order for anything to carbonise it has to get hot. The BS1363 plug only carries 13A > > though a solid machined contact unlike the 15A you put through your bits of bent metal. > > > Ir doesn't get hot ! > > Contamination, such as getting wet, causes the demise of receptacles pronto. And how do propose they get wet ? In what way are UK sockets uniquely susceptible to this ? > Nearby lightning strikes cause arcing at the oddest places, another source of carbonization. You get more lightning in the USA AFAIK. > Let's talk a little about your "solid machined contact" in > your receptacles. > > 1 spring action is required. That's in the socket part of course. > stamped properly tempered metal is more than adequate Adequate maybe. But not very rugged. > 2 the price of machining is outrageous Somehow we manage. It's cheap for the Chinese to do it seems. > A standard 15 amp duplex receptacle is available in > the USA with a low end price of well under 1 US$. High > end decorative is around $35 which includes built in > surge suppression. You're now arguing in favour of inferior engineering on the basis of price ? Graham
From: T Wake on 6 Feb 2007 14:16 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eq9ru7$8ss_002(a)s807.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <apydnSufhMo__FrYnZ2dnUVZ8sWhnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eq79n9$8qk_008(a)s1004.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <45C6525A.BB423643(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> >There's a Cambridge Mass too. >>>>> >>>>> Son, that is a town; it is not a school. >>>> >>>>City actually. Same as ours. >>> >>> I think it's a town. I'd have to check what it's carter is. >>> I don't remember a mayor of Cambridge. >>>> >>>>Cambridge is a city in the Greater Boston area of Massachusetts, United >>> States. >>>>It was named in honor of Cambridge, England. >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge%2C_Massachusetts >>>> >>>>The city of Cambridge is an old English university town and the >>> administrative >>>>centre of the county of Cambridgeshire. >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge >>> >>> The difference between town and city is the style of government. >> >>Do you think this applies universally? > > Here, it does. Can you see the contradiction in that phrase? > The reason you three have hared off into some strange direction > in this thread is Eeyore's suggestion that the reference to > Cambridge might have been the Massachusetts town. It was not. > If the guy had gone to one of the schools in Cambridge, Mass., > he would not have written _at_ Cambridge; this is a unique > phrasing in England and not done in the US. The guy would > have acquired American phrasing and not British phrasing if > he had gone to MIT or Harvard. Interesting line of conclusions. While it appears valid, it does suffer from the flaw that Habishi certainly did _not_ study at the University of Cambridge. I know a few Americans who say they studied _at_ MIT or Harvard (or where ever) so I remain unconvinced that the "at" is a unique indicator of Britishness.
From: T Wake on 6 Feb 2007 14:22 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45C81359.849E3078(a)hotmail.com... > > > unsettled wrote: > <snip> >> >> Sounds like propaganda. I'd have to see actual statistics on that. > > It just doesn't happen unlike the conflagrations you guys get. The British > system > is simply far better engineered. While I have no interesting a pissing competition about whose electrical system is better, the stats are available from the Health and Safety Executive website.
From: T Wake on 6 Feb 2007 14:24 "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:eq8rv7$v7q$6(a)blue.rahul.net... > In article <0LKdnfp6w6j5-VrYnZ2dnUVZ8seinZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eq78ue$8qk_003(a)s1004.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <eq56kc$h3d$6(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>In article <eq4ksf$8ss_009(a)s795.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>[......] >>>>>Most of the code I wrote didn't do calculations. Most of OS >>>>>code simply moves bits without error. >>>> >>>>Now that Windows is the most common OS, >>> >>> Except Windows isn't an OS. >> >>What is the OS on a windows XP machine then? What about a Windows Vista >>machine? > > Vista is really a shell. It contains a bunch of XP code. Whenever OS > like stuff needs to be done, Vista passes the command to the XP code. > Which then passes it down to some Win98 code that fires up DOS and runs > the operation through QBasic. This is why Vista needs so much RAM. Interesting. I hadn't read that there was Win98 / DOS code left over in XP. Thanks.
From: T Wake on 6 Feb 2007 14:24
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eq9ts5$8ss_007(a)s807.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <0LKdnfp6w6j5-VrYnZ2dnUVZ8seinZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eq78ue$8qk_003(a)s1004.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <eq56kc$h3d$6(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>In article <eq4ksf$8ss_009(a)s795.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>[......] >>>>>Most of the code I wrote didn't do calculations. Most of OS >>>>>code simply moves bits without error. >>>> >>>>Now that Windows is the most common OS, >>> >>> Except Windows isn't an OS. >> >>What is the OS on a windows XP machine then? > > An OS that had an application's footprint shoved into its exec. In an OS which has had an applications footprint shoved into it's exec no longer an OS? >> What about a Windows Vista machine? > > I haven't seen it yet. Based on past coding history of the company, > I don't expect any miracles; the corporate folklore is just too > engrained into their infrastructure to allow it. > > /BAH > |