Transformer insulateing tape?
in [Design]
|
Prev: Capacitor discharge probes
Next: makes no sense to me
From: DrParnassus on 22 Jun 2010 17:15 On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:05:38 -0700, Fred Abse <excretatauris(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 19:07:29 -0700, DrParnassus wrote: > >> Non-electronic verniers generally only have room for >> ONE scale, and most bought inch and metric versions back in the days >> before electronic resolve. > >My collection of "real" verniers, ranging from Brown & Sharpe, through >British Moore & Wright, to cheapo Chinese, all have dual inch/metric >scales. Some are 50 years old. Cool. Even better.
From: Bill Sloman on 22 Jun 2010 18:58 On Jun 22, 4:01 am, DrParnassus <DrParnas...(a)hereforlongtime.org> wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:06:40 -0700 (PDT), Bill Slotard > > <bill.slot...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >American woodworkers might now use it because they buy American > >machine tools. Traditional woodworkers - like my great-grandfather and > >his brothers - never used mils. > > They do not use inches either, idiot. Why would you think that? When I did wood-working at school, in Tasmania in 1955, we certainly worked in inches and feet, and timbers were "two by four" (inches). > Only a group of peoples that DO use inches would use mils regularly. And why wouldn't my great-grandfather not have used inches in Adelaide, Australia fifty-odd years earlier? > The fact that the rest of the world does is related more to military > base proliferation and the industries behind that and other American > products made elsewhere meant that it became of worldwide use in certain > scenarios. The rest of the world doesn't use mils (unless they've been stuck with stuff originally produced to some daft American military standard, like electronic integrated circuit packages). > Face it, Slotard, you have failed to make a single valid point about > systems of measure, and if anything at all is true in this world, it is > that YOU are the one that is obsolete. There you go again, drawing false conclusions from non-existent evidence. > ieee should kill your subscription. At your suggestion? You do suffer from delusions of grandeur, although in your case grandeur isn't quite the right word - you'd still be deluded if you though that you had the status of an inconsequential pip-squeak. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 22 Jun 2010 19:05 On Jun 22, 4:11 am, DrParnassus <DrParnas...(a)hereforlongtime.org> wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:06:40 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >Mixing units is stupid. > > No, you are stupid. If this were true, it wouldn't make using two sets of units any less stupid. > > At least one of your interplanetary probes > >failed because of a units mix-up. > > Maybe it was a failure to mark it well enough, but the unit was made > under all one system of measure. Read the link that I posted, pip-squeak. http://www.jamesoberg.com/mars/loss.html > The mistake was operator level, not machine level, you retarded twit! Units are only of significance to the operator. The machine doesn't have a clue what units it is working in. > He filled x Lbs, when he should have filled x kg. That resulted in > less than half the needed fill. The sort of problem that recurs regularly when you persist in using pounds and inches in a world where everybody else uses kilograms and centimetres. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 22 Jun 2010 19:11 On Jun 21, 8:04 pm, DrParnassus <DrParnas...(a)hereforlongtime.org> wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:42:44 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Jun 21, 7:37 pm, DrParnassus <DrParnas...(a)hereforlongtime.org> > >wrote: > >> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 08:01:54 -0700, Fred Abse > > >> <excretatau...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> >On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 22:45:19 -0700,Bill Slomanwrote: > > >> >> That the US persists in using the obsolete imperial units is > >> >> definitely dorkish. > > >> >US customary units are NOT "Imperial". > > >> >Apart from there being differences, for example the pint, gallon,etc. we > >> >dumped the British Empire back in 1776. > > >> >An action that your native country is still arguing about. > > >> >Customary units of mass and length in the US have been defined in terms of > >> >metric standards since 1893 (Mendenhall Order). > > >> The guy is a retard and deserves no information, and the idiot rejects > >> it anyway. > > >> Rememeber the 555 timer threads? > > >You think the 555 isn't obsolete? The information I "reject" happens > >to be wrong. It is a pity you lack the wit to realise this. > > A perfect proof that you got tagged right on the money. Would you care to expand on that statement? The 555 may still be used - by people who haven't yet learned that there are now better ways of tackling the kind of job that it was developed to look after - but it is still totally obsolete. The sort of people who use it would knap flint points for their arrows and spears. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 22 Jun 2010 19:16
On Jun 22, 7:05 pm, Fred Abse <excretatau...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:40:22 -0700,Bill Slomanwrote: > >> US customary units are NOT "Imperial". > > > And how would you prefer to label them? > > United States Customary Units, which is what they are officially called. "Imperial" is a lot shorter, and is close enough to meaning exactly the same thing for anybody except a lawyer. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |