Use different size wire in electro clutch?
in [Design]
|
From: lurch on 22 Dec 2009 21:00 On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 22:10:18 -0500, Jamie <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_(a)charter.net> wrote: >Eeyore wrote: > >> >> Ron wrote: >> >> >>>of course as any fool knows it should be either SWG or thousanths of an >>>inch ;) >> >> >> LOL ! Give me a thou over a 'mil' anyday. Only the Americans could confuse a >> metric prefix with an old unit. >> >> Not to mention that if you use the word 'mil' in the UK it means a millimetre. >> >The way I see it, you're not able to comprehend the vast complexity of >the intellectually enhanced American! > > Did that just about sum it up? > > I just have to say that I did like that response. I am glad we all did not embrace the toad licking thing back in the 80s. We'd all be singing "On the Toad Again..." And PETA would be on our asses. Let's see if your 'enhancement' gets the depth of that off the wall remark... :-) Bwuahahahahaha... Intellectually Enhanced... indeed!
From: Proteus IIV on 23 Dec 2009 02:37 lurch <lu...(a)yourangcousinitslibrary.org> YOU ARE AN IDIOT I AM PROTEUS
From: lurch on 22 Dec 2009 21:07 On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:12:07 -0500, Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: >>Well, it IS used for things other than magnets. To be pedantic it's *enamelled* btw. >> >>http://wires.co.uk/acatalog/cu_enam.html > >You're being more provincial than pedantic there. ;-) Yes, and it is called out in diameter, not area, so he is in left field. We sell by weight because the wire makers over here were used to supplying much larger parcels to a customer, and the customer knows how many feet a given weight of a pallet of wire is as the vendor supplies a chart or declaration of the specification.
From: Michael A. Terrell on 23 Dec 2009 12:29 daestrom wrote: > > Michael A. Terrell wrote: > > krw wrote: > >> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:34:42 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell" > >> <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >> > >>> John Fields wrote: > >>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:06:47 -0700, "bg" <bg(a)nospam.com> wrote: > >>>>> Metric is for people that have to count on their fingers ! > >>>> I prefer base 21. > >> The subject excites you? > >> > >>> Only because 42 is the second number in that base. :) > >> Everyone knows that 42 is in base 13. ;-) > > > > > > You're wayyyy off base... > > > > > No, the answer to "Life, the Universe and Everything" is 42. > > If that doesn't make sense to you, it's because you don't understand the > question. The question is "What is six times nine?" > > The only way any of this works out is if '42' is in base 13. (4*13+2=6*9) > > daestrom > In memory of Douglas Adams 'So long, and thanks for all the fish' :) -- Offworld checks no longer accepted!
From: John Fields on 23 Dec 2009 13:24
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:23:33 -0800, lurch <lurch(a)yourangcousinitslibrary.org> wrote: >On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 01:09:40 -0600, John Fields ><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 04:02:30 +0000, Eeyore >><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)notcoldmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>John Fields wrote: >>> >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)removethishotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >Have you never heard of mm^2 ? >>>> >>>> --- >>>> Sure we have. >>>> >>>> So what? >>> >>>Why don't you use it ? >> >>--- >>Because it doesn't suit us in everyday life? >> >>JF > > I'll bet folks in the industry were calling out wire by American Wire >Gauge calls long before folks 'over there' were calling wires out in >direct cross sectional area numerics. We hade/have circular mils, and >you guys have square millimeters. > > Eventually, the world will, perhaps, be all metric. Maybe one day >there will be a singular monetary system or government... sure. > > Don't hold your breath. > > For now we will all, both you (Eeyore's 'over there' crowd)and us, >savor the nostalgia that our truly scientific ancestors gave us. We will >cling to those things that we think important. Every 'scientist' knows >how to measure length regardless of what ticks are on the scale... still, >every man likes to do so with *his own* ruler. > > All the automation and such in 'science and industry' these days has >made for some 'scientists' that are titled or held in regards that are >far beyond their actual level of competency or depth of knowledge. > > I am glad that you are not in that boat, John. --- Thank you, that's very kind. :-) JF |