From: Jamie on
Ron wrote:

> Jamie wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
>
> An Oxymoron shirley?
>
> ;)
>
> Dives for cover
> Ron (Merry Christmas)
Yeah.
Hail Marry!



From: Jamie on
Ron wrote:

> Jamie wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
>
> An Oxymoron shirley?
>
> ;)
>
> Dives for cover
> Ron (Merry Christmas)
Oops
Hail Mary!



From: lurch on
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:41:24 -0600, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> 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. ;-)


42 is "The answer to everything".
From: Spehro Pefhany on
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:35:18 -0800, the renowned Fred Abse
<excretatauris(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:17:14 +0000, Eeyore wrote:
>
>> Any given wire gauge covers a wide range of
>> cross-sectional areas.
>
>Rubbish

Stranded wire does vary somewhat in total conductor cross-sectional
area for a given gauge size, but I don't think that is unique to AWG
wire.

For example, depending on stranding, an AWG 24 wire can be 384 to 475
circular mils in x-sectional area. 404 is the nominal area for a solid
AWG 24, so it's -5% to +18%.

http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~ecelabs/appnotes/PDF/techdat/swc.pdf



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff(a)interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
From: lurch on
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 19:32:12 -0600, John Fields
<jfields(a)austininstruments.com> 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.
>>
>>
>> Only because 42 is the second number in that base. :)
>
>---
>Nope, it's because I can use all my "digits" to count with. ;)
>
>JF

metacarpals?