Discussion:
OT: modern chemistry sets
(too old to reply)
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2012-12-25 02:34:33 UTC
Permalink
Off topic.

Not sure if chemistry is an interest of this group, but this NYT
article about modern chemistry/science kits may be of interest:

"Today’s science kits lack the free-play style and sometimes dangerous
materials of yore, but many argue that they can still spark a lifelong
interest in inquiry. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/25/science/science-toys-gifts-that-keep-giving-if-not-exploding.html?hp


In the old Charles Addams cartoons (and TV show), he frequently poked
fun at dangerous and weird outcomes from a child's chemistry set. In
one cartoon we see an irate woman standing in line at the complaints
window of a store. There's an apparently invisible little boy next to
her, holding a chemistry set.
Rod Speed
2012-12-25 02:46:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Not sure if chemistry is an interest of this group,
It is to me.
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
but this NYT article about modern chemistry/science kits may be of
"Today’s science kits lack the free-play style and sometimes
dangerous materials of yore, but many argue that they can
still spark a lifelong interest in inquiry. "
I'm not convinced they spark much, I believe they basically
just appeal to those who will do that sort of thing anyway.
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/25/science/science-toys-gifts-that-keep-giving-if-not-exploding.html?hp
In the old Charles Addams cartoons (and TV show), he frequently poked
fun at dangerous and weird outcomes from a child's chemistry set. In
one cartoon we see an irate woman standing in line at the complaints
window of a store. There's an apparently invisible little boy next to
her, holding a chemistry set.
I never did any real damage with a chemistry/science kit in the past.

I did quite a bit of damage with stuff other than from chemistry/science
kits tho, particularly once I was into making explosive stuff.

Came close to doing some real damage when we borrowed the keys to
the chem lab in the holidays. My mate's mum was the chemistry teacher.

Also bought a lot of stuff from the main supplier of that sort of thing too.
Joe Morris
2012-12-27 00:21:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Off topic.
What else is new in this newsgroup? <g>
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Not sure if chemistry is an interest of this group, but this NYT
"Today’s science kits lack the free-play style and sometimes dangerous
materials of yore, but many argue that they can still spark a lifelong
interest in inquiry. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/25/science/science-toys-gifts-that-keep-giving-if-not-exploding.html?hp
It wasn't just the chemistry sets (although I recall making a few
concoctions that proved the old adage that "if it stinks, it's chemistry").
Recall the old Erector Set kits that not only had some sharp edges on the
girders but also had fully exposed gears in the motor, with no slip clutches
(or mainframe-style Emergency Power Off buttons) to prevent a child's finger
from going through the gear train. The CSPC would have had a litter of
kittens if something like that came on the market today.

For that matter, I don't recall that the motor even had an on/off switch:
you controlled it at the wall outlet by inserting and removing the (110-VAC,
ungrounded) plug, giving the motor two speeds: zero and full throttle. You
controlled the output of the gear train with a gearshift lever.
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
In the old Charles Addams cartoons (and TV show), he frequently poked
fun at dangerous and weird outcomes from a child's chemistry set. In
one cartoon we see an irate woman standing in line at the complaints
window of a store. There's an apparently invisible little boy next to
her, holding a chemistry set.
Yup...IIRC that one's been in several of the Addams collections.

Joe
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2012-12-27 15:09:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Morris
It wasn't just the chemistry sets (although I recall making a few
concoctions that proved the old adage that "if it stinks, it's chemistry").
Recall the old Erector Set kits that not only had some sharp edges on the
girders but also had fully exposed gears in the motor, with no slip clutches
(or mainframe-style Emergency Power Off buttons) to prevent a child's finger
from going through the gear train.  The CSPC would have had a litter of
kittens if something like that came on the market today.
you controlled it at the wall outlet by inserting and removing the (110-VAC,
ungrounded) plug, giving the motor two speeds: zero and full throttle.  You
controlled the output of the gear train with a gearshift lever.
Weren't the motors of very low power? Were the gears plastic or
metal?

Anyway, it sounds like this toy would be for older kids, especially if
the gear box had to assembled by the user.

It also sounds like a heck of a lot of fun.
Dave Garland
2012-12-27 18:01:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Joe Morris
It wasn't just the chemistry sets (although I recall making a few
concoctions that proved the old adage that "if it stinks, it's chemistry").
Recall the old Erector Set kits that not only had some sharp edges on the
girders but also had fully exposed gears in the motor, with no slip clutches
(or mainframe-style Emergency Power Off buttons) to prevent a child's finger
from going through the gear train. The CSPC would have had a litter of
kittens if something like that came on the market today.
you controlled it at the wall outlet by inserting and removing the (110-VAC,
ungrounded) plug, giving the motor two speeds: zero and full throttle. You
controlled the output of the gear train with a gearshift lever.
Weren't the motors of very low power? Were the gears plastic or
metal?
The motors were certainly low power, but if you add enough mechanical
advantage (e.g. with gears) that can make for a surprising (albeit
slow) amount of force.

The gears were metal. Erector (and Meccano) sets date from the early
1900s, maybe 40 years before plastic gears became common.
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Anyway, it sounds like this toy would be for older kids, especially if
the gear box had to assembled by the user.
I dunno. 10 years old? And I'm sure that if there was a set in the
household, the younger kids would have at it (even over the objections
of older kids, concerned not about safety but about the loss of small
parts.. there were never enough screws and nuts).

I don't think I ever had a motor (though could improvise a hand
crank), either my set didn't come with one, or it had been lost by one
of my predecessors.
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
It also sounds like a heck of a lot of fun.
It was the Lego of its day.
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2012-12-27 19:35:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Garland
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
It also sounds like a heck of a lot of fun.
It was the Lego of its day.
Probably better than Lego.

They had a "Kenner Bridge, Girder, and Panel" building set when I was
a kid. It had plastic beams one could set up as a building skeleton,
then very thin (brittle, easily broken) plastic panels to serve as
windows. One could create buildings or bridges. If memory serves,
the bridge set came with string and instructions on making a
suspension bridge. I think the bridge set was more advanced than the
building set.

There was also a Lego-like set called "American Brick" (IIRC), with
red plastic bricks that fit together to build houses. There were
little white plastic frames for windows and doors, and long pieces for
a foundation. I think a green cardboard served as the roof.

In Roebling, NJ, the former site of the wire works that made the
cables for many suspension bridges, they created a small museum with
some artificats and photos*. http://roeblingmuseum.org/

I wish a museum like that was something like that was available when I
was a kid. Of course, the museum is nice and clean, air conditioned
and comfortable, which was not exactly what the actual steel mills
were like inside while in production. (I heard a local steel mill
took visitors on a bus tour through its various buildings, which
would've been quite interesting.)


* obl IT note: The Roebling museum has some sample old paystubs and
records on display; apparently they used an bookkepping machine (ie
NCR or Burroughs); I don't think they had IBM equipment. (But at their
peak they had 6,000 employees, so maybe they did have IBM gear for
that kind of volume). However, they did have (and on display) an
"International" (IBM) time clock, and the time card racks are stamped
with the IBM logo.

A 1939 IBM film describing their factory shows considerable metal
working, from taking raw steel rods and fashioning them in various
ways into components. EAM machines used a large quantity of relays,
and I wonder if IBM manufactured their own or purchased them. Their
history does say they did considerable R&D to improve relays to make
them smaller. I presume modern mainframes to this day still have some
relays to power up the CPU and peripherals.


IBM developed several computers for real-time industrial process
control, such as the 1710/1720 (based on the 1620), the 1800 (based on
the 1130), and the System/7. In 1969 other firms with mini-computer
strengths such as CDC, DG, DEC, and HP, got into the business. Steel
making requires monitoring so the steel has the proper amount of
carbon and other ingredients for its grade, and the absence of certain
contaminents. Certain high end steels require very precise
proportion of ingredients and temperature control throughout the
process. Monitoring of old style open hearths was done by skilled
workers who judged the color of the bath as well as samples sent to a
lab. I don't know how electric furnace or basic oxygen steel is
monitored, nor if IBM process controllers were ever used in steel
making.

The steel used for building wire and cable, such as that made by
Roebling, required strict specifications in order to have the
uniformity, strength, and durability in critical applications. (Steel
wire intended for things like paper clips and clothes hangers needn't
be as stringent.)
Gene Wirchenko
2012-12-28 06:03:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Dave Garland
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
It also sounds like a heck of a lot of fun.
It was the Lego of its day.
Probably better than Lego.
I liked Lego.
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
They had a "Kenner Bridge, Girder, and Panel" building set when I was
a kid. It had plastic beams one could set up as a building skeleton,
then very thin (brittle, easily broken) plastic panels to serve as
windows. One could create buildings or bridges. If memory serves,
the bridge set came with string and instructions on making a
suspension bridge. I think the bridge set was more advanced than the
building set.
I had just the building set. It was fun.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
Michael Black
2012-12-27 20:47:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Garland
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
It also sounds like a heck of a lot of fun.
It was the Lego of its day.
Lego apparently dates from the 1930s. Later than Mecanno, but now
concurrent with it for quite a long time.

I thought Lego was new, but then what would I know the first time I saw
it as a kid? I actually had Lego in 1965, when we lived for six months in
Copenhagen, Mecanno came later, just a sampler kit I got for my birthday
or something, I think from teh cousins.

I have the impression Lego has added quite a bit in fifty years. Back
then, a block that lit up or one that had a motor (I had the former, can't
remember if I had the latter) was a Big Thing, but I think that sort of
block has become a lot more common in recent decades.

Michael
Jorgen Grahn
2013-01-01 20:58:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Black
Post by Dave Garland
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
It also sounds like a heck of a lot of fun.
It was the Lego of its day.
But today's Lego isn't always the Lego of today ...
Post by Michael Black
Lego apparently dates from the 1930s. Later than Mecanno, but now
concurrent with it for quite a long time.
I thought Lego was new, but then what would I know the first time I saw
it as a kid? I actually had Lego in 1965, when we lived for six months in
Copenhagen, Mecanno came later, just a sampler kit I got for my birthday
or something, I think from teh cousins.
I have the impression Lego has added quite a bit in fifty years. Back
then, a block that lit up or one that had a motor (I had the former, can't
remember if I had the latter)
Don't think I've ever seen an illuminating block. I had, in the late
1970s, a Lego train where the core was a big block with an electrical
engine.
Post by Michael Black
was a Big Thing, but I think that sort of
block has become a lot more common in recent decades.
What I hear from coworkers with children is, the kids treat it as
scale model sets. You buy a set of Lego (often a Harry Potter or Star
Wars scene), construct it to specification, and play with it.

I suppose in such a set a high percentage of the building blocks are
specialized rather than the standard NxM ones.

/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2013-01-01 21:28:39 UTC
Permalink
On 1 Jan 2013 20:58:10 GMT
Post by Jorgen Grahn
What I hear from coworkers with children is, the kids treat it as
scale model sets. You buy a set of Lego (often a Harry Potter or Star
Wars scene), construct it to specification, and play with it.
I suppose in such a set a high percentage of the building blocks are
specialized rather than the standard NxM ones.
Many of the outer surface bits are specialised, but in the
bigger, more interesting, kits most of the pieces fall into a fairly small
selection, not the standard NxM but more like the generic pieces from lego
technic kits and that range of robot kits in cans they did (I disunforget
the name), X section shafts, assorted hinges and axles and various pieces to
connect them together and to NxM bits. They also tend to use a lot of long
NxM bits and thin NXM bits. My son went through a phase of them, one that
impressed me was the foot tall battle droid model that stood on it's legs
and would fold down, you could learn a lot by understanding just how that
thing jbexes.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Stanley Daniel de Liver
2013-01-02 11:02:21 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 21:28:39 -0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On 1 Jan 2013 20:58:10 GMT
Post by Jorgen Grahn
What I hear from coworkers with children is, the kids treat it as
scale model sets. You buy a set of Lego (often a Harry Potter or Star
Wars scene), construct it to specification, and play with it.
I suppose in such a set a high percentage of the building blocks are
specialized rather than the standard NxM ones.
Many of the outer surface bits are specialised, but in the
bigger, more interesting, kits most of the pieces fall into a fairly small
selection, not the standard NxM but more like the generic pieces from lego
technic kits and that range of robot kits in cans they did (I disunforget
the name),
Bionicles.

X section shafts, assorted hinges and axles and various
Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
pieces to
connect them together and to NxM bits. They also tend to use a lot of long
NxM bits and thin NXM bits. My son went through a phase of them, one that
impressed me was the foot tall battle droid model that stood on it's legs
and would fold down, you could learn a lot by understanding just how that
thing jbexes.
The green one folded up nicely.

Mine's got a DS and is back on Pokemon now.
--
[dash dash space newline 4line sig]

Money/Life question
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2012-12-27 23:15:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Morris
It wasn't just the chemistry sets (although I recall making a few
concoctions that proved the old adage that "if it stinks, it's
chemistry").
Pretty much all of the reagents in my chemistry set were poisonous,
and an alcohol lamp is a potential fire hazard.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to ***@library.lspace.org
Joe Morris
2012-12-28 05:26:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Post by Joe Morris
It wasn't just the chemistry sets (although I recall making a few
concoctions that proved the old adage that "if it stinks, it's
chemistry").
Pretty much all of the reagents in my chemistry set were poisonous,
and an alcohol lamp is a potential fire hazard.
From that standpoint you could view the chemistry sets as Darwin Award
filters.

Serious question: can anyone here recall hearing of someone who actually got
into a serious situation as a result of the chemistry sets? I can't,
although I recall from back in the 1950s one of the students a few years
ahead of me in high school was messing around at home with some chemicals he
had taken from the chemistry lab...and suddenly realized that he had just
gone through the process for making nitroglycerine. He at least had the
sense to call the fire department.

Joe
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2012-12-28 14:37:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Morris
Serious question: can anyone here recall hearing of someone who
actually got into a serious situation as a result of the chemistry
sets? I can't,
Nor I, but HS students making Nitrogen triiodide and Silver acetylide
was, IMHO, foolish and dangerous.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to ***@library.lspace.org
Joe Morris
2012-12-29 15:00:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Post by Joe Morris
Serious question: can anyone here recall hearing of someone who
actually got into a serious situation as a result of the chemistry
sets? I can't,
Nor I, but HS students making Nitrogen triiodide and Silver acetylide
was, IMHO, foolish and dangerous.
No disagreement there, although it turned out that (thankfully) he hadn't
actaually made nitroglycerine because he screwed up some part of the
process. The details of exactly where he made the mistake weren't made
public.

If anyone is feeling too upbeat, one cure is to read about the number of
devastating accidental explosions caused by nitroglycerine prior to Nobel's
invention of dynamite.

Joe
Michael Black
2012-12-29 17:17:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Morris
Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Post by Joe Morris
Serious question: can anyone here recall hearing of someone who
actually got into a serious situation as a result of the chemistry
sets? I can't,
Nor I, but HS students making Nitrogen triiodide and Silver acetylide
was, IMHO, foolish and dangerous.
No disagreement there, although it turned out that (thankfully) he hadn't
actaually made nitroglycerine because he screwed up some part of the
process. The details of exactly where he made the mistake weren't made
public.
If anyone is feeling too upbeat, one cure is to read about the number of
devastating accidental explosions caused by nitroglycerine prior to Nobel's
invention of dynamite.
I thought it was well documented in the movies.

As a kid, I didn't see "Wages of Fear" but I certainly saw a film where
they were terribly worried about the nitro going boom. TRhat's where I
learned that it was very fussy.

For that matter, in the more recent "Vertical Limit" they use nitro for
blasting peaks, to eliminate the risk of avalanches. No explanation of
why they use nitroglycerine, but it gets worse as the climbers have to
rush up to save someone trapped on a mountain, and they take some of that
nitro with them. The big worry becomes that it will get too hot, when
those movies when I was a kid all warned about not shaking it too hard.

Michael
g***@mail.com
2012-12-29 22:38:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Black
Post by Joe Morris
Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Post by Joe Morris
Serious question: can anyone here recall hearing of someone who
actually got into a serious situation as a result of the chemistry
sets? I can't,
Nor I, but HS students making Nitrogen triiodide and Silver acetylide
was, IMHO, foolish and dangerous.
No disagreement there, although it turned out that (thankfully) he hadn't
actaually made nitroglycerine because he screwed up some part of the
process. The details of exactly where he made the mistake weren't made
public.
If anyone is feeling too upbeat, one cure is to read about the number of
devastating accidental explosions caused by nitroglycerine prior to Nobel's
invention of dynamite.
I thought it was well documented in the movies.
As a kid, I didn't see "Wages of Fear" but I certainly saw a film where
they were terribly worried about the nitro going boom. TRhat's where I
learned that it was very fussy.
French Film first.as far as I remember.
Post by Michael Black
For that matter, in the more recent "Vertical Limit" they use nitro for
blasting peaks, to eliminate the risk of avalanches. No explanation of
why they use nitroglycerine, but it gets worse as the climbers have to
rush up to save someone trapped on a mountain, and they take some of that
nitro with them. The big worry becomes that it will get too hot, when
those movies when I was a kid all warned about not shaking it too hard.
Michael
--
maus
.
.
...
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2012-12-30 00:00:55 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 12:17:15 -0500
Post by Michael Black
As a kid, I didn't see "Wages of Fear" but I certainly saw a film where
they were terribly worried about the nitro going boom. TRhat's where I
learned that it was very fussy.
I recall seeing one in which it was being transported by train
(steam of course) in an elaborate shock absorbing suspension. The dangers
involved in this sort of madness were made very clear, as was the
unpredictability of the stuff. Years later I confirmed my impressions of it
with my A level chemistry teacher - apparently it really is that nasty and
unpredictable. It amazes me that it was possible to find people mad enough
to work with it and sane enough to stand any chance of surviving the
experience.
Post by Michael Black
For that matter, in the more recent "Vertical Limit" they use nitro for
blasting peaks, to eliminate the risk of avalanches. No explanation of
why they use nitroglycerine,
I'm hard put to imagine a reasonable one.
Post by Michael Black
but it gets worse as the climbers have to
rush up to save someone trapped on a mountain, and they take some of that
nitro with them. The big worry becomes that it will get too hot, when
those movies when I was a kid all warned about not shaking it too hard.
Indeed, although I expect it gets less stable as it gets warmer,
however with the general unpredictability of nitro's shock sensitivity I
doubt that it makes much difference at liveable temperatures, BICBW and I
really don't want to test the theory.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2012-12-30 01:05:09 UTC
Permalink
        The dangers
involved in this sort of madness were made very clear, as was the
unpredictability of the stuff.
For years, dealing with dangerous nitro was a popular theme in movies
and TV, both comedies and dramas.
hda
2012-12-30 11:42:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Black
Post by Joe Morris
Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Post by Joe Morris
Serious question: can anyone here recall hearing of someone who
actually got into a serious situation as a result of the chemistry
sets? I can't,
Nor I, but HS students making Nitrogen triiodide and Silver acetylide
was, IMHO, foolish and dangerous.
No disagreement there, although it turned out that (thankfully) he hadn't
actaually made nitroglycerine because he screwed up some part of the
process. The details of exactly where he made the mistake weren't made
public.
If anyone is feeling too upbeat, one cure is to read about the number of
devastating accidental explosions caused by nitroglycerine prior to Nobel's
invention of dynamite.
I thought it was well documented in the movies.
As a kid, I didn't see "Wages of Fear" but I certainly saw a film where
they were terribly worried about the nitro going boom. TRhat's where I
learned that it was very fussy.
For that matter, in the more recent "Vertical Limit" they use nitro for
blasting peaks, to eliminate the risk of avalanches. No explanation of
why they use nitroglycerine, but it gets worse as the climbers have to
rush up to save someone trapped on a mountain, and they take some of that
nitro with them. The big worry becomes that it will get too hot, when
those movies when I was a kid all warned about not shaking it too hard.
1 gal. liquid explodes to 1140 gal. gasses

Dynamite != liquid (T)NG
k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2012-12-30 09:35:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Morris
If anyone is feeling too upbeat, one cure is to read about the number
of devastating accidental explosions caused by nitroglycerine prior
to Nobel's invention of dynamite.
The processes for making nitro-glycerine and gun cotton are IIRC
exothermic. Unless precautions are taken to keep the apparatus cool it
is unlikely that large quantities will be produced or that anybody will
try twice.

The sensitivity of nitro-glycerine is exaggerated in films. It s also a
function of how pure the stuff is and how old it is. While dynamite is
far safer given time and or poor storage conditions it decays. Dynamite
can end up sweating nitro-glycerine. Off course all double base
propellants tend to degrade and become more sensitive to accidental
detonation as they age and that also applies to a lot of single base
ones. Even so none of them require anything like the precautions used in
the days of black powder.

Ken Young
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2012-12-30 21:01:31 UTC
Permalink
 The sensitivity of nitro-glycerine is exaggerated in films. It s also a
function of how pure the stuff is and how old it is. While dynamite is
far safer given time and or poor storage conditions it decays. Dynamite
can end up sweating nitro-glycerine. Off course all double base
propellants tend to degrade  and become more sensitive to accidental
detonation as they age and that also applies to a lot of single base
ones. Even so none of them require anything like the precautions used in
the days of black powder.
From time to time old munitions from WW II or even WW I are
discovered, and there is a tough cleanup involved.

Likewise, sometimes an old stick of dynamite is discovered forgotten
in a building, and again a tough cleanup is involved.
Rod Speed
2012-12-30 21:19:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
The sensitivity of nitro-glycerine is exaggerated in films. It s also a
function of how pure the stuff is and how old it is. While dynamite is
far safer given time and or poor storage conditions it decays. Dynamite
can end up sweating nitro-glycerine. Off course all double base
propellants tend to degrade and become more sensitive to accidental
detonation as they age and that also applies to a lot of single base
ones. Even so none of them require anything like the precautions used in
the days of black powder.
From time to time old munitions from WW II or even WW I are discovered,
Yes.
and there is a tough cleanup involved.
Nope, not with most of them, particularly when they
are dredged up by fishing, they just blow them up.

Not really any harder with unexploded shells etc.
Likewise, sometimes an old stick of dynamite is discovered forgotten in a
building
Not very often at all, actually, even with old mines.
and again a tough cleanup is involved.
Nope, again, its easy enough to deal with.
Koralatov
2012-12-30 21:52:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
From time to time old munitions from WW II or even WW I are
discovered, and there is a tough cleanup involved.
As a child, my dad and his friends discovered a mine that had washed up
on the beach where they were playing. My grandfather, who'd been in the
navy during the war, recognised it and the bomb squad were despatched to
dispose of it safely.
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Likewise, sometimes an old stick of dynamite is discovered forgotten
in a building, and again a tough cleanup is involved.
And another second-hand anecdote: my old boss used to work in explosives
for the oil industry in the 1970s. The father of a friend of his had
died some years earlier, and amongst his personal effects the mother had
found an old brass mortar shell... which she thought was `pretty' and
put on the mantlepiece above the fire and dutily polished once a week.
When she died some years later, and my boss was helping his friend clean
out the house, he spotted it and called it in. It was duly taken away
and detonated -- it had been live the whole time. Apparently, the side
she'd been polishing with Brasso was almost paper-thin by the time they
got to it.
--
Mike | <http://koralatov.com>
"A camel is a horse designed
by a committee." -- Larry Wall
Rod Speed
2012-12-30 23:58:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Koralatov
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
From time to time old munitions from WW II or even WW I are
discovered, and there is a tough cleanup involved.
As a child, my dad and his friends discovered a mine that had washed up
on the beach where they were playing. My grandfather, who'd been in the
navy during the war, recognised it and the bomb squad were despatched to
dispose of it safely.
And there are plenty of examples of that on that british TV real life series
Post by Koralatov
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Likewise, sometimes an old stick of dynamite is discovered forgotten
in a building, and again a tough cleanup is involved.
And another second-hand anecdote: my old boss used to work in explosives
for the oil industry in the 1970s. The father of a friend of his had
died some years earlier, and amongst his personal effects the mother had
found an old brass mortar shell... which she thought was `pretty' and
put on the mantlepiece above the fire and dutily polished once a week.
When she died some years later, and my boss was helping his friend clean
out the house, he spotted it and called it in. It was duly taken away
and detonated -- it had been live the whole time. Apparently, the side
she'd been polishing with Brasso was almost paper-thin by the time they
got to it.
I don’t believe that last.
Walter Banks
2012-12-31 01:27:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Likewise, sometimes an old stick of dynamite is discovered forgotten
in a building, and again a tough cleanup is involved.
A single stick of dynamite when it isn't confined
is a pretty disappointing firecracker. Many years
ago in my misspent 20's a bunch of us owned three
airplanes and rented a old farm and built an airport.

This task required us blowing out some rocks on
what became the landing strip. About a half case
of dynamite sat around in the hanger for a couple
years and became quite dangerous. You could
shake a stick and the nitro made small explosions
when the drops hit the floor.

Time to dispose of the dynamite. We piled it in the
a field fused it and it failed to explode, after waiting
the prescribed time we added 3 sticks of fresh
dynamite to the top of the pile with a good sized
shovelful of wet clay on top to create a shaped charge
down into the old dynamite. This time the resulting
explosion was significant.

BTW in Canada in the late 60's you needed an
explosives license to launch model rockets. It was
a 15 minute oral test with questions as complicated
as walk don't run after you light the fuse. This piece
of paper also allowed me to go to a small town
hardware store and load up a Datsun 240Z hatch
with cases of dynamite to the point where the hatch
was about a foot open and held down with a rope.
Things have changed.

w..
Lawrence Greenwald
2012-12-31 06:51:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walter Banks
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Likewise, sometimes an old stick of dynamite is discovered forgotten
in a building, and again a tough cleanup is involved.
A single stick of dynamite when it isn't confined
is a pretty disappointing firecracker. Many years
ago in my misspent 20's a bunch of us owned three
airplanes and rented a old farm and built an airport.
This task required us blowing out some rocks on
what became the landing strip. About a half case
of dynamite sat around in the hanger for a couple
years and became quite dangerous. You could
shake a stick and the nitro made small explosions
when the drops hit the floor.
Time to dispose of the dynamite. We piled it in the
a field fused it and it failed to explode, after waiting
the prescribed time we added 3 sticks of fresh
dynamite to the top of the pile with a good sized
shovelful of wet clay on top to create a shaped charge
down into the old dynamite. This time the resulting
explosion was significant.
BTW in Canada in the late 60's you needed an
explosives license to launch model rockets. It was
a 15 minute oral test with questions as complicated
as walk don't run after you light the fuse. This piece
of paper also allowed me to go to a small town
hardware store and load up a Datsun 240Z hatch
with cases of dynamite to the point where the hatch
was about a foot open and held down with a rope.
Things have changed.
w..
And we pretty much know what happened to Arzt on Lost when he mishandled
old dynamite from the Black Rock.

--LG
Dave Garland
2013-01-01 01:24:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walter Banks
A single stick of dynamite when it isn't confined
is a pretty disappointing firecracker. Many years
ago in my misspent 20's a bunch of us owned three
airplanes and rented a old farm and built an airport.
This task required us blowing out some rocks on
what became the landing strip. About a half case
of dynamite sat around in the hanger for a couple
years and became quite dangerous. You could
shake a stick and the nitro made small explosions
when the drops hit the floor.
Time to dispose of the dynamite. We piled it in the
a field fused it and it failed to explode, after waiting
the prescribed time we added 3 sticks of fresh
dynamite to the top of the pile with a good sized
shovelful of wet clay on top to create a shaped charge
down into the old dynamite. This time the resulting
explosion was significant.
Hmm.. I recall an incident of... an acquaintance's... youth that
involved about half a coffee can of loose dynamite (which in
appearance was oily sand). Dunno what that measured in sticks, but
I'd think a stick or so. They didn't know about tamping and such, but
with a single detonator it made enough of a bang in an abandoned
building so that bits & pieces of building were raining down for what
seemed like a long time (likely a few seconds).
Walter Banks
2013-01-01 03:39:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Garland
Post by Walter Banks
A single stick of dynamite when it isn't confined
is a pretty disappointing firecracker. Many years
ago in my misspent 20's a bunch of us owned three
airplanes and rented a old farm and built an airport.
This task required us blowing out some rocks on
what became the landing strip. About a half case
of dynamite sat around in the hanger for a couple
years and became quite dangerous. You could
shake a stick and the nitro made small explosions
when the drops hit the floor.
Time to dispose of the dynamite. We piled it in the
a field fused it and it failed to explode, after waiting
the prescribed time we added 3 sticks of fresh
dynamite to the top of the pile with a good sized
shovelful of wet clay on top to create a shaped charge
down into the old dynamite. This time the resulting
explosion was significant.
Hmm.. I recall an incident of... an acquaintance's... youth that
involved about half a coffee can of loose dynamite (which in
appearance was oily sand). Dunno what that measured in sticks, but
I'd think a stick or so. They didn't know about tamping and such, but
with a single detonator it made enough of a bang in an abandoned
building so that bits & pieces of building were raining down for what
seemed like a long time (likely a few seconds).
A single stick of dynamite when it isn't confined is about as
loud as a 22. Confine it and it gets more impressive.

w..
Jorgen Grahn
2013-01-03 14:39:55 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 2012-12-30, ***@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
...
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Likewise, sometimes an old stick of dynamite is discovered forgotten
in a building, and again a tough cleanup is involved.
Happened to my brother last winter. It turned out his elderly
neighbors had been doing road construction work in the distant past,
and had kept a lot of explosives. I don't know how much, but it was
enough to call in the police bomb squad.

/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2012-12-30 17:10:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
The sensitivity of nitro-glycerine is exaggerated in films. It s
also a function of how pure the stuff is and how old it is.
In fact, it's a medicine; I don't know the dilution factor.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to ***@library.lspace.org
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2012-12-31 02:41:28 UTC
Permalink
On Dec 30, 12:10 pm, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
In fact, it's a medicine; I don't know the dilution factor.
Yes, heart patients carry it around (in pill form) for emergencies.
IIRC, they don't swallow it, but rather place it under their tongue.
Not sure if the pill formulation is the same as the explosive or what
it does for the body.
Joe Pfeiffer
2012-12-31 02:51:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
On Dec 30, 12:10 pm, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
In fact, it's a medicine; I don't know the dilution factor.
Yes, heart patients carry it around (in pill form) for emergencies.
IIRC, they don't swallow it, but rather place it under their tongue.
Not sure if the pill formulation is the same as the explosive or what
it does for the body.
It dilates the blood vessels, relieving angina (chest pains).

My dad used to joke that he could drop his bottle of nitroglycerin and
kill us all! He also liked to say that since his heart attack, he'd had
a soft spot in his heart -- but it had scarred over.
Rod Speed
2012-12-31 03:24:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
In fact, it's a medicine; I don't know the dilution factor.
Yes, heart patients carry it around (in pill form) for emergencies.
It isnt just used in pill form
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitroglycerin#Medical_use
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
IIRC, they don't swallow it, but rather place it under their tongue.
That's just one way its used. Its also an ointment,
rubbed onto the skin and patches.
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Not sure if the pill formulation is the same as the explosive
Corse it isnt. It's a liquid.
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
or what it does for the body.
Basically a vasodilator, stops angina symptoms.
Alfred Falk
2013-01-02 22:06:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
On Dec 30, 12:10 pm, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
In fact, it's a medicine; I don't know the dilution factor.
Yes, heart patients carry it around (in pill form) for emergencies.
IIRC, they don't swallow it, but rather place it under their tongue.
Not sure if the pill formulation is the same as the explosive or what
it does for the body.
... or in sublingual spray. I am looking at a little pump bottle that
delivers 200 doses of 0.4 mg nitroglycerin. So 0.08 g in about 12 ml of
liquid. (Maybe < 1% concentration?) Not much bang there. The airlines
allow it without blinking, except the usual "bagged liquid" proviso.

I had a friend once who made some in a small quantitiy. He said a small
drop on an anvil struck with a hammer made a nice bang. (Probably not as
dangerous as another friend's battery of Leyden jars.)
Dan Espen
2012-12-28 14:45:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Morris
Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Post by Joe Morris
It wasn't just the chemistry sets (although I recall making a few
concoctions that proved the old adage that "if it stinks, it's chemistry").
Pretty much all of the reagents in my chemistry set were poisonous,
and an alcohol lamp is a potential fire hazard.
From that standpoint you could view the chemistry sets as Darwin Award
filters.
Serious question: can anyone here recall hearing of someone who actually got
into a serious situation as a result of the chemistry sets? I can't,
although I recall from back in the 1950s one of the students a few years
ahead of me in high school was messing around at home with some chemicals he
had taken from the chemistry lab...and suddenly realized that he had just
gone through the process for making nitroglycerine. He at least had the
sense to call the fire department.
Making H2 isn't all that hard.

2 friends captured some in a flask and managed to have it explode and
implant shards of glass in their faces.

I wasn't there but they might have been capturing the O2 too.
--
Dan Espen
hda
2012-12-28 15:10:23 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 00:26:13 -0500, "Joe Morris"
Post by Joe Morris
Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Post by Joe Morris
It wasn't just the chemistry sets (although I recall making a few
concoctions that proved the old adage that "if it stinks, it's chemistry").
Pretty much all of the reagents in my chemistry set were poisonous,
and an alcohol lamp is a potential fire hazard.
From that standpoint you could view the chemistry sets as Darwin Award
filters.
Serious question: can anyone here recall hearing of someone who actually got
into a serious situation as a result of the chemistry sets? I can't,
although I recall from back in the 1950s one of the students a few years
ahead of me in high school was messing around at home with some chemicals he
had taken from the chemistry lab...and suddenly realized that he had just
gone through the process for making nitroglycerine. He at least had the
sense to call the fire department.
One can buy chlorinetoiletcleaner and add hydrochloric acid:
HClO (hypochlorous acid) + HCl to release Cl2 (chlorine gas) + H2O

I do not endorse this. Don't do this in a closet OR at home.
Walter Bushell
2012-12-28 15:54:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by hda
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 00:26:13 -0500, "Joe Morris"
Post by Joe Morris
Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Post by Joe Morris
It wasn't just the chemistry sets (although I recall making a few
concoctions that proved the old adage that "if it stinks, it's chemistry").
Pretty much all of the reagents in my chemistry set were poisonous,
and an alcohol lamp is a potential fire hazard.
From that standpoint you could view the chemistry sets as Darwin Award
filters.
Serious question: can anyone here recall hearing of someone who actually got
into a serious situation as a result of the chemistry sets? I can't,
although I recall from back in the 1950s one of the students a few years
ahead of me in high school was messing around at home with some chemicals he
had taken from the chemistry lab...and suddenly realized that he had just
gone through the process for making nitroglycerine. He at least had the
sense to call the fire department.
HClO (hypochlorous acid) + HCl to release Cl2 (chlorine gas) + H2O
I do not endorse this. Don't do this in a closet OR at home.
Under the hood in the chemistry lab, please. If you must. I high
school I once made aqua regia (hydrochloric and nitric) outside the
hood and boiled it. Not a good idea. Ah, making water is one thing;
making royal water is something else.
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
David Griffith
2012-12-29 00:18:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by hda
Post by Joe Morris
Serious question: can anyone here recall hearing of someone who
actually got into a serious situation as a result of the chemistry
sets? I can't, although I recall from back in the 1950s one of the
students a few years ahead of me in high school was messing around at
home with some chemicals he had taken from the chemistry lab...and
suddenly realized that he had just gone through the process for making
nitroglycerine. He at least had the sense to call the fire
department.
HClO (hypochlorous acid) + HCl to release Cl2 (chlorine gas) + H2O
I do not endorse this. Don't do this in a closet OR at home.
As a child I'd do this, using a different second chemical, to kill rats.
For some reason they didn't get caught with deadly traps but would get
caught with live traps. The rats had to be killed somehow. My mother
didn't want me to follow my father's advice of freezing them to death in
the chest freezer and I didn't want to deal with splattering rat guts.
--
David Griffith
***@acm.org <--- Put my last name where it belongs
Rod Speed
2012-12-29 02:01:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Griffith
Post by hda
Post by Joe Morris
Serious question: can anyone here recall hearing of someone who
actually got into a serious situation as a result of the chemistry
sets? I can't, although I recall from back in the 1950s one of the
students a few years ahead of me in high school was messing around at
home with some chemicals he had taken from the chemistry lab...and
suddenly realized that he had just gone through the process for making
nitroglycerine. He at least had the sense to call the fire
department.
HClO (hypochlorous acid) + HCl to release Cl2 (chlorine gas) + H2O
I do not endorse this. Don't do this in a closet OR at home.
As a child I'd do this, using a different second chemical, to kill rats.
For some reason they didn't get caught with deadly traps but would
get caught with live traps. The rats had to be killed somehow.
The traditional approach here with trapped birds that
need to be killed is either CO2, dry ice, or the car exhaust.
Post by David Griffith
My mother didn't want me to follow my father's advice of freezing them to
death in the chest freezer and I didn't want to deal with splattering rat
guts.
gareth
2012-12-29 11:10:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Griffith
My mother didn't want me to follow my father's advice of freezing them to
death in the chest freezer and I didn't want to deal with splattering
rat guts.
The way we deal with them in England is to elect them to parliament.
Ibmekon
2012-12-29 12:14:02 UTC
Permalink
..and when they dry up, wheel them into the House of Lords to snooze away their days.

Carl Goldsworthy
--
--------------------------------- --- -- -
Posted with NewsLeecher v5.0 Beta 3
Web @ http://www.newsleecher.com/?usenet
------------------- ----- ---- -- -
Michael Black
2012-12-28 16:50:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Morris
Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Post by Joe Morris
It wasn't just the chemistry sets (although I recall making a few
concoctions that proved the old adage that "if it stinks, it's chemistry").
Pretty much all of the reagents in my chemistry set were poisonous,
and an alcohol lamp is a potential fire hazard.
From that standpoint you could view the chemistry sets as Darwin Award
filters.
Serious question: can anyone here recall hearing of someone who actually got
into a serious situation as a result of the chemistry sets? I can't,
although I recall from back in the 1950s one of the students a few years
ahead of me in high school was messing around at home with some chemicals he
had taken from the chemistry lab...and suddenly realized that he had just
gone through the process for making nitroglycerine. He at least had the
sense to call the fire department.
But that became a subset of chemistry set users.

There were always the kids interested in "explosives", it was never
completely clear if they just used that as a vector to learn things, or
their only interest was explosives so they pursued chemistry. I wasn't
even sure if it was about life-long interest, or because boys liked things
that went "bang".

For that matter, there was one kid in high school who seemed mostly
interested in electronics for the prank factor. He really liked the idea
of charging up capacitors and then seeing people get shocked. There too,
I was never sure if he had a real interest in electronics, or if it was
that one aspect only.

Michael
Rod Speed
2012-12-28 18:31:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Black
Post by Joe Morris
Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Post by Joe Morris
It wasn't just the chemistry sets (although I recall making a few
concoctions that proved the old adage that "if it stinks, it's chemistry").
Pretty much all of the reagents in my chemistry set were poisonous,
and an alcohol lamp is a potential fire hazard.
From that standpoint you could view the chemistry sets as Darwin Award
filters.
Serious question: can anyone here recall hearing of someone who actually got
into a serious situation as a result of the chemistry sets? I can't,
although I recall from back in the 1950s one of the students a few years
ahead of me in high school was messing around at home with some chemicals he
had taken from the chemistry lab...and suddenly realized that he had just
gone through the process for making nitroglycerine. He at least had the
sense to call the fire department.
But that became a subset of chemistry set users.
There were always the kids interested in "explosives", it was never
completely clear if they just used that as a vector to learn things, or
their only interest was explosives so they pursued chemistry.
I was always interested in both.
Post by Michael Black
I wasn't even sure if it was about life-long interest, or because boys
liked things that went "bang".
For that matter, there was one kid in high school who seemed mostly
interested in electronics for the prank factor. He really liked the idea
of charging up capacitors and then seeing people get shocked. There too,
I was never sure if he had a real interest in electronics, or if it was
that one aspect only.
In my case it was both with that too.

And with mechanical stuff too.

With everything, really.
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2012-12-28 18:39:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Black
There were always the kids interested in "explosives", it was never
completely clear if they just used that as a vector to learn things, or
their only interest was explosives so they pursued chemistry.  I wasn't
even sure if it was about life-long interest, or because boys liked things
that went "bang".
FWIW, kids would mix baking soda and vinegar in a soda bottle to watch
the cork fly off.

They'd also take a magnifying glass and focus the sun on paper to set
it afire. (I'm ashamed to ask, but what is the principle behind that,
that is, how is magnified sunlight so strong to set something on fire
as opposed to say magnified incandescent light?)
Ibmekon
2012-12-28 19:47:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Michael Black
There were always the kids interested in "explosives", it was never
completely clear if they just used that as a vector to learn things, or
their only interest was explosives so they pursued chemistry.  I wasn't
even sure if it was about life-long interest, or because boys liked things
that went "bang".
FWIW, kids would mix baking soda and vinegar in a soda bottle to watch
the cork fly off.
They'd also take a magnifying glass and focus the sun on paper to set
it afire. (I'm ashamed to ask, but what is the principle behind that,
that is, how is magnified sunlight so strong to set something on fire
as opposed to say magnified incandescent light?)
Sunlight has several components, and varies with time and viewing
location.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight

A couple of years ago we had a very cold freezing winter in the UK.

At the time I could focus a magnifying glass in the weak sunlight on
the back of my hand and feel nothing.

A week ago, I could set paper on fire with the same glass in 5
seconds.

At some point I heard what may be an explanation - there were Solar
flares that occur on an 11 year cycle.

Sometime recently I investigated - Googled - why luminous objects glow
in the dark for years.
The answer is that light invisible to our eye is absorbed and emitted
with a frequency that is visible.


Carl Goldsworthy
Rod Speed
2012-12-28 20:58:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ibmekon
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Michael Black
There were always the kids interested in "explosives", it was never
completely clear if they just used that as a vector to learn things, or
their only interest was explosives so they pursued chemistry. I wasn't
even sure if it was about life-long interest, or because boys liked things
that went "bang".
FWIW, kids would mix baking soda and vinegar in a soda bottle to watch
the cork fly off.
They'd also take a magnifying glass and focus the sun on paper to set
it afire. (I'm ashamed to ask, but what is the principle behind that,
that is, how is magnified sunlight so strong to set something on fire
as opposed to say magnified incandescent light?)
Sunlight has several components, and varies with time and viewing
location.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
A couple of years ago we had a very cold freezing winter in the UK.
At the time I could focus a magnifying glass in the weak
sunlight on the back of my hand and feel nothing.
That's because of the absorption before it get to the magnifying glass.
Post by Ibmekon
A week ago, I could set paper on fire with the same glass in 5
seconds.
At some point I heard what may be an explanation -
there were Solar flares that occur on an 11 year cycle.
That isnt the explanation for the effect you observed.
Post by Ibmekon
Sometime recently I investigated - Googled - why luminous objects glow
in the dark for years.
The answer is that light invisible to our eye is absorbed and emitted
with a frequency that is visible.
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2012-12-28 19:52:49 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 10:39:24 -0800 (PST)
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
They'd also take a magnifying glass and focus the sun on paper to set
it afire. (I'm ashamed to ask, but what is the principle behind that,
that is, how is magnified sunlight so strong to set something on fire
as opposed to say magnified incandescent light?)
Sunlight on a bright clear day near the equator is around one
kilowatt per square metre. An incandescent light is about 10% efficient so
a 100 watt light bulb produces no more than 10 watts of light and radiates
it in all directions, so at a distance of 1 metre the intensity is rather
less than 1 watt per square metre (surface area of a sphere 1 metre in
radius is 4*pi*1^2 square metres) and of course rather less if you are
further than 1 metre from the bulb. In short there is at least several
hundred times as much energy available to the magnifying glass from
sunlight even in temperate latitudes.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Charlie Gibbs
2012-12-28 20:50:11 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
They'd also take a magnifying glass and focus the sun on paper to set
it afire. (I'm ashamed to ask, but what is the principle behind that,
that is, how is magnified sunlight so strong to set something on fire
as opposed to say magnified incandescent light?)
It's just a matter of power. A lamp used in a projector or a
theatrical light fixture (500 watts or more) will do the trick.
--
/~\ ***@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
Dan Espen
2012-12-28 21:28:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie Gibbs
In article
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
They'd also take a magnifying glass and focus the sun on paper to set
it afire. (I'm ashamed to ask, but what is the principle behind that,
that is, how is magnified sunlight so strong to set something on fire
as opposed to say magnified incandescent light?)
It's just a matter of power. A lamp used in a projector or a
theatrical light fixture (500 watts or more) will do the trick.
Here's someone starting fires with an "ordinary" LED flashlight:



Well, if you think a flashlight with air cooling is ordinary.
--
Dan Espen
Rod Speed
2012-12-28 20:56:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Michael Black
There were always the kids interested in "explosives", it was never
completely clear if they just used that as a vector to learn things, or
their only interest was explosives so they pursued chemistry. I wasn't
even sure if it was about life-long interest, or because boys liked things
that went "bang".
FWIW, kids would mix baking soda and vinegar in a soda bottle to watch
the cork fly off.
They'd also take a magnifying glass and focus the sun on paper to set
it afire. (I'm ashamed to ask, but what is the principle behind that,
that is, how is magnified sunlight so strong to set something on fire
as opposed to say magnified incandescent light?)
The light is a lot brighter with the sun.
hda
2012-12-28 21:43:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by Michael Black
There were always the kids interested in "explosives", it was never
completely clear if they just used that as a vector to learn things, or
their only interest was explosives so they pursued chemistry.  I wasn't
even sure if it was about life-long interest, or because boys liked things
that went "bang".
FWIW, kids would mix baking soda and vinegar in a soda bottle to watch
the cork fly off.
They'd also take a magnifying glass and focus the sun on paper to set
it afire. (I'm ashamed to ask, but what is the principle behind that,
that is, how is magnified sunlight so strong to set something on fire
as opposed to say magnified incandescent light?)
Sun supplies at 5500 Kelvin, about 1350 to 1000 W/m^2 [1.3 to 1
BTU/sec.30ft^2], when not hindered by filtering (cloud, angle).

Then incoming radiation parallel on a magnifier of 3" is approx.
5 J/s (W) which you focus on say 7mm^2 point. As if 0.7 MW/m^2.

To penetrate wood for 1mm, then 1m^2 equals 500 grams. (500 kg/m^3)
Specifically wood takes heat 1.7 J/(g.Kelvin)

Heat = spec.heat * mass * temperature difference, follows
temperature difference = 0.7*10^6 / 1.7 / 500 = say +800 Kelvin

Ignition of wood itself needs +600 Kelvin on room temperature.
jmfbahciv
2013-01-02 14:25:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jorgen Grahn
Post by Michael Black
Post by Dave Garland
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
It also sounds like a heck of a lot of fun.
It was the Lego of its day.
But today's Lego isn't always the Lego of today ...
Post by Michael Black
Lego apparently dates from the 1930s. Later than Mecanno, but now
concurrent with it for quite a long time.
I thought Lego was new, but then what would I know the first time I saw
it as a kid? I actually had Lego in 1965, when we lived for six months in
Copenhagen, Mecanno came later, just a sampler kit I got for my birthday
or something, I think from teh cousins.
I have the impression Lego has added quite a bit in fifty years. Back
then, a block that lit up or one that had a motor (I had the former, can't
remember if I had the latter)
Don't think I've ever seen an illuminating block. I had, in the late
1970s, a Lego train where the core was a big block with an electrical
engine.
Post by Michael Black
was a Big Thing, but I think that sort of
block has become a lot more common in recent decades.
What I hear from coworkers with children is, the kids treat it as
scale model sets. You buy a set of Lego (often a Harry Potter or Star
Wars scene), construct it to specification, and play with it.
But doesn't that defeat the whole point of the toy? creating one's
own structure was the goal. Kids are too supervised these days.
Post by Jorgen Grahn
I suppose in such a set a high percentage of the building blocks are
specialized rather than the standard NxM ones.
/BAH
Rod Speed
2013-01-02 16:56:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Jorgen Grahn
Post by Michael Black
Post by Dave Garland
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
It also sounds like a heck of a lot of fun.
It was the Lego of its day.
But today's Lego isn't always the Lego of today ...
Post by Michael Black
Lego apparently dates from the 1930s. Later than Mecanno, but now
concurrent with it for quite a long time.
I thought Lego was new, but then what would I know the first time I saw
it as a kid? I actually had Lego in 1965, when we lived for six months in
Copenhagen, Mecanno came later, just a sampler kit I got for my birthday
or something, I think from teh cousins.
I have the impression Lego has added quite a bit in fifty years. Back
then, a block that lit up or one that had a motor (I had the former, can't
remember if I had the latter)
Don't think I've ever seen an illuminating block. I had, in the late
1970s, a Lego train where the core was a big block with an electrical
engine.
Post by Michael Black
was a Big Thing, but I think that sort of
block has become a lot more common in recent decades.
What I hear from coworkers with children is, the kids treat it as
scale model sets. You buy a set of Lego (often a Harry Potter or Star
Wars scene), construct it to specification, and play with it.
But doesn't that defeat the whole point of the toy?
Nope.
Post by jmfbahciv
creating one's own structure was the goal.
It was always just ONE of the goals and there is
nothing to stop any kid from doing that right now.

There were always suggestions on what could be built.
Post by jmfbahciv
Kids are too supervised these days.
That’s not supervision.
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Jorgen Grahn
I suppose in such a set a high percentage of the building
blocks are specialized rather than the standard NxM ones.
Jorgen Grahn
2013-01-03 15:05:35 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Jorgen Grahn
Post by Michael Black
Lego apparently dates from the 1930s. Later than Mecanno, but now
concurrent with it for quite a long time.
I thought Lego was new, but then what would I know the first time I saw
it as a kid? I actually had Lego in 1965, when we lived for six months in
Copenhagen, Mecanno came later, just a sampler kit I got for my birthday
or something, I think from teh cousins.
I have the impression Lego has added quite a bit in fifty years. Back
then, a block that lit up or one that had a motor (I had the former, can't
remember if I had the latter)
Don't think I've ever seen an illuminating block. I had, in the late
1970s, a Lego train where the core was a big block with an electrical
engine.
Post by Michael Black
was a Big Thing, but I think that sort of
block has become a lot more common in recent decades.
What I hear from coworkers with children is, the kids treat it as
scale model sets. You buy a set of Lego (often a Harry Potter or Star
Wars scene), construct it to specification, and play with it.
But doesn't that defeat the whole point of the toy?
Yes; my coworkers (programmers, all of them) are complaining about
this.
Post by jmfbahciv
creating one's own structure was the goal.
To be honest, I had a Lego castle like that back in the early 1980s,
so it's not exactly a new thing. But yes, the most fun I've had with
Lego was building my own things. Perhaps it still is for many kids;
like someone else pointed out there are general building blocks in the
new kits, too.

/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
Charlton Wilbur
2013-01-03 20:34:44 UTC
Permalink
JG> To be honest, I had a Lego castle like that back in the early
JG> 1980s, so it's not exactly a new thing. But yes, the most fun
JG> I've had with Lego was building my own things. Perhaps it still
JG> is for many kids; like someone else pointed out there are
JG> general building blocks in the new kits, too.

I grew up with Lego toys too, and it seems to me that it's not an
either-or sort of thing: the kits where you produce the thing on the box
by assembling the bricks in a particular order were a great deal of fun,
and the giant box of bricks that you could do whatever you wanted with
were also a great deal of fun. I liked the kits more than the generic
bricks, because the kits came with a lot more oddball specialized
pieces, and if you got a few kits together you could build things that
were *really* bizarre with hinges and turrets and wheels.

Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
***@chromatico.net
Michael Black
2013-01-03 22:31:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlton Wilbur
JG> To be honest, I had a Lego castle like that back in the early
JG> 1980s, so it's not exactly a new thing. But yes, the most fun
JG> I've had with Lego was building my own things. Perhaps it still
JG> is for many kids; like someone else pointed out there are
JG> general building blocks in the new kits, too.
I grew up with Lego toys too, and it seems to me that it's not an
either-or sort of thing: the kits where you produce the thing on the box
by assembling the bricks in a particular order were a great deal of fun,
and the giant box of bricks that you could do whatever you wanted with
were also a great deal of fun. I liked the kits more than the generic
bricks, because the kits came with a lot more oddball specialized
pieces, and if you got a few kits together you could build things that
were *really* bizarre with hinges and turrets and wheels.
That's what I started to say.

I remember the kits being available in the sixties, but fairly generic, a
gas station or something. Now it seems like the bulk of Lego is the
special kits. I haven't looked in the Lego aisle in a long time, but
certainly the flyers area ll promoting "build this Death Star" and the
like kits, rather than "1000 generic Lego pieces".

Certainly there was no Lego kits of the latest movie when I was a kid,
that came later, and perhaps is one factor in giving the appearance (or
reality) of it becoming "model kit building". I'm not sure when it got so
commercial.

Of course, there was time, maybe still, when Lego sought out the Mecanno
market, all that Logo related Lego (I gather Logo was named that way to
reference Lego). And that brought some pretty expensive kits on the
market, which perhaps was too tempting, so the very commercial kits came
along.

Michael
Charlton Wilbur
2013-01-04 03:13:35 UTC
Permalink
MB> On Thu, 3 Jan 2013, Charlton Wilbur wrote:

MB> I haven't looked in the Lego aisle in a long time, but certainly
MB> the flyers area ll promoting "build this Death Star" and the
MB> like kits, rather than "1000 generic Lego pieces".

A large part of that, I think, is because it's really easy to *sell*
this kit and that kit and the other kit and those three kits over there
to the same person than it is to get them to buy five 1000-piece generic
sets. While you can do more with 2000 generic pieces than with 1000,
the response among the greyfaces is likely to be "oh, he already *has* a
Lego set like that one."

Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
***@chromatico.net
Jorgen Grahn
2013-01-05 07:41:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlton Wilbur
JG> To be honest, I had a Lego castle like that back in the early
JG> 1980s, so it's not exactly a new thing. But yes, the most fun
JG> I've had with Lego was building my own things. Perhaps it still
JG> is for many kids; like someone else pointed out there are
JG> general building blocks in the new kits, too.
I grew up with Lego toys too, and it seems to me that it's not an
either-or sort of thing: the kits where you produce the thing on the box
by assembling the bricks in a particular order were a great deal of fun,
and the giant box of bricks that you could do whatever you wanted with
were also a great deal of fun.
I agree, and apologize if what I wrote gave a different impression.
Post by Charlton Wilbur
I liked the kits more than the generic
bricks, because the kits came with a lot more oddball specialized
pieces, and if you got a few kits together you could build things that
were *really* bizarre with hinges and turrets and wheels.
Yes. You have to have the inclination to do that, though. And the
time, and patience. I haven't played with the most recent kits, so I
cannot tell how much you can do with them.

I did dig up my old bricks last year though (we're slowly handing them
over to my niece) and my reaction surprised me. Almost automatically
I started building a brick building, overlapping the pieces the right
way for maximum strength. Apparently part of my brain is still
reserved for Lego skills.

/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
gareth
2013-01-03 21:16:24 UTC
Permalink
"Jorgen Grahn" <grahn+***@snipabacken.se> wrote in message news:slrnkeb7hv.bn.grahn+***@frailea.sa.invalid...

Not sure of the correct attribution / quoting...
Post by Michael Black
Lego apparently dates from the 1930s. Later than Mecanno, but now
concurrent with it for quite a long time.
What is now Lego was developed in Brit by Hilary Fisher of Kiddiecraft.

The Danes were after a plastic injection moulding machine, and the company
which had supplied Kiddiecraft, supplied the same machine to the Danes who
then cribbed the design.

Luckily, Hilary Fisher died without knowing that he was being ripped off en
masse.

Later on, in order to save face, the Danes purchased the rights to the
design
from Hilary Fisher's family.

Like many of the successes of the modern world, Lego is a British invention.
Jorgen Grahn
2013-01-05 07:28:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by gareth
Not sure of the correct attribution / quoting...
For the paragraph below, it's "On Thu, 2012-12-27, Michael Black wrote:".
Post by gareth
Post by Michael Black
Lego apparently dates from the 1930s. Later than Mecanno, but now
concurrent with it for quite a long time.
Like many of the successes of the modern world, Lego is a British invention.
Oh well. At least the Danes have C++ ...

/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
Bob Martin
2013-01-06 07:34:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jorgen Grahn
Post by gareth
Not sure of the correct attribution / quoting...
For the paragraph below, it's "On Thu, 2012-12-27, Michael Black wrote:".
Post by gareth
Post by Michael Black
Lego apparently dates from the 1930s. Later than Mecanno, but now
concurrent with it for quite a long time.
Like many of the successes of the modern world, Lego is a British invention.
Oh well. At least the Danes have C++ ...
They must be very proud of that ;-)
Jorgen Grahn
2013-01-06 09:16:18 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Bob Martin
Post by Jorgen Grahn
Post by gareth
Like many of the successes of the modern world, Lego is a British invention.
Oh well. At least the Danes have C++ ...
They must be very proud of that ;-)
Ok, I admit to some mild trolling, knowing how lots of people feel
about C++. It /is/ my favorite language though, and Stroustrup one of
my favorite programmers and authors.

/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
gareth
2013-01-06 09:57:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jorgen Grahn
Post by Bob Martin
Post by Jorgen Grahn
Post by gareth
Like many of the successes of the modern world, Lego is a British invention.
Oh well. At least the Danes have C++ ...
They must be very proud of that ;-)
Ok, I admit to some mild trolling, knowing how lots of people feel
about C++. It /is/ my favorite language though, and Stroustrup one of
my favorite programmers and authors.
But surely your favourite language is the one that you wrote for yourself,
with eclecticism from other langauages together with your own ideas?

The same goes for operating systems.

Any softy worth his salt is competent from the logic gate upwards, through
restart vectors, machine code, assemblers, board support packages, device
drivers, a range of languages both system and applications, all the way up
through (X) Windows applications.

How can anybody claim to be a computer expert when they haven't a clue
about the computer and its instruction set?

It was said here recently in another thread that it would not be possible
for
anyone to produce the software for a complete operating system and
the application languages, I say, "Pooh!".
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2013-01-06 10:38:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by gareth
But surely your favourite language is the one that you wrote for
yourself, with eclecticism from other langauages together with
your own ideas?
Only if you have hordes of graduate students to impliment it for you.
Post by gareth
The same goes for operating systems.
See above.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to ***@library.lspace.org
gareth
2013-01-06 11:31:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Post by gareth
But surely your favourite language is the one that you wrote for
yourself, with eclecticism from other langauages together with
your own ideas?
Only if you have hordes of graduate students to impliment it for you.
Why? It's a trivial matter, although requiring a few days to do.
Peter Flass
2013-01-06 14:48:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by gareth
Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Post by gareth
But surely your favourite language is the one that you wrote for
yourself, with eclecticism from other langauages together with
your own ideas?
Only if you have hordes of graduate students to impliment it for you.
Why? It's a trivial matter, although requiring a few days to do.
Starting from scratch? Or relying on a lot of prebuilt software? [see
my previous post] Just writing a compiler would take you a bit more
than "a few days". Heck, just porting GCC or PCC to a new architecture
might take more than that.
--
Pete
jmfbahciv
2013-01-06 16:19:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
Post by gareth
Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Post by gareth
But surely your favourite language is the one that you wrote for
yourself, with eclecticism from other langauages together with
your own ideas?
Only if you have hordes of graduate students to impliment it for you.
Why? It's a trivial matter, although requiring a few days to do.
Starting from scratch? Or relying on a lot of prebuilt software? [see
my previous post] Just writing a compiler would take you a bit more
than "a few days". Heck, just porting GCC or PCC to a new architecture
might take more than that.
Shit. Just writing the bootstrap would take him a year or decade.

/BAH
gareth
2013-01-06 17:07:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by Peter Flass
Starting from scratch? Or relying on a lot of prebuilt software? [see
my previous post] Just writing a compiler would take you a bit more
than "a few days". Heck, just porting GCC or PCC to a new architecture
might take more than that.
Shit. Just writing the bootstrap would take him a year or decade.
Not at all. From the restart vector, a few lines of code to render all
hardware into a defaul unused state, set the stack pointer, and away you
go.

You of all people will remember the bootstrap loader of the PDP-11.
gareth
2013-01-06 17:04:17 UTC
Permalink
Starting from scratch? Or relying on a lot of prebuilt software? [see my
previous post] Just writing a compiler would take you a bit more than "a
few days". Heck, just porting GCC or PCC to a new architecture might take
more than that.
A compiler is essentially a simple program that converts one symbol
stream to another symbol stream in a different format.

If you can't work out how to do it off the top of your head, then
resort to the Dragon Book and become imbrangled in the theory
of grammars.

Do it yourself (As in the days before R A Booker's Compiler Compiler)
and you realise that 99% of any realistic language is based upon a
series of operand operator operand operator clauses which can be
dealt with on inspection.

(Booker was at Essex when I was there, although I did not study
under him)
Peter Flass
2013-01-06 17:35:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by gareth
Starting from scratch? Or relying on a lot of prebuilt software? [see my
previous post] Just writing a compiler would take you a bit more than "a
few days". Heck, just porting GCC or PCC to a new architecture might take
more than that.
A compiler is essentially a simple program that converts one symbol
stream to another symbol stream in a different format.
If you can't work out how to do it off the top of your head, then
resort to the Dragon Book and become imbrangled in the theory
of grammars.
Do it yourself (As in the days before R A Booker's Compiler Compiler)
and you realise that 99% of any realistic language is based upon a
series of operand operator operand operator clauses which can be
dealt with on inspection.
(Booker was at Essex when I was there, although I did not study
under him)
A compiler is pretty simple in theory. Unfortunately it isn't
implemented in theory.
--
Pete
jmfbahciv
2013-01-06 16:19:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by gareth
Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Post by gareth
But surely your favourite language is the one that you wrote for
yourself, with eclecticism from other langauages together with
your own ideas?
Only if you have hordes of graduate students to impliment it for you.
Why? It's a trivial matter, although requiring a few days to do.
<snort> ROTFLMAO.

/bah
gareth
2013-01-06 17:13:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by gareth
Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Post by gareth
But surely your favourite language is the one that you wrote for
yourself, with eclecticism from other langauages together with
your own ideas?
Only if you have hordes of graduate students to impliment it for you.
Why? It's a trivial matter, although requiring a few days to do.
<snort> ROTFLMAO.
It's something I did 13 years ago whilst working in the test dept
of an international mobile phone manufacturer.

Took two weeks, including specifying the interpreter tokens.

OK, you might want to whinge about interpreted and compiled
languages, but the principle remains the same.
Peter Flass
2013-01-06 17:33:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by gareth
Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Post by gareth
But surely your favourite language is the one that you wrote for
yourself, with eclecticism from other langauages together with
your own ideas?
Only if you have hordes of graduate students to impliment it for you.
Why? It's a trivial matter, although requiring a few days to do.
<snort> ROTFLMAO.
/bah
We should introduce him to Rod.
--
Pete
Peter Flass
2013-01-06 14:44:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by gareth
Post by Jorgen Grahn
Post by Bob Martin
Post by Jorgen Grahn
Post by gareth
Like many of the successes of the modern world, Lego is a British invention.
Oh well. At least the Danes have C++ ...
They must be very proud of that ;-)
Ok, I admit to some mild trolling, knowing how lots of people feel
about C++. It /is/ my favorite language though, and Stroustrup one of
my favorite programmers and authors.
But surely your favourite language is the one that you wrote for yourself,
with eclecticism from other langauages together with your own ideas?
The same goes for operating systems.
Any softy worth his salt is competent from the logic gate upwards, through
restart vectors, machine code, assemblers, board support packages, device
drivers, a range of languages both system and applications, all the way up
through (X) Windows applications.
How can anybody claim to be a computer expert when they haven't a clue
about the computer and its instruction set?
It was said here recently in another thread that it would not be possible
for
anyone to produce the software for a complete operating system and
the application languages, I say, "Pooh!".
Maybe for a toy OS and language, but not a real one with its need for
drivers for various hardware, etc. Oh, and you'd need a linker and
librarian unless your language is interpreted, and math routines
(SIN,COS,EXP) etc., and an editor...
--
Pete
jmfbahciv
2013-01-06 16:19:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
Post by gareth
Post by Jorgen Grahn
Post by Bob Martin
Post by Jorgen Grahn
Post by gareth
Like many of the successes of the modern world, Lego is a British invention.
Oh well. At least the Danes have C++ ...
They must be very proud of that ;-)
Ok, I admit to some mild trolling, knowing how lots of people feel
about C++. It /is/ my favorite language though, and Stroustrup one of
my favorite programmers and authors.
But surely your favourite language is the one that you wrote for yourself,
with eclecticism from other langauages together with your own ideas?
The same goes for operating systems.
Any softy worth his salt is competent from the logic gate upwards, through
restart vectors, machine code, assemblers, board support packages, device
drivers, a range of languages both system and applications, all the way up
through (X) Windows applications.
How can anybody claim to be a computer expert when they haven't a clue
about the computer and its instruction set?
It was said here recently in another thread that it would not be possible
for
anyone to produce the software for a complete operating system and
the application languages, I say, "Pooh!".
Maybe for a toy OS and language, but not a real one with its need for
drivers for various hardware, etc. Oh, and you'd need a linker and
librarian unless your language is interpreted, and math routines
(SIN,COS,EXP) etc., and an editor...
And a debugger. Oh, and think of all that comm he needs to implement
before typing one character of the assembler.

/BAH
gareth
2013-01-06 17:10:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by jmfbahciv
Oh, and think of all that comm he needs to implement
before typing one character of the assembler.
From my PDP-11 days ...

INC TKS
1$: TSTB TKS
BPL 1$
Mov TKB, (R0)+

Made only slightly more complex if done with a
device driver and interrupt routines, but it's all knife-and-fork
stuff these days.
gareth
2013-01-06 16:58:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
Post by gareth
Post by Jorgen Grahn
Post by Bob Martin
Post by Jorgen Grahn
Post by gareth
Like many of the successes of the modern world, Lego is a British invention.
Oh well. At least the Danes have C++ ...
They must be very proud of that ;-)
Ok, I admit to some mild trolling, knowing how lots of people feel
about C++. It /is/ my favorite language though, and Stroustrup one of
my favorite programmers and authors.
But surely your favourite language is the one that you wrote for yourself,
with eclecticism from other langauages together with your own ideas?
The same goes for operating systems.
Any softy worth his salt is competent from the logic gate upwards, through
restart vectors, machine code, assemblers, board support packages, device
drivers, a range of languages both system and applications, all the way up
through (X) Windows applications.
How can anybody claim to be a computer expert when they haven't a clue
about the computer and its instruction set?
It was said here recently in another thread that it would not be possible
for
anyone to produce the software for a complete operating system and
the application languages, I say, "Pooh!".
Maybe for a toy OS and language, but not a real one with its need for
drivers for various hardware, etc. Oh, and you'd need a linker and
librarian unless your language is interpreted, and math routines
(SIN,COS,EXP) etc., and an editor...
I certainly don't agree with that, having been a softy for 42 years and
having worked in all of the areas that I discussed.

If you were to graduate and work for 3 years doing device drivers, then
you might regard yourself as a device driver specialist. but what if you'd
accumulated several year's experience in each of the areas that I discussed?
gareth
2013-01-06 17:05:34 UTC
Permalink
... a real one with its need for drivers for various hardware, etc. Oh,
and you'd need a linker and librarian unless your language is interpreted,
and math routines (SIN,COS,EXP) etc., and an editor...
All pretty trivial stuff.
Stanley Daniel de Liver
2013-01-06 16:18:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by gareth
... a real one with its need for drivers for various hardware, etc. Oh,
and you'd need a linker and librarian unless your language is
interpreted,
and math routines (SIN,COS,EXP) etc., and an editor...
All pretty trivial stuff.
Quite. Why, once I did 8 impossible things before breakfast.
--
It's a money /life balance.
Stanley Daniel de Liver
2013-01-06 16:13:26 UTC
Permalink
[]
Post by Peter Flass
Post by gareth
It was said here recently in another thread that it would not be possible
for
anyone to produce the software for a complete operating system and
the application languages, I say, "Pooh!".
Maybe for a toy OS and language, but not a real one with its need for
drivers for various hardware, etc. Oh, and you'd need a linker and
librarian unless your language is interpreted, and math routines
(SIN,COS,EXP) etc., and an editor...
What's really wanted (for sales) is a spiffy new GUI.
--
It's a money /life balance.
jmfbahciv
2013-01-06 16:19:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jorgen Grahn
...
Post by Bob Martin
Post by Jorgen Grahn
Post by gareth
Like many of the successes of the modern world, Lego is a British invention.
Oh well. At least the Danes have C++ ...
They must be very proud of that ;-)
Ok, I admit to some mild trolling, knowing how lots of people feel
about C++. It /is/ my favorite language though, and Stroustrup one of
my favorite programmers and authors.
Can you say why you like it?

/BAH
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2013-01-03 21:51:15 UTC
Permalink
But doesn't that defeat the whole point of the toy?  creating one's
own structure was the goal.  Kids are too supervised these days.
In 1962 comedian Alan King wrote a book criticizing the obsession with
Little League and suggesting kids were best playing by themselves.

Yet today the obession with organized non-school sports continues more
than ever, be it soccer, or whatever, in addition to in-school teams.
Rod Speed
2013-01-03 22:57:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by jmfbahciv
But doesn't that defeat the whole point of the toy? creating one's
own structure was the goal. Kids are too supervised these days.
In 1962 comedian Alan King wrote a book criticizing the obsession with
Little League and suggesting kids were best playing by themselves.
Yet today the obession with organized non-school sports continues more
than ever, be it soccer, or whatever, in addition to in-school teams.
Hardly surprising given how obsesses much of society is with almost any team
sport.
Peter Flass
2013-01-04 12:50:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by jmfbahciv
But doesn't that defeat the whole point of the toy? creating one's
own structure was the goal. Kids are too supervised these days.
In 1962 comedian Alan King wrote a book criticizing the obsession with
Little League and suggesting kids were best playing by themselves.
Yet today the obession with organized non-school sports continues more
than ever, be it soccer, or whatever, in addition to in-school teams.
Kids today don't have the opportunity to get involved in unsupervised
activities. When I was a kid the neighbors across the street owned an
old disused farm. The Dad put in a baseball field and neighborhood kids
played pickup games constantly. Many neighborhoods similarly used a
vacant lot. Today the kids are too scattered to get together without
parental help, and there are few suitable vacant lots. I'm not sure,
from what I see, that there are "neighborhoods" today in the old-time
sense. Since the parents have to bus the kids somewhere to play games,
a level of organization is required that wasn't needed years ago.
--
Pete
Michael Black
2013-01-04 15:39:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by jmfbahciv
But doesn't that defeat the whole point of the toy? creating one's
own structure was the goal. Kids are too supervised these days.
In 1962 comedian Alan King wrote a book criticizing the obsession with
Little League and suggesting kids were best playing by themselves.
Yet today the obession with organized non-school sports continues more
than ever, be it soccer, or whatever, in addition to in-school teams.
Kids today don't have the opportunity to get involved in unsupervised
activities. When I was a kid the neighbors across the street owned an old
disused farm. The Dad put in a baseball field and neighborhood kids played
pickup games constantly. Many neighborhoods similarly used a vacant lot.
Today the kids are too scattered to get together without parental help, and
there are few suitable vacant lots. I'm not sure, from what I see, that
there are "neighborhoods" today in the old-time sense. Since the parents
have to bus the kids somewhere to play games, a level of organization is
required that wasn't needed years ago.
But it's not just that. My interests as a kid and into being a teenager
were mine. There were limits since I didn't have extra money to pursue
them, but it was totally on my own, until I got my ham license at age 12
and suddenly there was the local ham club and the local ham club
fleamarkets and auctions. Some of the most value I got from it all was
learning by myself. I stepped into the adult world when the kids at
school were still expected to watch cartoons and read kids magazines.

And somewhere in forty years, that has changed. The same parents who
think the kids need structre at every moment, the ballet classes and the
baseball games and the music lessons, they feel an obligation to inflict
themselves on the kids if they show an interest in some technical hobby.
I'm not sure they are leading the kids to technical hobbies (which might
be a good thing, especially if it's something the parents are actually
interested in, so they are simply sharing), but feel the need to take
control when the kid shows some initiative. All I wanted was to be left
alone, and would have liked some extra money to buy more books and parts.

Michael
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2013-01-04 17:34:54 UTC
Permalink
And somewhere in forty years, that has changed.  The same parents who
think the kids need structre at every moment, the ballet classes and the
baseball games and the music lessons, they feel an obligation to inflict
themselves on the kids if they show an interest in some technical hobby.
I'm not sure they are leading the kids to technical hobbies (which might
be a good thing, especially if it's something the parents are actually
interested in, so they are simply sharing), but feel the need to take
control when the kid shows some initiative.  All I wanted was to be left
alone, and would have liked some extra money to buy more books and parts.
I think parents are much more protective these days, so they want the
safety of participation in organized/supervised activities; as opposed
to independent free-form stuff.

Ironically, for those of us who grew up in the city, we were more
exposed to risk (gangs of tough kids, playing on concrete lots) than
kids today in pristine suburbs with their ever ready cell phone for
the parents to check in (or use the creepy GPS traclers).

However, some kids, if left alone, might end up staying in their room
watching TV and eating cookies. Perhaps being placed in an organized
sport isn't such a bad idea.
Rod Speed
2013-01-04 17:59:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Black
Post by Peter Flass
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by jmfbahciv
But doesn't that defeat the whole point of the toy? creating one's
own structure was the goal. Kids are too supervised these days.
In 1962 comedian Alan King wrote a book criticizing the obsession with
Little League and suggesting kids were best playing by themselves.
Yet today the obession with organized non-school sports continues more
than ever, be it soccer, or whatever, in addition to in-school teams.
Kids today don't have the opportunity to get involved in unsupervised
activities. When I was a kid the neighbors across the street owned an old
disused farm. The Dad put in a baseball field and neighborhood kids
played pickup games constantly. Many neighborhoods similarly used a
vacant lot. Today the kids are too scattered to get together without
parental help, and there are few suitable vacant lots. I'm not sure,
from what I see, that there are "neighborhoods" today in the old-time
sense. Since the parents have to bus the kids somewhere to play games, a
level of organization is required that wasn't needed years ago.
But it's not just that. My interests as a kid and into being a teenager
were mine. There were limits since I didn't have extra money to pursue
them, but it was totally on my own, until I got my ham license at age 12
and suddenly there was the local ham club and the local ham club
fleamarkets and auctions. Some of the most value I got from it all was
learning by myself. I stepped into the adult world when the kids at
school were still expected to watch cartoons and read kids magazines.
And somewhere in forty years, that has changed. The same parents who
think the kids need structre at every moment, the ballet classes and the
baseball games and the music lessons, they feel an obligation to inflict
themselves on the kids if they show an interest in some technical hobby.
They don't do that with online gaming.
Post by Michael Black
I'm not sure they are leading the kids to technical hobbies
The kids do that themselves, just like they always did.
Post by Michael Black
(which might be a good thing, especially if it's something the parents are
actually interested in, so they are simply sharing), but feel the need to
take control when the kid shows some initiative.
Like hell they do with online gaming.
Post by Michael Black
All I wanted was to be left alone,
Kids still do that with online gaming.
Post by Michael Black
and would have liked some extra money to buy more books and parts.
And still need that with gaming, tho they don't
bother with books for the gaming, they still want
to buy more books when they take off with stuff
like what Rowling produced.
greymaus
2013-01-04 15:55:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by jmfbahciv
But doesn't that defeat the whole point of the toy? creating one's
own structure was the goal. Kids are too supervised these days.
In 1962 comedian Alan King wrote a book criticizing the obsession with
Little League and suggesting kids were best playing by themselves.
Yet today the obession with organized non-school sports continues more
than ever, be it soccer, or whatever, in addition to in-school teams.
Kids today don't have the opportunity to get involved in unsupervised
activities. When I was a kid the neighbors across the street owned an
old disused farm. The Dad put in a baseball field and neighborhood kids
played pickup games constantly. Many neighborhoods similarly used a
vacant lot. Today the kids are too scattered to get together without
parental help, and there are few suitable vacant lots. I'm not sure,
from what I see, that there are "neighborhoods" today in the old-time
sense. Since the parents have to bus the kids somewhere to play games,
a level of organization is required that wasn't needed years ago.
Its complicated, life is more complicated, and the lawyers abound.
My parents had a story of people, like most Irish people at te time, had
a pig, sow, for producing bonhams. You can keep a pig in a small space
and feed it on leftover food. Well, Mom and Pop were away, and the
children playing around the house, and when the parents returned, the sow
was out of her pen, and one child was missing. Pigs will eat anything,
even their own young, which is why sows farrowing need to be minded.

People do not appeciate how things have changed since the Pill. Families
are smaller, and children valued more. Hell, lots of rich women will pay
poorer ones to actually carry their eggs through pregnancy. Cars are more
common, and its hard to see small children from the driving seat, specially
reversing into a parking space. Think, if you ever drove over a cat or
rabbit, that horrible crunching sound may be a child.
Patrick Scheible
2013-01-04 21:23:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by greymaus
Post by Peter Flass
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by jmfbahciv
But doesn't that defeat the whole point of the toy? creating one's
own structure was the goal. Kids are too supervised these days.
In 1962 comedian Alan King wrote a book criticizing the obsession with
Little League and suggesting kids were best playing by themselves.
Yet today the obession with organized non-school sports continues more
than ever, be it soccer, or whatever, in addition to in-school teams.
Kids today don't have the opportunity to get involved in unsupervised
activities. When I was a kid the neighbors across the street owned an
old disused farm. The Dad put in a baseball field and neighborhood kids
played pickup games constantly. Many neighborhoods similarly used a
vacant lot. Today the kids are too scattered to get together without
parental help, and there are few suitable vacant lots. I'm not sure,
from what I see, that there are "neighborhoods" today in the old-time
sense. Since the parents have to bus the kids somewhere to play games,
a level of organization is required that wasn't needed years ago.
People do not appeciate how things have changed since the Pill.
I think it's not so much the pill. Other birth control options have
existed for a long time. It's not needing to have a large family to
help on the farm or pay expenses in old age.
Post by greymaus
Families are smaller, and children valued more. Hell, lots of rich
women will pay poorer ones to actually carry their eggs through
pregnancy.
For most of them, it's impossible or medically inadvisable to carry the
child. In a prior age, I guess they would have either done without
children or adopted, or had them when they were younger.

-- Patrick
Rod Speed
2013-01-04 22:50:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick Scheible
Post by greymaus
Post by Peter Flass
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by jmfbahciv
But doesn't that defeat the whole point of the toy? creating one's
own structure was the goal. Kids are too supervised these days.
In 1962 comedian Alan King wrote a book criticizing the obsession with
Little League and suggesting kids were best playing by themselves.
Yet today the obession with organized non-school sports continues more
than ever, be it soccer, or whatever, in addition to in-school teams.
Kids today don't have the opportunity to get involved in unsupervised
activities. When I was a kid the neighbors across the street owned an
old disused farm. The Dad put in a baseball field and neighborhood kids
played pickup games constantly. Many neighborhoods similarly used a
vacant lot. Today the kids are too scattered to get together without
parental help, and there are few suitable vacant lots. I'm not sure,
from what I see, that there are "neighborhoods" today in the old-time
sense. Since the parents have to bus the kids somewhere to play games,
a level of organization is required that wasn't needed years ago.
People do not appeciate how things have changed since the Pill.
I think it's not so much the pill. Other birth control options have
existed for a long time. It's not needing to have a large family to
help on the farm or pay expenses in old age.
It appears to be much more about married women
working in the modern first and second world.
Post by Patrick Scheible
Post by greymaus
Families are smaller,
Yes.
Post by Patrick Scheible
Post by greymaus
and children valued more.
I doubt that’s involved at all even with the dregs of society.
Post by Patrick Scheible
Post by greymaus
Hell, lots of rich women will pay poorer ones to
actually carry their eggs through pregnancy.
A few do, anyway.
Post by Patrick Scheible
For most of them, it's impossible or medically inadvisable
to carry the child. In a prior age, I guess they would have
either done without children or adopted,
Mostly adopted, there were plenty to adopt then.
Post by Patrick Scheible
or had them when they were younger.
Rod Speed
2013-01-04 18:11:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Flass
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by jmfbahciv
But doesn't that defeat the whole point of the toy? creating one's
own structure was the goal. Kids are too supervised these days.
In 1962 comedian Alan King wrote a book criticizing the obsession with
Little League and suggesting kids were best playing by themselves.
Yet today the obession with organized non-school sports continues more
than ever, be it soccer, or whatever, in addition to in-school teams.
Kids today don't have the opportunity to get involved in unsupervised
activities.
Bullshit, they still do.
Post by Peter Flass
When I was a kid the neighbors across the street owned an old disused
farm. The Dad put in a baseball field and neighborhood kids played pickup
games constantly.
Ours still use the school grounds outside school hours and our
very big public sports grounds which have completely free access
when they arent being used for organised sport too.
Post by Peter Flass
Many neighborhoods similarly used a vacant lot.
Plenty still have parks.
Post by Peter Flass
Today the kids are too scattered to get together without parental help,
Bullshit they are. Kids go past my place to the local high school
until it gets dark every day of the week at this time of the year.
Post by Peter Flass
and there are few suitable vacant lots.
Plenty of parks tho.
Post by Peter Flass
I'm not sure, from what I see, that there are "neighborhoods" today in the
old-time sense.
Corse there are.
Post by Peter Flass
Since the parents have to bus the kids somewhere to play games,
Like hell they do.
Post by Peter Flass
a level of organization is required that wasn't needed years ago.
Still isnt.
jmfbahciv
2013-01-04 14:20:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
But doesn't that defeat the whole point of the toy?  creating one's
own structure was the goal.  Kids are too supervised these days.
In 1962 comedian Alan King wrote a book criticizing the obsession with
Little League and suggesting kids were best playing by themselves.
I agree with him.
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Yet today the obession with organized non-school sports continues more
than ever, be it soccer, or whatever, in addition to in-school teams.
Except it's an adult sport with the adults moving the kdis around
like game pieces.

/BAH
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2013-01-04 17:29:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Yet today the obession with organized non-school sports continues more
than ever, be it soccer, or whatever, in addition to in-school teams.
Except it's an adult sport with the adults moving the kdis around
like game pieces.
Yes. It's weird to see how parents obsess over this stuff. At a
summer swim club swim team, parents keep meticulous records of their
kids' performance of every race, then analyze the results. It's just
a summer fun thing, not the Olympics.

Swimming is a relatively safe sport, but kids in heavy duty action in
other sports suffer their share of injuires. Cheerleading, which has
become a big competitive deal (sort of like dance competitions)
supposedly has a high injury rate.
Walter Bushell
2013-01-04 18:00:36 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Cheerleading, which has
become a big competitive deal (sort of like dance competitions)
supposedly has a high injury rate.
More of a sport than synchronized swimming for sure.
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
Andrew Swallow
2013-01-04 21:04:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Yet today the obession with organized non-school sports continues more
than ever, be it soccer, or whatever, in addition to in-school teams.
Except it's an adult sport with the adults moving the kdis around
like game pieces.
Yes. It's weird to see how parents obsess over this stuff. At a
summer swim club swim team, parents keep meticulous records of their
kids' performance of every race, then analyze the results. It's just
a summer fun thing, not the Olympics.
Swimming is a relatively safe sport, but kids in heavy duty action in
other sports suffer their share of injuires. Cheerleading, which has
become a big competitive deal (sort of like dance competitions)
supposedly has a high injury rate.
Yes, girls were not designed to be throw into the air by other girls.

Andrew Swallow
Patrick Scheible
2013-01-04 21:16:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Yet today the obession with organized non-school sports continues more
than ever, be it soccer, or whatever, in addition to in-school teams.
Except it's an adult sport with the adults moving the kdis around
like game pieces.
Yes. It's weird to see how parents obsess over this stuff. At a
summer swim club swim team, parents keep meticulous records of their
kids' performance of every race, then analyze the results. It's just
a summer fun thing, not the Olympics.
Swimming is a relatively safe sport, but kids in heavy duty action in
other sports suffer their share of injuires. Cheerleading, which has
become a big competitive deal (sort of like dance competitions)
supposedly has a high injury rate.
Yes, they're doing lifting onto shoulders routines, which creates the
opportunity to fall from 5 feet off the ground, with no pads or helmets
to cushion the fall.

-- Patrick
Dan Espen
2013-01-04 22:08:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick Scheible
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Yet today the obession with organized non-school sports continues more
than ever, be it soccer, or whatever, in addition to in-school teams.
Except it's an adult sport with the adults moving the kdis around
like game pieces.
Yes. It's weird to see how parents obsess over this stuff. At a
summer swim club swim team, parents keep meticulous records of their
kids' performance of every race, then analyze the results. It's just
a summer fun thing, not the Olympics.
Swimming is a relatively safe sport, but kids in heavy duty action in
other sports suffer their share of injuires. Cheerleading, which has
become a big competitive deal (sort of like dance competitions)
supposedly has a high injury rate.
Yes, they're doing lifting onto shoulders routines, which creates the
opportunity to fall from 5 feet off the ground, with no pads or helmets
to cushion the fall.
5 feet shouldn't hurt anyone unless they are unconscious and
fall head down.

As kids, we regularly fell from 10 ft and higher.
A few years ago I landed on my bare feet on cement from 6 feet.
Last year I fell from about 8 feet and landed on my side on cement.
It hurt, but no permanent damage.

Anyway, usually girls have all kinds of padding.
--
Dan Espen
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
2013-01-04 22:33:25 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 17:08:11 -0500
Post by Dan Espen
Post by Patrick Scheible
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Swimming is a relatively safe sport, but kids in heavy duty action in
other sports suffer their share of injuires. Cheerleading, which has
become a big competitive deal (sort of like dance competitions)
supposedly has a high injury rate.
Yes, they're doing lifting onto shoulders routines, which creates the
opportunity to fall from 5 feet off the ground, with no pads or helmets
to cushion the fall.
5 feet shouldn't hurt anyone unless they are unconscious and
fall head down.
A 5 foot fall *usually* does no harm, but it only takes one bad
landing to break a wrist, or sprain an ankle. I managed to break my wrist
slipping over coming out of a shower, essentially a fall from zero feet.
Post by Dan Espen
As kids, we regularly fell from 10 ft and higher.
A few years ago I landed on my bare feet on cement from 6 feet.
Last year I fell from about 8 feet and landed on my side on cement.
It hurt, but no permanent damage.
Things get worse when it's kids falling onto kids, one school
friend got his neck broken when a rugby scrum collapsed unexpectedly. I
also rather wonder if learning how to fall (or more to the point how to
land) forms part of cheerleader training as it tends to in stage and
martial arts training.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Rod Speed
2013-01-04 17:55:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by jmfbahciv
But doesn't that defeat the whole point of the toy? creating one's
own structure was the goal. Kids are too supervised these days.
In 1962 comedian Alan King wrote a book criticizing the obsession with
Little League and suggesting kids were best playing by themselves.
I agree with him.
There is no best, kids will always do it both ways and sports fools
will always run the line that team sports are important too.
Post by jmfbahciv
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Yet today the obession with organized non-school sports continues more
than ever, be it soccer, or whatever, in addition to in-school teams.
Except it's an adult sport with the adults moving the kdis around
like game pieces.
Bullshit.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...