coquina

I think natural fibers are supposed to "breathe" better, so they don't make you perspire. I also think a lot of synthetic fabrics are made from petroleum based products, so they put pressure on natural but non-renewable resources. There is a load of topics if you google "synthetic fabric" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=synthetic+fabric

When applied to sailboat races, stands for Dead F**king Last. SNAFU = Situation Normal, All F**ked Up. FUBAR = F**ked up Beyond All Recognition AWOL = Away Without Leave

Time Traveler - Yes, my company is still around (it is 55 years old) - no, we don't make parts for NASA anymore. (They changed their contracting procedures, I can elaborate if you want.) My dad is dead, but I will be happy to try to answer your questions. I can tell you a lot about why NASA achieved success in the Apolo project and what I think needs to be changed for them to be successful now. I may be able to put you in touch with some people who work at NASA Langley now, or at least send some of your questions to them and see if they will answer. I am a "she", BTW. No offense taken - it's a mistake that occurs often - not to many females that grew up in my line of work. About the funding.... Space exploration is an extraordinarily costly venture, and an extraordinarily dangerous one. A piece of space junk the size of a marble can wreck a vehicle, despite our best precautions, but that doesn't mean we should not build the best we can. Recently a mistake was made that lost a vehicle because someone made a mathmatical miscalculation. People make mistakes - the programs need to be checked and rechecked. Perhaps they ought to have three people do the same calculation - if you don't get three answers that are exactly alike, somebody screwed up. The corner cutting has got to stop. I think NASA needs to concentrate on one major space project at a time. I think they need to put together the best vehicle money can buy. There is an old, old saying that goes: A more modern comparison would be putting el cheapo tires on a Rolls Royce - you're cruising down the interstate at 70 and a tire blows out - car and passengers, all toast. You still have to accept the fact that if you put the best tires money can buy on the car, somebody can still run a stoplight and the result is the same.

Timetraveler - My company (my dad started it) took off during the years of the space race. My dad was a machinist at NACA, the "National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics" http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/ when we entered the Space Race, the acronym was changed to NASA. He worked Langley Research Center, which initially was the lead center for manned space flight. When Kennedy made his challange to put a man on the moon before the end of the decade, my dad saw that in order to do it, NASA would have to outsource a lot of this work. Therefore, he took early retirement. He had a small shop that he ran part time, he bought more machinery and went into it full time. I grew up in this very exciting time period, and learned the machinist's trade in the process. I remember when Surveyor landed on the moon and started sending pictures back to earth - one could see part of the craft in the pictures and in one of them, we could see a piece that we had built right here in this shop sitting up there on the moon. Oh - man, was that ever exciting!!! We manufactured parts for Mercury, Gemini, Appolo, Viking (went to Mars), and Sky Lab. We also made parts that went on LDEF, the Long Duration Exposure Facility that stayed up much longer than expected, due to the Challanger explosion. In the early days, we worked very closely with the engineers. They understood that machinists could teach them a lot about economical ways to build parts. If a machinist had an idea that would save time and money, it would be implemented. We built all kinds of parts that eventually found there way into "spin-offs". We didn't always know what the end use would be of the parts we built. I was called once by a researcher from Johns Hopkins because our name was listed as the source for a part of a medical instrument. You asked: One example is carbon/epoxy. My company was involved in testing the very early samples of this material. We made "test specimens" - lots of pieces made to precisely length and width (to a tolerance of .0005" a half of 1/1000 of an inch. For those of you who think in milimeters that is about .013 mm) of different thicknesses, with different numbers and directions of laminations. This gave the scientists controlled material on which to perform their tests. Carbon epoxy is now used in all sorts of sports equipment - tennis rackets, dirt bikes. It has dozens of other industrial uses too - in areas where light weight and high strength are critical.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03010.htm

There is a genetic abnormality in which some people to have a thinner disc and therefore a narrower space between their lower vertebra. They are far more likely to herniate a disk than the general population. (Been there, done that, got the scar to prove it.) My dad had the same genetic abonormality and so does my daughter. This may be a case of "reversed evolution". In the days before surgery, people with this inherited trait would have been more likely to injure their backs so seriously that they would be unable to hunt. If only the afferent nerve is pinched, a person has a terrific amount of pain, but when the efferent nerve is also pinched, signals that tell the limb to move cannot reach the muscles and they atrophy, limiting movement. On the other hand, people who have this trait are directed by physical therapists to do back strengthening exercises, and to "sit up straight", the defect might not have caused injury to early homids, since slouching in front of a computer wasn't an option for them.

You don't happen to have any vauum tubes for a Baldwin Organ do you?

I was sorta like that. My husband wanted to do something fun, but I had bookwork to do, or one thing or another. Then one morning I woke up and he was dead. No warning - he wasn't old, either. (Well, maybe you'd think he was old, he was 56.) Both of us had all these plans for our future. The thing of it is, you don't know whether you will have a future. I'm not saying you ought to quit working and become a bum, but I am saying you should take time to smell the roses. Erma Bombeck wrote this when she was dying of cancer: http://www.gaylasgarden.com/menu/liveover.htm Maybe it's outdated to, but there are some wise words there. Use your free time to enjoy your life and other people.

Someone much earlier in the thread mentioned that China is trying to corner the market on steel. That is what my steel suppliers tell me. The cost of some types of steel has risen 66% in a little over a year. I lost one of my major customers because they opened a factory in China. I was getting $38.50 to build a part - it is being built for about $3.50 in China. My customer explained it this way - The objective of the Chinese government is to put their people to work, so they are providing incentives for foreign governments to move their manufacturing to China. The Chinese government builds the factory and equips it with the most modern machinery available. The company provides the supervisory skill and trains Chinese workers to build the parts. They do not have to pay the government for the cost of the building or the equipment. The Chinese workers are paid an average of fifty cents an hour. Therefore, just about the only cost that the manufacturing company incurs is direct material, direct labor, and shipping. They do not have to worry about paid company benefits like health insurance or pension plans. They do not have to pay overtime for work over 40 hours a week. They do not have to worry about OSHA. There is no way that an American manufacturer who has to cover all of those costs, plus pay an assembly line worker over $10 an hour, can compete in a mass production situation. On top of that, we would think of fifty cents an hour as slave wages, but it is much higher than the average Chinese has historically earned, and the workers are standing in line for jobs. I do not know what the answer to this is, but do not think the United States can expect to retain strong operating as a "service economy" without a strong manufacturing base. I've run a machine shop for thirty years, and I am able to survive because I am into prototyping and building specialized machinery for nuclear ships. There is not enough quantity involved in my remaining products to be attractive to an overseas market. However - when I was into production I employed over 30 people - now I only have 5, and they are part time and have retired from other companies. If the US manufacturing sector becomes weaker and weaker, and downsizes more and more, what are the assemblyline workers going to be retrained to do. Many of them started working right out of high school and have been doing the same job for more than 30 years. I know that many of you are a lot younger than I, and you have been discussing the benefits and problems of the communism vs democracy. I am down here in the trenches of the manufacturing sector, and don't think the style of government is the immediate problem. I think the immediate problem is how we are going to continue to keep a large segment of our manufacturing population employed in the coming years.

Wouldn't "social engineering" be the same as "brain-washing"?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1764979&dopt=Abstract

The first thing you have to do is separate natural global warming from anthropogenic human induced global warming. Here's a site from NASA with some good information on the latter: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/altscenario/ Everybody talks about "global warming", but if you want to research the subject, the better term to google is "climate forcing". It's important to understand that the climate is warming and sea level is rising regardless of man's influence, we are currently in the Hollocene Epoch (from the present to 11,000 years ago. Preceding that was Pleistocene Epoch (from 11,000 years to 2 million years ago. The Pleistocene had some of the most erratic climate changes in the history of the earth, and although humans were around during part of that period, they were not advanced enough to have influenced any of them. Climate Change: Lessons from Geology and Complexity Science (Author: L. Waite, Fall 2002 http://www.geocomplexity.com/global_climate_&_climatic_changes.htm I just found this paper, and haven't read it through completely, but will print it out and study it this week end. Based on other papers I have read, it seems well put together and accurate. You may wonder how we arrive at what the temperature was like millions of years ago. Oxygen Isotope analysis is one of the most important tools. I find it particularly fascinating and think this author has made as good an explanation as I have read, so I'll quote that snippet here:

This boat is a sister-ship to mine. http://www.woodenboatsnj.com/Images/32ft1973Pacemaker-glass.jpg She has twin 220hp crusaders, and her name is Coquina. When you get caught offshore in a storm, often the best course of action is to head into it. The ride might have been miserable, but it would have been worse if you had been side ways to the waves (known as being in a beam sea). If the waves hit the boat from the side it is far more dangerous, because with each succeeding wave she will roll worse and eventually capsize. A stern sea ain't so hot either, because a wave can rise up from behind and flip her end for end (pitch pole). The bow is pointy 'cause it is designed to cut into the seas. If a captain sees that he is going to be caught in a storm and there's nothing he can do to avoid it, he will head for deep water. The last place you want to be is close to shore where waves are breaking. If you happen to lose power, you will immediately be thrown into the surf.

You're welcome - when I saw North Carolina as your location, I figured you were on one of the sounds or the ocean. I frequent the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, which is often besieged by very rough water and strong tidal currents, and am familiar with cruisers and workboats. Is this the kind of boat you have? http://tradoc.monroe.army.mil/casemate/archive/aug04/081304regatta1.htm

I wish doctors would have separate waiting rooms for people with colds and flu from those who are there for routine physicals or traumatic injuries. There is no sense in putting well people in close proximity to a bunch of sick ones.

What about the concept that feathered flight was a favorable adaptation which enabled the creatures that had it to escape predation more effectively? Doesn't it follow that as small fast preditors evolved, those creatures that could hop from a low tree limb to a higher one out of reach of the nasty little ba$tards would survive to reproduce more often? Having gotten up in a tree, the ones that were able to glide the fartherest from the pack baying at the trunk of the tree in frustration would again be the most likely to escape. Martin - I'd like to gently chide you on the above statement. It implies that the dinosaurs chose to evolve feathers fit for flight. My college bio prof would have rapped my knuckles if I'd made a statement like that. It would be more proper to state that the beasts who randomly evolved the better shaped feathers caught more insects and survived to reproduce more often. (I expect you know better - I hear the folks on educational TV making the same sort of statements. It's just that evolution is misunderstood by so many, I think we need to try to write as accurately as we can about it.)

Main Entry: ac·e·tab·u·lum Pronunciation: -'ta-by&-l&m Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -lums or ac·e·tab·u·la /-l&/ Etymology: Latin, literally, vinegar cup, from acetum vinegar 1 : a ventral sucker of a trematode 2 : the cup-shaped socket in the hipbone - ac·e·tab·u·lar /-l&r/ adjective Why "vinegar cup" why not "wine cup"? Did people drink vinegar from a cup or did they just have horrible wine?

Lucid Dreamer - thanks ;-) What kind of boat is the chevy engine in? I warn you - when those 4 barrels open up, it will be like pouring gas into the carb with a firehose. With regard to "how much water a specific prop can move", it depends on how much weight it's pushing and how much drag there is. You can determine a theoretical amount by knowing the "pitch" of the prop - you can determine the distance it will travel in one revolution. Again - lots to consider here. One thing is the ratio of water-line length to weight. Consider an oil tanker, when it is loaded it is pushing more weight through the water, so it either goes slower at the same rpm, or the engine rpms must be increased to generate the same amount of speed. Small boats follow the same principle. You will see "trim tabs" on the sterns of some boats - they can add water line length with minor weight, and by adjusting them you can bring the bow down (and the stern up) with the boat hits plane. OK - fuel economy - in a planing hull, the place just after the boat breaks out of the water and goes on plane is the most economical. You can determine the precise RPM by making a graph that shows the relationship of SOG (speed over groun) to RPMs. In this day of GPS it can be done other ways, but I'm going to tell you the old way, because it explains your objective better. In order to do this, you have to remove the effect of current (horizontal movement of water) on the boat. You look for two daymarkers (marks on poles stuck in the bottom) where you can run the boat unrestricted. You don't want the marks to be more than a quarter mile apart if you can help it, and you don't want floating bouys because their position can't be placed accurately due to their movement on their chains. You want to be where the current is either running in the same direction as the boat or against it - not sideways to the direction. Set your RPM on 500 and run between the two marks. Record the time and use it to calculate speed through the water (the current either added to your speed or subtracted from it). Turn right around and run back, and again calculate your speed through the water. Average the two together and you will eliminate the effect of the current, which will give you speed over the bottom. You want to run both directions at the same RPM one immediately following the other, because the current changes over time, going from slack water (no movement), to max flood, followed by another slack water, then max ebb. If you are in a lake that has no current - you can just run each rpm once. Do the same thing for every 500 RPM up to WOT (wide open throttle) Plot the points on a graph. With RPMs on one side and speed over the bottom on the other. You will see that at lower rpms the graph has a gradual slope, but after the boat breaks out of the water, speed increases faster in relation to rpm so the slope is more vertical. There will be a third slope between two points that is an interim. Your objective is to find out the exact point at which the angle of the graph changes and eliminate the interim slope. So, you make additional runs, run at the rpm which is midway between the points, and continue to hone it down until you find the point where you have only 2 lines, which is your most economical engine speed. The boat has just broken out of the water and is riding on top rather than pushing through it. This is where you get the most "bang for the buck". If your boat is kept in the water, it is also critically important to keep barnacles and bottom growth off it - especially the running gear. Use a good grade of bottom paint move the boat frequently. Again, I have just hit the high spots. I used to navigate in contests before the days of GPS. You also need to know how to use a compass and understand the effects of magnetic variation and deviation, and how to plot currrent vectors. GPS will do all that for you, but might find yourself in a hell of a spot if you are out there, the GPS breaks, and you don't know how to navigate for real. It is not difficult, and what's more is fun to learn.

and I've messed about with them most of my life. The prop operates on the theory of a screw, so there are a number of things to consider. The overall diameter is one - another is how many blades it has. Most small boat props have 3 blades, some have four. The third consideration is the pitch of the blade. When you think of pitch, compare the prop to a screw. The "pitch" of a screw is the length of one complete revolution. For example - if you have a 1/4-20 screw that means it has diameter of 1/4" and twenty threads to the inch. The pitch is therefore .05". That is a "coarse thread". A "fine" thread of the same diameter is 1/4-28, so the pitch is .0357". So, how much each blade of the prop is bent determines how far one revolution will travel through the water. Less pitch is used for more control and power - for example - tugboats. Whether you have one engine or two also comes into play. A single engine boat has more torque, so it tends to push the boat to one side instead of straight ahead. When you have twin engines, they are counter-rotating - one rotates clockwise, the other counter clockwise. This eliminates the torque. You can also turn the boat on its length by putting one engine ahead and one astern. If you want to learn more about boats, engines, and seamanship, I recommend you contact your local United States Power Squadron or Coast Guard Auxilliary flotilla. Both offer free courses that cover basic boat knowledge, seamanship, and piloting. Boats are a lot of fun, but they can be deadly if you don't know how to handle them properly.

I think some athletes - especially runners, have femurs that are longer than usual. When I was in high school, there was one girl in gym who outran the rest of us. She was very tall. One day we were all on the floor preparing to do situps - everyone's head was lined up evenly across the mat. I remember noticing that her waist and hips were in about the same place as every one else's, but that her thighs were several inches longer. Since then, I have tried to check out that proportion with regard to olympic athletes, it seems that many of them have disproportionately long thighs. It would certainly help them have a longer stride. I think it is true of some of the very tall basket ball players too.

I hate 'em. Disgusting critters. Snakes don't bother me, spiders don't bother me, but silverfish give me the creeps. Ugh! http://www.uidaho.edu/so-id/entomology/Silverfish.jpg It's not how they look, it's how they move. The slither, and they come scuttling out from old papers and books.

Are you at Wright Pat?

I learned a lot of them when I took art in order to draw figures in proportion. Your hand is as long as your face. You are 7 heads tall, your elbow is at your waist, your mouth extends to the pupils of your eyes - your ears are level with your eyes (convenient, else how would we hang glasses on our face?).

I used to work with NASA Langley Research Center on projects for their wind tunnel. The most complicated issue is how you hold the model in the tunnel so it will "fly", We built "stings" and "balances". The "sting" has a male taper to fit the female taper in the model, as I remember (it's been a long time) the "balance" goes after that. It is machined from a solid piece of round bar about a foot long. It has a hole all the way through it. Then slots are cut through the outside dimeter into the inside diameter so that the model is suspended by four thin beams. Other deep narrow slots are machined in the balance as well for "strain gages". One end is connected to the model and the other end is connected to the balance. They measure how much wing flexes. I believe they put something like smoke in the windtunnel around the model so the air movement can be seen and recorded. For all I know, they might have a different method by now, since computers have come such a long way. Just looked - Langley Research Center has a "Wind Tunnel University" - here, http://wte.larc.nasa.gov/indexflash.cfm try contacting them.

People used to say red-headed people had terrible tempers. I know a couple of red heads who seemed to think that gave them a license to throw hissy-fits. There was a time it was thought that women, blondes or otherwise, wouldn't be able to attract a husband if he thought she was smarter than he. Fortunately, those days seem to be a thing of the past. I'm blonde and my IQ tests 130+, not a genius, but don't think that qualifies as "dumb" either.