| |
Main
Date: 03 Nov 2007 10:51:46
From: A Muzi
Subject: Bell harmonics
|
A customer asked which bell is loudest when wet.
Until today I did not know thin bike bells don't ring well when wet. Try
it - a schpritz of Windex will do.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
|
| |
Date: 10 Nov 2007 01:39:38
From: jbollyn@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
On Nov 4, 8:53 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 3, 11:47 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
> > frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Nov 3, 11:56 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
> > >> can we reach back to the "elastomers do not attenuate vibration" thread
> > >> here as well?
>
> > > :-) Sure, if you can't tell the difference between your ears and
> > > your butt!
>
> > > - Frank Krygowski
>
> > ok, you're back to idiot status.
>
> Oh, come on, jim. Stop pouting.
>
> You're extremely aggressive with most of your posts, yet you can't
> tolerate one gentle wisecrack?
>
> - Frank Krygowski
Wisecracks do not translate well, when the smirk is not visible.
J.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Nov 2007 22:41:05
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
jbollyn@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 4, 8:53 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Nov 3, 11:47 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>
>>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Nov 3, 11:56 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> can we reach back to the "elastomers do not attenuate
>>>>> vibration" thread here as well?
>>>>
>>>> :-) Sure, if you can't tell the difference between your ears
>>>> and your butt!
>>>
>>> ok, you're back to idiot status.
>>
>> Oh, come on, jim. Stop pouting.
>>
>> You're extremely aggressive with most of your posts, yet you can't
>> tolerate one gentle wisecrack?
>
> Wisecracks do not translate well, when the smirk is not visible.
That's not the problem. The problem is that the chip on "jim beam's"
shoulder is bigger than his brain.
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2007 22:44:11
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> jbollyn@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Nov 4, 8:53 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Nov 3, 11:47 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
>>>>> On Nov 3, 11:56 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net>
>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>
>>>>>> can we reach back to the "elastomers do not attenuate
>>>>>> vibration" thread here as well?
> >>>>
>>>>> :-) Sure, if you can't tell the difference between your ears
>>>>> and your butt!
> >>>
>>>> ok, you're back to idiot status.
> >>
>>> Oh, come on, jim. Stop pouting.
>>>
>>> You're extremely aggressive with most of your posts, yet you can't
>>> tolerate one gentle wisecrack?
>>
>> Wisecracks do not translate well, when the smirk is not visible.
>
> That's not the problem. The problem is that the chip on "jim beam's"
> shoulder is bigger than his brain.
One would think the love of "jim beam's" life married Jobst Brandt, the
way he goes on.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2007 21:00:09
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> jbollyn@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Nov 4, 8:53 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Nov 3, 11:47 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>>
>>>>>> On Nov 3, 11:56 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>>>>>>> can we reach back to the "elastomers do not attenuate
>>>>>>> vibration" thread here as well?
>> >>>>
>>>>>> :-) Sure, if you can't tell the difference between your ears
>>>>>> and your butt!
>> >>>
>>>>> ok, you're back to idiot status.
>> >>
>>>> Oh, come on, jim. Stop pouting.
>>>>
>>>> You're extremely aggressive with most of your posts, yet you can't
>>>> tolerate one gentle wisecrack?
>>>
>>> Wisecracks do not translate well, when the smirk is not visible.
>>
>> That's not the problem. The problem is that the chip on "jim beam's"
>> shoulder is bigger than his brain.
>
> One would think the love of "jim beam's" life married Jobst Brandt, the
> way he goes on.
>
how odd - the retards resort to communal bleating!
|
| | | | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2007 23:02:53
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> jbollyn@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Nov 4, 8:53 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 3, 11:47 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> >>>
>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 11:56 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>> can we reach back to the "elastomers do not attenuate
>>>>>>>> vibration" thread here as well?
>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> :-) Sure, if you can't tell the difference between your ears
>>>>>>> and your butt!
>>> >>>
>>>>>> ok, you're back to idiot status.
>>> >>
>>>>> Oh, come on, jim. Stop pouting.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're extremely aggressive with most of your posts, yet you can't
>>>>> tolerate one gentle wisecrack?
>>>>
>>>> Wisecracks do not translate well, when the smirk is not visible.
>>>
>>> That's not the problem. The problem is that the chip on "jim beam's"
>>> shoulder is bigger than his brain.
>>
>> One would think the love of "jim beam's" life married Jobst Brandt,
>> the way he goes on.
>>
>
> how odd - the retards resort to communal bleating!
At least we are not afraid to put our real names to our posts, unlike
Kentucky Bourbon man.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2007 18:02:40
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>> jbollyn@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 4, 8:53 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 3, 11:47 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 11:56 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>> can we reach back to the "elastomers do not attenuate
>>>>>>>>> vibration" thread here as well?
>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>> :-) Sure, if you can't tell the difference between your ears
>>>>>>>> and your butt!
>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> ok, you're back to idiot status.
>>>> >>
>>>>>> Oh, come on, jim. Stop pouting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're extremely aggressive with most of your posts, yet you can't
>>>>>> tolerate one gentle wisecrack?
>>>>>
>>>>> Wisecracks do not translate well, when the smirk is not visible.
>>>>
>>>> That's not the problem. The problem is that the chip on "jim
>>>> beam's" shoulder is bigger than his brain.
>>>
>>> One would think the love of "jim beam's" life married Jobst Brandt,
>>> the way he goes on.
>>>
>>
>> how odd - the retards resort to communal bleating!
>
> At least we are not afraid to put our real names to our posts, unlike
> Kentucky Bourbon man.
>
you always return to the same old red herring. credentials pissing
contests distract from the facts.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2007 01:41:47
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>> jbollyn@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 4, 8:53 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 11:47 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 11:56 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>> can we reach back to the "elastomers do not attenuate
>>>>>>>>>> vibration" thread here as well?
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>> :-) Sure, if you can't tell the difference between your ears
>>>>>>>>> and your butt!
>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>> ok, you're back to idiot status.
>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> Oh, come on, jim. Stop pouting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're extremely aggressive with most of your posts, yet you
>>>>>>> can't tolerate one gentle wisecrack?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wisecracks do not translate well, when the smirk is not visible.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not the problem. The problem is that the chip on "jim
>>>>> beam's" shoulder is bigger than his brain.
>>>>
>>>> One would think the love of "jim beam's" life married Jobst Brandt,
>>>> the way he goes on.
>>>>
>>>
>>> how odd - the retards resort to communal bleating!
>>
>> At least we are not afraid to put our real names to our posts, unlike
>> Kentucky Bourbon man.
>>
>
> you always return to the same old red herring. credentials pissing
> contests distract from the facts.
How much credibility would an "expert witness" have, if he/she refused
to reveal his/her name and credentials?
What is "jim beam" afraid of?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2007 23:43:58
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>>> jbollyn@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 8:53 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 11:47 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 11:56 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> can we reach back to the "elastomers do not attenuate
>>>>>>>>>>> vibration" thread here as well?
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>> :-) Sure, if you can't tell the difference between your ears
>>>>>>>>>> and your butt!
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>> ok, you're back to idiot status.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> Oh, come on, jim. Stop pouting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're extremely aggressive with most of your posts, yet you
>>>>>>>> can't tolerate one gentle wisecrack?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wisecracks do not translate well, when the smirk is not visible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not the problem. The problem is that the chip on "jim
>>>>>> beam's" shoulder is bigger than his brain.
>>>>>
>>>>> One would think the love of "jim beam's" life married Jobst Brandt,
>>>>> the way he goes on.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> how odd - the retards resort to communal bleating!
>>>
>>> At least we are not afraid to put our real names to our posts, unlike
>>> Kentucky Bourbon man.
>>>
>>
>> you always return to the same old red herring. credentials pissing
>> contests distract from the facts.
>
> How much credibility would an "expert witness" have, if he/she refused
> to reveal his/her name and credentials?
er, this is usenet, not a law court. and some "expert witness" are
fucking useless.
>
> What is "jim beam" afraid of?
i'm afraid you'll never do your own research! lightweight.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2007 02:05:04
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>>>> jbollyn@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 8:53 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 11:47 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 11:56 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> can we reach back to the "elastomers do not attenuate
>>>>>>>>>>>> vibration" thread here as well?
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> :-) Sure, if you can't tell the difference between your ears
>>>>>>>>>>> and your butt!
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> ok, you're back to idiot status.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> Oh, come on, jim. Stop pouting.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You're extremely aggressive with most of your posts, yet you
>>>>>>>>> can't tolerate one gentle wisecrack?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wisecracks do not translate well, when the smirk is not visible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's not the problem. The problem is that the chip on "jim
>>>>>>> beam's" shoulder is bigger than his brain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One would think the love of "jim beam's" life married Jobst
>>>>>> Brandt, the way he goes on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> how odd - the retards resort to communal bleating!
>>>>
>>>> At least we are not afraid to put our real names to our posts,
>>>> unlike Kentucky Bourbon man.
>>>>
>>>
>>> you always return to the same old red herring. credentials pissing
>>> contests distract from the facts.
>>
>> How much credibility would an "expert witness" have, if he/she refused
>> to reveal his/her name and credentials?
>
> er, this is usenet, not a law court. and some "expert witness" are
> fucking useless.
>
>
>>
>> What is "jim beam" afraid of?
>
> i'm afraid you'll never do your own research! lightweight.
>
The mystery of why "jim beam" needs to hide behind a sock puppet continues!
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2007 00:36:19
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>>>>> jbollyn@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 8:53 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 11:47 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 11:56 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we reach back to the "elastomers do not attenuate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> vibration" thread here as well?
>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> :-) Sure, if you can't tell the difference between your ears
>>>>>>>>>>>> and your butt!
>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ok, you're back to idiot status.
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> Oh, come on, jim. Stop pouting.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You're extremely aggressive with most of your posts, yet you
>>>>>>>>>> can't tolerate one gentle wisecrack?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wisecracks do not translate well, when the smirk is not visible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's not the problem. The problem is that the chip on "jim
>>>>>>>> beam's" shoulder is bigger than his brain.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One would think the love of "jim beam's" life married Jobst
>>>>>>> Brandt, the way he goes on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> how odd - the retards resort to communal bleating!
>>>>>
>>>>> At least we are not afraid to put our real names to our posts,
>>>>> unlike Kentucky Bourbon man.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> you always return to the same old red herring. credentials pissing
>>>> contests distract from the facts.
>>>
>>> How much credibility would an "expert witness" have, if he/she
>>> refused to reveal his/her name and credentials?
>>
>> er, this is usenet, not a law court. and some "expert witness" are
>> fucking useless.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> What is "jim beam" afraid of?
>>
>> i'm afraid you'll never do your own research! lightweight.
>>
> The mystery of why "jim beam" needs to hide behind a sock puppet continues!
>
the only mystery around here is why you're too pussy to do your own
goddamned experiments! ridiculous lightweight.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2007 11:07:16
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
jim beam wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>>>>>> jbollyn@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 8:53 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 11:47 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 11:56 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we reach back to the "elastomers do not attenuate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vibration" thread here as well?
>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> :-) Sure, if you can't tell the difference between your ears
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and your butt!
>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ok, you're back to idiot status.
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, come on, jim. Stop pouting.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You're extremely aggressive with most of your posts, yet you
>>>>>>>>>>> can't tolerate one gentle wisecrack?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wisecracks do not translate well, when the smirk is not visible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's not the problem. The problem is that the chip on "jim
>>>>>>>>> beam's" shoulder is bigger than his brain.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One would think the love of "jim beam's" life married Jobst
>>>>>>>> Brandt, the way he goes on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> how odd - the retards resort to communal bleating!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At least we are not afraid to put our real names to our posts,
>>>>>> unlike Kentucky Bourbon man.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> you always return to the same old red herring. credentials pissing
>>>>> contests distract from the facts.
>>>>
>>>> How much credibility would an "expert witness" have, if he/she
>>>> refused to reveal his/her name and credentials?
>>>
>>> er, this is usenet, not a law court. and some "expert witness" are
>>> fucking useless.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What is "jim beam" afraid of?
>>>
>>> i'm afraid you'll never do your own research! lightweight.
>>>
>> The mystery of why "jim beam" needs to hide behind a sock puppet
>> continues!
>>
>
> the only mystery around here is why you're too pussy to do your own
> goddamned experiments! ridiculous lightweight.
So why do you need to hide your identity, "jim"?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2007 10:16:29
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> jbollyn@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 8:53 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 11:47 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 11:56 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we reach back to the "elastomers do not attenuate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vibration" thread here as well?
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :-) Sure, if you can't tell the difference between your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ears
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and your butt!
>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ok, you're back to idiot status.
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, come on, jim. Stop pouting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You're extremely aggressive with most of your posts, yet you
>>>>>>>>>>>> can't tolerate one gentle wisecrack?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wisecracks do not translate well, when the smirk is not visible.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's not the problem. The problem is that the chip on "jim
>>>>>>>>>> beam's" shoulder is bigger than his brain.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One would think the love of "jim beam's" life married Jobst
>>>>>>>>> Brandt, the way he goes on.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> how odd - the retards resort to communal bleating!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At least we are not afraid to put our real names to our posts,
>>>>>>> unlike Kentucky Bourbon man.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you always return to the same old red herring. credentials pissing
>>>>>> contests distract from the facts.
>>>>>
>>>>> How much credibility would an "expert witness" have, if he/she
>>>>> refused to reveal his/her name and credentials?
>>>>
>>>> er, this is usenet, not a law court. and some "expert witness" are
>>>> fucking useless.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What is "jim beam" afraid of?
>>>>
>>>> i'm afraid you'll never do your own research! lightweight.
>>>>
>>> The mystery of why "jim beam" needs to hide behind a sock puppet
>>> continues!
>>>
>>
>> the only mystery around here is why you're too pussy to do your own
>> goddamned experiments! ridiculous lightweight.
>
> So why do you need to hide your identity, "jim"?
>
i don't. but it doesn't serve any purpose other than "my dick is bigger
than your dick" and distracts from the facts. as a card carrying
communist, you should appreciate the opportunity for equality.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2007 12:21:45
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> jbollyn@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 8:53 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 11:47 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 11:56 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we reach back to the "elastomers do not attenuate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vibration" thread here as well?
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :-) Sure, if you can't tell the difference between your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ears
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and your butt!
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ok, you're back to idiot status.
>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, come on, jim. Stop pouting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're extremely aggressive with most of your posts, yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can't tolerate one gentle wisecrack?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wisecracks do not translate well, when the smirk is not
>>>>>>>>>>>> visible.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That's not the problem. The problem is that the chip on "jim
>>>>>>>>>>> beam's" shoulder is bigger than his brain.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> One would think the love of "jim beam's" life married Jobst
>>>>>>>>>> Brandt, the way he goes on.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> how odd - the retards resort to communal bleating!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At least we are not afraid to put our real names to our posts,
>>>>>>>> unlike Kentucky Bourbon man.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you always return to the same old red herring. credentials pissing
>>>>>>> contests distract from the facts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How much credibility would an "expert witness" have, if he/she
>>>>>> refused to reveal his/her name and credentials?
>>>>>
>>>>> er, this is usenet, not a law court. and some "expert witness" are
>>>>> fucking useless.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is "jim beam" afraid of?
>>>>>
>>>>> i'm afraid you'll never do your own research! lightweight.
>>>>>
>>>> The mystery of why "jim beam" needs to hide behind a sock puppet
>>>> continues!
>>>>
>>>
>>> the only mystery around here is why you're too pussy to do your own
>>> goddamned experiments! ridiculous lightweight.
>>
>> So why do you need to hide your identity, "jim"?
>>
>
> i don't.
So your real name is "jim beam"?
> but it doesn't serve any purpose other than "my dick is bigger
> than your dick" and distracts from the facts.
Unlike gratuitous insults?
> as a card carrying
> communist, you should appreciate the opportunity for equality.
Gee, I never realized that I joined the Communist Party!
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2007 14:04:49
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> jbollyn@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> as a card carrying communist, you should appreciate the opportunity
>> for equality.
> Gee, I never realized that I joined the Communist Party!
Once they read your collected wisdom, you'll get an engraved invitation.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2007 14:14:27
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
Andrew Muzi wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> jbollyn@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>>> as a card carrying communist, you should appreciate the opportunity
>>> for equality.
>
>> Gee, I never realized that I joined the Communist Party!
>
> Once they read your collected wisdom, you'll get an engraved invitation.
Not likely, since the official Communists practice Leninism, of which I
disapprove.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2007 10:47:36
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> jbollyn@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 8:53 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 11:47 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 11:56 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can we reach back to the "elastomers do not attenuate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vibration" thread here as well?
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :-) Sure, if you can't tell the difference between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your ears
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and your butt!
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ok, you're back to idiot status.
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, come on, jim. Stop pouting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're extremely aggressive with most of your posts, yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can't tolerate one gentle wisecrack?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wisecracks do not translate well, when the smirk is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> visible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not the problem. The problem is that the chip on
>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam's" shoulder is bigger than his brain.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> One would think the love of "jim beam's" life married Jobst
>>>>>>>>>>> Brandt, the way he goes on.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> how odd - the retards resort to communal bleating!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At least we are not afraid to put our real names to our posts,
>>>>>>>>> unlike Kentucky Bourbon man.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> you always return to the same old red herring. credentials pissing
>>>>>>>> contests distract from the facts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How much credibility would an "expert witness" have, if he/she
>>>>>>> refused to reveal his/her name and credentials?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> er, this is usenet, not a law court. and some "expert witness"
>>>>>> are fucking useless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is "jim beam" afraid of?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i'm afraid you'll never do your own research! lightweight.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The mystery of why "jim beam" needs to hide behind a sock puppet
>>>>> continues!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> the only mystery around here is why you're too pussy to do your own
>>>> goddamned experiments! ridiculous lightweight.
>>>
>>> So why do you need to hide your identity, "jim"?
>>>
>>
>> i don't.
>
> So your real name is "jim beam"?
>
>> but it doesn't serve any purpose other than "my dick is bigger than
>> your dick" and distracts from the facts.
>
> Unlike gratuitous insults?
describing your inability to contribute as "lightweight" is hardly an
insult! it is however an accurate description of the facts. you could
of course redress the situation, but based on your track record, that
doesn't seem likely.
>
>> as a card carrying communist, you should appreciate the opportunity
>> for equality.
>
> Gee, I never realized that I joined the Communist Party!
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2007 14:16:02
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
- delete excess text -
>> Unlike gratuitous insults?
>
> describing your inability to contribute as "lightweight" is hardly an
> insult! it is however an accurate description of the facts. you could
> of course redress the situation, but based on your track record, that
> doesn't seem likely.
I was referring to your body of postings as a whole, "jim".
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2007 12:47:36
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
> - delete excess text -
>>> Unlike gratuitous insults?
>>
>> describing your inability to contribute as "lightweight" is hardly an
>> insult! it is however an accurate description of the facts. you
>> could of course redress the situation, but based on your track record,
>> that doesn't seem likely.
>
> I was referring to your body of postings as a whole, "jim".
>
really? then it's odd that you don't get agitated in the defense of
others when they need you, only when you happen to be being called out
on your "contributions" as a lightweight!
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2007 14:53:56
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> - delete excess text -
>>>> Unlike gratuitous insults?
>>>
>>> describing your inability to contribute as "lightweight" is hardly an
>>> insult! it is however an accurate description of the facts. you
>>> could of course redress the situation, but based on your track
>>> record, that doesn't seem likely.
>>
>> I was referring to your body of postings as a whole, "jim".
>>
>
> really? then it's odd that you don't get agitated in the defense of
> others when they need you, only when you happen to be being called out
> on your "contributions" as a lightweight!
I doubt your insults agitate anyone, "jim", due to overuse.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2007 13:43:39
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> - delete excess text -
>>>>> Unlike gratuitous insults?
>>>>
>>>> describing your inability to contribute as "lightweight" is hardly
>>>> an insult! it is however an accurate description of the facts. you
>>>> could of course redress the situation, but based on your track
>>>> record, that doesn't seem likely.
>>>
>>> I was referring to your body of postings as a whole, "jim".
>>>
>>
>> really? then it's odd that you don't get agitated in the defense of
>> others when they need you, only when you happen to be being called out
>> on your "contributions" as a lightweight!
>
> I doubt your insults agitate anyone, "jim", due to overuse.
>
funny - you seem to get pretty agitated when being outed as a
lightweight! and that's just a statement of fact, not an insult!
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2007 15:59:01
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> - delete excess text -
>>>>>> Unlike gratuitous insults?
>>>>>
>>>>> describing your inability to contribute as "lightweight" is hardly
>>>>> an insult! it is however an accurate description of the facts.
>>>>> you could of course redress the situation, but based on your track
>>>>> record, that doesn't seem likely.
>>>>
>>>> I was referring to your body of postings as a whole, "jim".
>>>>
>>>
>>> really? then it's odd that you don't get agitated in the defense of
>>> others when they need you, only when you happen to be being called
>>> out on your "contributions" as a lightweight!
>>
>> I doubt your insults agitate anyone, "jim", due to overuse.
>>
>
> funny - you seem to get pretty agitated when being outed as a
> lightweight! and that's just a statement of fact, not an insult!
No "jim", that is a statement of interpretation (and an incorrect one at
that). I would be more concerned if a received a compliment from you.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2007 20:24:11
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> - delete excess text -
>>>>>>> Unlike gratuitous insults?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> describing your inability to contribute as "lightweight" is hardly
>>>>>> an insult! it is however an accurate description of the facts.
>>>>>> you could of course redress the situation, but based on your track
>>>>>> record, that doesn't seem likely.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was referring to your body of postings as a whole, "jim".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> really? then it's odd that you don't get agitated in the defense of
>>>> others when they need you, only when you happen to be being called
>>>> out on your "contributions" as a lightweight!
>>>
>>> I doubt your insults agitate anyone, "jim", due to overuse.
>>>
>>
>> funny - you seem to get pretty agitated when being outed as a
>> lightweight! and that's just a statement of fact, not an insult!
>
> No "jim", that is a statement of interpretation (and an incorrect one at
> that). I would be more concerned if a received a compliment from you.
>
eh? someone that conceives a test they contend to be of significant
value, and who possesses the knowledge, skills and equipment to perform
it, but then balks for reasons they refuse to state, is a matter of
interpretation? that's a load of balls. you already /know/ your "test"
is pointless - that's why you won't do it. but you're too fucking
lightweight to admit it.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2007 23:19:58
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> - delete excess text -
>>>>>>>> Unlike gratuitous insults?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> describing your inability to contribute as "lightweight" is
>>>>>>> hardly an insult! it is however an accurate description of the
>>>>>>> facts. you could of course redress the situation, but based on
>>>>>>> your track record, that doesn't seem likely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was referring to your body of postings as a whole, "jim".
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> really? then it's odd that you don't get agitated in the defense
>>>>> of others when they need you, only when you happen to be being
>>>>> called out on your "contributions" as a lightweight!
>>>>
>>>> I doubt your insults agitate anyone, "jim", due to overuse.
>>>>
>>>
>>> funny - you seem to get pretty agitated when being outed as a
>>> lightweight! and that's just a statement of fact, not an insult!
>>
>> No "jim", that is a statement of interpretation (and an incorrect one
>> at that). I would be more concerned if a received a compliment from you.
>>
>
> eh? someone that conceives a test they contend to be of significant
> value, and who possesses the knowledge, skills and equipment to perform
> it, but then balks for reasons they refuse to state, is a matter of
> interpretation? that's a load of balls.
Who is "someone"? Indefinite pronouns are to be avoided.
> you already /know/ your "test"
> is pointless - that's why you won't do it. but you're too fucking
> lightweight to admit it.
Riding a wheel to see how long it takes to fail is pointless?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2007 21:23:54
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> - delete excess text -
>>>>>>>>> Unlike gratuitous insults?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> describing your inability to contribute as "lightweight" is
>>>>>>>> hardly an insult! it is however an accurate description of the
>>>>>>>> facts. you could of course redress the situation, but based on
>>>>>>>> your track record, that doesn't seem likely.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was referring to your body of postings as a whole, "jim".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> really? then it's odd that you don't get agitated in the defense
>>>>>> of others when they need you, only when you happen to be being
>>>>>> called out on your "contributions" as a lightweight!
>>>>>
>>>>> I doubt your insults agitate anyone, "jim", due to overuse.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> funny - you seem to get pretty agitated when being outed as a
>>>> lightweight! and that's just a statement of fact, not an insult!
>>>
>>> No "jim", that is a statement of interpretation (and an incorrect one
>>> at that). I would be more concerned if a received a compliment from you.
>>>
>>
>> eh? someone that conceives a test they contend to be of significant
>> value, and who possesses the knowledge, skills and equipment to
>> perform it, but then balks for reasons they refuse to state, is a
>> matter of interpretation? that's a load of balls.
>
> Who is "someone"? Indefinite pronouns are to be avoided.
to be avoided by lightweights?
>
>> you already /know/ your "test" is pointless - that's why you won't do
>> it. but you're too fucking lightweight to admit it.
>
> Riding a wheel to see how long it takes to fail is pointless?
if you already know the outcome, tell me the purpose! better yet, tell
me /your/ results!!!
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Nov 2007 00:27:23
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> - delete excess text -
>>>>>>>>>> Unlike gratuitous insults?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> describing your inability to contribute as "lightweight" is
>>>>>>>>> hardly an insult! it is however an accurate description of the
>>>>>>>>> facts. you could of course redress the situation, but based on
>>>>>>>>> your track record, that doesn't seem likely.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was referring to your body of postings as a whole, "jim".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> really? then it's odd that you don't get agitated in the defense
>>>>>>> of others when they need you, only when you happen to be being
>>>>>>> called out on your "contributions" as a lightweight!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I doubt your insults agitate anyone, "jim", due to overuse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> funny - you seem to get pretty agitated when being outed as a
>>>>> lightweight! and that's just a statement of fact, not an insult!
>>>>
>>>> No "jim", that is a statement of interpretation (and an incorrect
>>>> one at that). I would be more concerned if a received a compliment
>>>> from you.
>>>>
>>>
>>> eh? someone that conceives a test they contend to be of significant
>>> value, and who possesses the knowledge, skills and equipment to
>>> perform it, but then balks for reasons they refuse to state, is a
>>> matter of interpretation? that's a load of balls.
>>
>> Who is "someone"? Indefinite pronouns are to be avoided.
>
> to be avoided by lightweights?
To be avoided by those who wish to be understood. Putting indefinite
pronouns in a deliverable is very bad form.
>>> you already /know/ your "test" is pointless - that's why you won't do
>>> it. but you're too fucking lightweight to admit it.
>>
>> Riding a wheel to see how long it takes to fail is pointless?
>
> if you already know the outcome, tell me the purpose! better yet, tell
> me /your/ results!!!
All wheels will fail, when ridden a sufficiently long time - does not
your materials science tell you so?
Again, why should I spend my time and money doing "jim's" work?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"the grinning buddy bear carries a fork." - g.d.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Nov 2007 05:57:32
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> - delete excess text -
>>>>>>>>>>> Unlike gratuitous insults?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> describing your inability to contribute as "lightweight" is
>>>>>>>>>> hardly an insult! it is however an accurate description of
>>>>>>>>>> the facts. you could of course redress the situation, but
>>>>>>>>>> based on your track record, that doesn't seem likely.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I was referring to your body of postings as a whole, "jim".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> really? then it's odd that you don't get agitated in the
>>>>>>>> defense of others when they need you, only when you happen to be
>>>>>>>> being called out on your "contributions" as a lightweight!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I doubt your insults agitate anyone, "jim", due to overuse.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> funny - you seem to get pretty agitated when being outed as a
>>>>>> lightweight! and that's just a statement of fact, not an insult!
>>>>>
>>>>> No "jim", that is a statement of interpretation (and an incorrect
>>>>> one at that). I would be more concerned if a received a compliment
>>>>> from you.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> eh? someone that conceives a test they contend to be of significant
>>>> value, and who possesses the knowledge, skills and equipment to
>>>> perform it, but then balks for reasons they refuse to state, is a
>>>> matter of interpretation? that's a load of balls.
>>>
>>> Who is "someone"? Indefinite pronouns are to be avoided.
>>
>> to be avoided by lightweights?
>
> To be avoided by those who wish to be understood. Putting indefinite
> pronouns in a deliverable is very bad form.
so is spelling "rationale" as "rational".
>
>>>> you already /know/ your "test" is pointless - that's why you won't
>>>> do it. but you're too fucking lightweight to admit it.
>>>
>>> Riding a wheel to see how long it takes to fail is pointless?
>>
>> if you already know the outcome, tell me the purpose! better yet,
>> tell me /your/ results!!!
>
> All wheels will fail, when ridden a sufficiently long time - does not
> your materials science tell you so?
>
> Again, why should I spend my time and money doing "jim's" work?
>
your work, lightweight - you want to know reliability [an utterly
pointless exercise for this situation]. i don't.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Nov 2007 20:42:51
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
jim beam wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> - delete excess text -
>>>>>>>>>>>> Unlike gratuitous insults?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> describing your inability to contribute as "lightweight" is
>>>>>>>>>>> hardly an insult! it is however an accurate description of
>>>>>>>>>>> the facts. you could of course redress the situation, but
>>>>>>>>>>> based on your track record, that doesn't seem likely.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I was referring to your body of postings as a whole, "jim".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> really? then it's odd that you don't get agitated in the
>>>>>>>>> defense of others when they need you, only when you happen to
>>>>>>>>> be being called out on your "contributions" as a lightweight!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I doubt your insults agitate anyone, "jim", due to overuse.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> funny - you seem to get pretty agitated when being outed as a
>>>>>>> lightweight! and that's just a statement of fact, not an insult!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No "jim", that is a statement of interpretation (and an incorrect
>>>>>> one at that). I would be more concerned if a received a compliment
>>>>>> from you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> eh? someone that conceives a test they contend to be of
>>>>> significant value, and who possesses the knowledge, skills and
>>>>> equipment to perform it, but then balks for reasons they refuse to
>>>>> state, is a matter of interpretation? that's a load of balls.
>>>>
>>>> Who is "someone"? Indefinite pronouns are to be avoided.
>>>
>>> to be avoided by lightweights?
>>
>> To be avoided by those who wish to be understood. Putting indefinite
>> pronouns in a deliverable is very bad form.
>
> so is spelling "rationale" as "rational".
>
>
>>
>>>>> you already /know/ your "test" is pointless - that's why you won't
>>>>> do it. but you're too fucking lightweight to admit it.
>>>>
>>>> Riding a wheel to see how long it takes to fail is pointless?
>>>
>>> if you already know the outcome, tell me the purpose! better yet,
>>> tell me /your/ results!!!
>>
>> All wheels will fail, when ridden a sufficiently long time - does not
>> your materials science tell you so?
>>
>> Again, why should I spend my time and money doing "jim's" work?
>>
>
> your work, lightweight - you want to know reliability [an utterly
> pointless exercise for this situation]. i don't.
Was not the whole exercise pointless then?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"the grinning buddy bear carries a fork." - g.d.
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 13:50:38
From: Simon S Aysdie
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
On Nov 3, 10:36 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote:
> Obviously the moisture on the bell results in a very rapid
> decay of the note (I hesitate to use the word "damping" for obvious
> reasons... huh, I wonder if this is where the term actually comes from).
Damping refers to losses in the resonant system; the system must be at
least of second order for ringing to be possible, but this alone is
not enough. Losses cause ringing to die out. To damp something is to
absorb energy from the system and turn it into heat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damping
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damping_ratio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damping_factor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RLC_circuit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_harmonic_motion
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 15:10:14
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
On Nov 4, 10:53 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
> > frkry...@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On Nov 3, 11:47 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> >>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 3, 11:56 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> can we reach back to the "elastomers do not attenuate
> >>>>> vibration" thread here as well?
>
> >>>> :-) Sure, if you can't tell the difference between your ears
> >>>> and your butt! - Frank Krygowski
>
> >>> ok, you're back to idiot status.
>
> >> Oh, come on, jim. Stop pouting.
>
> >> You're extremely aggressive with most of your posts, yet you can't
> >> tolerate one gentle wisecrack?
>
> > "jim beam" seems to have a problem with engineers.
>
> "jim beam" has a problem with anyone who doesn't bow to his renowned
> authority and openly acknowledge his superior mind.
Irony, thy name is Timothy McNamara of Minnesota!!!
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 14:53:19
From:
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
On Nov 3, 11:47 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 11:56 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> >
> >> can we reach back to the "elastomers do not attenuate vibration" thread
> >> here as well?
>
> > :-) Sure, if you can't tell the difference between your ears and
> > your butt!
>
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> ok, you're back to idiot status.
Oh, come on, jim. Stop pouting.
You're extremely aggressive with most of your posts, yet you can't
tolerate one gentle wisecrack?
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 09:08:17
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
frkrygow@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Nov 3, 11:47 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Nov 3, 11:56 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> can we reach back to the "elastomers do not attenuate vibration" thread
>>>> here as well?
>>> :-) Sure, if you can't tell the difference between your ears and
>>> your butt!
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>> ok, you're back to idiot status.
>
> Oh, come on, jim. Stop pouting.
>
> You're extremely aggressive with most of your posts, yet you can't
> tolerate one gentle wisecrack?
"jim beam" seems to have a problem with engineers.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 10:53:16
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
> frkrygow@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On Nov 3, 11:47 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Nov 3, 11:56 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> can we reach back to the "elastomers do not attenuate
>>>>> vibration" thread here as well?
>>>>
>>>> :-) Sure, if you can't tell the difference between your ears
>>>> and your butt! - Frank Krygowski
>>>
>>> ok, you're back to idiot status.
>>
>> Oh, come on, jim. Stop pouting.
>>
>> You're extremely aggressive with most of your posts, yet you can't
>> tolerate one gentle wisecrack?
>
> "jim beam" seems to have a problem with engineers.
"jim beam" has a problem with anyone who doesn't bow to his renowned
authority and openly acknowledge his superior mind.
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 09:24:42
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> frkrygow@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On Nov 3, 11:47 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 3, 11:56 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> can we reach back to the "elastomers do not attenuate
>>>>>> vibration" thread here as well?
> >>>>
>>>>> :-) Sure, if you can't tell the difference between your ears
>>>>> and your butt! - Frank Krygowski
> >>>
>>>> ok, you're back to idiot status.
>>>
>>> Oh, come on, jim. Stop pouting.
>>>
>>> You're extremely aggressive with most of your posts, yet you can't
>>> tolerate one gentle wisecrack?
>>
>> "jim beam" seems to have a problem with engineers.
>
> "jim beam" has a problem with anyone who doesn't bow to his renowned
> authority and openly acknowledge his superior mind.
and timmy the retard has a problem figuring out the math on 1600 < 5000!
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 05:04:55
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
On Nov 4, 12:35 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me > wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
> > frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Nov 3, 11:56 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> >>> A Muzi wrote:
> >>>> A customer asked which bell is loudest when wet.
> >>>> Until today I did not know thin bike bells don't ring well when
> >>>> wet. Try it - a schpritz of Windex will do.
> >>> can we reach back to the "elastomers do not attenuate vibration"
> >>> thread here as well?
>
> >> :-) Sure, if you can't tell the difference between your ears and
> >> your butt!
>
> >> - Frank Krygowski
>
> > ok, you're back to idiot status.
>
> When did he leave? LOL
Leave what? The Sovereign State of Idiocy?
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 05:01:35
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
On Nov 3, 10:04 pm, "Leo Lichtman" <l.licht...@worldnet.att.net >
wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" wrote: In the case of the bell, does not dampening lead to
>
> damping?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Yes, and since the bell cannot be heard, possibly to dumping.
>
>
Ah! A three step process: dampened - damped -dumped (the bell, not the
rider,one hopes)
|
| |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 21:08:46
From:
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
On Nov 3, 4:03 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> If you touch a small bell with your finger, the sound stops instantly
> because the energy is absorbed and dissipated by the soggy mass at the
> end of your finger.
>
> The energy is so tiny (despite the apparentlyl loud noise picked up by
> our sensitive ears) that you scarcely notice how your finger jiggles
> when you touch a tiny bell,...
"The energy is tiny" is right.
A related bicycling issue: Some cyclists worry that a tiny squeak
from their chain is proof of great waste of their legs' energy. But
the chirp of a cricket is many, many times louder, and crickets can
make that sound for hours and hours using leg muscles that are
literally microscopic.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 21:03:14
From:
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
On Nov 3, 5:02 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com >
wrote:
> Jay wrote:
> > "A Muzi" <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
> >news:13ip65je68h201d@corp.supernews.com...
> >> A customer asked which bell is loudest when wet.
>
> >> Until today I did not know thin bike bells don't ring well when wet. Try
> >> it - a schpritz of Windex will do.
>
> > Yes, resonance is fascinating, and delicate. As Carl explained earlier,
> > water tends to muffle a bike bell, but would not muffle a (much greater
> > mass) church steeple bell....
>
> For that matter, brass and woodwind instruments would not function if a
> little bit of moisture killed their resonance.
Of course, in brass and woodwind instruments, it's the air column
inside that does the pertinent vibrating, not the instrument's
material. It takes a well-trained ear (and/or a good imagination) to
detect the effect, if any, of the instrument's material on its tone
quality.
It's different for string instruments, where the body vibrates in
response to string input, and transfers that vibration to the air.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 20:56:01
From:
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
On Nov 3, 11:56 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> A Muzi wrote:
> > A customer asked which bell is loudest when wet.
>
> > Until today I did not know thin bike bells don't ring well when wet. Try
> > it - a schpritz of Windex will do.
>
> can we reach back to the "elastomers do not attenuate vibration" thread
> here as well?
:-) Sure, if you can't tell the difference between your ears and
your butt!
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 21:47:37
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 3, 11:56 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> A Muzi wrote:
>>> A customer asked which bell is loudest when wet.
>>> Until today I did not know thin bike bells don't ring well when wet. Try
>>> it - a schpritz of Windex will do.
>> can we reach back to the "elastomers do not attenuate vibration" thread
>> here as well?
>
> :-) Sure, if you can't tell the difference between your ears and
> your butt!
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>
ok, you're back to idiot status.
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 23:35:53
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
jim beam wrote:
> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Nov 3, 11:56 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>> A Muzi wrote:
>>>> A customer asked which bell is loudest when wet.
>>>> Until today I did not know thin bike bells don't ring well when
>>>> wet. Try it - a schpritz of Windex will do.
>>> can we reach back to the "elastomers do not attenuate vibration"
>>> thread here as well?
>>
>> :-) Sure, if you can't tell the difference between your ears and
>> your butt!
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>>
>
> ok, you're back to idiot status.
When did he leave? LOL
|
| |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 21:18:28
From:
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 10:51:46 -0600, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org >
wrote:
>A customer asked which bell is loudest when wet.
>
>Until today I did not know thin bike bells don't ring well when wet. Try
>it - a schpritz of Windex will do.
Dear Andrew,
So far, nothing shows up in the golden era of bicycle bells (1890),
but these new-fangled bells may be of interest:
"Quiet when wet":
http://www.rei.com/pwr/product-reviews/Cycling/Cycling-Safety-Equipment/Bike-Bells/p/738328-Incredibell-Brass-Duet-Bell.html
"Works when wet":
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000ACA0H6/?tag=msnshop-sports-20&creative=380337&creativeASIN=B000ACA0H6&linkCode=asn
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 19:44:50
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
On Nov 3, 4:53 pm, "Leo Lichtman" <l.licht...@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
> "Tim McNamara" wrote: (clip)(I hesitate to use the word "damping" for
>
> obvious> reasons... huh, I wonder if this is where the term actually comes from).
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Thanks for giving me an opening to discuss one of my pet peeves.
> "Dampening" means adding moisture. "Damping" refers to the absorption of
> energy from a vibrating system. Damping is what happens in an auto shock
> absorber, or when the soft pedal of a piano is depressed. Dampening is what
> happens when someone uses a spray bottle while ironing, or when you try to
> ring your bike bell in the rain.
In the case of the bell, does not dampening lead to damping?
|
| | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 04:04:16
From: Leo Lichtman
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
"Ozark Bicycle" wrote: In the case of the bell, does not dampening lead to
damping?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, and since the bell cannot be heard, possibly to dumping.
>
|
| |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 15:38:05
From: Jay
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
"A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote in message
news:13ip65je68h201d@corp.supernews.com...
>A customer asked which bell is loudest when wet.
>
> Until today I did not know thin bike bells don't ring well when wet. Try
> it - a schpritz of Windex will do.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> www.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Yes, resonance is fascinating, and delicate. As Carl explained earlier,
water tends to muffle a bike bell, but would not muffle a (much greater
mass) church steeple bell.
The following link http://www.acoustics.salford.ac.uk/acoustics_info/glass/
has two interesting links within it. One link shows video of the Tacoma
Narrows Bridge. Another link within has slow motion video of a wine glass
shattering.
Why is a Strad violin worth millions, but a cheap violin can be had for
$100? The physics of resonance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance
J.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 11:01:13
From: Tosspot
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
Jay wrote:
> "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
> news:13ip65je68h201d@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>A customer asked which bell is loudest when wet.
>>
>>Until today I did not know thin bike bells don't ring well when wet. Try
>>it - a schpritz of Windex will do.
>>--
>>Andrew Muzi
>>www.yellowjersey.org
>>Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>
>
> Yes, resonance is fascinating, and delicate. As Carl explained earlier,
> water tends to muffle a bike bell, but would not muffle a (much greater
> mass) church steeple bell.
>
> The following link http://www.acoustics.salford.ac.uk/acoustics_info/glass/
> has two interesting links within it. One link shows video of the Tacoma
> Narrows Bridge. Another link within has slow motion video of a wine glass
> shattering.
http://www.acoustics.salford.ac.uk/feschools/waves/wine3video.htm
Is quite fantastic. Who would have believed you could deform glass by
that much without it...ah, as you were.
> Why is a Strad violin worth millions, but a cheap violin can be had for
> $100? The physics of resonance.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance
>
> J.
>
>
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 10:31:48
From:
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 11:01:13 +0100, Tosspot <FrankDotLeake@esa.int >
wrote:
>Jay wrote:
[snip]
>> The following link http://www.acoustics.salford.ac.uk/acoustics_info/glass/
>> has two interesting links within it. One link shows video of the Tacoma
>> Narrows Bridge. Another link within has slow motion video of a wine glass
>> shattering.
>
>http://www.acoustics.salford.ac.uk/feschools/waves/wine3video.htm
>
>Is quite fantastic. Who would have believed you could deform glass by
>that much without it...ah, as you were.
Dear Frank,
If a glass rod is free from microscopic defects, you can bend it into
a U-shape:
http://i19.tinypic.com/6cwux48.jpg
From J.E. Gordon's "New Science of Strong Materials," which is full of
such stuff.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2007 02:37:11
From: Clive George
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
<carlfogel@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:0jvri396mg37lo4v61pe8omh3hd3oks9jo@4ax.com...
> If a glass rod is free from microscopic defects, you can bend it into
> a U-shape:
>
> http://i19.tinypic.com/6cwux48.jpg
>
> From J.E. Gordon's "New Science of Strong Materials," which is full of
> such stuff.
Mmm, every budding engineer should read both Gordon's (popular?) books.
It's dead easy to do what's in the picture - did it at school. Heat the rod
and pull to get the thin section, which at the same time will get rid of any
cracks. Though admittedly we were probably using thinner sections and
nastier glass than in the picture. Then damage the surface by eg rubbing
another glass rod along it lightly, and try bending it again...
(of course everybody on this NG has seen this before I assume :-) )
cheers,
clive
|
| | | | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2007 19:41:10
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
Clive George wrote:
> <carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:0jvri396mg37lo4v61pe8omh3hd3oks9jo@4ax.com...
>
>> If a glass rod is free from microscopic defects, you can bend it into
>> a U-shape:
>>
>> http://i19.tinypic.com/6cwux48.jpg
>>
>> From J.E. Gordon's "New Science of Strong Materials," which is full of
>> such stuff.
>
> Mmm, every budding engineer should read both Gordon's (popular?) books.
>
> It's dead easy to do what's in the picture - did it at school. Heat the rod
> and pull to get the thin section, which at the same time will get rid of
> any
> cracks. Though admittedly we were probably using thinner sections and
> nastier glass than in the picture. Then damage the surface by eg rubbing
> another glass rod along it lightly, and try bending it again...
>
> (of course everybody on this NG has seen this before I assume :-) )
i wish...
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 00:20:45
From: still me
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 10:31:48 -0700, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>If a glass rod is free from microscopic defects, you can bend it into
>a U-shape:
>
> http://i19.tinypic.com/6cwux48.jpg
But can you do it with just the power of your mind?
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 09:37:36
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 11:01:13 +0100, Tosspot <FrankDotLeake@esa.int>
> wrote:
>
>> Jay wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> The following link http://www.acoustics.salford.ac.uk/acoustics_info/glass/
>>> has two interesting links within it. One link shows video of the Tacoma
>>> Narrows Bridge. Another link within has slow motion video of a wine glass
>>> shattering.
>> http://www.acoustics.salford.ac.uk/feschools/waves/wine3video.htm
>>
>> Is quite fantastic. Who would have believed you could deform glass by
>> that much without it...ah, as you were.
>
> Dear Frank,
>
> If a glass rod is free from microscopic defects, you can bend it into
> a U-shape:
>
> http://i19.tinypic.com/6cwux48.jpg
that is even more impressive!
>
> From J.E. Gordon's "New Science of Strong Materials," which is full of
> such stuff.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 05:39:21
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
Tosspot wrote:
> Jay wrote:
>> "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
>> news:13ip65je68h201d@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>> A customer asked which bell is loudest when wet.
>>>
>>> Until today I did not know thin bike bells don't ring well when wet.
>>> Try it - a schpritz of Windex will do.
>>> --
>>> Andrew Muzi
>>> www.yellowjersey.org
>>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>>
>>
>> Yes, resonance is fascinating, and delicate. As Carl explained
>> earlier, water tends to muffle a bike bell, but would not muffle a
>> (much greater mass) church steeple bell.
>>
>> The following link
>> http://www.acoustics.salford.ac.uk/acoustics_info/glass/ has two
>> interesting links within it. One link shows video of the Tacoma
>> Narrows Bridge. Another link within has slow motion video of a wine
>> glass shattering.
>
> http://www.acoustics.salford.ac.uk/feschools/waves/wine3video.htm
cool!
>
> Is quite fantastic. Who would have believed you could deform glass by
> that much without it...ah, as you were.
>
>> Why is a Strad violin worth millions, but a cheap violin can be had
>> for $100? The physics of resonance.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance
>>
>> J.
>>
>>
|
| | |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 16:02:44
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
Jay wrote:
> "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
> news:13ip65je68h201d@corp.supernews.com...
>> A customer asked which bell is loudest when wet.
>>
>> Until today I did not know thin bike bells don't ring well when wet. Try
>> it - a schpritz of Windex will do.
>
> Yes, resonance is fascinating, and delicate. As Carl explained earlier,
> water tends to muffle a bike bell, but would not muffle a (much greater
> mass) church steeple bell....
For that matter, brass and woodwind instruments would not function if a
little bit of moisture killed their resonance.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 13:36:53
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
A Muzi wrote:
> A customer asked which bell is loudest when wet.
>
> Until today I did not know thin bike bells don't ring well when wet. Try
> it - a schpritz of Windex will do.
Wow. I had no idea. But then I haven't had a bike with a bell in
decades so I guess that's no surprise.
We'll have to put Carl Fogel in charge of ferreting out how this works.
I spent some time googling around with no luck in finding an
explanation. Obviously the moisture on the bell results in a very rapid
decay of the note (I hesitate to use the word "damping" for obvious
reasons... huh, I wonder if this is where the term actually comes from).
|
| | |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 22:53:13
From: Leo Lichtman
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
"Tim McNamara" wrote: (clip)(I hesitate to use the word "damping" for
obvious
> reasons... huh, I wonder if this is where the term actually comes from).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thanks for giving me an opening to discuss one of my pet peeves.
"Dampening" means adding moisture. "Damping" refers to the absorption of
energy from a vibrating system. Damping is what happens in an auto shock
absorber, or when the soft pedal of a piano is depressed. Dampening is what
happens when someone uses a spray bottle while ironing, or when you try to
ring your bike bell in the rain.
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 07:32:31
From: BobT
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
"Leo Lichtman" <l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net > wrote in message
news:tZ6Xi.48944$kj1.32995@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Tim McNamara" wrote: (clip)(I hesitate to use the word "damping" for
> obvious
>> reasons... huh, I wonder if this is where the term actually comes from).
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Thanks for giving me an opening to discuss one of my pet peeves.
> "Dampening" means adding moisture. "Damping" refers to the absorption of
> energy from a vibrating system. Damping is what happens in an auto shock
> absorber, or when the soft pedal of a piano is depressed. Dampening is
> what happens when someone uses a spray bottle while ironing, or when you
> try to ring your bike bell in the rain.
>
I don't think you have your examples exactly right. I think that when you
try to ring your bike bell in the rain both dampening and damping are
occuring. See Carl's excellent explanation above
BobT
|
| | |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 14:03:30
From:
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 13:36:53 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
>A Muzi wrote:
>> A customer asked which bell is loudest when wet.
>>
>> Until today I did not know thin bike bells don't ring well when wet. Try
>> it - a schpritz of Windex will do.
>
>Wow. I had no idea. But then I haven't had a bike with a bell in
>decades so I guess that's no surprise.
>
>We'll have to put Carl Fogel in charge of ferreting out how this works.
> I spent some time googling around with no luck in finding an
>explanation. Obviously the moisture on the bell results in a very rapid
>decay of the note (I hesitate to use the word "damping" for obvious
>reasons... huh, I wonder if this is where the term actually comes from).
Dear Tim,
A bell works by vibrating hard, dense metal against extremely thin,
soft air.
The energy you put into the bell with a tiny hammer mechanism causes
the bell to vibrate until friction (mostly against the air, but some
internal friction) causes the vibration to die away. The hard metal
vibrates nicely, with little internal loss, causing waves in the thin
air that your incredibly sensitive ears can pick up.
If you touch a small bell with your finger, the sound stops instantly
because the energy is absorbed and dissipated by the soggy mass at the
end of your finger.
The energy is so tiny (despite the apparentlyl loud noise picked up by
our sensitive ears) that you scarcely notice how your finger jiggles
when you touch a tiny bell, but you can feel it if you ratchet a bike
bell a few times with your finger on it--your finger feels the bzzz!
of the hammer striking and your ears notice that the sound has almost
vanished.
If you cover the hard metal surface of a bell with something less
hard, like cloth or water, then you damp the vibration, adding more
friction, so the sound dies away much more quickly. The energy goes
into uselessly jiggling the cloth or water in aimless directions and
greatly reduced rates that produce little in the way of sound waves in
air. Strike a bell and the hard metal resonates back and forth. Strike
a cloth punching bag, and the energy dissipates in all directions,
rearranging millions of cotton fibers in different directions.
A larger bell makes more sound when wet for several reasons.
First, the mass of the bell is much larger, compared to the film of
water on its surface, so there's less damping (pun resisted).
Next, a larger bell usually employs a bigger hammer mechanism, so
there's more energy and a louder initial sound.
Finally, smaller bells are higher-pitched instruments, which aren't as
loud to start with for practical reasons and are more easily damped.
For example, a piccolo is not as loud as a tuba, and you can damp a
violin string with one careless fingertip, but not the four-foot bass
tube of a pipe organ.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 11:11:05
From: Mike
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
In article <udjpi3ta803mr73ossctnt3d0f8j4p8trc@4ax.com >, carlfogel@comcast.net says...
> On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 13:36:53 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> >A Muzi wrote:
> >> A customer asked which bell is loudest when wet.
> >>
> >> Until today I did not know thin bike bells don't ring well when wet. Try
> >> it - a schpritz of Windex will do.
> >
> >Wow. I had no idea. But then I haven't had a bike with a bell in
> >decades so I guess that's no surprise.
> >
> >We'll have to put Carl Fogel in charge of ferreting out how this works.
> > I spent some time googling around with no luck in finding an
> >explanation. Obviously the moisture on the bell results in a very rapid
> >decay of the note (I hesitate to use the word "damping" for obvious
> >reasons... huh, I wonder if this is where the term actually comes from).
>
> Dear Tim,
>
> A bell works by vibrating hard, dense metal against extremely thin,
> soft air...
>
Carl - that was a magnificent explanation - I am truely in awe.
|
| |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 11:14:48
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
In article <13ip65je68h201d@corp.supernews.com >,
A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> A customer asked which bell is loudest when wet.
>
> Until today I did not know thin bike bells don't ring well when wet. Try
> it - a schpritz of Windex will do.
I use the brass I bell. Very pleasant. Loud enough.
When I, or anyone, needs volume, voice is the choice.
Less time to give a good loud hail, and milliseconds count.
Voice is adaptive to the circumstances.
Often I am rolling down the street while somebody
fresh out of a car is wandering lost in the middle
of the street. A little "Hey!" as I close on them
makes for a very satisfactory encounter. Helps them
regain consciousness.
The bell is most useful when closing on bicyclists
from behind.
I did the water on the bell experiment and it does
muffle the sound.
--
Michael Press
|
| | |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 15:47:25
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
Michael Press wrote:
> In article <13ip65je68h201d@corp.supernews.com>,
> A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> A customer asked which bell is loudest when wet.
>>
>> Until today I did not know thin bike bells don't ring well when wet. Try
>> it - a schpritz of Windex will do.
>
> I use the brass I bell. Very pleasant. Loud enough.
>
> When I, or anyone, needs volume, voice is the choice.
> Less time to give a good loud hail, and milliseconds count.
> Voice is adaptive to the circumstances.
>
> Often I am rolling down the street while somebody
> fresh out of a car is wandering lost in the middle
> of the street. A little "Hey!" as I close on them
> makes for a very satisfactory encounter. Helps them
> regain consciousness....
Yell "Hey" at people in the wrong neighborhood, and they will likely
pull a gun on you. Not a good idea when riding in the 'hood.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 17:10:11
From: M-gineering
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
A Muzi wrote:
> A customer asked which bell is loudest when wet.
>
> Until today I did not know thin bike bells don't ring well when wet. Try
> it - a schpritz of Windex will do.
The heavier the better I think: a 230 grams 80mm Ding-dong is
unaffected, a 23gram wonder just dies
--
/Marten (never worried about this before ;) )
info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl
|
| |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 09:31:57
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
On Nov 3, 11:51 am, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> A customer asked which bell is loudest when wet.
>
> Until today I did not know thin bike bells don't ring well when wet. Try
> it - a schpritz of Windex will do.
I discovered this way back in '89 when I was riding my majestic Kroon
in the damp of Gothenburg. The "new" little ding bells are the worst
offenders. They quit working at the mention of moisture.
You want real firepower! My DL1 sports one of these:
http://www.maststoreonline.com/browse.cfm/4,143.htm
|
| |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 08:56:14
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Bell harmonics
|
A Muzi wrote:
> A customer asked which bell is loudest when wet.
>
> Until today I did not know thin bike bells don't ring well when wet. Try
> it - a schpritz of Windex will do.
can we reach back to the "elastomers do not attenuate vibration" thread
here as well?
|
|
